First of all, it is worthwhile to emphasize the parallelisms existing between the conclusion (kallot) of the Tabernacle in the hands of Moses and the conclusion (Vayechulu) of the creation of the world on the part of God. Undoubtedly, a deep parallelism is established (even in the use of language itself) between the creation and the tabernacle, although with obvious differences: whereas the creation marks the relationship between God and the world, the tabernacle marks the relationship between man and world; whereas the Torah devotes just two chapters to the creation of the world, it devotes an important number of parashiot to everything concerning the tabernacle. And it is from here that we learn that the biblical text, although it sets out from the principle of a creator God, is much more focused and interested in what man creates and does during the time he lives upon the earth.

Now then, it is interesting to underline that the Mishkan inauguration can be held as the liaison not only between man and world, but also between man and God. First and foremost because it is from the imitation of the creative act that man embodies and displays in his work the image and likeness which refers him to the Kadosh Baruch Hu. But likewise, the Midrash plays with the word kallot (which we quoted before in relation to vayechulu on Bereshit) in this context, but in this case granting it a new sense and significance: according to what we read in the Tanhuma, the word kallot refers us to the word kallah (bride), leading us to believe that the Mishkan space transformed into the Chuppah which functioned as the wedding canopy where the union between God and the People of Israel was ratified.

The example just mentioned will not be the first or the last for which our sages decided to use a metaphor peculiar to humanity in an attempt to describe the relationship linking us to God. This trend, which could be considered by some as superficial or simply aesthetic, is of vital importance at the moment of building, strengthening, and preserving our bond with divinity. That is to say, depending on the metaphorical model we adopt to describe the relationship, we will start building the tones characteristic to it. By way of illustration, we could say that while a Father-Son or Teacher-Pupil relationship is usually a basically vertical link, the link of a couple is mainly horizontal. In our tradition, the relationship between the people and God has been described using each one of the models mentioned, therefore giving rise to differences in approaches pertaining to each case used.

In my opinion, I think that the model adopted by the Midrash I previously quoted is brilliant and profound as well. It is brilliant because it builds the bond with God starting from the construction of the Mishkan. Or, in other words, it teaches us that it is just when we commit ourselves to what happens in the world, when we may expect to commit with the transcendental force we call God; paraphrasing Levinas: the face of the Other (with capital letters) can only be viewed when we do not hide nor escape from the responsibility radiated from the face of the other (with lower-case letters).

But the Midrash is profound as well, because it teaches us to (re)think our relationship with God starting from the affective and horizontal bond generated between two parties that open up to dialogue; between two parties that embrace in a covenant resulting from and a consequence of a mutual recognition; between two parties who not only need each other and search for each other but also work every day in order to turn whole and meaningful everything that joins them.

Many years after the Tabernacle and the people who wrote the Midrash, the task of continuing to build common spaces that will help us to bring back God’s presence to our world, falls on our shoulders. It is up to us.