Pekudei: Balancing Pragmatism and Idealism

Liluei Nishmas Ita bas Chanoch Aharon Bistritzky

Parshat Pekudei opens by detailing Betzalel's construction of the Mishkan. The Torah's precise wording underscores that "Betzalel built the Mishkan in the manner Hashem commanded Moshe." It notably refrains from stating that he built it according to Moshe's instructions but rather as directed by Hashem through Moshe.

 Rashi elucidates that a debate ensued regarding the precise method of constructing the Mishkan. Moshe advocated for crafting the vessels first and then proceeding to the physical structure. However, Betzalel countered, questioning the logic of building vessels before the very home they are meant to inhabit. Betzalel opted to erect the Mishkan first, providing a foundation to house the vessels within.

 Moshe concurred with Betzalel, recognizing that this indeed aligned with Hashem's original instructions to him. Moshe remarked that Betzalel must have been divinely inspired, given the significance of his name, "Betzalel," meaning "in the shade of God."

 The inquiry arises: How could Moshe initially misinterpret Hashem's commands and then validate Betzalel's stance? What does this debate signify?

 The answer lies in Kabbalistic and Chassidic teachings, which shed light on broader philosophical and real-life distinctions. The Mishkan and the vessels represent two types of light and expression. One is an internal light, an “ohr pnimi”, meticulously tailored in a way that it can be appreciated and absorbed by the receiver. (An example of this would be a teacher's well-prepared class tailored to resonate and be understood by each of his students on their level.) The second is a surrounding light, an “ohr makif”, which is expressed on its own terms, above what the receiver can properly absorb, thereby dominating and nullifying him instead of enlightening him. (An example of this type of expression would be the exaltedness a king expresses in the presence of his subjects.)

Mystically speaking, the Mishkan, a house meant to surround and encompass all that is inside of it, represents the “ohr makif”, while the vessels, each tailored with specific characteristics for whichever material it will deal with, represents the “ohr pnimi”. It follows, then, that Moshe and Bezalel were arguing fundamentally about which of these lights should proceed the other. This debate is quite relevant and clearly spelled out in the area of education. Two distinct approaches emerge: one emphasizing control and the other focusing on influence. The control approach, the "makif," prioritizes external structures and environments to shape behavior and adherence to established norms. In contrast, the influence approach, the “pnimi”, emphasizes internal inspiration and transformation, nurturing a personal connection with values and principles.

 Moshe advocated for an idealistic approach, prioritizing internal change even in the absence of physical structure. Conversely, Betzalel argued for a pragmatic perspective, asserting that tangible structure precedes internal transformation in our world's reality.

 This debate mirrors a broader discussion within Judaism: Does Judaism prioritize action or spiritual sentiments? While the Torah mandates meticulous observance of mitzvot, it equally underscores the significance of spiritual connection and emotional engagement. Moshe underscored the importance of internal, emotional, and intellectual connection, anticipating its translation into practical observance. However, Betzalel emphasized the immediacy of action, stressing the necessity of initiating change without delay, while also anticipating the internal transformation that is sure to follow.

 Ultimately, the discussion between Moshe and Betzalel encapsulates the eternal tension between action and introspection within Jewish philosophy. Both elements are indispensable, contributing to a holistic approach to Jewish life and observance. The symbiotic relationship between action and spiritual connection enriches the individual's relationship with God and enhances the practice of Torah and mitzvot. Nevertheless, as the Torah instructs us, Hashem commanded the construction of the Mishkan first, and only thereafter the vessels, reflecting Betzalel’s pragmatic approach. This underscores the importance of initiating action, as waiting for the heart and mind to be ready may delay progress indefinitely. Therefore, the imperative remains: if not now, then when?