Parshas Terumah 5786: Infinite Yet One

Torah Parallels 

Parshas Terumah 

לעוי נשמת האדא בת מרדכי 

 

Infinite Yet One 

In Parshas Terumah, the Torah presents two central keilim of the Mishkan that relate opposite architectural philosophies: the Aron and the Menorah. The Aron was constructed as a combination of units. The Passukim (Shemos 25:10-16) describe that there were two golden arons with a wooden one in between, a lid, and the poles. All these pieces were assembled and only then ready to contain the luchos. By contrast, the Menorah must be fashioned from a single block of gold, as the passuk (Shemos 25:31) says, “מִקְשָׁה תֵּיעָשֶׂה הַמְּנֹרָה”. Rashi (25:31) explicitly explains that all the intricacies on the menorah: the base, branches, goblets, knobs, and flowers were all formed from the same single piece of gold.  

The Aron of course represents Torah She’bichsav (written Torah). It contains the luchos and signals with its components the consistency and humility required for a person to be a true receptacle of Torah (see Gemara Yoma 72b). The Menorah on the other hand represents Torah she’baal peh (Oral Torah). The Gemara (Bava Basra 25b) comments that “הרוצה להחכים ידרים” - one who wishes to become wise should turn to the south, because the Menorah stood in the southern side of the Mishkan. As Rabbeinu Gershom there explains: TheMenorah represents chachmah because כי נר מצוה ותורה אור. The light of the Menorah represents the light of Torah. In fact, the Medrash (Beraishis Rabbah 91:11) relates that when someone would say a Torah chiddush in front of Rebbe Tarfon, he would exclaim “כפתור ופרח!”, clearly connecting to the knobs and flowers of the Menorah as the beauty of Torah she’baal peh. The Menorah of course was also the central focus during the story of Chanukah when Torah she’baal peh was directly under attack with the gezairos against keeping Shabbos, keeping kosher, bris milah, Rosh Chodesh, etc and engaging in deliberate acts of tumah in the Beis Hamikdash. 

 

With all this in mind, the construction methods of these two keilim seem counterintuitive. The Torah she’bichsav itself is something that is unchanging. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 274:2) codifies that a critical part to writing a new Sefer Torah is to have an existing Sefer Torah that one copies directly from, and calling out each word out loud before writing it in the new Torah being written. The Torah she’baal peh on the other hand is riddled with machlokes, multiple viewpoints, and different mesorahs. This multiplicity is so embedded that the Gemara Yevamos (13b-14a) brings Reish Lakish who interprets the mitzvah of “lo sisgodedu” as “lo sa’asu agudos agudos”, that while we may have varying mesorahs and opinions within Torah she’baalaeh, it is critical that the perspective of having a unified K’lal Yisroel is maintained. One would have thought that it would be more appropriate for the aron, the kli holding the Torah itself, to be made of a solid piece, representing the unchanging nature of the core Torah; while the menorah’s intricate details would perhaps be more appropriate to be of many parts representing the mosaic of Torah she’baal peh that is created from the combination of so many parts and opinions. Why, then, does the physical structure of these keilim reflect the opposite of their conceptual nature? 

 

Perhaps the answer is as follows: While true that the Torah she’baal peh allows for machlokes, opinions, and varying branches of mesorah, that is all part of the same infrastructure of Torah she’baal peh. The fact that there are different opinions does not change the fact that it is all based on the same unchanging underlying principles. It is all one piece of solid gold. As the Gemara (Yevamos, Eiruvin) states, Eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim chaim. The fact that the menorah was able to have beautiful intricate details and seven branches, did not change the fact that it all came from the same solid piece of gold. It is all formed from exactly the same material, foundation, and principles. When it comes to the aron, the opposite subtlety must be clear. While every single drop of ink in a Sefer Torah is absolutely deliberate and together forms one unchanging universal Torah, it is not to be taken only at face value. The Torah is filled with depth, meaning, and infinite wisdom. Perhaps this is why the physical luchos with k’sav needed to be put in the context of layers of aron, while the “Torah Ohr” fire of the menorah from multiple branches needed to step from a base of gold. And just as the menorah has the two facets of multiple branches and the solid gold, the aron too, while comprised of multiple distinct pieces, was sandwiched between two key components that were each commanded with a sense of singularity. At the top, the Cheruvim were formed with the lid of the aron from a single piece of gold. As Rashi (25:18) writes, the Cheruvim could not be made after the lid as an attachment, rather the commandment was to take a thick solid piece of gold for the lid and to strike down in order to force the metal to protrude upward and then shape the Cheruvim. On the bottom as well, while the poles were built separate from the aron and needed to be attached, the Torah (25:15) commands that the poles must remain in the base of the aron; to which Rashi adds one word: “l’olam / forever”. The components of the aron were surrounded by a sense of everlasting singularity.  

 

This is the paradox of Torah: it is infinite and one (echad) at the same time. As we approach learning and living a life of Torah, we must keep this in mind. Torah cannot just be taken at face value, there are infinite layers. At the same time, a respect for an opinion that fits within the framework of Torah is essential to eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim chaim and appreciating emes. 

 

May Hashem help us understand His Torah – the beautiful fabric of Torah she’baal peh weaved through Torah she’bichsav, and respond to our “Torah Ohr” with the berachos of “ki b’ohr panecha”.