The People Step Up
By this point in the Book of Exodus, the story outlines are probably familiar: the people鈥攈aving been redeemed from Egypt and covenanted with God on Mt. Sinai, and having already sinned a terrible sin by building the Golden Calf鈥攔espond to God’s detailed instructions to build a Tabernacle by donating so generously that the collection of the material with which to construct the sanctuary has to be stopped midway, even as the people are still in the process of donating.
But to truly appreciate some of the implications of this narrative, let us go back and unpack several of the key verses. Exodus 35 begins with Moses convoking 鈥渢he whole Israelite community鈥� and passing on the detailed instructions to build the Tabernacle he had received from God. At this point the Torah records the response of the people to these commands:
讜址讬值旨爪职讗讜旨 讻指旨诇志注植讚址转 讘职旨谞值讬志讬执砖职讉专指讗值诇 诪执诇执旨驻职谞值讬 诪止砖侄讈讛變 讜址讬指旨讘止讗讜旨 讻指旨诇志讗执讬砖讈 讗植砖侄讈专志谞职砖指讉讗讜止 诇执讘旨讜止 讜职讻止诇 讗植砖侄讈专 谞指讚职讘指讛 专讜旨讞讜止 讗止转讜止 讛值讘执讬讗讜旨 讗侄转志转职旨专讜旨诪址转 讛鈥� 诇执诪职诇侄讗讻侄转 讗止讛侄诇 诪讜止注值讚
So the whole community of the Israelites left Moses鈥� presence. And everyone who excelled in ability and everyone whose spirit moved him came, bringing to the LORD his offering for the work of the Tent of Meeting.
(Exod. 35:20鈥�21)
The Torah goes on to relate the many gifts that the people brought with great enthusiasm, and generosity both of spirit and of material. Pausing to introduce the two 鈥減roject managers,鈥� Bezalel and Oholiab, the Torah next narrates how these two led the people in actually building the Tabernacle, 鈥渢o perform expertly all the tasks connected with the service of the sanctuary,鈥� a process that begins at Exodus 36:3 and continues to the end of this parashah and the next.
However, there is an important episode that I have left out in this account, so let us focus our attention on it:
鈥徸曋白斨底� 讛值讘执讬讗讜旨 讗值诇指讬讜 注讜止讚 谞职讚指讘指讛 讘址旨讘止旨拽侄专 讘址旨讘止旨拽侄专變 鈥幾曋纷欀钢甲懼棺愖曋� 讻指旨诇志讛址讞植讻指诪执讬诐 讛指注止砖执讉讬诐 讗值转 讻指旨诇志诪职诇侄讗讻侄转 讛址拽止旨讚侄砖讈 讗执讬砖讈志讗执讬砖讈 诪执诪职旨诇址讗讻职转旨讜止 讗植砖侄讈专志讛值诪指旨讛 注止砖执讉讬诐變 鈥庘�� 讜址讬止旨讗诪职专讜旨 讗侄诇志诪止砖侄讈讛 诇值旨讗诪止专 诪址专职讘执旨讬诐 讛指注指诐 诇职讛指讘执讬讗 诪执讚值旨讬 讛指注植讘止讚指讛 诇址诪职旨诇指讗讻指讛 讗植砖侄讈专志爪执讜指旨讛 讛鈥� 诇址注植砖止讉转 讗止转指讛旨變 鈥庘�� 讜址讬职爪址讜 诪止砖侄讈讛 讜址讬址旨注植讘执讬专讜旨 拽讜止诇 讘址旨诪址旨讞植谞侄讛 诇值讗诪止专 讗执讬砖讈 讜职讗执砖指旨讈讛 讗址诇志讬址注植砖讉讜旨志注讜止讚 诪职诇指讗讻指讛 诇执转职专讜旨诪址转
讛址拽止旨讚侄砖讈 讜址讬执旨讻指旨诇值讗 讛指注指诐 诪值讛指讘执讬讗變 鈥庘�� 讜职讛址诪职旨诇指讗讻指讛 讛指讬职转指讛 讚址讬指旨诐 诇职讻指诇志讛址诪职旨诇指讗讻指讛 诇址注植砖讉讜止转 讗止转指讛旨 讜职讛讜止转值专變But when these continued to bring freewill offerings to him morning after morning, all the artisans who were engaged in the tasks of the sanctuary came, each from the task upon which he was engaged, and said to Moses, 鈥淭he people are bringing more than is needed for the tasks entailed in the work that the LORD has commanded to be done.鈥� Moses thereupon had this proclamation made throughout the camp: 鈥淟et no man or woman make further effort toward gifts for the sanctuary!鈥� So the people stopped bringing: their efforts had been more than enough for all the tasks to be done.
(Exod. 36:3鈥�7)
The people鈥檚 exuberance is an important detail in a narrative already replete with them. Whereas in the narrative of the Golden Calf in last week鈥檚 portion, it was Aaron who proposed the donation of the gold, and that and the people鈥檚 acquiescence took all of two verses (Exod. 32:2鈥�3), in this week鈥檚 portion the people seem to be spectacularly engaged and eager participants鈥攕o much so that their energy has to be restrained. As Nahmanides comments:
讜讛讝讻讬专 讛讻转讜讘: 诪专讘讬诐 讛注诐 诇讛讘讬讗鈥撟溩┳懽� 讗转 讛注诐 讛诪讘讬讗讬诐 讘谞讚讘转诐, 讜诇驻讗专 讛讞讻诪讬诐 讘谞讗诪谞讜转诐
鈥淪cripture mentions, the people bring much more than enough, in order to praise the people who brought with such generosity, and to glorify the wise men for their honesty.鈥�
Yet if we read the entire sequence that leads to this result, a curious question arises: The Torah showers such praise in detailing the dedication of the people and the way in which they take the initiative, but . . . Where were their tribal leaders? Where were the princes of the people? We know that when the Torah narrates the dedication of the Sanctuary (Num. 7), it goes out of its way to narrate the contribution of the princes in exceeding detail. But here in the construction of the Sanctuary itself, could they not have been mentioned?
Attentive close readers of course know that the princes were, indeed, mentioned, albeit in a somewhat offhand measure (Exod. 35:27):
鈥ψ曋白斨纷犞爸甲┲醋傋愔粗Ｗ� 讛值讘执謹讬讗讜旨 讗值謿转 讗址讘职谞值郑讬 讛址砖止旨讈謹讛址诐 讜职讗值謻转 讗址讘职谞值郑讬 讛址诪执旨诇只旨讗执謶讬诐 诇指讗值驻謻讜止讚 讜职诇址讞止纸砖侄讈谉
And the chieftains brought lapis lazuli and other stones for setting, for the ephod and for the breastpiece . . .
Rashi, always a fine reader and never one to overlook a detail, notices that the word for 鈥減rinces鈥� in this verse 谞职旨砖执讉讗执郑诐 is spelled with what grammarians call 鈥渄efective orthography,鈥� that is, it does not contain the letter yod that usually indicates a plural (thus, we would expect the word to be spelled either 谞职旨砖执讉讗执讬诐 or 谞职旨砖执讉讬讗执诐, if not completely fully, 谞砖讬讗讬诐). In this case, Rashi reads the Torah with an incorporation of a midrashic insight from Sifrei Bemidbar (7:3):
讜讛谞砖讗诐 讛讘讬讗讜:聽 讗诪专 专’ 谞转谉: 诪讛 专讗讜 讛谞砖讬讗讬诐 诇讛转谞讚讘 讘讞谞讜讻转 讛诪砖讻谉 讘转讞讬诇讛, 讜讘诪诇讗讻转 讛诪砖讻谉 诇讗 讛转谞讚讘讜 讘转讞讬诇讛? 讗诇讗 讻讛 讗诪专讜 谞砖讬讗讬诐: 讬转谞讚讘讜 爪讬讘讜专 诪讛 砖诪转谞讚讘讬谉, 讜诪讛 砖诪讞住专讬谉 讗谞讜 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉. 讻讬讜谉 砖讛砖诇讬诪讜 爪讬讘讜专 讗转 讛讻诇, 砖谞讗诪专: 讜讛诪诇讗讻讛 讛讬转讛 讚讬诐, 讗诪专讜 谞砖讬讗讬诐: 诪讛 注诇讬谞讜 诇注砖讜转? 讛讘讬讗讜 讗转 讗讘谞讬 讛砖讛诐. 诇讻讱 讛转谞讚讘讜 讘讞谞讜讻转讜 转讞讬诇讛.
R. Nathan asked, 鈥淲hat reason had the princes to volunteer their contributions at the dedication of the Tabernacle (in Num. 7) at the beginning, whereas at the construction of the Tabernacle (here in Exod. 35鈥�36) they were not the first?鈥� (in fact they were the last to contribute!). Rather, this was how the princes reasoned: 鈥淟et the community donate what they would donate, and what will then be lacking we shall complete.鈥� But when the community gave everything needed in its entirety (and then some!)鈥攁s it is said, their efforts had been more than enough for all the tasks to be done (Exod. 36:7), the princes asked, “What can we now do?” therefore: And the chieftains brought lapis lazuli and other stones for setting, for the ephod and for the breastpiece . . . (Exod. 35:27). That is why they were the first to contribute at the dedication of the Tabernacle (in Num. 7).
Up to this point, Rashi narrates the midrash as it has come down to us. However, he perspicaciously adds a detail on his own:
讜诇驻讬 砖谞转注爪诇讜 转讞诇讛 谞讞住专讛 讗讜转 诪砖诪诐 讜讛谞砖讬讗诐 讻转讜讘
鈥淏ecause, however, they were lazy (or if you prefer, dilatory) at the beginning, a letter is missing here from their title: for it is written 讜讛谞砖讗诐 (instead of 谞职旨砖执讉讗执讬诐 or 谞职旨砖执讉讬讗执诐, i.e., as related earlier, it is normally spelled with at least one yod in the Hebrew Bible).鈥�
Now, the great medieval exegete R. Abraham Ibn Ezra famously dismissed any effort to draw conclusions from the orthography of the Hebrew Bible and regarded all such efforts as 鈥渁n affair for children鈥� (from Ibn Ezra鈥檚 Introduction to the Torah). But Rashi鈥檚 comment is rooted in much more than mere orthography; rather I think he correctly intuits that the princes鈥� reasoning, as the midrash relates it, is faulty and self-serving. They might comfort themselves that they are acting altruistically, but what they were really doing was not functioning in the way that leaders are supposed to function鈥攂y leading, and not by following. The ostensible 鈥渓eaders鈥� hesitated in this instance from performing their true and obligatory role. And the people, whether noticing the leaders鈥� hesitation or not, effectively bypass the leadership to accomplish the task at hand.
In fact, these past months we have seen this very social phenomenon鈥攐f leaders failing to act as leaders, and the people picking up the slack to get the job done鈥攊n the State of Israel. Leading up to and following the catastrophes and horrors of October 7, the political leadership failed miserably to live up to its obligations, mainly to protect the citizenry against attacks like the one Israel experienced from the outset, but also in failing to take responsibility for what in Hebrew is termed a 诪讞讚诇, a 鈥渄efault鈥� in carrying out the fundamental, contractual obligations of a government to protect its people from harm. And what followed the initial attack was that the people took over the responsibilities of government in virtually every sense of the word. 鈥淪tart up Israel鈥� kicked into gear at every level of society, healing the wounded, sheltering and comforting the refugees, clothing and feeding the soldiers who were belatedly protecting the nation. The energy and effectiveness of Israeli citizens in 鈥渕aking up鈥� the deficiencies of their political leadership has been nothing less than inspiring. And while by no means have we arrived at the point where someone needs to tell the citizenry 讚讬 讜讛讜转专, 鈥測ou have done enough and do not need to do more,鈥� we may take inspiration from the reaction of Israelis to make up for the deficiencies in their leaders and accomplish what they have accomplished in these most difficult of times.
Let us hope and pray that this ingenuity will help lead ultimately to making a peace with strength, and may it bring safety for all innocents.
The publication and distribution of the JTS Commentary are made possible by a generous grant from Rita Dee (锄鈥漧) and Harold Hassenfeld (锄鈥漧).
