2 weeks ago we looked at Rashi’s comment (on בראשית כח:ה): איני יודע מה מלמדנו. That comment appears in this week’s parsha as well:
We discussed this in פרשת וישלח תשפ״א. Now, I want to present a different perspective. Stuart Klamen pointed out that the text seems straightforward; במקום אשר דבר אתו just tells us that Yaakov returned to the place he had seen his vision. But when we look at the context, Rashi’s question is clearer. The phrase is redundant; it gets repeated over and over:
Those last two psukim are part of the “flashback” that started with במקום אשר דבר אתו, ”in the place where He had spoken to him, and where he had erected a monument and named the place Bethel“.
The pasuk starts with the expression ויעל מעליו אלקים, which has occurred before:
That expression tells us something about the role of the אבות in the world. It does not mean that the נבואה ended (it already said ויכל לדבר אתו), but that the שכינה arose from them and thence into the rest of the world.
The אבות were the “throne of G-d”, the מרכבה, and each had his own way of bringing the sense of the Divine into the world.
Our psukim emphasize that it was here, in Bethel, במקום אשר דבר אתו, that was the place of ויעל מעליו אלקים. This was the place on earth where the שכינה was palpable.
This place is where בית המקדש של מעלה is כנגד בית המקדש של מטה. So what’s bothering Rashi, that he says איני יודע מה מלמדנו?
That’s a trick question. The בית המקדש isn’t in Bethel, it’s in Jerusalem.
We talked about the historic significance of Bethel in פרשת ויחי תשע״ט. Rav Medan says it was the location of what could have been the בית המקדש:
It is unclear what “עד כי יבא שילה” means, but we know that the משכן was established in the city of שילה when the Jews entered the land:
We just don’t know why שילה was chosen. But it was close to בית אל:
Bethel today is about 16 kilometers south of modern Shiloh, but Rav Medan assumes that we have the locations wrong:
So we have this tension in תנ״ך between two potential locations for the בית המקדש, Yaakov’s בית אל־שילה, and Avraham’s ירושלים־הר המוריה:
And we know the right answer:
So Rashi’s response becomes clearer. איני יודע מה מלמדנו is asking, what does the Torah want us to know about בית אל? The text emphasizes that בית המקדש של מעלה מכון כנגד בית המקדש של מטה, but this isn’t the location of בית המקדש של מטה.
I am going to propose that Rashi is telling us something important with his comment. I think ירושלים and בית אל represent two different ways of serving ה׳. The important thing about הר המוריה is that Avraham doesn’t choose the place:
Whereas Yaakov did:
ירושלים is where we serve ה׳ according to ה׳'s rules. בית אל is where we make the decisions. So we know the “right” answer. Bethel is the wrong place to put the בית המקדש, as we see from Yeravam when he split the kingdom:
In פרשת תולדות תשפ״ד I proposed that איני יודע מה מלמדנו tells us that the truth isn’t so simple, that there is a dialectic here. I think there is something similar going on here.
ירושלים is right and בית אל is wrong. But ויעל מעליו אלקים במקום אשר דבר אתו tells us that בית אל is also בית המקדש של מעלה מכון כנגד בית המקדש של מטה. There is a place for human input in עבודת ה׳.
The kabbalists speak of אתערותא דלתתא, “awakening from below”, human inspiration, that brings about the אתערותא דלעילא, “awakening from above”, ה׳'s providence. Rav Dessler says that this אתערותא דלתתא was missing from the בית המקדש that was built in ירושלים and therefore was vulnerable to being destroyed.
עבודת ה׳ is a dialectic. Everything comes from ה׳, and everything comes from us.