“You are to make a covering for the tent of tanned ram skins and an outer covering of fine leather.“-Exodus 26:14
We now come to the tent-covered sanctuary portion of the Tabernacle.
The sanctuary comprised both the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place.
Both of these rooms put together were about 45 feet long, 15 feet wide and 15 feet tall.
The Holy of Holies itself was pretty much a 15 x 15 x 15 foot cube.
The Holy Place was quite a bit larger standing at about 30 (length) x 15 (width) x 15 (height) feet.
Given that the degree of holiness in the tent-covered sanctuary area was higher than the Outer Courtyard, instead of the more common bronze, all the acacia wood used in the construction of the sanctuary was completely covered in pure gold.
We’re also talking about a room with layered golden walls!
Imagine the warm, soothing color of amber one would have been bathed in upon entering the sanctuary.
Now there were four layers of cloth each made out of different materials that covered and protected the Tabernacle.
The first and innermost covering was woven out of fine linen.
The second innermost covering was made out of goat’s hair.
Goat hair was actually the common material of choice that your average Israelite would have used when making tents.
Also, goat’s hair, although not waterproof, would have been pretty effective in keeping out the elements depending on how tight the goat’s hair fibers were woven.
But given that they were camping out in the desert, I doubt that rain would have been a problem.
The third covering was a layer of ram skins that the Lord commanded to be dyed totally red.
Next, we encounter a bit of a mystery when we come to the final outermost layer.
The reason is because of the Hebrew word TACHASH that is used to describe the material.
Many translations, including the Complete Jewish Bible, will translate TACHASH to mean “leather”.
However, this doesn’t make much sense because tanned leather from cattle was already very common and I’ve heard there was already a commonly recognized word (don’t know what it is though, if anybody out there knows please tell me) used to describe it.
The word TACHAH is ONLY used in the context of the Wilderness Tabernacle.
According to the Jewish sages, the outer covering was made out of porpoise or seal skins.
Now this makes much more sense.
The Israelites were very near the Red Sea where both of these creatures were plentiful and the Israelites with all of the gold they took from Egypt could have easily bartered for them from local seaside residents.
How could they make the covering, since both porpoise and seal carcasses are unclean to touch?
Hi Daniel, I’m sorry but I don’t have a definitive answer for this. My initial response is that there is a difference between “touching” something and “eating” it. One thing to consider. The use of mixed fabric for clothing is forbidden but for the PAROKET (the curtain separating the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place), the Lord commands that this mixed fabric be used. Another thought to consider, just because something is “unclean” doesn’t necessarily mean it is not good. In Genesis, God pronounced ALL of His creation TOV (good), and that included unclean animals as well.
With permission, sharing a quote from a friend (Jewish and well-studied in Torah for a good 20 years and counting) speaking on this issue that you might find interesting: “Rich I have heard that same thing for years. It is that old Ancient Hebrew word. Bo Log Na, bologna and not even Oscar Meyer. You are right, we don’t eat them. Just because an animal is unclean does not mean if we touch it we are karas. Yochanan’s clothing was made from camel hair and so was the tent of Abraham. Rabbinics do not teach that but there is a group that does. The only time Rabbinics forbid leather is on Yom Kippur. That is the only time.”
It was likely manatee (or dugong) skin which may likely have been considered “clean”, as they are the only marine mammals that are herbivores.
You all blew past this reply from Kari. It’s probably the correct answer too lol. Got this below from Enduring Word commentary.
iii. “The badgers’ skin (AV) is the same as the material used in the covering of the tabernacle (Numbers 4:6ff.). The various translations give sealskin (RV), porpoise skin (RV mg.), leather (RSV). ‘Badger’ is certainly not right, because the skin had to be both suitable for shoes and also large enough for one of them to cover the ark. The likeliest candidate is the dugong, a seal-like animal of the order Siremia, which is found in the Red Sea; its skin is used by the bedouin for making sandals.” (Taylor)
The problem I have in translating tachah as porpoise or seal skins is they are unclean animals. Would Yah use an unclean animal in the construction of His Holy Place? If you have to be tahor (spiritually clean) to approach Him and touching the carcass of an unclean animal makes you tamei (spiritually unclean), would He use the byproduct of an unclean animal for His Holy Place? If simply touching the porpoise or seal skin makes you tamei you would have to leave the Holy Place, that is if you weren’t destroyed by being tamei.
I do not hold to the rabbinic teaching that touching leather from unclean animals doesn’t makes you tamei. Yah is too perfect to allow this kind of loophole in His Laws. There is not a point in the leather making process that anyone can point to where the unclean animal skin becomes clean leather. Why do they teach that being in the presence of a dead human body, no matter how old it is, makes you tamai, but an animals body at some point doesn’t.
Unfortunately, I don’t have definitive answer for tachah except possibly it was made from giraffe skins.
Hi Boyd, My response to you is the same as I gave to Daniel on this thread as follows: I’m sorry but I don’t have a definitive answer for this. My initial response is that there is a difference between “touching” something and “eating” it. One thing to consider. The use of mixed fabric for clothing is forbidden but for the PAROKET (the curtain separating the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place), the Lord commands that this mixed fabric be used. Another thought to consider, just because something is “unclean” doesn’t necessarily mean it is not good. In Genesis, God pronounced ALL of His creation TOV (good), and that included unclean animals as well.
With permission, sharing a quote from a friend (Jewish and well-studied in Torah for a good 20 years and counting) speaking on this issue that you might find interesting: “Rich I have heard that same thing for years. It is that old Ancient Hebrew word. Bo Log Na, bologna and not even Oscar Meyer. You are right, we don’t eat them. Just because an animal is unclean does not mean if we touch it we are karas. Yochanan’s clothing was made from camel hair and so was the tent of Abraham. Rabbinics do not teach that but there is a group that does. The only time Rabbinics forbid leather is on Yom Kippur. That is the only time.”
I LOVE your idea of giraffe hides. Now we’re likely barking up the right tree. Large, colorful, and clean. Okapi or other kind of colorful hides of clean animals would fit, too. I just agree with you 100% that there would NEVER be a loophole allowing for this to be an unclean animal, not in Yah’s wide world!
Hi. In my Swedish Bible it says Dolphin skin.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing Klas.
Hesekiel 16,10
Jerusalem the faithless bride, was put on shoes of “tachasch”
maybe god createt one animal, that is not alive today, just for the covering of the tabernacle?
Over all the opinions, let us see Jesus in this covering ( Philipians 2, 5-11)
No one knows for certain what this covering was. However, by far, the most reasonable and rational explanation I have found is that it is some kind of beaded leather. There is an excellent article about this here:
https://www.thetorah.com/article/what-was-the-tachash-covering-the-tabernacle
Thanks for sharing.
Though I LOVE E. Boyd’s idea of giraffe skins or any large & colorful animal hide, from a clean animal, since so many insist it was a water animal — what about a water buffalo — cape buffalo?
I just 100% agree with E. Boyd that no matter who says what — this would have in no way been an unclean animal hide, and that it had to have been large also. AND badger’s skins are colorful, striped, varied, in shades — so giraffe would be a brilliant explanation, or okapi, or some other clean creature along these lines). To fit the aquatic/from water theme — the cape buffalo may have been acceptable.
The next consideration would have to be — abundant — either in the lower Nile, Goshen area, elsewise in the Arabian desert where they found themselves after crossing the Red Sea.
Thanks for sharing the beaded leather link. It fits the colorfulness of the striped badger skin alternative (which some of us frankly reject on the grounds of uncleanness) still we aren’t told what kind of animal’s leather it was by that — beaded leather.
I like E. Boyd Daniels’ postulation of the giraffe, which I find very exciting. It also looks beaded — if you will!
I also offer okapi, for the colorful stripes, or even water or cape buffalo — for the aquatic idea some are attached to, though our El would not be copying some pagan so-called diety example!
I have read all these posts and gone to look at the bead argument as well and started looking for animals that ranged either in Egypt (in antiquity) or the Arabian Peninsula (where the children of Israel wandered).
I can see several options that lend themselves to the animal translated as badger (an unclean creature, making it a dubious choice) — being colorful coated, beaded-looking even (like a giraffe), and having large — clean hides.
The Kudu comes out as a likely candidate for one — because these were desirable for their horns that are even today used as shofars (from Yemen).
I love the idea of the giraffe because they fit the description of beaded or colorful associated with the Hebrew word given. And that they would have had hides that were treasures brought from the African continent as part of the spoils of Egypt makes sense.
They may not have been something anyone could go out and hunt in Arabia, though — but perhaps they were. The ranges of animals surely were different at various times in the short history of the earth and mankind. We know this.
However, just looking at the animals on the Arabian Peninsula today — I would have to think split-hooved ruminant (clean) animal, with a variable hide, and come up with the Kudu for one. And there may have been others, like the Oryx.
Perhaps the term simply meant animals of these types: clean and colorful, with large hides, in which case some of the bovines they had with them may have been suitable as well. Whether they were beaded or not, I bet they had varied coats, like Joseph’s coat of many colors.
The Okapi is far too exclusive and removed, and the buffalo not common in a lot of the regions they wandered or lived in, plus the buffalo had only one color hide. It could have been beaded for decoration though, but I for one am voting for an animal or animals with varied coat patterns, first and foremost. As it seems to me that beaded work would have been mentioned specifically, and seems there may have had to be repairs made on these from the sun and weather, and from the taking down and putting up — of the very outer hide covering.