For the umpteenth time[1] the Torah in parshat Vayakhel commands us to keep Shabbat. It is here where the Torah, for the very first time, clearly indicates what exactly is prohibited on Shabbat. “You shall kindle no fire throughout your settlements on the sabbath day” (Shemot 35:3).
Of course, this is only one of the 39 forbidden activities on Shabbat. The other 38 are derived from the juxtaposition of Shabbat and the building of the Mishkan. Our Sages teach that Shabbat and the Mishkan are placed next to each other in order to teach that it is those activities needed for the running of the Mishkan are those that are prohibited on Shabbat.
One could just as easily derived from the juxtaposition that constructing the Mishkan overrides Shabbat. Perhaps that which is written last is most important. Such is the case regarding the juxtaposition of honouring parents and the Shabbat. “You shall each revere your mother and your father and keep My sabbaths: I am the Lord your God” (Vayikra 19:3).
While here too it is Shabbat that takes precedence – one must not honour a parent’s wish to violate Shabbat – in this instance the law to keep Shabbat is written after that of honouring parents. Why in regard to the Mishkan is that which is written first of greater importance but in regards to honouring parents it’s that which is written last which is of greater importance?[2]
Apparently, while the juxtaposition is important the actual order is not. At times the first section is primary and at other times it is the second part. The juxtaposition teaches that the two verses are related but what exactly that relationship is is for the Sages to decide. Presumably, the juxtaposition tells me something I would not know otherwise. In other words had the Torah not placed the laws of Shabbat next to the Mishkan we would have assumed the construction of the Mishkan could and should take place on Shabbat. And for good reason. Why shouldn’t it override Shabbat? Can there be anything more religiously significant than building a house to serve G-d?
Furthermore, the Temple service itself was conducted on Shabbat – no different than any other day of the week. Actually, there were extra communal sacrifices on Shabbat, the korban Mussaf. By juxtaposing Shabbat and the Mishkan the Torah is teaching that contrary to what I might have thought, one cannot build the Mishkan on Shabbat.
To do so would risk defeating the purpose of Shabbat to “Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt” (Devarim 5:14). One can easily imagine forcing workers to work 24/7 to ready G-d’s house, a clear violation of the first part of this fourth commandment, that “the seventh day is a shabbat of the Lord your G-d; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your ox or your donkey, or any of your cattle, or the stranger in your settlements, so that your male and female slave may rest as you do”.
All too often religious fervor causes one to mistreat others, the polar opposite of the purpose of what religious fervor is meant to do. By forbidding the construction of the Mishkan on Shabbat we are reminded that the best way to serve G-d is by helping man, G-d’s partner who is created in His image. By serving man we are in fact serving G-d.
Perhaps we can now understand why the juxtaposition of honouring parents and Shabbat teaches that Shabbat is primary – even as in this instance Shabbat is not listed first. Apparently, had the Torah not done so we would have assumed that in fact one must listen to our parents even if that means overriding shabbat. Not only is serving man a way in which we serve G-d, when there is a conflict between “respecting” G-d and respecting man it is man who takes precedence.
Avraham Avinu told G-d – who made a special “visit” to Avraham who was recovering from his circumcision – to wait while he goes to greet some strangers, leading our Sages to comment that “greater is welcoming guests than receiving the Divine Presence”(Shabbat 127a). And let’s recall Avraham assumed they were idolaters[3]. And it is for this reason that the halacha, at least under certain circumstances, allows or perhaps obligates, one to interrupt the recital of Shema to greet someone.
What is true regarding idolaters is true many times over regarding one’s parents. They are two of the three partners in the creation of man. So while Shabbat is important I would have thought that honouring one’s parents is more so. Yes, it would be nice if one’s parents kept Shabbat but the halacha demands that we honour parents even if they sin[4]. We should bow to their wishes and violate shabbat if need be. Hence the Torah juxtaposes Shabbat and the honour due to a parent in order to teach that this reasonable assumption is incorrect. Shabbat is the guarantor of Jewish survival and save for danger to life can never be violated[5].
[1] It is actually the seventh time Shabbat is mentioned in the Torah: The previous six are Creation, the Manna bread, the Ten Commandments, after the listing of the civil law in parshat Mishpatim, after the command to build the Mishkan and after the golden calf. It will be mentioned eight more times in the Torah.
[2] Interestingly, in the Ten Commandments Shabbat comes before honouring parents and the Sages do not derive any halachot, laws, from this juxtaposition.
[3] That is how Rashi explains his insistence that they wash their hands and feet before entering his home. The plain reading understands doing so was an extension of his hospitality to let them freshen up. Combining these two ideas teaches that even welcoming idolaters is greater than talking to G-d.
[4] The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 240:18) goes so far as to rule that a mamzer, one who cannot marry because of the adultery of his parents, must nonetheless honour them.
[5] Yet even if one can’t fully honour one’s parents one must rely on the most lenient of views so that one can honour parents as much as possible. This is no time for stringencies. Illustrating this idea is the ruling by Rabbi Pam of a child who was becoming more observant and hence he could no longer accompany his parents as they drove to shul. Rabbi Pam ruled that since the child was below bar mitzvah and merely a passenger in the car, kivud av v’eim required him to go with his parents to shul by car on Shabbat! (see Hakira #9, see here p. 147)