These are the accounts of the Tabernacle, the Tabernacle of Testimony… (Ex. 38:21)

The verse hints to the fact that there are two aspects to the Tabernacle: One aspect is called "the Tabernacle", the other "Tabernacle of Testimony". The two Tabernacles refer to two levels of divine light: one that is revealed and one that remains hidden. These two levels are called "lower Shechina" and "higher Shechinah". (In Tikunei Zohar 1b, lower Shechinah is identified with malchut and higher Shechinah with bina.)

The first Tabernacle implies revelation, since it is called, "the Tabernacle" [not "a Tabernacle"], i.e., a Tabernacle that is known. The second Tabernacle implies concealment, since it is called the Tabernacle of Testimony - testimony is only necessary when a matter is unknown or concealed.

Man in his service of G‑d, in building his personal Tabernacle, accesses the lower Shechinah through the fulfillment of "active" mitzvot, such as putting on tefillin and giving charity. One accesses the higher Shechinah through the fulfillment of "passive" mitzvot, such as refraining from eating non-kosher foods or not working on Shabbat.

This is because the higher Shechinah, the Tabernacle that is concealed, cannot be "known" through man's active deeds. It is beyond human reach and can only be accessed through non-action.

The passive mitzvot are therefore associated with yud and hei, the first letters of the name Havayah, while the active mitzvot are associated with the latter letters, vav and hey:

Yud and hei refer to the hidden spheres, while vav and hei refer to the revealed spheres ("Hidden things are to G‑d…while revealed things are to us…." (Tikunei Zohar 10, 25b commenting on Deut. 29:28)) Yud and hei refer to the intellect, while vav and hei refer to the emotions. In relation to others, the intellect is concealed. The intellect serves the person as a distinct individual, disconnected from others. Emotions, love and fear, are revealed to others. Their very being presupposes the existence of others. Supernal emotions…are for the purpose of revelation to the created beings…

In other words, it is not only the enactment of emotional drives, such as kindness, that requires other beings; the very existence of emotions is dependent upon the existence of others. Without others, the concept of kindness does not exist. True, once there are others, one can experience the desire to do kindness even when no other is present (such as Abraham who was saddened by the fact that no travelers had passed his tent during the first two days after his circumcision, and he was unable to perform the kindness of inviting them in). But if there were no others in the world, the emotion of kindness would not exist.

Intellect, on the other hand, is a self-involved attribute. One does not need the existence of others to think. Most sages are reclusive by nature. True, one can gain from discussing or teaching an idea ("and from my students [I learned] more than all of them" (Taanit 7a)), but in the invention of new insights, the presence of others can often disturb one's concentration. The judges of the Sanhedrin would therefore deliberate over night in solitude. (Sanhedrin 40a, Rashi)

The same is true of supernal intellect and emotions. Supernal intellect, yud and hei, are self-oriented and concealed from creation. Supernal emotions, by contrast, are for the purpose of revelation to the created beings. Because emotions exist for the purpose of revelation and connection with others, they are in the realm of the revealed even while they have not yet been actually displayed and are still in the heart.

Conversely, because intellect is inherently self-oriented, it remains hidden even when it is technically revealed and conveyed: a) one never reveals the essence of one's intellect to another person - only a secondary manifestation of the intellect is conveyed; b) the revelation of the intellect has no intrinsic connection to the intellect itself. It is incidental to it (unlike the emotions for which revelation is the ultimate purpose). The intellect is of the realm of concealment…

In addition, the fact that intellect is inherently beyond interaction with others refers not only to others that are outside the person, it refers also to the "others" within oneself. In order to truly ponder a concept, the sage must silence all of his other faculties (even the desire to understand the concept). For since they are "others" in relation to the intellect, they interfere with the intellectual process (just as actual "others" would disturb him). And once he grasps the concept, his understanding of it remains isolated and concealed from the rest of his being, so much so that he can behave contrary to the conclusions of his intellect. The fact that intellect usually does create emotions and does affect one's behavior is not because this is its function. It is incidental to it. It is like light, which shines everywhere. [Not because it is "actively" casting its light, but because such is its nature. It is oblivious to its own glow. Similarly, the fact that the intellect permeates the emotions and behavior is the result of its illuminative nature, not because of any association with the emotions and behavior.]

So, in the effect of intellect on the rest of the person one does not see the soul of the intellect. The intellect is of the realm of concealment even in relation to the rest of the person.

So "the Tabernacle", the revealed Tabernacle, refers to the service of G‑d that involves the emotions, the heart - the realm of the revealed. "Tabernacle of Testimony" refers to the service of G‑d that involves the mind, the realm of the concealed.

Divine Farewell

"These are the accounts of the Tabernacle, the Tabernacle of Testimony…" (Ex. 38:21) Through teshuva…the dimension that never experienced separateness is revealed…

Rashi relates the word "mishkan", the Hebrew word for "Tabernacle", to "mashkon", meaning "collateral". The two times that "Tabernacle" appears in this verse, says Rashi, allude to the two Temples which were "taken as collateral" by G‑d from the Jewish people. So in Rashi's reading, the verse alludes to a time of darkness and exile.

By contrast, the Alter Rebbe explains the word "pekudei"("accounts") of this verse to mean "intimacy", citing the Talmudic instruction: "A man is required to be intimate [in Hebrew, "lifkod"] with his wife before he goes on a trip". (Yevamot 62b) The verse alludes to the intimacy of the cosmic couple: G‑d and Man.

[Note: The Torah places three responsibilities upon a husband: 1) to provide food for his wife; 2) clothing; and 3) marital relations. The Tzemach Tzedek explains that these three responsibilities on the supernal level refer to three levels of divine communication. Food, which enters the person internally, refers to a lower level of divine influx, which can be assimilated by the recipient. Clothing, which remains outside the person, refers to a more sublime influx that remains beyond, transcendent from the person. Marital relations, which is performed without clothing (see Ketubot 48a), refers to an even loftier revelation of the Divine, one that transcends even the transcendence of clothing.]

How do we reconcile Rashi's understanding of the verse with the explanation of the Alter Rebbe?

The ultimate purpose of the destruction of the two Temples - caused by the sins of Israel - was that ultimately Israel would reach a state of teshuva, return, and the Temple would be restored to an even greater level than it had been before its destruction. For through teshuva, the essence of the soul, the dimension that never experienced separateness, is revealed.

This is the convergence of Rashi's interpretation and that of the Alter Rebbe. Through teshuva, which comes as the result of G‑d's removal of the Temples, the essence of the soul is revealed, thereby affecting the most intimate unity between G‑d and Israel. In truth, this unity is not suspended until the end of exile, when the Temple is rebuilt. Rather, the unity - at least in a concealed way - is affected even at the time of destruction and exile.

We therefore find that at the time of the exile, when the invaders entered the temple, they saw the cherubs in embrace (Yoma 54b). Now, it is known that the position of the cherubs reflected the state of the relationship between G‑d and Israel (ibid 54a). Why then were they embracing at the time of destruction?

The answer is that at the time of the destruction, when G‑d, so to speak, was leaving his people, Israel is like "a woman whose husband has gone across the sea" (Taanit 20a; Zohar 2:122a). So before the Husband (G‑d) "leaves" his "wife," He is obligated to be intimate with her. The cherubs were therefore in an embrace. But that intimacy and unity was not manifest. What was manifest was destruction and exile, the purpose of which is to ultimately lead to teshuva, which in turn will cause the revealed intimacy and unity through the rebuilding of the Third Temple, when both Tabernacles will be returned - "the Tabernacle" and "Tabernacle of Testimony" - with the coming of the righteous Mashiach very soon.

Adapted by Yosef Marcus from Sefer Hamamarim Melukat 5:199ff.

Copyright 2003 by All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this work or portions thereof, in any form, unless with permission, in writing, from Kabbala Online.