Haftorah Vayakhel

This week’s Haftorah is 1 Kings 7:40-50

And Hiram made the lavers, and the shovels, and the basons. So Hiram made an end of doing all the work that he made king Solomon for the house of the LORD: The two pillars, and the [two] bowls of the chapiters that [were] on the top of the two pillars; and the two networks, to cover the two bowls of the chapiters which [were] upon the top of the pillars; And four hundred pomegranates for the two networks, [even] two rows of pomegranates for one network, to cover the two bowls of the chapiters that [were] upon the pillars; And the ten bases, and ten lavers on the bases; And one sea, and twelve oxen under the sea; And the pots, and the shovels, and the basons: and all these vessels, which Hiram made to king Solomon for the house of the LORD, [were of] bright brass. In the plain of Jordan did the king cast them, in the clay ground between Succoth and Zarthan. And Solomon left all the vessels [unweighed], because they were exceeding many: neither was the weight of the brass found out. And Solomon made all the vessels that [pertained] unto the house of the LORD: the altar of gold, and the table of gold, whereupon the shewbread [was], And the candlesticks of pure gold, five on the right [side], and five on the left, before the oracle, with the flowers, and the lamps, and the tongs [of] gold, And the bowls, and the snuffers, and the basons, and the spoons, and the censers [of] pure gold; and the hinges [of] gold, [both] for the doors of the inner house, the most holy [place, and] for the doors of the house, [to wit], of the temple.

As an interesting minor point, and I can’t now remember where I came across this, the Scripture evidently mentions that all of that brass was cast between Succoth and Zarthan, to make the point that the casting of that much brass was so poisonous that it couldn’t be done any nearer to Jerusalem. A little Jerusalem NIMBYism, or a subtle jab at Solomon’s useless magnificence.

That leads in to the thing that strikes me about this reading, which is how lifting these verses out of the story makes all this stuff seem like just pretty baubles, without either a significant liturgical and ritual meaning or (more importantly) an economic and political meaning. That’s got to be deliberate. I wonder what the Rambam wrote about Solomon, and about the second Temple and how we talk about it in the liturgy.

On one hand, our representation of Kingship is strongly negative, in the Scriptures and in the tradition. Our great Kings, Saul and David and Solomon, are all portrayed in highly negative terms. Saul, perhaps the worst, and David the best, but it’s a bad thing that there need to be Kings at all.

On the other hand, the three great Kings are portrayed in highly positive terms. They are all heroic and magnificent, and represent a height from which we have fallen, and to which we should aspire to return. Solomon’s wisdom is a byword, as is Saul’s strength and David’s bravery. In the end time, we will again have an anointed king, to inherit the throne of David, and that’s generally viewed as a Good Thing.

Each incident within the story of the kingship can be looked at from either of the two traditions (and should be looked at from both, which ain’t easy). The brazen pomegranates and golden censers didn’t pay for themselves. They were paid for by oppressive taxes on an impoverished citizenry that had to be kept from revolt by increasingly brutal force. Not a long-term strategy for success, and not a long-term success. On the other hand, we are clearly meant to see this as a fitting tribute to the glory of the Divine, and surely (aside from a matter of taste) a few gold and brass fittings are only appropriate for the Temple? And the Temple of Solomon is considered one of the great achievements of our people, and the goods are part of that.

Nothing is simple, not even these eleven verses about tchotchkes.

Tolerabimus quod tolerare debemus,
-Vardibidian.