One of the 39 prohibited activities on Shabbat is kneading. The laws of Shabbat distinguish between two types of kneading – kneading solid or powdery material with liquid so that the mixture becomes blended together into a single mass, and kneading similar materials that will never fully blend together. Flour is a substance that certainly falls into the first category, while sand and ash fall into the latter category (TB Shabbat 17b). The distinction between these two categories is based on the ability of the different materials to unite and become one, similar to the distinction between a compound and a mixture (see Tosafot Ri”d, Shabbat 155, s.v. Ein Notnim).
How about people? What level of “mixture” can we anticipate from them? Does gathering a group of people together make them into a single unit or do they remain a collection of individuals? The discussion of this question is appropriate for our parasha, since it begins with a call for a public gathering and assembly – Vayakhel – in order to create a "human mass" – a community.
This is not the only place in the Bible where we find such a gathering. The differences between such gatherings only serve to point out their similarities:
I hate an evil gathering.
What makes up an evil gathering?
- The people gathered themselves together unto Aaron (Exodus 32:1) in the story of the Golden Calf.
- And Korah gathered all the congregation against them (Numbers 16:19).
What is the crowd that I like?
- And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together (Exodus 35:1).
- Then Solomon gathered the elders of Israel (I Kings 8:1).
Midrash on Psalms (Buber) 26:4.
The argument presented by the Midrash claims that a gathering does create a new reality – the individuals become a community. This community can be labeled as "good" or "bad" based on its internal dynamics. This dynamic is the manifestation of the hidden process that takes place because of the power of the community. The midrash assumes that a process of mutual influence takes place producing as mix of ideas and beliefs that is so powerful that the individual loses his own self and his own basic values.
In the view of the Sefat Emet, this description is entirely artificial, because when discussing the Jewish people, only a single body exists. But daily hardships, like the need to make a living and the struggles that accompany our lives, cause us to forget our common interest, the common interest that stems from being a single body. The consciousness of oneness, that is hidden throughout the week, comes to light on the Sabbath. This is the time when the practical influences leading a person to focus on details and laws disappear, revealing the common ground that they share. He writes:
And Moses gathered all the congregation – This hints to the fact that on the Sabbath the Jewish People become a single community, as is found in the midrashim: Make for yourselves communities to study the laws of Shabbat and the Festivals. For the Jewish People are truly a single unit, and division comes only because of the dross. This refuse does not exist on the Sabbath, however, allowing them to become one. Our teacher, Moses, served as the Master of the Torah and unified the Jewish People, as we learn “Moses commanded us Torah, even the inheritance of the community of Jacob,” meaning that he bequeathed us the power to become a single community. The power of Moses and the power of the Torah become manifest on Shabbat, which is how we come together as a community on that day. This is the point made by the Torah, “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever” (Sefat Emet, Vayakhel, 5658).
Based on the midrashim, the Rokeah pointed to the practical perspective of the consciousness of the Sabbath. “For this reason Moses began his discussion of the Sabbath by gathering the people, since the Sabbath is an opportunity to preach before the community” (The Rokeah, Laws of the Day of Atonement, 216). The Sabbath is the time for community and for communal gathering. This is the opportunity to discuss common ethos and principles of morality and Jewish law. Therefore, this is also the appropriate time for a sermon.
But the opposite view is also possible. One could argue that a community gathering does not create uniformity, but rather enables each one of the different voices to be heard. A single, complete voice emerges from the multiplicity of voices, just as all the colors together merge to create the color white. The advantage of the community is its ability to provide a ready, proper platform for the individual to make the most of himself and to reach a point of self-fulfillment and self-expression.
Both points of view can be found in our traditional sources as possible models of social and communal leadership. In Tractate Sanhedrin we find the centralized structure described, which begins at the top with the king and the priests and descends to the people. Such a structure demands subordination and places commitment to the community as the core value. On the other hand, we find Tractate Bava Batra, which describes the growth of community institutions based on the needs of the individual, and emphasizes serving the needs of each individual member of the community. From this perspective, the community leaders that emerge are obligated to take into account the interests of the individual, balancing that with the needs and interests shared by all. According to the latter view, the advantage of community is its ability to empower the individual, and in the opportunity that it offers every individual to realize his aspirations by taking advantage of belonging to a larger community.
We are not obligated to choose between these positions. On the continuum of life we can identify moments when we fully identify with the needs of the majority and with communal policy. These occur most often in times of joy or in times of political and social distress. Sometimes, however, we focus on our personal needs and demand that the community help us realize them. There are also internal tensions that arising from this. One example is the place of women in the community. One the hand, women traditionally are committed to the needs of the community, connected to the home and to their children’s education. On the other hand, they serve as professionals and experts in various fields. According to our suggestion above, it is this very conflict and the existence of the opposing poles – whether on the continuum of time or in an internal existential division – that fully express the sense of belonging to a community.