Boulder Aish Kodesh

As the rebbe of Izhbitz points out, the Jewish people have been involved in the planning and establishing of the Mishkan for seventeen parshiot. We have seen layer after layer of structure – the Tabernacle with its vessels, the camp of the Levites with its order, and the camp of Israel with its order. The overall structure must have been an amazing sight – Bil’am himself comments ‘how goodly are your tents, O Jacob’.

The structure of the camp, as commanded by the infinitely understanding G-d, is an astounding accomplishment. We get the sense that each person had an exact place to stand within his family, within the tribe, within the camp. The Jews were grouped perfectly to allow for accentuation of positive connections between people while avoiding unnecessary confrontation between others. Each position was perfect for each person to receive the proper balance of encouragement and challenges in order to maintain healthy relationship to self, other, and G-d.

In this sense, the camp of Israel is similar to a life structured by Torah. The Torah offers guidance for every aspect of our lives – from agriculture and business to ritual and deeply personal spiritual matters. One is certainly in danger of losing one’s personality when one devotes one’s self to adherence to this lifestyle. But it must be known that the structure serves to enhance one’s ability to relate to the deepest levels of divinity available in within relationships to the world. So, through the lattice-work of the Torah’s lifestyle, we would be capable of maximizing our capacity to relate to the world.

Now, if only everyone would just sit still, everything would be perfect.

But human beings do not sit still. Life happens inevitably – people die and are born, people have good days and bad days, people momentarily forget their purpose. The true test of the usefulness of the structure of the camp, and the structure of Torah life and Torah community in general, is how it reacts to these ‘outbursts of life’. If they are seen as unfortunate results of flaws within the human being, then the camp, and the Torah, become an errant Utopian vision, stamping out the life of individuals for the sake of a whole that is composed of those very individuals. But the Torah, in segueing directly from the discussion of that structure into the many types of problems that will arise within it, acknowledges that facilitation of life is the primary function of Torah society.

The structure of Torah life is meant to facilitate face-to-face contact. This is perhaps best emphasized in the Priestly Blessing. G-d says ‘and let them put my name on the children of Israel, and I will bless them.’ The Gemarra in Sotah, on page 38b, comments that G-d deeply desires the Priestly Blessing. Why doesn’t G-d bless the Jewish people without an intermediary, then? A possible answer is given on page 38a – there, the Gemarra states that the Priestly Blessing must be given face to face. The law is designed to encourage the face-to-face relationship to become the conduit for G-d’s blessing.

The Torah society’s ability to enhance the quality of the relationships of which it is composed is further elucidated in the case of the husband who suspects that his wife may have been with another man. They are commanded to come together to the mishkan in order that a priest may administer waters that contain soil from the mishkan as well as the wet ink from this section of the Torah that has been written on parchment and dissolved in the water. The use of the soil of the Mishkan is unprecedented in any other offering in the Temple. By taking soil from the very center of the entire camp of Israel, the torah indicates that this relationship of marriage is at the very center of the larger camp – without sound marriages and families, the camp is less than useless. If people are made to give up their family lives for the ‘life of the camp’, then the camp will ultimately disintegrate.

We are further struck by the symbolism of the section of the Torah describing the Sotah being written on parchment and dissolved in the water she must drink. Erasing G-d’s name is a violation of a negative commandment. However, G-d allows G-d’s name to be erased for the sake of shalom bayit – peace in the house. This further exemplifies the fact that the structure of the camp, being constituent of individuals, is at the service of individuals.

It is further understood that the structure itself must be broken at certain times for the betterment of the individual and the community at large. The parsha contains examples of upward mobility and downward mobility. The nazir is one who vows not to drink intoxicating beverages, eat grapes, shave his or her head, or come near a dead body. While the normal structure of society should give each person the proper challenges and nourishment that he or she needs in order to maintain constant relationship to G-d, there are certainly times when a person feels the need to deepen that relationship. The Nazirite vow is one way to express that urge – a Nazirite is called ‘holy unto G-d’, and in matters of proximity to a corpse, is elevated to the level of the High Priest, who also may not approach the corpse of even his immediate family.

In the other direction, it is understood that some people may need to feel ‘outside’ in order to rejuvenate their relationship to G-d. As Rashi describes, the metzorah is sent out of all three camps, one who has had an emission is removed from the Levite camp, and one who has had contact with death is not allowed in the camp of the Shechina. AS the Rebbe of Izhbitz describes in context of Miriam, when she contracted tzora’at, removal from the camp is often an essential clarification of self in order to be able to inhabit one’s proper place more fully. Again, the structure - even when it ‘kicks a person out’ – is not meant to limit the individual’s growth, but to enhance it.

This point is perhaps best emphasized in the gifts of the princes of each tribe. It has been pointed out that the Torah sums up the laws of Shabbat in just two verses. And yet, the Torah repeats the offerings of each of the princes, despite the fact that the offerings are identical to each other. R’ Simcha Bunim (source?) writes that this is meant to emphasize that, despite the outward appearance that each offering was identical to the next, each was actually entirely the expression of the individual. The Midrash offers explanation of what each offering may have meant to each individual who brought them. This is a perfect example of structure being a conduit for the individual to maximize his or her relationships.

A further example of this juxtaposition between structure and individual is Moshe’s role in the construction of the mishkan. He erected the Mishkan (Bamidbar 7:1) and he was spoken to through the Mishkan (7:89).