From the heart (Va-yakhel)

Parashat Va-yakhel Exodus 35:1 - 38:20

Parashat Va-yakhel continues the saga of the building of the Tabernacle in the Desert.

In a way the theme that opens this Parasha continues that of the one of two weeks ago, when in "Terumah" we heard about the contribution ("terumah") brought by the people. In Va-yakhel ("and [Moses] assembled [the people]") we read again about the gifts that the Israelites contributed.

Take from among you gifts to the Lord; everyone whose heart so moves him shall bring them — gifts for the Lord: gold, silver, and copper; ⁶ blue, purple, and crimson yarns, fine linen, and goats' hair; ⁷ tanned ram skins, dolphin skins, and acacia wood; ⁸ oil for lighting, spices for the anointing oil and for the aromatic incense; ⁹ lapis lazuli and other stones for setting, for the ephod and the breastpiece. (Exodus 35:5-9)

The central passage for me here is the specification "everyone whose heart so moves him". The Hebrew "kol nediv libo" can be understood literally as everyone who is generous of heart. The heart as a source of generous emotion and of freedom is emphasised elsewhere. In Exodus 35:21 we hear that not everyone brought gifts, but only volunteers:

Each person who was ready to volunteer then came forward. [Also] each one who wanted to give brought a donation to God for the making of the Communion Tent, all its necessities, and the sacred vestments.

The central expression here is "kol-ish asher nesa'o libo vechol asher nadvah rucho" - "everyone whom his heart uplifted (or carried) and everyone whose spirit was giving". It is in fact quite hard to decompact the poetry of the Hebrew original here, and translations vary.

A third time is the heart mentioned as the source of generosity:

Men and women, all whose hearts moved them (ha'anashim al-hanashim kol nediv lev), all who would make an elevation offering of gold to the Lord, came bringing brooches, earrings, rings, and pendants — gold objects of all kinds (Exodus 35:22)

In what follows we are told specifically about gifts of jewellery, and perhaps even more interestingly, about the skilled women weavers' contributions. Finally, these voluntary contributions are summed up in similar terms:

Every man and woman, whose heart moved them / whose heart was giving (nadav libam) to bring of all the work, which the Lord had commanded to do by the hand of Moses, the children of Israel brought a willing offering (nedavah) unto the Lord (Exodus 35:29).

Both men and women were generous of heart. That is to say, the universal nature of the generous heart is stressed.

The repeated emphasis that giving comes from the heart or from a spirit of giving is something that we moderns are easily tempted to connect with charities and fundraising. And why not? This Parashah is a good model that encourages us to emulate the generosity of our ancestors in a modern context of global responsibility.

If one looks at the Parashah as a historian, what comes across strongly is the contrast between Moses' "building campaign" and Pharaoh's building campaigns. Where the Pharaoh's great cities Pithom and Ramses were built by slave labour, including Hebrew slave labour, Moses builds something less permanent and stable, the Tabernacle, using voluntary contributions.

This characteristic of respecting free choice is highlighted if we compare the Parashah with the Haftorah (I Kings 7:40-50). Here we hear about Solomon's Temple building and Hiram the master builder.

On the face of it, the parallelism is hardly original. Where the Parashah treats the building of the Tabernacle, the Haftorah treats the building of the Temple. What could be more predictable? And yet there is a subtle difference. It is the difference between freedom and compulsion.

Solomon builds, and Hiram builds for Solomon just like Bezalel built for Moses:

So Hiram finished all the work that he had been doing for King Solomon on the House of the Lord. I Kings 7:41)

Although Solomon was no Pharaoh, this is clearly a project controlled by a centralised monarchy, and there is little evidence of free choice and generosity of the heart. The Temple is very definitely one king's project, and despite Hiram's honourable mention Solomon is not going to share the glory with a multitude of "sponsors". In that way the Tabernacle is more reminiscent of the name plaques in synagogues, where contributions by diverse donors are meticulously listed for commemoration.

I'd argue that Moses was not only an astute comunal politician who knew how to coopt his "sponsors". He was also a gifted, perhaps prophetic educator. He understood that a project owned by many will be cherished by many, whereas a top-down royal project may not outlast the days of the monarchy. And so it was: the temple, alas, was destroyed, but the migratory Tabernacle, precious yet unstable, the work of many hands and even more hearts, still wanders with us.