About Kings and Temples: What if we got it all wrong? (Parshat Terumah)

And they shall make Me a sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst (Shemot/Exodus 25:10)

וְעָ֥שׂוּ לִ֖י מִקְדָּ֑שׁ וְשָֽׁכַנְתִּ֖י בְּתוֹכָֽם

One of my many shortcomings is a conspicuous lack of material envy. I can be jealous of many things, such a fine handwriting, artistic talent, musical virtuosity, a more generous head of hair, greater equanimity and, admittedly, a more commanding height.  Any craving for “stuff” never exceeds things that are beyond my own self-sustaining needs. And the fact that someone can afford and indulge in more toys has always been just fine with me. I am grateful to have no material debts be it to my late parents or anyone else.  I have never borrowed a penny from anyone, and consider myself blessed. Should I ever be forced to seek a loan, I would only approach friends in my general income bracket, never from those who are wealthy, let alone obscenely so. Empathy, yes, noblesse oblige, never.

Nevertheless, if I were subject to Jerusalem real estate envy, the last people I would be jealous of are the ones who own homes overlooking the Western Wall. The challenge of living in visual proximity to what is often labeled “Judaism’s holiest site” would be too daunting. After all, which human being is capable of maintaining the requisite awe and reverence over any extended period of time?  My guess is no one – certainly not someone whose ability to acquire such priceless real estate has far less to do with spiritual attainment than with having pots of gold.

Even if the investor in such a property were of the loftiest spiritual status, how long would it take before they become jaded and indifferent to the view from their grand salon? Because everything becomes a commonplace when it’s always there. From the most precious diamond to the most glorious mansion, it will invariably lose its emotional value unless it can be flaunted in order to trigger envy in others.  I would imagine that owners of such a prize property would have to win the Guinness record for hachnassat orhim in order to maintain an evergreen parade of gawking guests who would ooh and ah while feasting on chateaubriand al a Kotel.

2000 years ago things were no different.  The folks who were wealthy enough to occupy the box seat residences overlooking Har HaBayit got jaded quickly enough, and were likely glad to AirBnB their properties at usurious rates to the (of course showier) pilgrims making their aliyah l’regel. Meanwhile they’d  escape the festival madness and camel themselves off to Ashqelon or Caesarea for some luxurious peace and quiet at a five star caravansery.

All of which leads me to a far more fundamental question: Was it ever a good idea to build a Holy Temple in Jerusalem in the first place. Indeed, was this what the Torah wanted?

Our liturgy is obsessed with the rebuilding of the Beit HaMikdash in Jerusalem, just as our prayers are for the resurrection of the royal House of David.  Yet neither monarchy nor a fixed-base sanctuary are ANYWHERE indicated in the Torah.

Regarding royalty, the Torah’s distaste for mortal kings is manifest.

כִּי-תָבֹא אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ, וִירִשְׁתָּהּ, וְיָשַׁבְתָּה בָּהּ; וְאָמַרְתָּ, אָשִׂימָה עָלַי מֶלֶךְ, כְּכָל-הַגּוֹיִם, אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתָי

When you come to the land which the Lord your God gives you, and will possess it, and will dwell therein; and shall say: ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me

שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ, אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ:  מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ, תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ–לֹא תוּכַל לָתֵת עָלֶיךָ אִישׁ נָכְרִי, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-אָחִיךָ הוּא.

 you shall place over you a king whom the Lord your God shall choose; from among your brethren shall you appoint a king over you; you may not put a foreigner who is not your brother over you.

רַק, לֹא-יַרְבֶּה-לּוֹ סוּסִים, וְלֹא-יָשִׁיב אֶת-הָעָם מִצְרַיְמָה, לְמַעַן הַרְבּוֹת סוּס; וַיהוָה, אָמַר לָכֶם, לֹא תֹסִפוּן לָשׁוּב בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה, עוֹד.

However, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt so that he can multiply horses; for God has told you: ‘Henceforth you should never return that way.’

 וְלֹא יַרְבֶּה-לּוֹ נָשִׁים, וְלֹא יָסוּר לְבָבוֹ; וְכֶסֶף וְזָהָב, לֹא יַרְבֶּה-לּוֹ מְאֹד

Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, and his heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly multiply for himself silver and gold. (Devarim/Deuteronomy 17:14-17)

If the people, desiring to be like their gentile neighbors, should demand a king the Torah will acquiesce to their human frailty. But it certainly does not mandate it. And such a King – “one whom the Lord your God chooses” – must not “acquire many horses” nor shall he “take many wives for himself.”

I’m not sure which of the Israelite kings would fit the above description. By I am ABSOLUTELY certain it is not describing Shlomo HaMelekh – King Solomon: 

וַֽיְהִי֙ מִשְׁקַ֣ל הַזָּהָ֔ב אֲשֶׁר־בָּ֥א לִשְׁלֹמֹ֖ה בְּשָׁנָ֣ה אֶחָ֑ת שֵׁ֥שׁ מֵא֛וֹת שִׁשִּׁ֥ים וָשֵׁ֖שׁ כִּכַּ֥ר זָהָֽב

 The weight of gold which came to Shlomo in one year was 666 talents of gold.

 לְבַד֙ מֵאַנְשֵׁ֣י הַתָּרִ֔ים וּמִסְחַ֖ר הָרֹכְלִ֑ים וְכָל־מַלְכֵ֥י הָעֶ֖רֶב וּפַח֥וֹת הָאָֽרֶץ:

Aside from [that which came through] merchants and the commerce of spice-peddlers and all the dependent kings and the regents of the land.

וַיַּ֨עַשׂ הַמֶּ֧לֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹ֛ה מָאתַ֥יִם צִנָּ֖ה זָהָ֣ב שָׁח֑וּט שֵׁשׁ־מֵא֣וֹת זָהָ֔ב יַעֲלֶ֖ה עַל־הַצִּנָּ֥ה הָאֶחָֽת:

And king Shlomo made two hundred body shields of malleable gold; six hundred [dinar of] gold he would put into one body shield.

וּשְׁלשׁ־מֵא֚וֹת מָֽגִנִּים֙ זָהָ֣ב שָׁח֔וּט שְׁל֚שֶׁת מָנִים֙ זָהָ֔ב יַעֲלֶ֖ה עַל־הַמָּגֵ֣ן הָאֶחָ֑ת וַיִּתְּנֵ֣ם הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ בֵּ֖ית יַ֥עַר הַלְּבָנֽוֹן

 And three hundred shields of beaten gold, three manehs (three hundred dinar) of gold he would put into one shield, and the king placed them in the house of the forest of Lebanon. (Melakhim Alef/Kings 1  10:14-17)

And this is just for openers.

וְהַמֶּ֣לֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹ֗ה אָהַ֞ב נָשִׁ֧ים נכְרִיּ֛וֹת רַבּ֖וֹת וְאֶת־בַּת־פַּרְעֹ֑ה מוֹאֲבִיּ֤וֹת עַמֳּנִיּוֹת֙ אֲדֹ֣מִיֹּ֔ת צֵֽדְנִיֹּ֖ת חִתִּיֹּֽת׃

 King Shlomo loved many foreign women and the daughter of Pharaoh; Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites.

מִן־הַגּוֹיִ֗ם אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָֽמַר־יְהֹוָה֩ אֶל־בְּנֵ֨י יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל לֹא־תָבֹ֣אוּ בָהֶ֗ם וְהֵם֙ לֹא־יָבֹ֣אוּ בָכֶ֔ם אָכֵן֙ יַטּ֣וּ אֶת־לְבַבְכֶ֔ם אַחֲרֵ֖י אֱלֹהֵיהֶ֑ם בָּהֶ֛ם דָּבַ֥ק שְׁלֹמֹ֖ה לְאַהֲבָֽה

Of the nations concerning which the Lord told the Children of Israel: ‘You shall not go among them, neither shall they come among you; for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods’; Shlomo did cleave unto these in love.

וַיְהִי־ל֣וֹ נָשִׁ֗ים שָׂרוֹת֙ שְׁבַ֣ע מֵא֔וֹת וּפִלַגְשִׁ֖ים שְׁלֹ֣שׁ מֵא֑וֹת וַיַּטּ֥וּ נָשָׁ֖יו אֶת־לִבּֽוֹ׃

And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart (Melakhim Alef/Kings 1  11:1-2)

Clearly this was not exactly the sort of monarch the Torah had in mind.

Hence it is no surprise that it was Shlomo who took it upon himself to construct a permanent sanctuary – the first Beit Hamikdash – in his royal capital, Jerusalem.  Because NOWHERE in the Torah is there the slightest indication that such an edifice was wanted, let alone ordained.

Perhaps Shlomo felt that it might seem inappropriate for God to dwell in a relatively humble tent while he regaled in a palatial edifice with his piles gold and stables of concubines .

And, of course, as we see with kings of other faiths, a byproduct of exorbitant temporal wealth is invariably a ravishing temple, albeit one in which spirituality and cleaving to the Almighty play a distant second to pageantry and conspicuous consumption followed,  inevitably, by degeneracy, debauchery and corruption.

In Parshat Terumah we are a given a description of the Mishkan and its utensils. What is prescribed is a beautiful, yet intentionally portable, tabernacle made possible not by the wealth of a monarch or the philanthropy of an oligarch but by the voluntary generosity of ordinary men.

דַּבֵּר֙ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְיִקְחוּ־לִ֖י תְּרוּמָ֑ה מֵאֵ֤ת כּל־אִישׁ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִדְּבֶ֣נּוּ לִבּ֔וֹ תִּקְח֖וּ אֶת־תְּרוּמָתִֽי

Speak to the children of Israel, and have them take for Me an offering; from every person whose heart inspires him to generosity, you shall take My offering. (Shemot/Exodus 25:2)

The Mishkan was meant to inspire the Children of Israel, and provide a place to turn to for their devotions, celebrations and in their hour of need. There is no indication that it was intended only for temporary use. Indeed, a temporary Tabernacle would not require the combined contributions of gold, silver, precious stones, rare woods and intricate tapestries . What a waste that would be if it were intended only for the itinerant years in the desert – assuming such a painstaking and precise undertaking could even be completed in such a short time by a contentious people constantly on the move.

The  Torah is very precise when it says:

וְעָ֥שׂוּ לִ֖י מִקְדָּ֑שׁ וְשָֽׁכַנְתִּ֖י בְּתוֹכָֽם

And they shall make Me a sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst

God wishes to dwell in their – the Israelites – midst. And this would require a traveling sanctuary which would visit each tribe on a rotating schedule. No single tribe would get special treatment. No single location would fulfill the Divine desire “to dwell in their midst”. No fixed location would generate the inevitable jadedness among those who live in proximity, and an equivalent alienation and disconnect among those who live at a distance.

There is a reason the Kohanim and Leviim received no land in Israel. They were meant to be itinerant as well, accompanying the Sanctuary as it would make its way among the communities; providing all Israelites with an equal opportunity to worship, sacrifice, connect, beseech, purify and acquire learning.

The moment Shlomo cut the ribbon on his temple he lost ten out of twelve tribes forever.  It became inevitable that supporting such a circus would require massive infusions of funds. And it was no less inevitable that his heirs would pass the burden onto those least connected geographically and emotionally to his temple.  And the rest is history.

As always, history tends to repeat itself. The second Bet HaMikdash also enjoyed but a very brief – if any – period of spiritual purity. Inevitably, the Hashmonaim became disenchanted with being merely kohanim and decided to anoint themselves as kings as well.   And the very crown jewel of the Hasmonean dynasty – the Beit Hamikdash for which so many pray today –  was the handiwork of of the sickest, most malignant, murderous , rapacious, pagan king of all  – Herod – a megalomaniac whose very Jewishness was in question.

By contrast, the Mishkan is a model of modesty,  and features the esthetics of modesty. Hence it serves as a model for us. It is sufficient for the Almighty and makes it possible for Him to dwell among us. And “us” includes not just the tribes of Yehuda and Binyamin, but also of Reuven, Shimon, Dan, Naftali, Gad. Asher, Issachar, Zevulun, Menashe and Efraim.

The attempt to justify a Beit Hamikdash in Jerusalem by way of the following verse seems way off base:

כִּ֠י אִֽם־אֶל־הַמָּק֞וֹם אֲשֶׁר־יִבְחַ֨ר יְהוָ֤ה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶם֙ מִכָּל־שִׁבְטֵיכֶ֔ם לָשׂ֥וּם אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ שָׁ֑ם

Except to the place which theLord your God will choose from among your tribes to rest His Name there (Devarim/Deuteronomy 12:4)

If anything, this verse is stating the very opposite.  That God will choose the place in each tribe where He wishes to place His name.  The Mishkan will circulate among the tribes, and God will decide where precisely in each tribe it will pitch its temporary stay.

It can certainly be argued that absent the self-indulgence of Shlomo and his defiance of Torah – both in the excesses of his personal life and in his decision to anchor the sanctuary in his backyard – there might never have been a first exile, let alone a second one. And we would have continued as twelve united tribes until this very day.

Well at least we have something to aspire to.