Throughout my life, I visited or lived in Israel a few times. During those visits, invariably, I find myself at the Western Wall, either the main one or the egalitarian one.
And while I sit there, in these places that echo our ancient rites, I think about what things must have been like thousands of years ago. How different it was, or what it would look like in another thousand years.
The Talmud speaks to some of these questions, especially when it comes to the Temple:
The mishna teaches: They may extend the city of Jerusalem or the courtyards of the Temple only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges.
The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived?
Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya says: The verse states: “According to all that I show you, the pattern of the Tabernacle and the pattern of all its vessels, and so shall you do” (Exodus 25:9). “And so shall you do” means for future generations; just as the Tabernacle was fashioned in all of its details according to Moses’ instructions, so too later, the Temple is fashioned according to the instructions of the Great Sanhedrin, whose members stand in place of Moses.
The Gemara quotes a mishnah that provides a rule for the expansion of Jerusalem. Who can authorize such actions? Rabbi Steinsaltz explains, for context, that the Sanhedrin, a court of seventy-one judges, has that authority.
How do we know this? Rav Shimi bar Hiyya offers a verse as proof focused on the phrase: “So shall you do.”
Because this word is in the future tense, ta’asu, you will do, we know that authority rests in the future. Rabbi Steinaltz adds that Moses was the authority for the Mishkan, the predecessor of the Temple, and the Sanhedrin stands in his place for the future.
However, Moses and the Sanhedrin have entirely different contexts regarding the Mishkan and the Temple. This leads us to a conflict:
Rava raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to all of the utensils that Moses fashioned, their anointment with the sacred oil is what consecrates them, rendering them fit for service in the Tabernacle.
From that point forward, i.e., in future generations, there is no need for anointment, but rather their service in and of itself dedicates them, meaning that when they are used for the first time in sacred service they become consecrated.
Rava explains the objection: And why is this so? Let us say instead that since the verse states: “And so shall you do,” this teaches that it must be done for future generations as in the Tabernacle, and therefore anointment with sacred oil should be required in the Temple as in the Tabernacle.
Rava brings up a logistical point, which will be relevant as we move through the text. He explains that Moses anointed the implements of the Mishkan with sacred oil to dedicate their service to the task. They became separate and specific to the giving of the offerings.
However, moving forward, in future generations, using the implements dedicates them to the task. Meaning to say, there’s no annointing with oil because using them is enough.
How does this work? Well, from our verse, the “doing” is the important part and hints at the usage of the implements being most important.
How does the Gemara resolve this?
The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the verse states: “And it came to pass on the day that Moses completed erecting the Tabernacle that he anointed it and sanctified it and all its vessels, and the altar and all its vessels, and he anointed them and he sanctified them” (Numbers 7:1).
The verse emphasizes that he sanctified “them,” and from this it is inferred that only those utensils need sanctification by anointment, but for future generations there is not a requirement of sanctification by anointment.
The Gemara likes this argument, which makes sense since it was written in a post-Temple world, and proves it with another verse.
In this verse, using the context of anointing, which is great for context, the text focuses on the preposition, atem, them, highlighting that we must be talking about the specific implements Moses used. After that, there would be no need to anoint future implements.
As arguments go, this is a pretty classic rabbinic approach: Find a way to narrow the case to something small and specific. However, the Gemara wants to provide an alternative argument, just in case:
The Gemara asks: And say instead: Those vessels require sanctification specifically by anointment, but for future generations it could be done either by anointment or by service.
Rav Pappa says: The verse states with regard to this: “And they shall take all service vessels with which they shall serve in the sanctuary” (Numbers 4:12). The verse renders it dependent upon service, meaning that the service is what sanctifies them.
The Gemara makes the point again. It was THOSE utensils, used by Moses himself that needed anointing. Since nothing lasts forever, that requirement isn’t necessary for future utensils, although it remains an option. And just in case, here’s another proof text, this time, coming from our Torah portion this week, Bamidbar.
Rav Pappa explains that the phrasing of the verse “take all the service vessels with which they shall serve in the sanctuary” is focused on the usage of the utensils, not their anointing.
The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the extra word “them”? This emphasis seems superfluous.
However, this causes a problem for the rabbis: they have this rule that every verse is used once to make a point. Here, we have two verses making the same point. Therefore, one of the two verses needs an alternate usage or explanation.
The Gemara answers: Had the verse not added the word “them,” I would say: For future generations the sanctification is accomplished by anointment and by service together, as it is written: “And so shall you do.”
Therefore, the Merciful One writes “them,” to teach: They alone are consecrated by anointment, but for future generations the vessels are not consecrated by anointment.
To resolve this, the Gemara argues that without the specificity of atem, them, we might think we need both anointment AND usage, but we don’t. Only the first implements needed anointing, but not future ones.
Often, when we read about the Temple implements, it can be easy to have our eyes glaze over and ask, who cares?
But this text sets up an important principle:
Ancient anointment and present action.
Our text reminds us that the present is not less than the past. More than that, it teaches us that the rules we live by today are not exactly the same ones our ancestors experienced. And they don't have to be.
The idea that action, service, and “doing” is enough to make something consecrated is a gift to us. It means that when we do Jewish now, and I mean, right now, it is just as holy as it has ever been.
When I reflect on my visits to the Western Wall or communities around the world that have existed for many centuries, part of me feels like: they had this purer, deeper Judaism than me. This sugiyah reminds me that my Judaism is real and authentic. It means that yours is too.
The atem, them, in the verse, can represent not just the implements anointed by Moses, but the ways our ancestors observed Judaism. We are empowered to think creatively about how our Judaism works for us. And when we “do,” our actions become as consecrated and holy as the Temple implements.