Holy Temple: A contradiction in terms? (Parshat Naso) |
I have long argued that the Mishkan, the Tent of Assembly, that was so aesthetically, rigorously and meticulously crafted in the desert was never meant to be either temporary or fixed base. The effort involved, the costliness of the materials, indeed the text itself all indicate a plan for perpetual peregrination among the tribes once settled in the Promised Land.
וְעָ֥שׂוּ לִ֖י מִקְדָּ֑שׁ וְשָׁכַנְתִּ֖י בְּתוֹכָֽם׃
And let them make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them.
(Shemot/Exodus: 25:8)
The verse is very clear. The Sanctuary is singular. Yet God does not say “And I shall dwell within “it”. Instead He declares, very clearly, and I shall dwell “among them”. The word ‘them’ can only mean the Israelite tribes/tribal camps. Had the intention been for establishment in a particular location, or to be replaced by a permanent temple, the Torah would have said so. But it says no such thing. And certainly, makes no mention of any preferred locus be it Hebron, Shiloh or Jerusalem.
The logic is obvious. The Torah understands that a fixed location would have a doubly negative impact on........