Parshas Terumah
1. Within the category of inanimate matter that was used (among other categories) for the making of the Mishkan and its vessels, there were three kinds: gold, silver and copper.1
Now it is known that "משכן אקרי מקדש" ("the Mishkan is called a Mikdash") and "מקדש אקרי משכן" ("the Mikdash is called a Mishkan").2 From this it is reasonable to assume that the virtues and matters of distinction that were present in the Beis HaMikdash were also present (in a similar manner) in the Mishkan.
This requires explanation. We find that in the Beis HaMikdash everything was (as far as was at all possible) done in a manner of wealth;3 and this to such an extent that "השקו את התמיד בכוס של זהב" ("they gave the daily offering to drink from a cup of gold")4 — because "אין עניות במקום עשירות" ("there is no poverty in a place of wealth").5 That is to say: even a vessel that served merely to give the animal drink before its slaughter as an offering was also made of gold —
[although the "cup" was not one of the "vessels of the Mikdash," but merely a vessel for the sake of an animal that was afterward offered; and what is more, the use itself did not serve an act of the Temple service, but rather the flaying, and even within the flaying only as a cause toward a benefit (not something essential) in the flaying: through giving it drink, the stripping of the offering's hide becomes easier]6 —
Now if even such a non-essential detail in the Beis HaMikdash had to be made with the wealth of gold, it would seemingly follow that the Mishkan and all its vessels should certainly have been built and crafted solely of gold. How is it, then, that the kind of silver, and even copper, should have a share in it?
Regarding silver, one could still answer:7 since in a certain respect silver possesses an advantage over gold (as the Midrash8 says at the beginning of this week's Torah portion), (the advantage of) silver therefore also had to be present in the Mishkan. But the question remains regarding copper.
One cannot answer simply that the Jews at that time did not have enough gold (and silver), and that G‑d therefore instructed them to use copper as well — for at that time the Jews possessed (as the Gemara9 says) "כל כסף וזהב שבעולם" ("all the silver and gold in the world"), and such a quantity of gold and silver was surely enough for all the needs of the Mishkan.10
2. This will be understood by first noting that there are three opinions as to when the command to make the Mishkan was given and when the donations for the Mishkan took place:
One opinion, in the Zohar,11 holds that not only the command, but also the act of donating to the Mishkan, took place (immediately after Mattan Torah) before the sin of the Golden Calf. With this the Zohar there explains what is said in the verse (regarding the sin of the Golden Calf): "ויתפרקו כל העם את נזמי הזהב אשר באזניהם" ("And all the people stripped off the golden rings that were in their ears").12
[For seemingly: the Jews had taken a great deal of gold with them from Egypt, so why did they need to give up, for the sake of the Calf, the gold jewelry they were wearing on themselves — "the golden rings that were in their ears"?]
— Because they had already earlier, at the time of the donations for the Mishkan, given all their gold to the Mishkan, and so later, at the sin of the Golden Calf, they were left only with the gold of the jewelry they were wearing.
A second opinion holds the opposite: not only the actual donations for the Mishkan, but also G‑d's command "ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם" ("And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary, and I shall dwell within them"),13 came on Yom Kippur (i.e., after the sin of the Golden Calf), "כדי שידעו כל האומות שנתכפר להם מעשה העגל" ("so that all the nations should know that the deed of the Calf had been atoned for them").14
And there is a third opinion, which holds that the command "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary" was spoken by G‑d before the sin of the Golden Calf, but the Jews [heard the command from Moshe Rabbeinu and] brought the donations for the Mishkan only after Yom Kippur.15
Since "אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים" ("these and those are the words of the living G‑d"),16 it is understood: although with the physical Mishkan events took place according to only one of the three opinions, nevertheless all three opinions are true ("the words of the living G‑d"), and they are present in the essence and inner dimension of the Mishkan — in the spiritual Mishkan, in "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary, and I shall dwell within them" — as will be explained below.
3. After Mattan Torah (before the sin of the Golden Calf), all Jews stood at the level of tzaddikim. For although earlier, in Egypt, they had been in a state of "אלו עובדי ע"ז ואלו כו׳" ("these are idol-worshippers and those…"),17 the Exodus from Egypt and Mattan Torah accomplished in them the matter of conversion.18 And since "גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד" ("a convert who has converted is like a newborn child"),19 no trace at all remained in them of their past that was not good. [What is more: even the bad impression of the very distant past, the impurity that had been in all people since the sin of the Tree of Knowledge, ceased from them at the time of Mattan Torah.20]
Afterward they committed a sin, and a most severe sin at that — the sin of the Golden Calf, which is the root21 of all (subsequent) sins.
It thus follows that after Yom Kippur (when G‑d said "סלחתי כדברך" ("I have forgiven as you have spoken")22) they came to be at the level of baalei teshuvah.
And this is the difference between the three aforementioned opinions:
According to the opinion that the donations for the Mishkan also took place before the sin of the Golden Calf, it follows that the making of the Mishkan is carried out by tzaddikim;
According to the opinion that the command too came only on Yom Kippur, "so that they should know . . that it had been atoned for them…," it follows that the entire matter of establishing a Mishkan is, from beginning to end, connected with baalei teshuvah;
And according to the opinion that the sin of the Golden Calf took place between the command to make the Mishkan and its actual execution — i.e., that the command remained in force throughout the entire period between the sin and Yom Kippur (for had the command been nullified because of the sin, a new command would have had to come later23) — it follows that even the wicked have a connection to making a "Sanctuary" and thereby bringing about "and I shall dwell within them."
4. The directive in Divine service that can be learned from each of the three opinions:
When a Jew reaches the level of a tzaddik, of whom it is said that "אין לו יצה"ר" ("he has no evil inclination")24 (similar to the Jews at the time of Mattan Torah, whose "פסקה זוהמתן" ("impurity ceased")), he might think to himself: since he stands at such a lofty level, he would do better to occupy himself only with spiritual matters and to separate himself from physical matters —
Those Jews who are lower than his level (the level of a tzaddik), since they have to deal with worldly matters, need the service of "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary" — making of their physical matters a dwelling for G‑d, through "בכל25 דרכיך דעהו" ("In all your ways, know Him"). For if they would not do so, they could, G‑d forbid, become sunk in the matters of this world — first in permitted things — and from these fall afterward into forbidden matters, G‑d forbid.26 He, however, is different: he is, after all, a "tzaddik" — so why should "he" occupy himself with the service of "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary" out of physical things? What has he to do with physicality!
On this comes the directive of the first opinion: even when the Jews stood at the level of "their impurity ceased," G‑d instructed them "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary" — that one should occupy himself with the matters of this world in order to make of them a dwelling for Him, may He be blessed.
And when one separates himself from physicality, then besides the fact that he thereby fails to fulfill the command of "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary" (and consequently does not carry out the intent of "נתאווה הקב"ה להיות לו ית׳ דירה בתחתונים" ("the Holy One, blessed be He, desired to have a dwelling in the lower realms")27), it can also lead to something even worse:
Since his soul is nevertheless clothed in a physical body and he must perforce have recourse to physical matters — then, since his entire absorption is only in "spirituality" and he does not occupy himself at all with the refinement and purification of physical things, his physicality can ultimately become something that is, G‑d forbid, also the opposite of the desired purpose. Just as we find with the gold that was given for the Mishkan: had it not been given away to the Mishkan, it would, Heaven forbid, have been used for the Calf.
One might therefore think, on the other hand, that specifically a tzaddik must have recourse to the service of "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary," in order to safeguard that his physical matters should not, G‑d forbid, become the opposite of goodness and holiness;
Whereas a baal teshuvah, since he stands in a movement of teshuvah, of distancing himself from evil, and says about it (about forbidden things) "אי אפשר" ("it is impossible"),28 needs no safeguard —
On this comes the directive of the second opinion: on the contrary, specifically on Yom Kippur, at the very first moment of "I have forgiven as you have spoken" — only then did the command to make the Mishkan come, because upon this depends the completeness of (the teshuvah and) the atonement.
One might still think, however, that in order to begin the service of "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary," one must first do complete teshuvah and bring about "I have forgiven as you have spoken"; but until then — "ולרשע29 אמר אלקים מה לך לספר חוקי" ("But to the wicked one G‑d said: What have you to do with recounting My statutes?").
On this comes the directive of the third opinion: the command "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary" was not nullified for even one moment, G‑d forbid, and even before teshuvah one can and must fulfill the command "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary" and thereby ultimately bring about the fulfillment of "and I shall dwell within them." And so ruled the Alter Rebbe:30 even a wicked person must study Torah (and fulfill mitzvos), because ultimately "המאור31 שבה מחזירו למוטב" ("the light within it brings him back to the good").
5. The inner meaning of "these and those are the words of the living G‑d" is not only that each of the (three) opinions is true, but also that in their inner dimension they are all one matter — for "נתנו מרועה אחד א־ל אחד נתנן כו׳" ("they were given by one Shepherd; one G‑d gave them…").32
It is therefore understood that the three aforementioned opinions are not merely three separate directives for the three categories of Jews — a separate directive for tzaddikim, and so on; but further: all three opinions (and directives) are also present in one and the same Mishkan.
That is why we see that in the Ark — of which it is said, "עיקר החפץ במשכן הוא מקום מנוחת השכינה שהוא הארון" ("the main purpose of the Mishkan is the resting place of the Shechinah, which is the Ark")33 — all three of these matters found expression. In the Ark were the (broken pieces of the) First Tablets34 — the level of the Jews as they were before the sin (tzaddikim). But on the other hand, they were broken Tablets, and the breaking of the Tablets came about because of the sin of the Golden Calf;*34 this therefore shows that in the Ark there is a place also for those Jews in whom the Tablets are broken, as the Jews were after the sin. And in the Ark were also the Second Tablets,34 which were given on Yom Kippur — the level (of baalei teshuvah35) of the Jews after the time of "I have forgiven as you have spoken."
This is also the explanation of why the Mishkan and its vessels had to be not exclusively of gold, but also of silver and even of copper — because these three kinds allude to the three aforementioned categories of Jews (as will be explained below, section 9), and all of them must be, and are, bound up with the Mishkan, as stated above.
6. The difference between these three kinds — gold, silver and copper — as it is explained in the inner dimension of matters, is reflected (like all matters of the inner dimension of the Torah) also in the revealed part of the Torah, even in practical halachah:
Regarding gold and silver, the Gemara36 says that each of them possesses an advantage over the other: the advantage of gold is that it is more "chashuv" (valuable) than silver; and the advantage of silver is that it is "charif" (readily negotiable) — "יוצא37 בהוצאה ועובר לסוחר" ("it circulates in spending and passes with the merchant"). Therefore there are two opinions, when silver and gold are assessed relative to each other, as to which of them (prevails and) is "tiv'a" (currency) and which "pira" (commodity): one opinion is that since gold is more "valuable," it is therefore called "currency" relative to silver; and a second opinion holds (and this is the halachah38) that even relative to gold, silver is currency, because it is "readily negotiable."
[Besides the halachah remaining like the second opinion, that silver is "currency" relative to gold (since what chiefly matters for "currency" is the detail of "readily negotiable"), there is in addition an advantage in silver over gold according to all opinions: for even according to the opinion that silver is a "commodity" relative to gold, it is nevertheless obvious that relative to (actual produce or relative to) itself it is still called "currency";39 whereas regarding gold, there is an opinion40 that it is a "commodity" even (relative to actual produce or) relative to itself.]
These two opinions concern only the relationship of gold and silver to each other. Regarding copper, however, all hold that copper is a "commodity" relative to silver,41 and (according to several views,42 and so too is the halachah43) also relative to gold — copper is lower in standing than both of them.44 And although copper is more readily negotiable than gold, nevertheless the "negotiability" of copper cannot outweigh the value of gold
— for the fact that with regard to the definition of "currency" "readily negotiable" is halachically more important than "valuable," as stated above, applies specifically to silver, which besides "negotiability" also possesses value (although not as great as that of gold — but together with the advantage of negotiability this is decisive). Whereas copper, which has no (special) value at all, has only "negotiability," and that is not enough to outweigh the "value" of gold.45
7. All matters in the physical realm derive from the fact that they exist, in a spiritual manner, in their source — and, in the wording of the Alter Rebbe,46 "שנשתלשלו מהן" ("which evolved from them"). From this it is understood that the aforementioned difference (in physical terms) between gold and silver (where the advantage of gold is only in value, but it does not "pass with the merchant"; whereas silver is not as valuable as gold, but has for its part the advantage of "passing with the merchant") stems from the fact that in the spiritual dimension of matters the level of "gold" is more valuable, higher than the world [as is stated in the Midrash:47 "לא הי׳ העולם ראוי להשתמש בזהב כו׳" ("the world was not worthy of using gold…")], and therefore it does not so readily "pass with the merchant"; and the level of "silver" is not so valuable, i.e., it is a lofty level but not higher than the worlds — and because the virtue and value of the level of silver has a connection to the world, it therefore "passes with the merchant."
From this it is understood that the level of copper, which has no value in itself, not even the value of "silver," is a low level within the world itself.
This also accords with the fact that "nechoshes" (copper) is related to the word "nachash" (serpent),48 which brought about the sin of the Tree of Knowledge (the root49 of all sins) — because the matter of "copper" indicates a lowliness within the matters of the world itself.50
8. But this must be understood: according to the above, that the fact that gold is not "readily negotiable" is actually due to its virtue and value (for it is a very high level — to the point that, as stated above, the world (including silver as well) was not worthy of using gold) — why is it considered only a "commodity" relative to silver, which is so much lower than it?
The explanation is as follows:
The difference between gold and silver in the "sefiros" above, and in the emotional attributes of the soul,51 is: "gold" is the level of gevurah and "silver" the level of chesed.52 And in man's Divine service, it is the difference between the service of tzaddikim and the service of baalei teshuvah: the service of tzaddikim is a drawing down53 from above to below — chesed and silver; and the service of baalei teshuvah is an elevation53 from below to above — gevurah and gold.*
This also accords with the fact that the level of gold is higher than the world, and the level of silver is the ultimate height within the world itself: the service of teshuvah (elevation from below to above) is in general terms a going out of the world,54 a turning back to the source; and the service of tzaddikim is to draw down (through Torah and mitzvos) G‑dliness into the world.55
And since the Supernal intent is carried out specifically through drawing G‑dliness below (which is why it is said, "נשמתן של צדיקים שבהם נמלך כו׳" ("the souls of the tzaddikim, with whom He consulted…")), it is therefore ruled in the Torah that the "negotiability" of silver outweighs the "value" of gold.
In addition to this: the movement of elevation from below to above that is in teshuvah is not set in a fixed manner, for (besides the fact that it depends on the feeling of each individual person, it is also the case that) its very nature is to go out of limitation; whereas the service of tzaddikim, the service of Torah and mitzvos, is in a manner of measure and so on.56 Therefore the law is that "gold" is a "commodity" and "silver" is "currency," because57 the characteristic of "currency"58 consists in its worth being fixed,59 set and unchanging.60
9. This is also the explanation of the connection between the three kinds — gold, silver and copper — and the three levels of the Jewish people: as they were before the sin of the Golden Calf, after the sin, and after Yom Kippur:
"Gold," which alludes to teshuvah, is the level at which the Jews were after Yom Kippur; "silver," the service of tzaddikim — this is the level at which they were before the sin; and copper, related to the word "nachash" (serpent), points to the state they were in during the time between the sin of the Golden Calf and Yom Kippur, because the sin of the Golden Calf is similar to the sin of the Tree of Knowledge,61 which came about through the primordial serpent.
10. The directive from this for our Divine service is:
There are those who hold (or it is truly so) that they are at the level of "gold" and "silver," and they therefore want to separate themselves from other Jews, whom they consider to be at the level of "copper."
Let it be as they say, that they are the "gold" and "silver" and the others are "copper"; they must nevertheless know that in order for "and I shall dwell within them" to be carried out in them, they must bind and unite themselves62 with the Jews who are at the level of "copper"; from gold and silver alone one cannot set up a Mishkan.
On the other hand, there is a directive for those Jews who consider themselves at the level of "copper." They might think: "מי אני ומה אני לגשת אל הקודש" ("Who am I and what am I to approach the holy?"). They must know that "copper" too was a part of the Mishkan; and on the contrary, there is even an advantage in "copper" over "silver" and "gold":
a) The sockets that held up the courtyard of the Mishkan [with which the distinction between holy and mundane began and was brought about63 (whereas the differences of level from the courtyard inward, up to the Holy of Holies, are all within holiness itself) — and the passage from the mundane to the holy is an exceedingly great virtue64] were of copper.65
b) The curtains of the Mishkan too were held in place by "pegs" of copper,66 and it is specifically through them that the Mishkan was in the manner of "אהל67 בל יצען בל יסע יתדותיו לנצח" ("a tent that will not be moved, whose pegs will never be removed").68
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Shemini 5722 and Shabbos Parshas Vayakhel 5730)
Notes
1) See Torah Or 111d: "במשכן הי׳ ג׳ דברים כלליים זהב וכסף ונחושת" ("In the Mishkan there were three general things: gold, silver and copper"). As for the shoham stones and the stones for setting: a) they were not a general thing; b) they were used as they were, without alteration or working; c) the Nesi'im brought them. See the commentators on Rashi (25:2), Or HaChaim (25:7) and elsewhere.
2) Eruvin 2a.
3) Rambam, Laws of the Beis HaBechirah 1:11 and 19.
4) Mishnah, Tamid ch. 3 (30a).
5) Ibid., 29a. There it is stated that for this reason the cup was of actual gold (and not of "gomeh" [reed]). This is also the halachah (Rambam, Laws of the Daily Offerings 1:9; see Lechem Mishneh there).
6) Rambam, Laws of the Daily Offerings, ibid., and in his Commentary on the Mishnah, Tamid 3:4 (Rabbi Kapach edition, Jerusalem, 5727), where he concludes: "as explained in Beitzah." And so Rashi explains in the Gemara (Beitzah 40, end of side a), "משום סרכא דמשכא" ("because of the adhesion of the hide") — "שתהא נוח להפשיטה כו׳" ("so that it be easy to flay it…"). Now the Rambam himself, in his Commentary on the Mishnah there (end of Beitzah), explains "כי ההשקאה קודם השחיטה יתיר ריאתה כו׳" ("that the giving of drink before slaughter loosens its lung…") — but in the Commentary on the Mishnah in the edition of the aforementioned Rabbi: that the giving of drink before slaughter makes its flaying easier, and if there was a slight adhesion there, it is severed. See there in the note. And see the Shach, Yoreh De'ah 39, sub-section 32. This is not the place to elaborate.
7) But this is forced, for in the Rambam, Laws of the Beis HaBechirah, ibid.: "אם יש כח בצבור עושין אותן של זהב" ("If the community has the means, they make them of gold"). And in Menachos (28b, and sources cited there): "העשירו עשאום של כסף חזרו והעשירו עשאום של זהב" ("When they became wealthy, they made them of silver; when they became wealthier still, they made them of gold"). See also the next note.
8) Rabbah. However, it can be said that the advantage of "silver" (in the Midrash there) is (according to the explanation of the Maharzu there) that it is "טוב להוצאה" ("good for spending") (see below, section 6). Accordingly, this is not relevant to our subject, for what matters in the Mikdash is the virtue of wealth. See also the previous note.
9) Pesachim 119a.
10) One cannot say that there were some among the Jews who had no gold and silver, and that since everyone had to participate in the donations for the Mishkan, several things were therefore made of copper — for our Sages said (Bechoros 5b; so too in Tanchuma, Beshalach 25; also cited in Rashi, Bo 13:13): "שאין לך כל אחד ואחד מישראל שלא היו עמו תשעים חמורים לובים טעונים מכספה וזהבה של מצרים" ("There was not a single Jew who did not have with him ninety Libyan donkeys [excellent ones — Rashi on Bechoros] laden with the silver and gold of Egypt").
11) Vol. II, 224a.
12) Ki Sisa 32:3.
13) Our parshah, 25:8.
14) Tanchuma, our parshah, 8. See also Rashi, Ki Sisa 31:18; 33:11.
15) Zohar II, 195a. Ramban, beginning of Parshas Vayakhel.
16) Eruvin 13b, and sources cited there.
17) Zohar II, 170b. Yalkut Reuveni, Beshalach 17:26.
18) Yevamos 46a-b.
19) Ibid., 22a, and sources cited there.
20) Shabbos 146, beginning of side a. Zohar I, 52b, and elsewhere.
21) Therefore "וביום פקדי (על איזה חטא שיהי׳) ופקדתי גו׳" ("On the day that I make an accounting [for whatever sin it may be], I will account…") (Ki Sisa 32:34), and as our Sages said, "אין לך כל פורענות כו׳ של עגל" ("there is no punishment… of the Calf") (Sanhedrin 102a; see also Rashi, Ki Sisa, ibid.).
22) Rashi, Ki Sisa 33:11.
23) See Re'em, Ki Sisa 31:18, that Rashi's proof that "מעשה העגל קודם לציווי מלאכת המשכן" ("the deed of the Calf preceded the command concerning the work of the Mishkan"), from the fact that "בי״ז בתמוז נשתברו הלחות וביוהכ״פ נתרצה הקב״ה לישראל" ("on the 17th of Tammuz the Tablets were broken and on Yom Kippur the Holy One, blessed be He, was reconciled with Israel") [even though, in terms of the sequence of events, it is possible to say that G‑d's command to Moshe concerning the work of the Mishkan was before the sin of the Golden Calf and only Moshe's command to Israel about it was after Yom Kippur, and that the parshiyos were stated in order] is this: if G‑d's command had been before the sin of the Golden Calf, how would Moshe know that the reconciliation on Yom Kippur also applied to the Mishkan?
24) Tanya, ch. 1, and in many places.
25) Mishlei 3:6. See Likkutei Sichos, vol. 3, p. 907, that the novelty of "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary" is the matter of "In all your ways, know Him" (that the knowledge of G‑dliness should be in the person's own ways), which is above "וכל מעשיך יהיו לשם שמים" ("and all your deeds should be for the sake of Heaven").
26) See Kuntres U'Maayon, Discourse 2, ch. 1; the maamar beginning "Lemaan Da'as," 5690; and in many places.
27) Tanchuma, Naso 16. See above, p. 17, note 42.
28) See Likkutei Torah, Va'eschanan 9 (?) (in the name of the Maggid).
29) Tehillim 50:16.
30) The Alter Rebbe's Laws of Torah Study (4:3); see there in the Kuntres Acharon, that it can be said that the teacher too must teach him. See there at length.
31) Jerusalem Talmud, Chagigah 1:7 (according to the reading of the Korban HaEdah there, and the Matnos Kehunah on Eichah Rabbah, who found it so in a manuscript of the Jerusalem Talmud). Eichah Rabbah, Pesichta 2.
32) Chagigah 3b.
33) Ramban, beginning of Parshas Terumah.
34) Bava Basra 14b.
*34) In a somewhat different way: in the First Tablets that were in the Ark there were two aspects: 1) "והלוחות מעשה אלקים המה" ("And the Tablets were the work of G‑d") (Ki Sisa 32:16) — and this was not changed by the breaking; 2) "והמכתב מכתב אלקים הוא חרות גו׳" ("and the writing was the writing of G‑d, engraved…") — and the writing (the words and so on) was nullified by the breaking (particularly according to the statement of our Sages (Targum Yonasan 32:19, and elsewhere) that the letters flew off).
35) It can also be said that after Yom Kippur they were at the level of "beinonim," of whom it is said "שהיא מדת כל אדם ואחריה כל אדם ימשוך" ("which is the measure of every man, and after which every man should strive") (Tanya, beginning of ch. 14), for even after the forgiveness of Yom Kippur there remained the impurity of the sin of the Tree of Knowledge — similar to a beinoni, who has an evil inclination and merely does not transgress, G‑d forbid, in thought, speech or deed. According to this it can be said (in another way) concerning the three opinions regarding the Mishkan: in the donations for the Mishkan "כל עדת בני ישראל" ("the entire congregation of the Children of Israel") had to participate [and in the manner of "Vayakhel," that all should become one congregation and community — see below, pp. 217-8, and sources cited there], and since in the "congregation of the Children of Israel" there are all three of these categories [as discussed elsewhere, that "tzibbur" (community) is an acronym for tzaddikim, beinonim and resha'im] — therefore there must be all three opinions.
36) Bava Metzia 44 (?), end of side a, and onward.
37) Rashi there, beginning of side b.
38) Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 203:4.
39) See Bava Metzia, ibid., side b: "אע"ג דכספא לגבי דהבא פירא הוי לגבי פירא טבעא הוי" ("Although silver relative to gold is a commodity, relative to a commodity it is currency"). And ibid., beginning of 45a: "לגבי נפשיי מי איכא למ"ד לאו טבעא הוי" ("Relative to itself, is there anyone who says it is not currency?").
40) Ibid., 44b; 45a.
41) See ibid., beginning of 44b, that even according to the position of Rebbi in his youth (that silver acquires gold), copper acquires silver. So too in the Jerusalem Talmud, Bava Metzia, beginning of ch. 4.
42) For the opinions on this, see Tur and Beis Yosef, Choshen Mishpat, ibid.
43) The second opinion in the Shulchan Aruch, ibid., section 5; see Yad Malachi, Principles of the Shulchan Aruch, principle 13: "כשכותב בש"ע יש אומרים ויש אומרים נקטינן כסברא שני׳" ("When the Shulchan Aruch writes 'some say' and 'some say,' we follow the second view"). This is cited in the "Moda'ah Rabbah" of the Rebbe Rashab — printed in the Alter Rebbe's Siddur (?), in the additions, 322a. See there.
44) See Rosh, Bava Metzia, ibid. (cited in Beis Yosef, ibid.): "דאחרון אחרון גרוע כו׳" ("each later one is lesser…").
45) Rosh, ibid. — cited in Beis Yosef and Sma (on the Shulchan Aruch), ibid.
46) Tanya, beginning of ch. 3 (regarding the ten aspects in the soul, "which evolved from the Ten Supernal Sefiros").
47) Our parshah [Shemos Rabbah], beginning of ch. 35. Bereishis Rabbah 16:2 (?). See there: "ולמה נברא בשביל המשכן כו׳" ("And why was it created? For the sake of the Mishkan…").
48) See Bereishis Rabbah 31:8 and Rashi, Chukas 21:9 (concerning "nachash nechoshes," the copper serpent; note also Zohar II (148b), that the copper of the Mishkan is connected to the copper serpent); Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 66 — cited in Or HaTorah, Terumah, p. 1413. Note also the Tzemach Tzedek's Biurei HaZohar, p. 302. See also note 51, in the gloss.
49) See the sources cited in note 20. It is explained at length in the maamar beginning "Al Ken Yomru HaMoshlim," 5691 (Sefer HaMaamarim Kuntreisim, vol. 1, 192a and onward).
50) It can be said that this is also the explanation, in the inner dimension of matters, of why copper is not (so) readily negotiable — for this is similar to the fact that the place and dwelling of the kelipos is called "שמ״א" (?) (Likkutei Torah, Re'eh 32, beginning of side b; see there).
51) See Zohar I, 203a; II, 148a-b; 225b. See also Tanya, ch. 50; Torah Or 111d; and in many places. (Note that in Zohar II and Torah Or there, the discussion concerns the gold and silver of the Mishkan.*)
*) In Torah Or there: gold is Divine service, silver is acts of kindness, and copper is Torah. But this does not contradict what is written in the text — for that Torah is copper means that it is the refinement of copper (Or HaTorah, Ki Sisa, p. 1846; ibid., p. 988 — glosses etc. to the aforementioned Torah Or), whereas copper itself indicates kelipah, as explained in Or HaTorah there. Note also Or HaTorah, Terumah, ibid., that also in the kelipos the level of copper is below gold and silver.
52) See the maamar beginning "Tik'u," 5661, and in many places.
53) Note Or HaTorah, Eikev, p. 534 (see also Derech Mitzvosecha 36b), that gold is called "commodity" and silver "currency" because gold is elevation, "mayin nukvin" (feminine waters), and silver is the drawing down of "mayin duchrin" (masculine waters). See there.
54) Similar to the love of "כמעלת הזהב על הכסף כו׳" ("like the superiority of gold over silver…"), whose nature is "ליפרד מהעצים והפתילה" ("to separate from the wood and the wick") (Tanya, ibid.).
55) Note what is known (the maamar beginning "Seh Tamim," 5629 (at its end); "Malka U'Malkasa," 5697) in explaining the dispute between the king and the queen as to whether a lamb is fitting or a kid is fitting (Pesachim 57, end of side a): "lamb" is the service of tzaddikim and "kid" is the service of baalei teshuvah. Therefore the queen said a lamb is fitting, for "Malkasa" is the level of malchus, the root of the worlds of Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah, and the drawing down into Beriah, Yetzirah and Asiyah is specifically through the service of tzaddikim.
And according to what is explained in the text, that tzaddikim and baalei teshuvah are the levels of silver and gold, the right line and the left line — perhaps it can be said that this is the intent of the king's statement (ibid., beginning of side b), "ניפסקו לימיני׳" ("let them be cut off at my right") — for he was angered that she praised the service of the "lamb," which is from the right line.
56) Rus Rabbah 2:3. Bereishis Rabbah 8:7.
57) See Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 10, and in many places.
58) See also Likkutei Sichos, vol. 1, p. 180, that "matbe'a" (coin) is the matter of "tov" (good) (?) — a drawing down below. And there, that the connection of "matbe'a" to "tov" (?) is [not only because a coin does not change, but] also because "matbe'a" is from the word "teva" (nature), and the matter of "tov" (?) is the drawing down below into the garments of nature.
59) See Bava Metzia 44b: "טבעא הוי משער תנא במידי דקיץ" ("Currency: the Tanna assesses by something fixed").
60) Note Likkutei Torah, Pinchas (78d), that the reason the daily offering must specifically be a sheep (which indicates the service of tzaddikim — see also note 55 above) is "תשובה אינו אלא לפי שעה אבל בתמידות צ״ל בחי׳ צדיק" ("teshuvah is only for a time, but constancy must be the level of a tzaddik") — and "currency," which does not change, also pertains to the matter of constancy.
61) Therefore at that time the impurity of the sin of the Tree of Knowledge returned (see Zohar I, 52b, and elsewhere). And according to several opinions, were it not for the sin of the Golden Calf they would have been "חרות ממלאך המות" ("free from the Angel of Death") (Avodah Zarah 5, end of side a; Shemos Rabbah 41:7; and in many places. And in Zohar Chadash, Rus (83c), it is stated without qualification according to these opinions) — similar to the sin of the Tree of Knowledge with regard to the entire world.
62) Note the matter of "Vayakhel" (see above, note 35), that the inclusion within a "kahal" (congregation) is [not only that all are gathered in one place and for one purpose, but] that they become one entity (see at length below, p. 217 and onward).
63) Note that the Laver and its base, whose purpose was washing before they would approach to serve in holiness (see Ramban, Ki Sisa 30:19), were made of copper. See below, p. 196 and onward.
64) See Derech Chaim 96, beginning of side b, concerning the Exodus from Egypt: although at that time the Congregation of Israel was in a state of immaturity far below its days of greatness in the times of David and Shlomo, nevertheless "זהו יותר גדול מכל לפי שכל מה שנגדלת כ״כ הכל הי׳ מכח זה החסד נעוריך דוקא" ("this is greater than all, for all the growth she attained came specifically from the power of this 'kindness of your youth'"). See there (94, end of side c), that this is like a convert who has converted: although he does not yet serve G‑d completely, the beginning of his going out from one extreme to its opposite reaches the level of yechidah.
65) Our parshah, 27:10 (?) and onward.
66) End of our parshah; Rashi there.
67) The wording of the verse (Yeshayahu 33:20) — cited in the aforementioned Rashi.
68) Rashi there. See below, in the next sicha.
Key Lesson
The Mishkan could not be built of gold and silver alone; G‑d's dwelling requires the copper as well. Those who see themselves as "gold" and "silver" must bind themselves with every other Jew, while those who see themselves as "copper" should know that they have a vital and even unique place in the Sanctuary. As this Sicha teaches, the command "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary" applies to every Jew at every moment, whatever his spiritual state.