במראות הצובאות, this was not included in the נחושת התנופה, “copper for the waving,” as explained in verse 30 of this chapter in Parshat Pekudey. The copper basin and its stand are mentioned as having been constructed from the amount of copper representing these mirrors.

אשר צבאו פתח אהל מועד, approaching this holy domain was intended to show that they wanted to hear the words of the living G’d. That this was an acceptable practice is already documented in 33,7 והיה כל מבקש ה' יצא אל אהל מועד, “anyone who wanted to seek out the Lord would go out to the Tent of Meeting.” The women who had donated these mirrors indicated that they had overcome their sense of vanity, they considered jewelry and the need for it a human weakness. Moreover, they knew that the time when these mirrors had been of constructive use was past.

אלה פקודי המשכן, all the individual components described previously are the ones concerning which the Torah wrote ובשמות תפקדו את כלי משמרת הקדש...ביד איתמר, “you shall list by name the objects that are their porterage tasks.” (Numbers 4,32-33) The meaning of the line is that each and everyone of these items was important enough to be known by its specific name. In other words, one did not refer to it only by the name of the category of utensils it belonged to, such as “fork,” but one had a name for each fork. This method of naming each item individually contributed to their being of permanent significance. The Talmud Yuma 71 goes to the length of stating categorically that if anyone thought that once such a utensil had been “used up,” i.e. had outlived its usefulness it would be permanently consigned to oblivion this is not so. It will even resurface after the resurrection of the people who used it when they were alive. This is derived from Exodus 26,15 עצי שטים עומדים, the word עומדים being taken to mean that they will endure indefinitely. Neither will any of the utensils used in the Tabernacle fall into the hands of our enemies. This is the opposite of what happened to the “permanent” Temple, בית עולמים, built by Solomon. It is significant that in the account of what Nebuchadnezzar captured not a word is mentioned about a single item that used to be part of the Tabernacle in the desert.

משכן העדות, the Torah begins to list the many ways in which this Temple (Tabernacle) was superior to those that superseded it. Firstly, it was the משכן העדות, so named because the Tablets of the Testimony were deposited therein. Secondly, אשר פקד על פי משה, it had been put up at the command of Moses; thirdly, עבודת הלוים ביד איתמר, the entire service of the Levites had been entrusted to the illustrious Ittamar, son of Aaron. Fourthly, ובצלאל בן אורי בן חור למטה יהודה עשה, the divinely inspired Betzalel was its principal architect. In view of all the above advantages of this structure none of it fell into enemy hands. By contrast, the Temple erected by Solomon, most of the work for which was performed by labourers from Tzor, even though the Shechinah came to rest on it, was eventually destroyed, all of it having been lost totally. The inferiority of that structure is evident from the fact that the building itself was in need of regular, almost annual, repairs, as we know from Kings II 22,5 The second Temple was so inferior that it could not even be called משכן העדות, the residence of the Testimony, the Tablets having long since been lost. Neither had it been established by G’d’s command but by a dream that a gentile named King Cyrus dreamed that it was his duty to build a temple to the G’d in heaven. Compare Ezra 8,15. Moreover, there were hardly any Levites that bothered to return to the land of Israel at the time to take part in that return to Zion. In addition to this, consider that among the people building this second Temple, there were also pagans called Tzidonim and Tzurim, as documented in the Book of Ezra.

כל הזהב, the Torah testifies that the contributions of gold, silver, and copper for the building of the Tabernacle were miniscule in value when compared to the amount of such precious metals which were used in the building of Solomon’s Temple. We read there in Kings I 6, 20-35 and Kings I 7, 45-50 about the opulence of that structure. Compared to the restoration of the second Temple in the days of Herod, even Solomon’s Temple could be considered a poor attempt at impressing the world with the Jewish people’s wealth. Notwithstanding all the material wealth invested in both Solomon’s Temple and that of Herod, Moses’ Tabernacle, a collapsible structure, enjoyed far more of G’d’s presence than the Temple Solomon built, not to speak of the second Temple in which the Presence of G’d was never manifest. All of these historical facts teach us that material wealth, even if donated generously, is not a major factor in the success of a Temple dedicated to house the Presence of G’d on earth. G’d’s presence in such a Temple depends on His approval of the lifestyle of the Jews who have built such a Temple for Him.