Ki Sisa - 5773

In the Parshiyos of Terumah and Tetzaveh the Torah discusses the plan for the construction of the Mishkan sanctuary, the vestments of Aharon and his sons, and the procedure for their investiture as priests. This very long discussion is “framed” by introductory verses (Shemos 25:8-9) and concluding verses (Shemos 29:44-46) which express the idea that the objective of this entire effort is to bring Shechina – the Divine Presence – into the midst of the Jewish settlement.

Following these concluding verses, we have a series of sections which appear to be appended to the longer discussion of the Mishkan as afterthoughts. These sections, which begin in the end of Tetzaveh and carry over to the beginning of Ki Sisa – this week’s portion – deal with the Golden Altar for incense (30:1-10), the half-Shekel contributions (30:11-16), the Kiyor/washing station (30:17-21), the anointing oil (30:22-33) and the Ketores/incense (30:34-38). At least two of these subjects – the Golden Altar and the Kiyor – seem to be out of place; we would have expected their inclusion among the vessels of the Mishkan in Parshas Terumah.

The Seforno justifies their exclusion from the earlier discussion by pointing out that the function of these two vessels was different than that of the others. The Aron, Shulchan, Menorah and so on were essential components of the Mishkan and thus integral to its function which is to bring the Divine Presence. The Golden Altar’s function was to be used for the offering of incense in acknowledgement of that already ensconced Divine Presence. The Kiyor as well was non-integral to the overall function of the Mishkan: It was only there to enable the priests to prepare for the performance of the sanctuary rites by washing their hands and feet.

We may conjecture an additional rationale for the exclusion of the Kiyor from the discussion of the Mishkan vessels. The Targum Yonasan (Shemos 30) explains the symbolism of the various vessels and points out that the Kiyor represents the idea of Teshuvah/repentance. (This is hardly surprising. Washing is a most appropriate metaphor for the “coming clean” which is the essence of Teshuvah.) In the ideal world, there would be no need for the Kiyor as there would be no need for repentance. Thus, in the fundamental conception of the Mishkan, as outlined in Parshas Terumah, the Kiyor is excluded. In the practical implementation of that conception, as outlined in Parshas Vayakhel, the Kiyor finds its place.

This is reminiscent of the teaching of Chazal (cited in Rashi, Bereishis 1:1) that initially Hashem wanted to create the world with strict judgement. One corollary of this fact would have been that there would be no allowance for the very idea of Teshuvah; after all, how could one rectify the past by merely feeling remorse? (See Mesilas Yesharim, Chapter 4.) But Hashem saw that such a world was unsustainable and therefore blended in the attribute of mercy, thus creating the possibility of Teshuvah.

As well, the Mishkan, which in the Mystical tradition is understood as being a microcosm of the created universe, would not have included the symbol of Teshuvah in its ideal form. On the practical level that symbol was indispensable.