From Parsha to Halakha – Vayakhel Is temporary building prohibited on Shabbat?
It’s a well established tradition that the categories of melakhot (creative work) prohibited on Shabbat were based on the work for the Mishkan (Tabernacle). The connection between the two is casually mentioned in several mishnayot and the gemara explicitly states that the thirty-nine melakhot are comprised of the significant types of labor performed for the Mishkan.[1]
Transportable and transient
In a discussion of the prohibition of carrying items in the public domain or from one domain to another the mishna states: “A person who takes [an object] out [from a domain] – be it with their right [hand] or left, in their lap or on their shoulders is liable, for this was the way the sons of Kehat carried.”[2] In one case of transferring an object from one balcony to another the mishna teaches: “One who passes [an object] is liable, one who throws is exempt, for the Levites served in this manner (passing, not throwing).”[3]
Similarly, when discussing writing the mishna brings Rabbi Yossi’s opinion: “They only held [one who writes] two letters liable due to marking (and not writing), because they would write [marks] on [adjacent] boards of the Mishkan to identify its counterpart.”[4]
Rishonim disputed whether the melakhot are limited to the work involved in the original construction of the Mishkan and its vessels, or if the list includes melakhot used in everyday service.[5] Curiously, the mishnayot cited above don’t mention actions related to the original construction or daily service per se, but rather reference moving the Mishkan from one place to another, highlighting the transience of the Mishkan, which was designed to move from place to place.
The transience of the Mishkan has major halakhic ramifications for the melakha of “boneh” (building). Many melakhot are not considered biblically prohibited unless the effect is permanent, durable, or long-lasting. For example, the melakha of tying a knot is only biblically prohibited if it is a “kesher shel kayma” – a lasting knot.[6] Similarly, writing that disappears is generally not considered to be biblically prohibited.[7] Yet the Mishkan itself was designed to be transitory, and therefore temporary; it was meant to be built and taken apart.
Permanence or transience?
The Talmud Yerushalmi questions whether building a temporary structure is also biblically prohibited, or if “boneh” must also be permanent:
“What ‘building’ was there in the Mishkan? Putting the boards on the sockets. But wasn’t this temporary? Rabbi Yossi said that it was as if it was permanent because they would camp and travel according to the word of God. Rabbi Yossi bei’Rabbi Bun said that it was considered temporary because the Holy One blessed be He promised to bring them to the land [of Israel]. Therefore building a temporary [structure] is also [prohibited due to] building.”[8]
Rabbi Yossi explains that the “boneh” specifically refers to building a permanent structure; since the dismantling and rebuilding of the Mishkan is dependent on God, not people, the building is considered permanent. Conversely, Rabbi Yossi bei’Rabbi Bun explains that the Mishkan was essentially a temporary structure, as it was only meant to be used until God’s promise to settle the Israelites in the land was fulfilled; therefore, building a temporary structure is also biblically prohibited.
The Yerushalmi brings a similar dispute about “soter” (demolishing or disassembling). There are several melakhot that involve destruction, but according to the mishna the biblical prohibition is only when the destruction is in order to fix or reconstruct. For example, the melakha of “keriya” (tearing) is only biblically prohibited if it is “tearing in order to sew,” and “mokhek” (erasing) is only biblically prohibited if it is “erasing in order to write.”[9] Consequently, one might think that “soter” is only biblically prohibited if it’s in order to build. The gemara discusses this opinion:
“Rabbi Yossi thinks: Soter in order to build in the same place [the biblically prohibited form of] soter, in order to build in a different place – is not soter. Rabba said to him: All the melakhot are learned from the Mishkan, and there the deconstruction was to build in a different place?! He replied: That’s different, because it’s written, ‘they camped according to God’s word,’ it’s like soter in order to build in the same place.”[10]
Rabbi Yossi raises the possibility that soter is only biblically prohibited when it’s done to build in the same place; it’s not enough to take something apart to rebuild it in a different place; since it could be rebuilt using different materials the deconstruction isn’t strictly necessary. Once again the gemara challenges the definition of the melakha based on the way it was performed for the Mishkan. The Mishkan was disassembled in order to rebuild it elsewhere, on the next stop on the way to Israel.
Rabbeinu Chananel explains that, similar to the amount of time the Mishkan stood in one place, since the location of the Mishkan was completely dependent on God’s word, there was a real possibility God would command those who dismantled the Mishkan to reconstruct it in the same place. Alternatively, based on Rashi’s explanation in Eruvin that the Israelite encampment in the desert was considered a permanent camp, and not temporary, one could claim that the camp had the status of a permanent location because it was fixed according to God’s word.[11]
Regardless, it seems that the Yerushalmi allows for both opinions. There’s room to see the Mishkan as permanent because it is fixed according to God’s word, which means that the melakha of building it was permanent. But it’s also possible that the essence of the Mishkan is that it is a temporary structure. The Bavli, on the other hand, focuses on the fixed aspect of the Mishkan, “they camped according to God’s word.”
Building a temporary tent on Shabbat
This issue has practical ramifications, like whether constructing a temporary “tent” on Shabbat is permissible. Building even a temporary structure like a building is definitely prohibited on Shabbat – both biblically and rabbinically.[12] But if the Mishkan is considered a permanent structure, then the Torah only prohibits permanent building. Consequently, a temporary structure, such as a tent, would not have the same level of prohibition, and may even be permissible in certain cases. But if the Torah prohibits building a temporary structure, then there is no room to permit temporary building.[13]
This dispute may also contain a conceptual element: what is the significance of the national endeavor to construct the Mishkan? Is it a temporary structure, a place-holder to be assembled and disassembled on Israel’s journey through the desert until they settle in the Promised Land? Or perhaps there is an element of permanence, as it was built according to God’s command?
Perhaps it’s a bit of both. The Mishkan in the desert could be compared to the sukka, a temporary structure a person is supposed to treat like a permanent home; similarly, the Mishkan seems to suggest there is an element of permanence in the temporary, and that transience can be a fixed state.[14]
[1] TB Shabbat 73b-74a (quoting Abaye and Rava) and 96b explaining Rabbi Eliezer.
[2] Mishna Shabbat 10:3
[3] ibid 11:2
[4] ibid 12:3
[5] See the examination in the introduction to Eglei Tal.
[6] Mishna Shabbat 15:1-2.
[7] ibid 12:5
[8] Shabbat 7:2 and 12:1.
[9] Mishna Shabbat 7:2
[10] TB Shabbat 31b
[11] Rashi Eiruvin 55b “keivan di’khtiv”
[12] For example: TB Shabbat 125b
[13] This issue comes up in the question of umbrellas on Shabbat. Noda b’Yehuda prohibited (Tanyana OC 30) and Chatam Sofer permitted (Responsa OC 72).
[14] See TB Sukka 2a. Rava explains the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages concerns how permanent the temporary structure of the sukka may be.
