One of the most fascinating incidents in our parasha is the show of obedience of the Israelites to two opposite Divine commandments. The first commandment was to donate raw materials for the purpose of erecting the Tabernacle, while the second commandment was to stop bringing donations, because, it turned out, the people’s generosity exceeded what was needed. The second commandment makes clear that the response to the original call for donations was immediate and overwhelming. What takes place afterwards – the immediate cessation of the flow of donations – teaches that the source of generosity stemmed from a sense of obedience and was not the result of ecstatic loss of control. The commandment to donate led to the enthusiastic generosity of the people; similarly, a commandment led to a halt of those donations.
This perspective brings us to view the commandment to erect the Tabernacle as a general archetype for fulfillment of the commandments. The question that is raised is whether – and how much – our sense of obligation to perform the commandments stems from our desire to fulfill the Word of God, making sure that our actions correspond to it precisely, or, perhaps, we choose to broaden or limit observing the commandments based on issues related to our personality or sense of spirituality.
Regarding this issue the Sefat Emet (the Gerrer Rebbe) writes:
It appears that the scholars and righteous ones realized that the sense of philanthropy had spread beyond what was appropriate. And they feared that no one would act simply for the cause of truth, for the sake of Heaven – for everything is dependent on the desire to act for the sake of Heaven.
…based on what is written in the name of the Ba’al Shem Tov that one must always be certain that any service that is performed should lead to awe and a sense of modesty, because when one completes a task, he often feels a sense of conceit. But when he takes a step back mid-task and realizes before Whom he stands – that will help reframe the action in an appropriate manner.
First, the Sefat Emet explains that the main element is to make sure that the act is performed for the sake of Heaven. Any deviation from proper intention and inner enthusiasm will cause the act to be flawed. He then adds – quoting the Ba’al Shem Tov – that performing acts of volunteerism leads to a sense of personal satisfaction. One must set limits on this sense of self-satisfaction by means of reducing enthusiasm. On this matter he then quotes his father:
…And I heard from my master, my father, my teacher (of blessed memory) who interpreted the verse in the Song of Songs (7:3) “How lovely are your feet in sandals, O daughter of generous nobles!” as follows:
This means to say that the desire to be generous must be wrapped in a sandal to protect it, lest that desire spread to other things.
Racing forward by taking large steps is not aesthetically pleasing, and the spiritual parable is straightforward – enthusiasm for holy fire can lead to utter conflagration, burning up from its very foundation.
But there is an alternative perspective to this set of reciprocal actions – that is, bringing and ceasing to bring. According to this perspective, the Tabernacle and the activities involved in erecting the Tabernacle serve as a model of the relationship between performing an action and refraining from performing that action. When God wants to command the nation of Israel to cease bringing donations and performing work on the Tabernacle, He says: “Let no man or woman make further effort toward gifts for the sanctuary!” (Shemot 36:6). This prohibition against performing work is very similar to the prohibition against performing work on Shabbat, for regarding Shabbat we are also commanded: “Six days you shall labor and do all your work” (Shemot 20:9), but then, suddenly, we are commanded to refrain from work on the seventh day. On that day we must put aside our tools and enter into a new reality – rest. In fact, ceasing all work of the Tabernacle at a moment's notice is as if Shabbat had suddenly begun in the midst of preparations for it. On a deeper level, the relationship between the six days of work and Shabbat is similar to the relationship between the preparations for building the Tabernacle and entering it. In both cases of transition, we find a resting place for the Divine Presence. Work is an instrument of holiness, and ceasing to work creates a vacuum, leaving room for holiness.
The Jerusalem Talmud derives the source of the prohibition against transferring objects from one domain to another from our parasha:
“Moshe thereupon had this proclamation made throughout the camp: ‘Let no man or woman make further effort toward gifts for the sanctuary!’ So the people stopped bringing” (Shemot 36:6). The people refrained from bringing out materials from their homes to give to the treasurers (Yerushalmi Shabbat, Chapter 1).
In a straightforward manner, the Yerushalmi understands that the activity that ceased was bringing materials for the Tabernacle, and that once the command was given, the people stopped this activity. This serves as a source for the Shabbat law that transferring from one domain to another is considered a forbidden activity. Our suggestion offers a deeper connection between Shabbat and the Tabernacle. It is not just that the Torah mentions in passing that transferring from one domain to another is considered an activity, but that work on the Tabernacle – and refraining from performing that work – is, in a sense, the beginning of Shabbat.
The first approach suggests that holiness is found in the act, itself, and ceasing to perform that act testifies to the purity of heart and soul in the performance of the act. According to the second approach, holiness is the outcome of the act, which is caused by cessation of the act. Nevertheless, just as the distinction between an internet service provider and the infrastructure provider is only evident to individuals who have a deep understanding of such matters, so it is in our case. The connection with holiness is not constrained by time, and the interdependence of all the factors commixtures actions and results. Our ability to break down an act of holiness (or cessation of that act) into component parts by means of an artificial fragmentation of spiritual components, does not change the general significance – that the entire mechanism and the common system play a role in bringing the Divine Presence down to the nation of Israel. The main difference between these lies in the different types of religious experiences that are encountered.
