JHI Dvar Torah on Parshat Vayakhel

PARSHAT VAYAKHEL – RIGHTEOUS WRONGDOING

Parshat Vayakhel describes the construction of the Mishkan (Tabernacle). The Mishkan was extraordinarily miraculous and sacred – even more so than the two Temples that would later be built in Jerusalem (Commentary of Sforno on Parshat Pekudei). For example, the Midrash writes that someone who entered the inner sanctum of the Mishkan who looked upward would somehow see the Heavens.

The primary builder of the Mishkan was Bezalel. He was chosen from the entire Jewish Nation as the person most qualified to be its primary architect. Regarding Bezalel, The Almighty said, “See that I have called by name Bezalel, son of Uri, son of Chur” (Vayakhel, 35:30). What these words refer to is unclear; Bezalel already had his name. What does it mean that G-d ‘called him by name?’

The Midrash Rabbah (48:7) explains that the words allude to a specific incident. After Bezalel completed this fabulous structure, the people began to extol him for what he had accomplished. However, their tribute included acco­lades that should have been directed instead to Hashem (G-d), the real source of Bezalel's greatness. This made their accolades excessive to the point of being improper. With the phrase, “See that I have called by name Bezalel, son of Uri, son of Chur” G-d was pointing out that the degree of praise for Bezalel was inappropriate.

To explain the point, the Midrash provides an example of a doctor's disciple who cured a disease utilizing the skills he was taught. People then heaped lavish praises upon the student for being able to cure the disease. These praises were inaccurate; they should have been directed, at least in part, to the teacher whose wisdom the disciple had utilized.

So too, indeed, the acclaim for Bezalel was richly deserved. His great wisdom and understanding deemed him even more qualified to construct the Mishkan than Moshe (Moses). However, it would have been proper to direct a part of the praise toward Hashem. This means that Bezalel was being praised with accolades applicable only to Hashem. One can thus infer that the Jews were beginning to invest Bezalel, a human being, with G-d - like qualities. What was transpiring was therefore the beginning of idolatry; the praises accorded Bezalel, a mortal human, were in fact appropriate only to The Almighty.

One might wonder, if giving honor to a sanctified Torah Scholar such as Bezalel is so commendable and idolatry is so profane, how can it be that one can lead to the other? What is the connection between the two? The motivation to perform a righteous deed emanates from the nobility and holiness within the human, while sin is an expression of the profane. It nevertheless appears that honoring Bezalel shifted the Jews toward the beginnings of idola­try. What was originally an unintentional error while in the midst of a noble pursuit could have eventually evolved into apostasy.

This phenomenon can be observed through the example of someone rushing a heart attack victim (G-d forbid) to the hospital. The driver would not bother with the niceties of red lights and stop signs whenever possible. Similarly, the urgency of noble deeds fosters a tendency to ignore the proper parameters of human conduct. Left uncorrected, even the most noble of deeds can result in significant wrongdoing.

This type of problem can beset almost any everyday human activity. Following are some illustrations of basically praise­worthy activities gone awry.

Many have observed a group undertaking exalted projects (such as the building of a synagogue or yeshiva) where the end results were dreadful. Differences of opinion on how to accomplish the task rapidly became personal, and great disputes arose. Best friends become enemies; communities that were once tranquil were torn by strife and rancor. Why did this happen? The original intent was so high-minded. The problem is often that the dedica­tion and passion for the task were not accompanied by the addi­tional safeguards required for this type of effort.

It is normally the responsibility of parents to provide for the family. The dedication to this task, however, can be readily carried to improper extremes. It can become so all encompassing that it results in a virtual personal abandonment of that same family that he or she is providing for.

Discipline of young children is certainly vital to their well being. However, when unchecked, discipline can evolve into emotional if not physical abuse. Conversely, the unre­strained urge to nur­ture and help one's younger or even adult children can foster unwholesome dependency.

On a governmental level, many if not most of the 19^th Century early Communists sincerely sought to create a ‘worker’s paradise’ that would bring dignity and prosperity to all. But principles behind the cause deemed it too vital to be hindered by all of the ‘niceties’ of proper conduct. What resulted was tragic. It is estimated that the 20^th Century Communists in both Russia and China each killed far people than the WW II Germans. And unlike the Germans, the Communists murdered the very same people that they ostensibly came to help.

This same idea seems to be playing itself out in the great debate over nationalized health care that is presently going on as these words are being written. Aside from the issue of the merit of the legislation itself, the zeal in some quarters for its passage appears to be fostering a disdain for first carefully examining the many problems that this bill might create before voting on it.

Undertaking good deeds is noble and virtuous. Doing them enthusiastically is even more honorable. However, passionate idealism can easily morph into passionate wrongdoing.