Parshas Vayakhel-Pekudei 5783
The Mishkan is completed and a final tally is made. Every last donation made and every last dollar spent is accounted for. And you can’t help but think, “That’s a lot of gold.”
It was just one week ago, after all, that we read of the awesome blunder of the Chet HaEgel. The folly of reaching for physical objects and precious metals as a means to connect with an infinite G-d. One would think that gold should never again be touched as a conduit for spirituality. Yet here we are, in the very next parsha, employing the same material used for the Calf in the construction of the Mishkan. What separates the two?
Rav Soloveitchik pointed to the pasuk that makes all the difference between the two, profound in its simplicity:
כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּה ה׳ אֶת־מֹשֶׁה כֵּן עָשׂוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת כָּל־הָעֲבֹדָה׃
שמות לט:מב
According to all that Hashem had commanded Moshe, so did the Children of Israel do all the work.
Shemos 39:42
The difference between the Egel and the Mishkan—the only one that mattered—is that the latter was commanded by G-d whereas the former was not. As Rav Soloveitchik explains, this distinction marks the difference between employing aesthetics in the service of G-d and worshipping the aesthetic itself.
There is any number of skills, talents, and objects that can theoretically be utilized as a means of attaching ourselves to Hashem. Delicious food can enhance the Shabbos and Yom Tov experience and beautiful melodies can uplift our prayers. But once any such item has fallen beyond the parameters of halachah, of “all that Hashem had commanded,” it is not longer a medium towards G-d, but an unfortunate end unto itself. As Rav Soloveitchik noted, one who lights Shabbos candles before leaving for shul has elevated Shabbos with its light, but one who lights candles after returning from shul has desecrated Shabbos and has placed a well-lit room on the pedestal where G-d ought to have been.
This theme finds further expression in the selection of Betzalel as the chief artisan in the fashioning of the Mishkan. How did the Jewish People—a nation of slaves—come to possess such a talented craftsman in their midst? Rav Soloveitchik notes that the only reasonable explanation is that these were talents he honed in the company of Egyptians. Betzalel’s oppressors no doubt identified the embryonic talent that existed in him and provided him with the training that would allow him to make the most significant possible contribution to Pharaoh and Egypt.
Betzalel’s talents were not Jewish, per se, yet Hashem was not dismissive of his abilities simply because they were developed in less-than-holy circles. But at same time, there is no blanket seal of approval offered to Betzalel for his abilities alone. Betzalel is not remembered for the striking landscapes he painted of the Egyptian skyline, nor of the fine specimens of carpentry that were the product of his own imagination. He is applauded for taking his talents and using them in the service of Hashem. The creative spirit burns more brightly in the artist than most other individuals, and the determination to subdue that creativity in the interest of following strict orders is a testament to Betzalel’s religious fortitude and offers an impressive model for the rest of us to follow.
The aesthetically beautiful and mouthwateringly delicious are more accessible in our generation than perhaps any other in history. The average Jew of today has means at his disposal that his great grandparents could only have dreamed of. What is more, we live in a world that asserts that what is artistic, creative, and beautiful is of inherent value. One need only express their inner talent and produce something pleasing to their audience to be heralded as having done something of great value. A song with good rhythm, a page-turner of a book, and a riveting movie are lauded as great contributions to society, even if they do not further any moral or religious value.
Which is to say that we have our work cut out for us. In a world in which beauty is itself a value, we must insist instead that beauty facilitate values. Gold is dazzlingly beautiful, but only truly so when it becomes a Sanctuary, rather than an idol.