The repeated refrain in Parashat Pekudei – one that appears over and over again – are the words: “As the LORD had commanded Moshe.” This expression appears fifteen times in our parasha; in the entire rest of the Torah it appears only about forty times. This repetition serves to inculcate in the reader’s consciousness in an unambiguous manner that there is no room for human creativity or reinterpretation of the subject discussed in the parasha – the construction and erection of the Mishkan.

Architectural precision is essential in the construction of any house, and its purpose is to include in the structure all of the different elements that the owner desires to have in his home. For this reason, we can easily understand that Moshe’s efforts are concentrated in satisfying God’s will and in realizing His desires so that the Mishkan can serve as the place “He has desired for His seat” (Tehillim 132:13). Moshe, together with all the others who were drafted towards this effort, are working under the strict parameters set out by the “Homeowner.” Playing the role of interior designer, their task is to bring into reality the dreams and desires of their Employer.

There is, however, an additional element in the repeated expression: “As the LORD had commanded Moshe,” and it is connected with the specific place of the Mishkan as one of many means to serve God. We can point to two primary, fundamental human perspectives towards the worship of God. On the one hand, religious activities can be understood as service to God, but on the other hand it can be seen as contributing to man’s own redemption and well-being.

The second perspective expresses the benefit that the worshiper derives from the religious service in which he engages, which brings meaning to his life and healing to his soul, while giving him hope for justice and morality. The first perspective expresses the idea that all religious activities performed by man is for the sake of Heaven, with no expectation of reward – “God doesn’t work for us.” Yeshayahu Leibowitz was famous for viewing Judaism from this perspective. He believed that a Jew prays because he is commanded to do so, without any expectation of reward for religious activities. From this perspective we understand that God demands sacrifice from us, and, on occasion, even detachment from reality.  

These two perspectives usually act as counterbalances against each other. In his book, Religion as a Philosophical Problem, Itzhak Klein argues as follows:

There are two perspectives on religion: The worship of God and the redemption of man.

These two aspects are mutually dependent, even as they contradict each other.

Religious service is about man’s worship of God, of man’s appeasing God.

Whatever a religious person does, he does for God’s sake.

He surrenders to God without any hesitation and enslaves himself to Him.

Magic serves a different purpose; it enslaves God to man.

The religious individual wants to have his needs realized by means of religion.

He desires to derive benefit from his religious service.

From the perspective of magic, the purpose of man’s religious service is, actually, his own self-interest.

Klein describes the service of God as the ritual side of religion. The human side, aspiring towards redemption, he places under the heading “Magic,” whose function is to act and change reality for the man’s benefit.

In conclusion Klein writes:

In fact, there is no religious ritual without magic nor is there magic without ritual.

When religion becomes pure magic, it is no longer a religion, just as when it is only ritual – only worship of God – it ceases to be a living religion.

The dialectic that Klein presents is problematic because its perspective is too narrow. Klein misses an important point – that “human benefit” is not only the interest in having technical desires fulfilled. “Human benefit” also relates to the fulfillment of man’s spiritual needs, and to reach a level of fulfillment there is no need for magic. Sincere devotional service to God will likely suffice for that.

Furthermore, there may be an element of give-and-take; there also may be parallel conduits. When someone fulfills commandments that require self-sacrifice – when they give up their independence or take a step back – that person may have a feeling of being a “servant of God.” Commandments or perceived religious obligations like covering one’s head, fasting or waiting between eating meat and milk, invoke those kinds of feelings, inasmuch as the person feels that he is conquering his desires and committing himself totally to God’s commands. In contrast, the consciousness that accompanies other types of religious obligations offers a sense of moral strengthening and a healing message to mankind. This is the case, for example, when one fulfills commandments like charity and performance of good deeds.

Some commandments combine these two experiences. Keeping Shabbat, for example, offers the weekly rest and relaxation that is so essential to the human condition, yet comes with limitations and prohibitions that strengthen the desire for rest, even as they prevent man from choosing how to fill the day and places limits on his activities. Prohibitions against charging interest or forgiving debts on the Sabbatical year offer a sense of redemption, but they also serve as limitations that do not necessarily correspond to contemporary logic, which heightens the sense of personal sacrifice.

It is possible that these are based on personality differences and not just differences in perspective. Someone who feels that he has been placed on this world to work, is constantly prepared to labor. Those who feel that God’s existence intensifies the importance of man, may tend to find their religious experience in nuance and subtlety rather than in harsh, limiting requirements.

In closing, it may be worthwhile to mention a fascinating figure – Rebbetzin Bracha Kapah – whose life was filled with generosity and good deeds. She was a woman for whom it was clear that just as she devoted her life to performing God’s work, He also, as it were, worked for her. She perceived life as a bilateral relationship based on a “fair trade” and mutual partnership with God.