Parshat Terumah starts to delineate the intricate construction of the mishkan. After the initial formulation of the prime imperative (Shemot 25:8) - "veasu li mikdash veshachanti betocham", the Torah begins with the building of the aron, followed by accounts of the shulchan and menorah. The priority of the aron is hardly perplexing, as its presence, by virtue of the luchot-Torah that it houses- graces, indeed defines the kodesh ha-kodashim, and by extension animates the entire mishkan as a venue of hashraat haShechinah. Moreover, the Torah caps its elaborate description (25:10-16, 7-22) of the aron and the attached kapporet-keruvim (which are, according to many mekorot, both distinct from and conjoined, even integrated with the aron) by conveying the pivotal role of the aron structure in attaining the telos of the mishkan - communicating Hashem's word: "ve-noadeti lecha sham, ve-dibarti itecha meial hakapporet mi-bein shenei hakeruvim asher al aron ha-etud, eit kol asher atzaveh otecha el Benei Yisrael". The midrash further notes that the presentation of the aron is distinguished by the plural imperative "veasu", while the other components are repeatedly commanded in the singular - "veasita". The midrash was intrigued by this subtle yet significant departure, and attributes it to the fact that the aron, containing and protecting the luchot, symbolizes Torah- the legacy of the entire nation. Thus, all of Klal Yisrael is invited to participate or at least to take special interest in this particular mishkan project: "amar lahem Hakadosh Baruch Hu yavou hakol veyitasku be-aron kedai sheyizku kulam la-Torah." In this respect, by adding one letter, the Torah parallels and reinforces the pivotal, ubiquitous principle that keter Torah, unlike keter kehunah and keter malchut, is the common heritage of every and all Jews- "Torah tzivah lanu Moshe, morashah kehilat Yaakov".
Yet, this crucial conclusion does not yet account for the specific mishkan context. Undoubtedly, the decision to accentuate this important tenet regarding the democratization of Torah learning and commitment specifically within the framework of the mishkan underscores an equally consequential perspective on the absolute relevance of the singular spiritual challenge of building a venue appropriate and worthy of hashraat hashechinah, and especially of the esoteric avodah that is enacted only within its confines. Notwithstanding the special role of shevet Levi, the undeniable mystique and mystery of the world of the korbonot, and the acutely intense demands of the super-sanctified precincts that comprise and define the mishkan, the role and impact of the aron establish that these imperatives are firmly anchored in and designed to enhance daily avodat Hashem. The Ramban (intro to Parshat Terumah, intro to Vayikra and to Bamidbar) perceives the mishkan as an ongoing instantiation or embodiment of the gilui Shechinah of maamad Har Sinai, which necessarily and principally encompassed both individual and collective Jewry. The fact that the Sanhedrin ideally convenes in the lishkat ha-gazit at the foot of the Mikdash as it daily executes its multiple crucial halachic functions as guardians, expositors, legislators, decisors, and practitioners (see Rambam, beginning Hilchot Mamrim) of the full range of Torah life on behalf of all of Klal Yisrael exemplifies this theme. Indeed, it is precisely the omnirelevant aron - as the repository of the luchot and Torah - that engenders kedushat hamishkan in this exotic and rarefied location, providing singular halachic opportunities by means of the avodah for Klal Yisrael. Numerous sources (midrash halachah, baalei Tosafot, Ramban, Sefer Hamitzvos, etc.) emphasize that the mitzvah of aliyah le-regel, which binds every Jew to the mikdash at spiritually strategic times throughout the year and every year, is designed to enhance his daily Torah commitment- to further inspire his spirituality by availing him of the mikdash experience, by fostering contact and reinforcing relationships with great and revered manhigim, and especially by imbibing the acute culture of yirat shamayim that such gatherings generate. The principle of "mikdash me'at - that every of shul and Beit Midrash partakes of significant dimensions of the more intensely sanctified mishkan - Beit haMikdash supports this view.
There is another important dimension to the Torah's singular presentation of the aron. The plural "veasu" of the aron matches the Torah's formulation of the very charge to build the mishkan itself, a scant two pesukim prior! This may imply not only that the aron is the engine of the mishkan's kedushah, but that its function and role vis a vis the luchot and Torah it houses parallels, perhaps constitutes a microcosm of very essence of the mishkan as the locus of hashra'at haShechinah. [It is noteworthy, that Rambam (Hilchos Beit haBechirah 1:13) rules that full participation is required in the building of the mikdash, based upon the model of the mishkan, as the midrash demands regarding the aron.] The fact that Divine communication in the mishkan originates from the aron structure further links these sanctified frameworks. Like the mishkan, the aron constitutes an enigma: it is both suffused with sanctity and simultaneously fundamentally instrumental. Indeed, its sanctity and preeminent stature ultimately derives from the purity of its function- to appropriately access, preserve, and cloak the presence of the luchot and Torah it houses.
Elsewhere, we have elaborated the idea that as an instrumental framework for Divine sanctity, the mishkan embodies the principle that sanctified ends demand thoughtful, Divinely sanctioned (ka'asher tzivah Hashem et Moshe) and sanctified means. By means of its multiple presentations and very detailed halachic norms, the Torah intricately delineates the precise methodology to achieve the equilibrium between means and ends in the pursuit of kedushah and the telos of Divine presence. For this reason, these parshiyot at the conclusion of Shemot remain enduringly consequential as invaluable Torah paradigms, notwithstanding the impermanence of some facets of the mishkan.
The phenomenon of intrinsic kedushah invested in a fundamentally instrumental entity, is singularly manifest in the aron. On the one hand, as noted, the Torah's aron presentation and its status in the mishkan reflects its absolute prominence. Ramban and others posit that special facets of lishmah are required for the construction of the aron. Certainly, Moshe's personal involvement confirms the aron's stature. Its unique requirements with respect to the permanent attachment of the badim, and its complex interrelationship with the kapporet-keruvim further attests to its singular status and role.
Yet, relative to the shulchan and menorah, the aron is strikingly omitted from several high profile halachot. We may briefly point to the evidence that the requirements of "kol asher ani mareh otecha eit tavnit hamishkan ve-eit tavnit kol keilav ve-kein taasu" (25:9, and see 25:40), applied to the shulchan and menorah (see Avoda Zara 43a, Rashi Shemot 25:9. See also Rambam Beit haBehirah 7:10), are not extended to the aron! Furthermore, while Rambam (Sefer Hamitzvos, aseh 20, Beit ha-Behirah 1:6 vs. Ramban Sefer Hamitzvos) advocates the view that constructing the keilim is incorporated in the mitzvah of building the mishkan, the aron is excluded from this expansion! Moreover, when Rambam cites the menorah and shulchan in this context, he subtly distinguishes them from other keilim by omitting their function (lechem hapanim, lighting the menorah), as if to accentuate that their very presence alone constitutes a facet of the mitzvah, aside from their functional role in the avodah. Yet, the more prominent aron is simply ignored! [It is interesting that Ramban, who disputes the inclusion of keilim in the mitzvah of binyan hamikdash countenances the possibility that the aron might be an exception!] Rav Moshe Soloveitchik z"l explained these phenomena by noting that the aron is not really a keli ha-mikdash at all. It has no functional role in the avodah; its purpose and definition is simply to contain the luchot and Torah. Indeed, it is surely significant that, in sharp contrast to other keilim, the Torah repeatedly emphasizes the aron's purpose- housing the luchot etc. (see for example 25:16,21. Rashi registers his confusion before suggesting a controversial solution to the anomaly-25:21, and Ramban ad loc). In one context, the aron is defined by this function (31:6, ve-et haaron la-edut). Rashi explains that the luchot had to be inserted in the aron prior to the covering of the kapporet. Some mefarshim attribute this progression to the conclusion that the aron's very identity was contingent upon its function.
In the final analysis, the aron's dialectical character-its centrality and its pure instrumentality- is unsurprising. The locus of the luchot and the Torah needed no other avodah function. It is totally consistent with the essential sanctity of the mishkan as the embodiment of sanctified means that, through Divine sanction and protocol, attain intrinsic sanctified goals- the presence of the Shechinah. The aron's unquestioned prominence stems precisely from its purely instrumental character, as the perfect vehicle to manifest the presence of the luchot and Torah- the ultimate source of all earthly sanctity- in a manner which both emphasized its mystery and transcendence, even as it provided for its immense presence. A further analysis of the three-layered aron, capped by a connected-integrated kapporet-keruvim that both aspired upwards even as it drew its inspiration from the luchot beneath it (see Seforno), confirms the midrash's conclusion that "veasu aron" as the parallel and kedushah engine for "ve-asu mikdash", constitutes an imperative that commands the total immersion of all of Klal Yisrael, the beneficiaries of that ultimate aspiration - "veshachanti betocham".