I will sanctify the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and I will sanctify Aharon and his sons to serve Me. I will dwell in the midst of the Bnai Yisrael, and I will be their G-d.... Make an altar for burning incense....

(Sh'mot 29:43-44; 30:1)

There is one glaring exception to this otherwise perfect pattern -- the command to make the incense altar. The incense altar is first mentioned only after we are given the description of the entire Mishkan edifice, all its furnishings and the details of the Kohanim's vestments. Even the inauguration ritual is described before any mention of the incense altar. We would have expected this altar, which was situated in the anteroom along with the Menorah and bread-table, to have been described along with these articles. What is the significance of the Torah's peculiar positioning of the description of this altar? Why is it presented as though in an afterthought?

This question is addressed by the early commentators, such as Ibn Ezra (Shmot 25:22) and Ramban (Shmot 30:1). Based on their words, Rav Ovadiah Sforno (c. 1300 C.E.) in his commentary to Shmot 25:23 and 30:1 presents the following answer to our question (I present his answer here in my own words):

The concept can be understood in the following manner. We, as human beings living in a physical world, find it difficult to internalize concepts that are completely ethereal and abstract. We are able to relate to them much more seriously if we see some physical representation. Through such a tangible representation, we can visualize the concept as something more concrete, and better relate to it emotionally and intellectually. Seeing a skull and crossbones, for instance, has a much stronger effect on a person than seeing the word "Poison." Reading about a bomb-blast in the newspaper cannot be compared to actually hearing one, or seeing its debris.

The building of a splendid Temple, which resembles in its external details a house which might be prepared for a great earthly king, is intended to impart to us the idea that Hashem's presence resides here on earth among men. This idea would otherwise be quite difficult for us to fully appreciate emotionally and perceptually. The Mishkan "concretizes" our perception of the presence of Hashem. This stronger realization of the presence of our Creator, which comes from seeing the glory of the Holy Temple, is what is referred to as "Veshachanti Betocham" (Shmot 29:44), or "Hashra'at HaShechinah," the dwelling of the Divine Presence among us. (See also Chinuch, Mitzvah #95.)

The Sforno uses this idea to explain the particular furnishings that were placed in the Mishkan, and later in the Temple. We read in II Melachim (4:9) that the woman who often hosted the prophet Elisha said to her husband, "Behold ... the holy prophet passes by us regularly. Let us make him a ... room ... and place there a bed, a table, a chair and a candelabra." When preparing a room for an important, holy person, then, we see that the furnishings that are expected are a bed, table, chair and lamp. When the B'nei Yisrael built the Mishkan, which, as explained earlier, was intended to be patterned after a palace built for royalty, they were to include the same basic items. The Ark, the Sforno says, resembled a chair, and to this were added a table and a candelabra, to prepare a room for a royal guest! (Making a bed would be totally inappropriate, however, because a bed is not prepared *in honor* of a royal guest, but for his *use* -- for sleeping upon. There is no place for such an article in Hashem's "house," even on a totally symbolic level, because "the Guardian of Israel neither sleeps nor slumbers." -MK)

The inclusion of these articles in the Mishkan was thus intended to produce a realization of Hashem's presence, by preparing a "room" for the most exalted King. The sacrifices of the inauguration were also intended to bring about a greater appreciation of Hashem's presence, i.e. a "dwelling of the Shechinah," in a manner which was witnessed publicly. (An understanding of animal sacrifice based on the words of our sages, is a discussion for a different occasion.) The incense altar, however, is not one of the objects normally used when setting up a room for a king, and is thus not a part of the preparations made to bring about a "dwelling of the Shechinah." What then was the purpose of the altar? Once the king comes to visit, it is important for his host to have the proper frame of mind which is suitable for the presence of such an exalted guest. He dare not act or think in his ordinary, day-to-day manner, but must feel the importance and magnitude of the special situation with which he is dealing. The incense, which was an extremely sweet-smelling fragrance, was designed to bring out a special feeling of love and dedication for the Divine "Guest." In short, the other articles of the Mishkan were intended to *bring about* the dwelling of the Divine Presence on earth, while the intent of the altar was to *act upon* this Divine Presence once it was already there, to ensure that we are actually affected and moved by this Presence.

Thus, it is only after the construction of the Mishkan was described and the sacrifices of the inauguration were outlined, after we are told that Hashem will dwell in our midst, that the command comes for the building of the incense altar. Thus, explains the Sforno, it is only after the Shechinah is brought to dwell in its "house" that it is appropriate to proceed to the next step -- how to react to that Presence!

It may be added that support for Sforno's comparison between the furnishings of the Mishkan and the furnishings used in the preparation of Elisha's room may be found in the Gemara. In Berachot 10b the Gemara describes the thrust of the prayers of the deathly ill King Chizkiyahu (II Melachim 20:2). "You revived the son of the woman of Shunem because his mother prepared a furnished room for Elisha," said Chizkiyahu. "How much more so should You heal me, because my ancestor Shlomo built an entire Temple with furnishings for You!"

It is possible to resolve this contradiction, however, referring to another Midrash Tanchuma. A second Midrash Tanchuma tells us (Tetzave, #14) that the incense altar was intended to effect an atonement for the sin of the Golden Calf. (See Parasha-Page, Tisha B'av 5755 section III, and Balak 5755 section II, for more about that sin.) We may suggest that the altar's role before and after the sin of the Golden Calf, was different.

Originally, the altar's role was to only be a vehicle for serving Hashem after His Shechinah had already entered the Mishkan, as the Sforno suggest. After that sin was committed, however, there already existed a flaw in the bond of love between the Bnai Yisrael and their Creator. The people's love for Hashem suffered a crushing blow during that unfortunate episode, when they deserted Hashem in search of other gods. It had to be reinforced through the fragrant incense, before the Shechinah would be able to dwell in the Mishkan. The incense-burning now became necessary in order to bring about the manifestation of the Shechinah in the Mishkan.

The Sforno was assessing the situation *before* the sin of the Golden Calf. (The details of the construction of the Mishkan and its furnishings are all given in this week's and last week's Parshiot, before the sin of the Calf, which is recorded only in *next* week's Parasha.) The Midrash Tanchuma, however, was assessing the situation *after* that sin. After the sin, incense became a prerequisite to the Dwelling of the Shechinah.

In Zevachim 59a we learn that the daily incense service of the Temple may be performed even in the absence of the incense altar. The incense would simply be burned on the floor of the Temple Sanctuary, on the spot where the altar was supposed to be located. This is not true of the large external altar situated in the courtyard of the Temple, however. In that case, even if there was a small chip in the altar's body no sacrifices were allowed to be offered on it. Similarly, if there is no bread-table it is not permissible to bring the breads that were normally placed on the table and lay them on the floor in the place where the table should stand. The candles, too, may not be lit on the floor in the absence of a Menorah, and it is absurd to think that the Tablets of the Ten Commandments could be left on the floor if the Ark would not be present. Every article of the Mishkan had a function, and this function could not be carried out at all in the absence of that article. The only exception to this is the incense altar, which, as noted above, was not absolutely necessary for the burning of the incense.

This, proposes R. Moshe Galanti, is why the description of the incense altar is presented almost as an afterthought. The incense altar was only an "extra," in the sense that its functional purpose was not imperative. It does not belong together with the other articles of the Mishkan, which were necessary for the functioning of the Mishkan!(See also Aderet Eliahu, Meshech Chochmah, Maharil Diskin and others, who pursue a similar line of reasoning in answer to our question.)

It should be noted that this explanation is not necessarily in opposition to the Sforno's interpretation. The two may in fact be said to complement each other. *Why* is it that the incense altar was not imperative to the function of the Mishkan? Because, as the Sforno explained, its goal was different from that of the other articles of the Mishkan. It wasn't placed in the Mishkan to honor the One who dwells there, but rather was meant to facilitate the offering of incense.

(For other explanations for the strange placement of the commandment to build the incense altar, see Or HaChaim [end of Shmot 25:9], Kedushat Levi, Kli Chemdah to Parashat Korach #1.)

It is a well-known bit of trivia that the Parasha of Tetzaveh is the only one in the Torah (after the birth of Moshe) that does not mention Moshe's name at least once. (See Baal HaTurim at the beginning of the Parasha, and Pa'aneach Raza.) Rashi (Sh'mot 6:26) tells us that Moshe and Aharon were both considered to be on an equal level. It may be suggested that the merits of both brothers were responsible for bringing the Shechinah to dwell in the Mishkan. Perhaps, in order to illustrate this joint merit, we split up the description of the Mishkan and its functions into two reading-portions. The first is Terumah, which discusses the Mishkan building and its associated furnishings. This was Moshe's share in the Mishkan, for Moshe too administered the sacrifices and served in the Mishkan until Aharon's initiation ceremony was complete (Rashi Vayikra 8:28). The second portion is Tetzaveh, which is devoted to a description of the priestly vestments. These were never worn by anyone but Aharon and his descendants ( --Moshe wore a simple white linen robe when he performed the sacrifices mentioned above, Rashi ibid.). Thus, in order to stress the contribution of Aharon to the bringing of the Divine Presence to the Mishkan, the Parasha of Tetzaveh is dedicated exclusively to him, and there is no mention whatsoever of his more renowned brother!

In Avot 4:13 we learn that there are three "crowns" (i.e. three sources of honor and praise) in the world -- the crown of Torah, the crown of Kingship and the crown of Priesthood (Kehunah). Rashi (in Sh'mot 25:21,24 and 30:3) points out that these three crowns are represented in the Mishkan by the three articles which had a raised golden border-decoration on them. The raised border around the top of the Holy Ark represents the crown of Torah, that on the bread-table represents the crown of Kingship, and that on the incense altar represents the crown of Priesthood.

Moshe was considered to be a "king" over the Bnai Yisrael (Zevachim 102a; see also Devarim 33:5 -- "There was a king in Yeshurun" and Ibn Ezra ad loc., and B'reishit 36:31 and Rashbam ad loc.). The crown of Kingship was his, as was, obviously, the crown of Torah. The two objects that symbolize these crowns -- the table and the Ark -- are thus mentioned in "Moshe's Parasha" -- Parashat Terumah. The crown of Priesthood, however, belonged to Aharon alone (it too was originally supposed to be taken by Moshe, but he lost the right to it -- see Parasha-Page, Sh'mot 5755). Therefore, the incense altar ,which represents the crown of Priesthood, was not discussed until "his Parasha" -- namely, Tetzaveh! This is why the Torah did not describe the incense altar in Parashat Teruma, which would seem to be its proper place.