Parshas Terumah
1. At the end of the sidrah, Rashi explains concerning yesedos (pegs)1: (a) what the pegs looked like — "כמין נגרי נחושת" ("a kind of copper bolts"); and (b) what they were used for — "עשויין ליריעות האהל ולקלעי החצר קשורים במיתרים סביב סביב בשיפוליהן כדי שלא תהא הרוח מגביהתן" ("made for the curtains of the tent and the hangings of the courtyard, tied with cords all around at their lower edges, so that the wind should not lift them").
Rashi then continues: "ואיני יודע*1 אם תחובין בארץ או קשורין ותלויין וכובדן מכביד שפולי היריעות שלא ינועו ברוח. ואומר אני ששמן מוכיח עליהם שהם תקועין בארץ לכך נקראו יתדות. ומקרא זה2 מסייעני אהל בל יצען בל יסע יתדותיו לנצח" ("I do not know whether they were stuck into the ground, or tied and hanging, with their weight pressing down the lower edges of the curtains so that they would not move in the wind. And I say that their name proves that they were driven into the ground; that is why they are called yesedos. And this verse supports me: 'A tent that shall not be moved, whose pegs shall never be removed'").
This is not understood3:
a) What does Rashi mean by saying "their name proves that they were driven into the ground"? What proof is there from the name yesedos that they were "driven into the ground"? And if Rashi does hold that the name yesedos gives a clear proof that they were "driven into the ground," how can he himself say just before, "I do not know whether they were stuck into the ground," stating explicitly that this is not known?
According to some versions, this entire continuation — starting from "And I say" until the end — is not Rashi's own wording, but an addition inserted by a student of his4. But even according to those versions one cannot answer that Rashi indeed did not know*4 whether the pegs were stuck into the ground, while to his student it was simple and clear that a peg is driven into the ground. For since, with the added words "And I say that their name proves etc.," the student intended to bring out an explanation of Rashi's statement "I do not know etc.," he should have explained how this is proven from "their name," and not merely stated plainly that such a proof exists.
b) After Rashi (or his student) says "their name proves that they were driven into the ground," he adds further: "And this verse supports me etc." Seemingly, if he already has the proof (from "their name") that a peg is something set into the ground, there is no need for support from a verse.
c) Why, indeed, should Rashi have been in doubt to begin with whether the pegs were "stuck into the ground" (especially according to the version that these words, "And I say etc.," do not stem from Rashi himself, so that for him the matter remained in the realm of doubt) — when there exists an explicit proof of this from the verse he cites, "A tent that shall not be moved etc."?
d) That yesedos represent the idea of being "driven in" (set in, [OCR unclear] . . . should bring the proof from these verses: firstly, because they appear (in Tanach) earlier than the cited verse, "A tent that shall not be moved etc."; and secondly, because they state explicitly "ותתקע" ("and she drove") and "ותקעתיו" ("and I will drive him") in connection with a "יתד" ("peg") — whereas from the verse "A tent . . . whose pegs shall never be removed" the proof (that the pegs were "driven in") comes not from explicit wording, but from the implication of the verse's content (since it says "whose pegs shall never be removed," meaning that the pegs are not moved from their place, this proves that they are "driven in")?
2. From the fact that Rashi (a) says plainly "their name proves" and (b) brings no proof from "ותתקע את היתד" ("and she drove the peg") or "ותקעתיו יתד" ("and I will drive him as a peg"), it is evident that concerning the character of pegs in general, Rashi has no doubt. That is, it is known that a peg in general is something that is stuck in somewhere (also for digging), or hammered in and fastened in9. Therefore, concerning the pegs of the Mishkan as well, he says plainly (even according to the interpretation that the pegs were not stuck into the ground) that they were "a kind of copper bolts" — and bolts (negarim), in Lashon HaKodesh, are things that one drives in somewhere10 — because that is the meaning of yesedos.
The doubt is only whether, in the Mishkan, they were also actually stuck into the ground or not. And his reasoning for saying that they were not stuck in — although it is plain to him that the pegs of the Mishkan too were "a kind of bolts," that is, they had such a shape (form) that they could be driven in — is as follows:
Since the Mishkan (in the desert) did not stand permanently in one place11 and had to be taken apart12, it is more reasonable that, in order to avoid excessive effort, the curtains and hangings should be held down by the weight of hanging pegs — rather than by a method in which the pegs are "stuck into the ground," which would require, at each dismantling, pulling the pegs out of the ground and inserting them again at the next assembly.
According to this, however, it is not understood:
a) If one holds that what held the curtains of the Mishkan in place was the weight of the pegs, then for this purpose there was no need at all to use yesedos, whose function is to perform this action by being driven into the ground. Rather, heavy objects would do, whatever shape they might have.
b) Since the doubt is (not about the shape of the pegs, but) whether they were actually stuck into the ground, then what does the proof help from ("their name," and all the more so from) the verse "A tent that shall not be moved, whose pegs shall never be removed," which does not speak of the Mishkan at all?
3. This will be understood by first introducing what Rashi says before this (in the preceding dibbur hamaschil on our verse)*12: "מקבות לתקוע יתדות ועמודים" ("mallets for driving in the pegs and pillars"). Seemingly, for Rashi it is (as yet) not settled whether the pegs were stuck in or hanging — so how can he say earlier, as a simple matter, "for driving in the pegs"?
We must therefore say that there were in the Mishkan*13 two kinds of "pegs" — as Rashi himself says explicitly in Parshas Naso*13: "ויתדות ומיתרים היו ליריעות ולקלעים מלמטה כו'" ("There were pegs and cords for the curtains and hangings below etc." — these being the ones about which Rashi here is in doubt) "ויתדות ומיתרים היו לעמודים סביב לתלות בהם הקלעים בשפתם העליונה" ("and there were pegs and cords for the pillars all around, on which to hang the hangings by their upper edge"). And regarding these latter pegs, Rashi has no doubt that they were "driven in," and it is to these pegs that Rashi refers in the preceding dibbur hamaschil. For it is plain that the pegs of the pillars — upon which (by means of the "כלונסות וקונדסין" ("poles and rods")*14) the upper edge of the hangings was hung — were "driven into" the pillars, and in this manner held up the hanging curtains. And plainly this has nothing whatever to do with the weight of the pegs. As Rashi himself depicts it in our sidrah15, he concludes that the "אונקליות" ("hooks") (by which, according to the sense of the matter, we must say that the pegs are meant16), on which the "קונדס דרך טבעתו" ("rod, by way of its ring") was hung, were driven into the pillar.
And accordingly one can say that the (lower) pegs of the curtains and hangings (in our Parshah) indeed were not stuck into the ground, but held the curtains and hangings in place with their weight (as it is more reasonable to say, as stated above in section 2). If so, why then [OCR unclear]
4. And after Rashi explains that from the nature of the matter it is not clear here, Rashi himself concludes: "And I say" that they were stuck into the ground, and he brings two proofs for this:
a) "Their name proves that they were driven into the ground; that is why they are called yesedos": since the verse here nevertheless calls them by the name yesedos, this itself implies that this is not merely because of their shape as pegs, while that shape played no role in their function and the weight alone did the work, but rather that they were actually used in keeping with their name13.
However, since this is not a strong proof (for ultimately there is no clear evidence that the verse calls them yesedos because of their actual use as pegs) — and especially since, according to the nature of the Mishkan, there is a contrary reasoning, as mentioned above, that they were not driven in, since one could manage without this — Rashi therefore brings another proof:
b) "And this verse supports me: 'A tent that shall not be moved, whose pegs shall never be removed'"14 — from which verse one sees that the way to hold up a tent (whose nature, after all, is moving from place to place14) is through pegs that cannot be moved from their place, which means that they are stuck into the ground. Consequently (not only does the above reasoning fall away — that one made do with hanging pegs — but on the contrary): "And this verse supports me": from the fact that the verse teaches us that for an important tent ("a tent that shall not be moved"20) the procedure is to secure it by pegs stuck into the ground20*, there is support for Rashi's premise regarding the tent of the Mishkan, the most important of tents, that there they were driven into the ground.
Nevertheless it is understood that, even after all this, it is not an absolute proof, and ultimately it is not ruled out that in the Mishkan in particular (because of its unique nature and conditions20**) it was otherwise. Therefore Rashi says when first approaching the matter: "I do not know"; and also in the later explanation he speaks in the wording of "And I say," that this is how the matter settles with him, meaning by this that it is not an absolute explanation.
5. It has been said many times that in Rashi's commentary on the Torah — even where he sets out to explain only the plain meaning and not halachos — there are also matters of halachah and (all the more so21) matters of the inner dimension of the Torah, in the words of our Rebbeim22, "יינה של תורה" ("the wine of Torah").
The law concerning Shabbos is that the melachah of building is Biblically forbidden on Shabbos only in the case of a permanent building, whereas the melachah of a temporary building is forbidden only Rabbinically23.
What defines a permanent building? This too relates to and depends upon the difference between the two possible ways of explaining yesedos that Rashi lets us hear in his commentary on our Parshah. If one were to hold that the pegs held the curtains and hangings firm by their weight, one understands from this — since all the melachos of Shabbos are derived from the work of the Mishkan24 — that even when one builds a tent that is not fastened by way of being "driven in" (through pegs and the like), as long as it is firm enough not to be "נע ונד ברוח מצויה" ("moving and swaying in an ordinary wind")25, it is already called a permanent building and is Biblically forbidden. But if one holds the interpretation that the pegs were stuck in, it would have to follow that the Biblical prohibition of building on Shabbos applies specifically to building a tent in a manner of being "driven in."
6. As mentioned above, Rashi's commentary contains "the wine of Torah." Among the matters of the inner dimension of the Torah alluded to in this comment of Rashi:
It is explained in Chassidus26 that the Beis HaMikdash was built primarily of domem (the inanimate), and the Mishkan of tzomei'ach (vegetation) and chai (animal life). And although it is plain that the resting of the Shechinah — the concept of "ושכנתי בתוכם" ("and I will dwell among them")27 — was effected also in the earth (the inanimate) of the floor of the Mishkan28, nevertheless the holiness of the ground of the Mishkan was not equal to the holiness of the curtains and the beams. The curtains and beams were holy in their own right, whereas the earth of the Mishkan's ground received its holiness only by virtue of the Mishkan (the curtains and beams) that stood upon it. And after the Mishkan was removed from that place, nothing of the earlier holiness remained in the ground on which the Mishkan had stood29.
This is the advantage of the Beis HaMikdash over the Mishkan. In the Beis HaMikdash, the holiness in the inanimate — even in the inanimate of the very ground of the Beis HaMikdash — is a holiness in its own right. And even after the destruction — after the destruction of the First Temple30, or after the destruction of the Second Temple, which was in the manner of "ערו ערו עד היסוד בה" ("Raze it, raze it, to its very foundation")31, when it was destroyed down to the foundations32 or even including the foundations33 — nevertheless, according to several opinions, holiness remained in the site of the Mikdash3334.
7. The question, however, is: how strong and how deep was the holiness of the ground of the Mishkan during the time that the Mishkan stood there? And this depends on the two ways of interpreting yesedos that Rashi brings out here.
According to the view that the pegs held up the Mishkan only by their weight, it must follow that this holiness drawn from the Mishkan into the ground of the Mishkan is merely an effect, permeating the earth only externally. It is not bound up with that area of ground as something particular, but only as ground in general, since even while it stood, the Mishkan was not fixed in place through attachment and driving into the ground, but held itself on the ground through something else — the weight of the pegs36.
Whereas according to the interpretation that the pegs were "stuck into the ground," the holiness of the Mishkan penetrated that area of ground inwardly. Moreover, the fact that the Mishkan was fixed in its place, "a tent that shall not be moved," came from the ground of the Mishkan; that particular area, the ground of the Mishkan, is the cause of the fixedness of the Mishkan (for then its holiness is greater than when the Mishkan is taken apart, and this bears upon several laws)37.
8. It is known that the holiness of (the Mishkan and) the Beis HaMikdash illuminated the entire world as well38. From this it is understood that through the building of the Beis HaMikdash, every Jew was given the power (in his own "ועשו לי מקדש" ("Make for Me a Sanctuary") within the soul39) to draw holiness into the entire world, in an inward and permanent manner — similar to the holiness of the Beis HaMikdash.
From this comes a directive: every Jew, wherever he may be — even when he finds himself in the lands of the nations, of which the Torah rules that their air and their soil are impure40 — has the power to refine his portion of the world and to draw holiness there in an inward and permanent manner, similar to the holiness of the Beis HaMikdash.
This is the explanation of the statement of our Sages41 that the synagogues and study halls in the Diaspora are a "מקדש מעט" ("miniature Sanctuary") and that in the Future they will be taken along to Eretz Yisrael. For through their prayer and Torah study, Jews draw holiness even into the buildings themselves, which are made of stones, wood and earth42 and which are located outside Eretz Yisrael; and the holiness remains in them, until ultimately they are taken along to Eretz Yisrael.
And so too, conversely: by every Jew now drawing holiness into his portion of the world, the preparation is made for "עתידה ירושלים שתתפשט בכל ארץ ישראל" ("In the Future, Jerusalem will spread throughout all of Eretz Yisrael")43 "ועתידה ארץ ישראל להתפשט בכל הארצות" ("and Eretz Yisrael will spread throughout all the lands")44 — and everywhere, in the entire world, a measure of the holiness of the Beis HaMikdash will spread45. Since its essence is "בית זבול לך" ("a dwelling house for You")46, it will then be seen how the entire world is a dwelling for Him, may He be blessed, and indeed that the primary dwelling is in the lower realms47.
And just as in the Beis HaMikdash "היו קוראין את השם ככתבו" ("they would pronounce the Name as it is written")48 — meaning that the Name Havayah was in a state of being pronounced (openly revealed) — so it will be throughout the entire world as well, "הוי' אחד ושמו אחד" ("Havayah is One and His Name is One"), pronounced with yud and hei (just as) it is written with yud and hei49, in the true and complete Redemption through Moshiach Tzidkeinu. May he come and redeem us, very soon indeed.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Terumah, 5725)
Notes
1) One cannot say, as do the printed editions I have seen — which print the word "yesedos" in the lettering and manner in which they print the words that Rashi quotes from the verse — that this is a new dibbur hamaschil on the word "yesedos" in the verse; for if so, Rashi should have quoted "yesedosav" ("its pegs"), which comes before "yesedos." Therefore it seems to me: a) that Rashi is explaining his own words* within the same dibbur hamaschil, "to drive in pegs." This is also implied by the first printing of Rashi, in which the word "yesedos" is not set apart by a period either before or after it**, as are the other words quoted from the verse. But according to this, the continuation "copper" and "at their lower edges" would be difficult, for in Rashi he also calls the hooks of the pillars "yesedos," and these were of silver and higher up. Therefore it seems more correct to say: b) that in the early manuscripts of Rashi it was written "yesedos" with a line (his intention being the verse's "yesedosav" — as is the custom of manuscript copiers, who shorten their work through abbreviations, a line and the like), and one of the copiers decided that the line was superfluous, since the verse does contain the word "yesedos," not noticing that "yesedosav" precedes it; and once an error has entered, it stays.
*) Similar to Rashi on Vaeschanan 6:6.
**) I have at hand only a photograph — a photostat — of the first printing, and it may not be so clear, but from the spacing between the words it appears that the periods were not there.
*1) In Bamidbar Rabbah (12:19) it says that they would plant the pegs into the ground. Evidently Rashi had a different reading. And regardless one must say so, for according to Rashi (Naso 4:32) there were pegs also among the load of the sons of Gershon, unlike according to our reading in Bamidbar Rabbah, which follows the view of the Ramban (Naso, ibid.).
2) Yeshayahu 33:20.
3) It is also not understood: why does he conclude "that is why they are called yesedos," which is seemingly superfluous?
4) Yosef bar Shimon.
*4) See also below, section 3.
9) For since a yased is a sharp object — which is plain in Lashon HaKodesh (and that is why Rashi does not explain this in his commentary on the Torah), from what is written (Teitzei 23:14), "ויתד תהיה לך גו' וחפרת בה" ("And you shall have a peg . . . and you shall dig with it"), and one cannot dig with something that is not sharp — it is understood that it is made (where building is concerned) to be driven in.
10) See Rashi, s.v. "negar" (Shabbos 126a): "a peg that they drive in etc."; s.v. "uvenegar" (Bava Metzia 101b): "and they insert it etc."; s.v. "asa'ah kemin negar" (Menachos 33a): "he fixed and inserted it into the doorpost like a bolt, for they insert bolts into the wall." And elsewhere. And this is also necessitated by our Rashi itself, for the interpretation "a kind of copper bolts" applies also according to the view that the pegs were stuck in.
11) See the end of Pekudei; Bamidbar 1:51 and Rashi there; and elsewhere. And on this very verse Rashi writes (s.v. "lechol klei hamishkan"): "שהיו צריכים להקמתו ולהורדתו" ("which were needed for erecting it and taking it down").
12) See Behaaloscha 9:17 ff.
*12) See above, note 1.
13) But in general there is also a peg for digging, the peg in the episode of Shimshon, and others.
*13) 4:32. The Ramban there objects that in the Baraisa of Meleches HaMishkan (ch. 5) "it is not taught that there were pegs for the pillars" — but from the plain wording of the verse (the plain meaning of Scripture), "and the pillars of . . . and their pegs," the implication is that there were pegs for the pillars.
14) According to the commentators on Rashi there, "yesedos" refers to the "kundasin" that were hung on the hooks of the pillars. But [in addition to the fact that according to this it is not understood what Rashi writes [OCR unclear]
15) [OCR unclear]
16) [OCR unclear]
[OCR unclear: unnumbered fragment of a note] . . . the number of types of vessels in the Mikdash (and Mishkan) — see Menachos, beginning of ch. 10: two measures etc., seven measures etc. — so limited is the number of forms of the vessels and the like. Furthermore, the mold for casting [OCR unclear] (the pegs of) the pillars could also be used for the lower edges of the hangings and curtains, so why would they make an additional mold?!
13) According to this it is understood why Rashi concludes "that is why they are called yesedos," which is seemingly superfluous: for the whole essence of his proof is from the fact that they are called (in this verse) yesedos.
14) See Lech Lecha (12:8), "ויעתק משם" ("and he moved from there"), and Rashi: "his tent."
20) That is why Rashi also quotes the beginning of the verse, "A tent that shall not be moved."
20*) With a tent in general, its owner is able to stay in one place all his days, unlike the Mishkan, when they knew that they would be journeying from place to place until they reached the western side of the Jordan.
20**) [OCR unclear]
21) See Likkutei Sichos, vol. 5, p. 1, note 3.
22) Hayom Yom, p. 24.
23) Beitzah 32b, end, and elsewhere. Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, beginning of §315.
24) Shabbos 49b. Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, beginning of §301.
25) See Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, §315, par. 7.
26) Torah Or, beginning of Vayigash. Likkutei Torah, Berachah 99d ff. See also above, pp. 17, 20-21.
27) Our Parshah, 25:8.
28) And similarly also from the law (Naso 5:17), "ומן העפר אשר יהיה בקרקע המשכן יקח הכהן גו'" ("and from the earth that is on the floor of the Mishkan the kohen shall take . . .").
29) Compare Mount Sinai, where at first "כל הנוגע בהר מות יומת" ("whoever touches the mountain shall surely die"), and after the Giving of the Torah (since the revelation was from Above; see Likkutei Torah, Re'eh 28b) "המה יעלו בהר" ("they may go up on the mountain") (Yisro 19:12-13).
30) They destroyed only the ceiling — Yerushalmi, Yoma 1:1. See also Gittin 57b; Shemos Rabbah 35:5.
31) Tehillim 137:7.
32) According to the first opinion in Eichah Rabbah, beginning of ch. 5.
33) According to the second opinion in Eichah Rabbah, ibid.; Shemos Rabbah, ibid.; Zohar III, 89a. See also Yerushalmi, ibid. (according to Korban HaEdah).
34) And according to what is stated in Tosefta, Berachos, end of ch. 1: "שאין שכינה חוזרת עד שתעשה הר . . מאימתי משנעקרו יסודותיה ממנה" ("the Shechinah does not return until it becomes a mountain . . . When? Once its foundations have been uprooted from it"), one can say that, on the contrary: specifically through the destruction having been [OCR unclear]
36) Perhaps one can say that a practical difference would be whether, in the Mishkan, an interposition between the feet of the kohanim and the ground is forbidden.
37) On the two reasonings regarding the definition of the holiness of the ground of the Mishkan, note the two opinions about placing the earth (of the Mishkan's ground) before the water (of the Sotah) — Sotah 16b. And although there it is the same in the Mikdash as well, the verse is speaking of the Mishkan. And according to the first reasoning here, placing the earth first invalidates, and consequently we know that the order in the verse is indispensable. This is not the place to elaborate.
38) Note Tanchuma, Behaaloscha 2; Vayikra Rabbah 31:7; Bamidbar Rabbah 15:2. See also Menachos 86b and Rashi there, s.v. "shekufim"; Rashi's manuscript there, s.v. "ve'atumim."
39) As our Sages say (cited in Likkutei Sichos, vol. 3, p. 906): "בתוכו לא נאמר אלא בתוכם בתוך כל אחד ואחד מישראל" ("It does not say 'within it,' but 'within them' — within each and every Jew").
40) Shabbos 15b. Rambam, beginning of ch. 1 of Hilchos Tumas Meis.
41) Megillah 29a.
42) See Negaim 12:2.
43) See Sifri, Devarim 1:1; Shir HaShirim Rabbah 7:4 (3); Pesikta Rabbasi, Parshas Shabbos v'Rosh Chodesh; Yalkut Shimoni, Yeshayahu, remez 503.
44) See Sifri, Pesikta Rabbasi and Yalkut Shimoni, ibid.
45) See Zohar II, 234a: "למהוי אתפשטותא דביתא בכל סטרין" ("that the expansion of the House be on all sides"). See also Ohr HaChaim, cited in Nitzotzei Zohar there.
46) I Melachim 8:13. See also Rashi on Vayeitzei (30:20), s.v. "yizbeleni": "עיקר דירתו" ("his primary dwelling").
47) See Tanya, beginning of ch. 36; the maamar for the day of the Hilula, Basi LeGani 5710, at its beginning; and elsewhere. See also above, pp. 21 ff.
48) Mishnah, Sotah 36b, end, ff. See also the Gemara there; Sifri, Naso 39.
49) Zechariah 14:9; Pesachim 50a. In Zohar III, 230a (and this is also the manuscript version of Pesachim there, cited in Dikdukei Soferim) the reading is: "נכתב ביו"ד ה"י ונקרא ביו"ד ה"י" ("it is written with yud and hei and pronounced with yud and hei").
Key Lesson
Every Jew, wherever he may be, even in a place the Torah considers impure, has the power to draw holiness into his portion of the world in an inward and lasting manner, like the holiness of the Beis HaMikdash. Through prayer and Torah study, even the stones and walls around him become holy, and this prepares for the true and complete Redemption, when the entire world will openly be a dwelling for G‑d.