Parshat Terumah
by Rabbi Avi Billet
The first time I learned the book of Shemos, I was fascinated by the Mishkan. We had a project in 5th grade in which groups of kids made presentations about the different vessels of the Mishkan – you could make a poster, a slide presentation, or even build a mini-model – in some cases “to scale” and in some cases “actual size.” While I remember my project being the Kerashim (the beams that make up the walls of the Mishkan), I am pretty sure I limited my presentation to posterboard and diagrams, and not a model. An actual size “Keresh” would not have fit in our small classroom!
In my fascination, I studied at length the pictures in the book “HaMishkan/The Tabernacle” (rather pricey at that link!) for which the author had made mini models, and the book was a crossover between the black and white photos that were part of the book and the color photos that were pasted into the book throughout the progress of the building of the Mishkan (it must have been much cheaper to print and assemble the book that way as color printing then was certainly not like it is now). *
This is the Aron (Ark) I remember
Subsequent to that I (and I’m sure many readers) watched the movie “Raiders of the Lost Ark” – Steven Spielberg’s early film demonstrating his hatred for Nazis, in which the hero, Indiana Jones, survives the superpowers of the opened Ark, while the Nazis and their sympathizers all meet a beyond-nature end.
This is an image from that film:
Which one is correct? I suppose for the film they put the staves in that direction because it is a better way to distribute the weight. It also is a better image for how two men can carry it with our seeing the Ark from this angle.
But our understanding of how the staves were placed – as just about all commentaries explained - is more aligned with the first image shared above. And as is clear in the next image as well.
And yet, there are several other ways that the Ark is depicted – if you do a Google Image search you’ll find many Christian interpretations if you search “Ark of the Covenant,” and if you put in “Aron of the Mishkan” you are more likely to find Jewish interpretations.
I found this image on the OU website.
The two things which stand out most obviously are:
- the placement of the rings – note how here they are much lower than in the previous images.
- the Ark has tiny legs (as it does in “Raiders”)
As it turns out, these two points are a fascinating debate that includes reasoning of whether it is “appropriate” for the Ark to rest on the floor directly, what is the best way to distribute the weight (which brings into the equation another question of the size and therefore weight of the stone tablets that were placed inside the Ark), and whether there were one or two sets of rings all around, and whether there were one or two sets of poles for the Aron.
For now, let’s just explore opinions regarding the legs of the Aron.
Rashi (25:10) – it’s like a box without any legs. כמין ארונות שעושים בלא רגלים [NO LEGS]
Ibn Ezra (25:12) – based on the rings being on פעמותיו, which he defiens as legs (based on Yeshayahu 26:6, Tehillim 85:14, and Shir HaShirim 7:2), “I must explain [the Ark] as having legs, for it is degrading for the Ark to rest directly on the ground.” על כן הוצרכתי לפרש כי רגלים היו לארון, כי דרך בזיון הוא שישב הארון בארץ [HAD LEGS]
Ibn Ezra Perush HaKatzar (25:10) - the Ark was a square (cube) standing on 4 legs. והנה היה צורת מרובע עומד על ארבע רגלים [HAD LEGS]
Ramban quotes and thoroughly rejects Ibn Ezra (ואין דבריו נכונים כלל) as he feels the Torah knew the word רגל and would have used it to describe the Aron if the vessel actually had legs. He defines the word פעם to means “step” and agrees that there were a lower set of rings all around the Ark for decoration (near where the Kohanim step), but the rings of the Aron that were higher up were the ones that had the staves in them. [NO LEGS]
R Chaim Paltiel – agrees with Ibn Ezra that פעם means legs: חזרנו על כל המקרא ולא מצינו פעם כמו זויות אלא הם רגלים [HAD LEGS]
Hadar Zekenim – quote Rashi and agrees with him. [NO LEGS]
Abrabanel – seems to take it for granted, without even giving any analysis, that the Ark had legs: ויעש' ממנו ד' טבעות שיהיו לד' פעמותיו ר"ל על ד' רגליו. והיו אם כן בארון ד' רגלים לד' זויותיו ועליהם היו הד' טבעות וביאר הכתוב איך היו מונחו' שם באמרו ושתי טבעו' על צלעו הא' ושתי טבעו' על צלעו השנית. הרי שהיו שתי טבעו' לצד אחד בשתי הרגלי' מאותו צד ושתים מהצד האחר לשתי רגליו [HAD LEGS]
HaKsav V’Hakabbalah – gives a thorough analysis, quoting some of whom have already been quoted, throws Ralbag in the ring as well, but comes to the conclusion that the word פעם either means corner (per Onkelos) or steps (per Ramban) and that the bottom of the Ark was flat and contained no legs. [NO LEGS]
Malbim – notes the Tosafos in Yoma 72 (as does RSR Hirsch) that suggests there were 4 poles (2 sets of 4 rings, upper and lower). Ultimately he rejects that, preferring to say there were altogether 8 rings, 4 being ornamental (only 2 poles/staves i.e. one set). The lower 4 rings he describes as being “close to the legs,” but it is less clear to me if he means “legs of the Ark” or the “bottom of the Ark” וארבע על פעמותיו סמוך לרגליו ששם היו הבדים קבועים בעת החניה [UNCLEAR]
To answer the question: I don’t know. Before coming across the Ibn Ezra I hadn’t put much thought to it. Were it not for his argument about the word פעמותיו I’d probably ignore him. But I like the argument that the Ark had legs, in particular if you believe there was a second set of rings below, then the rings very much mirror where the rings for carrying the table (Shulchan) were. And that demonstrates a parallel and a consistency (and uniformity?) that makes a lot of sense to me.
What is the truth? Until the Ark is found, or until a new Ark is made for the building of the 3rd Temple, I imagine we won’t know for sure. For many reasons (including distribution of weight and how it would be carried by those carrying it) the image I shared above found on the OU website is the one I find most compelling.
What do you think?
*********************************************
* Many books have been made since that time including Hebrew only versions in Israel. Here are two English language works. Please note that the new Stone Artscroll Chumash has colorful illustrations in the back index which are very beautiful and well done
No comments:
Post a Comment