לקוטי שיחות חלק י״א - תרומה ב

Parshas Terumah

1. From the verse "ועשו לי מקדש וגו'" ("They shall make Me a Sanctuary, etc.")^* stated in our Parsha,¹ the Rambam² derives the positive mitzvah "that we were commanded to build a Chosen House (Beis HaBechirah) for service, in which the offering [of sacrifices] and the kindling of the fire would take place continually, and to which there would be the going and the ascending on pilgrimage, etc. And this is His statement, may He be exalted, 'They shall make Me a Sanctuary'"³ (and he continues): "For this general [command] includes many kinds — namely the Menorah, the Table, the Altar and others — all of them are parts of the Sanctuary, and everything is called 'Sanctuary,' though He had already specified the command for each and every part."

That is, the Rambam's view is that making the vessels of the Sanctuary is not a mitzvah in its own right, but rather a part of the mitzvah of building the Beis HaMikdash.

The Ramban⁴ disagrees with him and writes: "The reason the Rav wrote — saying that they are parts of the Sanctuary — did not seem right in my eyes, because the vessels are not part of the buildings; rather, they are two mitzvos that do not hold each other back, and one offers sacrifices in the House even though these vessels are not in it (and he continues) ... Therefore, in my view, the making of the Ark and the Kapores (Cover), to place the Testimony there, is to be counted as a mitzvah in its own right." As for why, according to the Ramban, the making of the Table, the Altar and the Menorah is not counted as a mitzvah in its own right, he explains the reason: "Because we were commanded to place bread before G‑d continually, and He commanded us concerning the preparation of this service — namely, to place it on a Table of such a description; and that this kindling be arranged for us in a Menorah of gold, of such and such weight and form. These, then, are accessories of holiness (tashmishei kedushah)."

2. Now, in reconciling the Rambam's view, the Megillas Esther⁵ writes that "although they do not hold back the service in the Beis HaMikdash, this does not prevent them from being parts [of it]; for there are many things that do not hold back something else and yet they are parts⁶ — such as the techeiles and the white [strands], which do not hold each other back, yet each of them is a part of the mitzvah of tzitzis."

However, this has still not been sufficiently explained (as others have already challenged him⁷), for his proof from the techeiles and the white is not comparable to our case. For the Rambam himself writes⁸ regarding techeiles and white that in things that do not hold each other back, "it would come to mind ... that each part should be a mitzvah in its own right (and so too with the white and the techeiles) ... were it not that we found an explicit expression regarding them, 'It shall be for you as tzitzis' — one mitzvah ... so that even parts that do not hold each other back are sometimes one mitzvah, when the matter is one." If so, in the case of the House and the vessels, regarding which no explicit expression is found (and they are distinct from one another — not comparable to the distinction between the strands of techeiles and white), they must be two mitzvos, since they do not hold each other back.

However, this follows the approach in the Rambam's view that the House and the vessels do not hold each other back. But there are commentators⁹ who explain that the Rambam holds that these vessels of the Sanctuary are an indispensable part of the House — without them it is not called a Sanctuary, and they prevent the offering of sacrifices in it.¹⁰

Some have added to explain¹¹ that the root of the dispute between the Rambam and the Ramban is a dispute of the Tanna'im in Tractate Shekalim:¹² "'The Table, the Menorah, the Altars and the Paroches (Curtain) hold back the sacrifices'¹³ — these are the words of Rabbi Meir; and the Chachamim say: nothing holds back the sacrifice except the Kiyor (Laver) and its base alone."¹⁴ That is, the Rambam holds like Rabbi Meir, that the vessels hold back the sacrifice, and consequently that "all of them are parts of the Sanctuary," which includes the House and the vessels as one; while the Ramban holds like the Chachamim, that the vessels do not hold back, and hence "the vessels are not part of the buildings."¹⁵

But this too is difficult: a) Would the Rambam rule like Rabbi Meir, which is a lone opinion,¹⁶ while the Chachamim disagree with him?¹⁷ b) And mainly: the Rambam rules¹⁸ that "one may offer all the sacrifices even though there is no House built there";¹⁹ and since the House is not built, the vessels too are not there (in their place in the Sanctuary) — which proves that he does not hold²⁰ that the Table, the Menorah, etc., hold back the sacrifice.²¹

3. We also need to explain the following: At the beginning of our Parsha, the Ramban writes²² (the reason the command to make the Ark and the Kapores is stated (here) before the command regarding the other vessels, for): "The main desire in the Mishkan is the place of the resting of the Shechinah, which is the Ark, as He said,²³ 'ונועדתי לך שם ודברתי אתך מעל הכפורת' ('I will meet with you there, and I will speak with you from above the Kapores'); therefore he placed the Ark and the Kapores first here, for it is foremost in stature."

Accordingly, it is not understood: How could the Ramban write (in Sefer HaMitzvos) that the making of the Ark, etc., "is counted as a mitzvah in its own right" and is not included in the mitzvah of building the Sanctuary²⁴ — when, according to his view, the Ark is "the main desire" in its construction?²⁵

4. All this will be understood by first explaining the conclusion of Tractate Middos (a tractate whose content is "the measurements of the Sanctuary, its form, its construction and all its matters"²⁶): "לשכת הגזית שם היתה סנהדרי גדולה של ישראל יושבת ודנה את הכהונה" ("In the Chamber of Hewn Stone, there the Great Sanhedrin of Israel would sit and judge the Kehunah"),²⁷ and it continues: "And a Kohen ... in whom no disqualification was found would dress in white, wrap himself in white, enter and serve with his brothers the Kohanim. And they would make a festive day²⁸ that no disqualification was found among the descendants of Aharon the Kohen. And thus they would say: 'ברוך המקום ברוך הוא שלא נמצא פסול בזרעו של אהרן, וברוך הוא שבחר באהרן ובבניו לעמוד לשרת לפני ה׳ בבית קדשי הקדשים' ('Blessed is the Omnipresent, blessed is He, that no disqualification was found among the descendants of Aharon; and blessed is He Who chose Aharon and his sons to stand to serve before G‑d in the House of the Holy of Holies')."

There are several points to examine here:

a) They first said "Blessed is the Omnipresent ... that no disqualification was found among the descendants of Aharon," and afterwards "Blessed is He Who chose Aharon and his sons." Seemingly, they should have been said in the reverse order, since the praise (and the detail) "that no disqualification was found among the descendants of Aharon" comes after "the Holy One, blessed be He, chose Aharon and his sons to stand to serve before G‑d, etc."

b) In the second blessing, "Who chose Aharon and his sons to stand to serve ... in the House of the Holy of Holies" — this is not understood, for that is the service of the Kohen Gadol, and only once a year (on Yom Kippur); whereas the choosing of Aharon and his sons to stand and serve in the Kehunah applies to all the services of the Kohanim — in the entire Sanctuary and throughout the entire year. Why, then, were the services of the whole year and the services of all the Kohanim not included in the blessing?

Now, in the Chiddushei Aggados it is written: "They say 'Blessed is the Omnipresent, blessed is He, that no disqualification was found among his descendants...' to be an ordinary Kohen; 'and blessed is He Who chose Aharon and his sons,' who are the most chosen even among the Kohanim, to enter and serve in the House of the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur — namely, Aharon and his sons."

But according to his view as well it is puzzling [besides the fact that the above question still remains — why they excluded ordinary Kohanim from a blessing over their being chosen (whether by including them in the blessing of the Kohen Gadol, or with a blessing of their own) — there is also a difficulty from the other side]: Just as they blessed "Blessed is the Omnipresent ... that no disqualification was found among the descendants of Aharon," which refers to an ordinary Kohen, so too (and seemingly even more so) there should have been a blessing with this content regarding Aharon and the Kohen Gadol (in one blessing, or separately)?

Some explain²⁹ that what is said here, "in the House of the Holy of Holies," refers to the Beis HaMikdash as a whole — which is holy relative to the other sanctified places.^29* The wording here is connected to Tractate Keilim, chapter 1:³⁰ "עשר קדושות הן" ("There are ten levels of holiness"): "the Land of Israel is holier than all the lands, etc.; the cities, etc." Since the Beis HaMikdash is holier than all of them, it is therefore called here "Holy of Holies" — the holy among the holy places.

But this explanation is very difficult, for [besides the fact that in Tractate Keilim itself several levels of holiness within the Beis HaMikdash itself are counted, and only one of them is called there "Holy of Holies"], in Tractate Middos itself "Holy of Holies" is mentioned³¹ regarding its measurement, etc., and the intent there is to the actual Holy of Holies, for the measurement of the Heichal is separate and the measurement of the Holy of Holies is separate; and it states explicitly:³² "between the Kodesh and the Holy of Holies." How, then, can one say that the meaning of "Holy of Holies" changes at the conclusion of the tractate from what was stated explicitly several times just before? Although one could answer, with difficulty, that here it is different, since it says "in the House of the Holy of Holies."

5. The explanation of all this:

The purpose (goal) of the Mishkan and the Beis HaMikdash consists of two general matters:³³

a) In the words of the Ramban cited above, "a House sanctified to His Name, and there ... He will command His children, etc." (and therefore also) "the main desire" is ... the Ark, from which He spoke) — the resting and dwelling of the Shechinah that was in them; as the verse concludes (the verse from which the Rambam learned the positive mitzvah to build the Beis HaBechirah): "ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם" ("They shall make Me a Sanctuary, and I will dwell within them"). And as we find this stated explicitly regarding the Beis HaMikdash: "זאת מנוחתי עדי עד פה אשב כי אויתיה" ("This is My resting place forever; here I will dwell, for I desired it").³⁴ And the main resting and dwelling of the Shechinah is in the Holy of Holies.³⁵

b) The service in them (which is primarily the service of the sacrifices), and the pilgrimage to them on the three Festivals.

And this is the dispute between the Rambam and the Ramban: which of these two is primary in the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, to build the Beis HaMikdash. And from this dispute of theirs stems their above-mentioned dispute regarding the command to make the vessels of the Beis HaMikdash.

According to the Rambam, the purpose intended in building the Sanctuary is to offer sacrifices in it (which includes all the services³⁶ of the Kohanim, the main one of which is the service of the sacrifices). And the Rambam is precise in his wording (in his book — which is a book of halachic rulings³⁷): "מצות עשה לעשות בית לה׳ מוכן להיות מקריבים בו הקרבנות" ("It is a positive mitzvah to make a House for G‑d, prepared³⁸ for offering the sacrifices in it, etc.") — to emphasize that the command is not defined and limited to building a house, but rather "to make a House for G‑d prepared for offering the sacrifices in it."³⁹ That is, if the House is not prepared "for offering in it," the positive mitzvah of "They shall make Me a Sanctuary" has not been fulfilled.⁴⁰

Accordingly, it is simply understood that "the Menorah, the Table, the Altar and others — all of them are parts of the Sanctuary" (meaning that in commanding the making of the vessels of the Sanctuary, He is commanding concerning the parts of the Sanctuary),⁴¹ for how is the Sanctuary made "prepared"? Through making the Menorah, the Table and the Altar⁴² (for "the sacrifices" include all the services in the Beis HaMikdash: the kindling and preparation⁴³ of the lamps,⁴⁴ the arranging of the showbread, etc.⁴⁵). And this was the command at the beginning of the making of the Sanctuary. But once a prepared House has been made — even though it was destroyed, one offers (sacrifices)⁴⁶ "even though there is no House there," and [no] vessels, etc.,⁴⁷ for the vessels (and the House) do not, in themselves, hold back the sacrifices.

However, according to the Ramban, the main intent and desire in the Mishkan (and the Sanctuary) is that it be a place sanctified to His Name, etc., from which He will speak, etc. Accordingly, the command "They shall make Me a Sanctuary, and I will dwell within them" refers only to the House itself — to build a Mishkan for the dwelling of the Shechinah — but the commands regarding the vessels are not included in it, for their main purpose relates to "the sacrifices" (the service) in the Mishkan.⁴⁸ And as for the reason the vessels were not counted as mitzvos in their own right, he needed to explain that this is because the vessels are merely accessories of holiness for the services performed with them.

Therefore, too, "the making of the Ark and the Kapores, to place the Testimony there, is counted as a mitzvah in its own right," because the Ark is not "a preparation for another mitzvah, like the Menorah, the Altars and the Table";⁴⁹ and there is⁵⁰ a special command regarding it (counted separately), and it is not included in the general command to make Him a House sanctified to His Name — for the Ark (and the Holy of Holies) is "the main desire," but even without it, it is a House of the Sanctuary, etc.

6. Now, in several printed editions (and mainly — manuscripts)⁵¹ of Tractate Middos, the final blessing, "Blessed is He Who chose Aharon and his sons to stand to serve before G‑d in the House of the Holy of Holies," does not appear (at the conclusion of the tractate); rather, the Mishnah concludes with the blessing "Blessed is the Omnipresent, blessed is He, that no disqualification was found among the descendants of Aharon." And apparently this is the Rambam's version.⁵²

Based on the above, one can say that this too depends on the above-mentioned dispute between the Rambam and the Ramban:

The subject of Tractate Middos is, as the Rambam writes:⁵² "that it records the measurements of the Sanctuary, its form, its construction and all its matters; and the benefit in this is that when it is rebuilt, speedily in our days, one must observe and make that same design, etc." It is understood, then, that the conclusion of the tractate explains what the purpose of building the Beis HaMikdash is:

According to the Ramban, for whom the intent and desire in the Mishkan is the resting of the Shechinah, and its main place is in the Holy of Holies, it is understood that all the services performed in the Mishkan and the Sanctuary are for this purpose — that there be the resting of the Shechinah in the Holy of Holies. According to him, then, our version of the Mishnah, concluding with the blessing "Blessed is He Who chose Aharon and his sons to stand to serve before G‑d in the House of the Holy of Holies," is well-founded; for the entire building and the services have as their purpose that there be the resting of the Shechinah (whose main place is) in the House of the Holy of Holies.⁵³

But according to the Rambam, for whom the main intent of the Beis HaMikdash is that it be "a House prepared for offering sacrifices in it, and for celebrating there three times a year, etc.," and the main part of this service — the offering of sacrifices and the pilgrimage — was performed throughout the entire year and in the whole Sanctuary, not in the Holy of Holies, it is not possible that they would have said a blessing in which only the service "in the House of the Holy of Holies" (which is once a year) is emphasized.

7. But it still needs explanation: According to the Rambam, why is no blessing said in a version suited to his approach — "Blessed is He Who chose Aharon and his sons to stand to serve in the Beis HaMikdash"?

And likewise it needs explanation according to the Ramban: Although, from the standpoint of "the main desire" of the Beis HaMikdash, it is well to say "Blessed is He Who chose Aharon and his sons to stand and serve ... in the House of the Holy of Holies," as explained above — nevertheless, from the standpoint of the principle that "the majority is like the whole" with regard to the service of Aharon and his sons (to whom the blessing is directed), it would be more fitting to say "to stand and serve in the Beis HaMikdash" (especially since this includes the Holy of Holies as well).

8. This too will be explained according to the above-mentioned approaches of the Rambam and the Ramban regarding the Sanctuary and its vessels.

The explanation: Blessing and praise are appropriate only when the thing for which one blesses and praises is a distinct matter in its own right, but not when it is a detail that is necessitated by another matter (for if a blessing is to be said, its place is regarding the cause, not regarding the necessary effect).

In our case: According to the Rambam, for whom the positive mitzvah of "They shall make Me a Sanctuary" means "to make a House for G‑d prepared for offering the sacrifices in it, etc.," just as the making of the vessels is not counted as a mitzvah in its own right, because the vessels are part of the general positive mitzvah of building a "prepared" House — so too there is no place for a special blessing over the choosing of the Kohanim for the Beis HaMikdash, since their being chosen for the service is part of the making of the Sanctuary: the command "to make a House for G‑d prepared for offering the sacrifices, etc." necessitates as well the choosing of Kohanim who are prepared to offer these sacrifices, etc.⁵⁴

Likewise according to the Ramban: Although the vessels are not part of the House, nevertheless the making of the vessels — the Table, the Menorah and the Altar — is not considered a mitzvah in its own right, since it is merely "a preparation for the service" and a preparation for the main mitzvah ("for we were commanded to place bread before G‑d continually, and He commanded us concerning the preparation of this service — namely, to place it on a Table of such a description, etc."). So too the service of the Kohanim with these vessels cannot be defined as a matter in its own right, so as to say a special praise over their being chosen for the service ("Blessed is He Who chose Aharon and his sons to stand to serve in the Beis HaMikdash"); for this choosing is necessitated by the command to offer sacrifices and to place bread before G‑d, etc., which cannot be fulfilled without (the Table and) the Kohanim chosen "to stand to serve."⁵⁵

9. However, regarding the main point and purpose of the Mishkan and the Sanctuary — the place of the resting of the Shechinah in the Beis HaMikdash — according to the Ramban, just as this does not depend on the making of the vessels, as explained above, so too it does not depend on the choosing of Aharon and his sons for the service with these vessels; and with the fulfillment of the command "They shall make Me a Sanctuary," the "I will dwell within them" would immediately be fulfilled, even without the service of the Kohanim. And even if we say that, for some reason, the Holy One, blessed be He, wished that the resting and dwelling of the Shechinah should come about only through service in the Sanctuary (and this can be connected with the explanations regarding the content of the inauguration of the Sanctuary and its vessels, but this is not the place to elaborate), the (inauguration and the) first service when the Sanctuary was erected suffices. As we find with the Mishkan, immediately after it was erected: "וכבוד ה׳ מלא את המשכן" ("And the glory of G‑d filled the Mishkan")⁵⁶ (if we say that this was even before the service); and similarly, when its erection was completed and on the first of the month he offered the incense and the sacrifices, etc., as it says, "וירא כבוד ה׳ אל כל העם" ("And the glory of G‑d appeared to all the people").⁵⁷ And since the Shechinah already rested there immediately at the beginning of its erection (and the service at that time), it no longer departs from there, even without the service of the Kohanim (afterwards).

Accordingly, the service of Aharon and his sons in the Beis HaMikdash is a detail of the positive mitzvah of offering the sacrifices (and the other services) in the Beis HaMikdash, but it does not pertain to the main intent of the Sanctuary — the dwelling of the Shechinah in the Holy of Holies.

Therefore they add and say, "Blessed is He Who chose Aharon and his sons ... to stand to serve in the House of the Holy of Holies" — a special praise for their service, which does indeed pertain to, and bring about, the dwelling of the Shechinah in the Beis HaMikdash (the Holy of Holies). For the very choosing of them for the service is necessitated, since there must be "a pleasing fragrance to G‑d";⁵⁸ but since their service also contains a special matter and virtue — to bring about the resting and dwelling of the Shechinah — they therefore say a special blessing over it, in which is emphasized the additional quality in the service of the Kohanim: the main desire in the Sanctuary — the resting of the Shechinah, which is in the Holy of Holies.

10. Accordingly, it is understood why they first said "Blessed is the Omnipresent that no disqualification was found among the descendants of Aharon," and afterwards "Blessed is He Who chose Aharon and his sons to stand to serve before G‑d in the House of the Holy of Holies":

Saying "Blessed is He Who chose Aharon and his sons" is not meant as praise of Him, may He be exalted, for the very choosing of Aharon and his sons to perform the service in the Beis HaMikdash (for then this blessing would have had to come first,⁵⁹ before the blessing "that no disqualification was found among the descendants of Aharon," as explained above). Rather, the praise is for the fact that it is "in the House of the Holy of Holies" — that through their service they bring about the resting of the Shechinah in the Holy of Holies — and this is not necessitated by the very choosing of Aharon and his sons to serve in the Beis HaMikdash. Therefore they first bless and say "Blessed is the Omnipresent that no disqualification was found among the descendants of Aharon," which is a blessing and praise for their being able to serve on this day in the (entire) Beis HaMikdash; and afterwards they praise [G‑d] for the additional and wondrous effect brought about through their service (every day — and also) on this day.

[OCR unclear] "to stand to serve before G‑d" in the House of the Holy of Holies — the resting of the Shechinah in the Sanctuary, which is "in the House of the Holy of Holies."

In slightly different words: "in the House of the Holy of Holies" relates only to the word preceding it, "G‑d" ["before G‑d"], and not to the word "to serve."

11. However, according to this, one can ask: All the above is plausible during all the days of the year, when the service of the Kohanim is in the entire Sanctuary. But on Yom Kippur, when he was commanded to serve in the Holy of Holies — sprinkling the blood, burning the incense, etc. — how is it fitting then to say a special blessing over this, "to stand to serve before G‑d in the House of the Holy of Holies"? This is necessitated by the command to sprinkle the blood and to burn the incense in the Holy of Holies!

The answer is simple: The festive day they would make when no disqualification was found among the descendants of Aharon was when the Sanhedrin "sat in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, where they would judge the Kehunah"; and the Sanhedrin sat in the Chamber of Hewn Stone only on weekdays, whereas on Shabbos and Yom Tov they would go down and sit in the "Cheil" (rampart).⁶⁰

Accordingly, we find that this praise and blessing were said only on weekdays, and not on Shabbos and Yom Tov (and not on Yom Kippur) — when it fits the content of the praise: that the service of Aharon and his sons in the entire Sanctuary brings about the resting of the Shechinah in the Holy of Holies, as explained above; which is possible only when the service is performed specifically in the entire Sanctuary, and not when the service must be performed in the Holy of Holies — on Yom Kippur.

12. In this there is a wondrous lesson for the service of Torah and mitzvos in the present time:

Our Sages said:⁶¹ "תפילות כנגד תמידין תקנום" ("Prayers were instituted corresponding to the daily offerings"); and even more so with Torah study — "ונשלמה פרים שפתינו" ("Let our lips substitute for bulls"), for "whoever occupies himself with the Torah of the burnt-offering is as if he offered a burnt-offering"⁶² — in every place (and time). Thus (like the Kohanim in their service when the Beis HaMikdash stood), in addition [to bringing about "a pleasing fragrance to G‑d" — an elevation from below to above, and even more], it also brings about the drawing down and dwelling of the Shechinah below,⁶³ so that He, may He be exalted, has a dwelling place in the lower realms.⁶⁴ And this drawing down and dwelling is not only within the person himself, as our Sages said⁶⁵ on the verse "and I will dwell within them" — "It does not say 'within it,' but 'within them' — within each and every Jew" (and in his surroundings); rather, he brings about and draws down the dwelling of the Shechinah in the place of the Holy of Holies, which is there the level of the Holy of Holies of the entire world⁶⁶ — similar to the service of Aharon and his sons, performed in the Courtyard, etc., which draws down the dwelling of the Shechinah in the Holy of Holies.⁶⁷

From this one understands the great responsibility in the service of each and every Jew in Torah and mitzvos: if his service is lacking, not only is his own "I will dwell within them" diminished thereby, but it affects the drawing down of the Shechinah for the entire Jewish people and for the entire world.

On the other hand, one understands the wondrous virtue of the service of each and every Jew in Torah and prayer, and its effect thereby on the entire world —

to the point that through this we bring closer and hasten the time when we will be able to offer sacrifices "כמצות רצונך" ("according to the command of Your will")⁶⁸ in the Third Beis HaMikdash, which will descend and be revealed speedily in our days, very soon.

(From the sichah of Yud Shevat, Tu BiShvat, 5732)

Notes

*) And the conclusion of Tractate Middos.

1) Shemos 25:8.

2) Sefer HaMitzvos, Positive Mitzvah 20; see there, Shoresh 12. Rambam, beginning of Hilchos Beis HaBechirah. See also Chinuch, Mitzvah 95.

3) See Kesef Mishneh, Hilchos Beis HaBechirah there, that the Semag (Positive Mitzvah 163) writes that we learn [this mitzvah] from the verse (Devarim 12:11), "And it shall be the place that the L‑rd your G‑d will choose, etc." (cited in Sanhedrin 20b); and he did not want to say that the mitzvah is "They shall make Me a Sanctuary" (as the Rambam does) because that verse speaks of the Mishkan in the desert;* whereas according to the Rambam it seems that this verse is a general rule for every place — whether for the Mishkan in the desert, for Shiloh, Nov and Givon, or for the Eternal House — and this is also implied by its saying "They shall make Me a Sanctuary" and not "They shall make Me a Mishkan."** In Bris Moshe on the Semag (there), he writes that also according to the Semag we learn it from our verse. It has already been noted that the Rambam's words (that building the Beis HaBechirah is stated in the verse "They shall make Me a Sanctuary") are explicit in Tanchuma, Teitzei 11; Pesikta deRav Kahana, ch. 3; see also Seder Olam, end of ch. 6. As for what the Lechem Mishneh writes at the beginning of Hilchos Melachim — that also according to the Rambam "They shall make Me a Sanctuary" refers to the Mishkan in the desert ("and just as in Shiloh and in the desert it is a mitzvah, certainly in the Beis HaBechirah it is a mitzvah") — this requires examination, for he counts the mitzvah from our verse in the enumeration of the mitzvos, and he counts in the enumeration of the mitzvos only what applies for all generations. Also, from the plain meaning of his wording in Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, "The Mishkan that Moshe Rabbeinu made has already been explained in the Torah, and it was temporary, as it says, 'For you have not yet come, etc.,'" it is evident that the verse "They shall make Me a Sanctuary" which he cites is for all times — see Kiryas Sefer there.

*) See also what is written in Kinas Soferim on Positive Mitzvah 20.

**) See also Ohr HaChaim here. See also Kinas Soferim there.

4) In his glosses on Sefer HaMitzvos, Positive Mitzvah 33.

5) On Sefer HaMitzvos there.

6) The Minchas Chinuch (there) also writes along this line of reasoning: "But in truth there are many laws of a mitzvah that are not indispensable; if so, it is possible that this is among the laws of this mitzvah and nevertheless it is not indispensable." But he does not write so in the Rambam's view (see below, note 40); and he writes that reason dictates that these vessels are not among the laws of the mitzvah of making the Sanctuary, but rather (as the Ramban writes) the Menorah belongs to the mitzvah of kindling the lamps, etc.; see there.

7) In the commentary of Rabbi Y. F. Perla on Rav Saadia Gaon's Sefer HaMitzvos, Parshah 52 (he did not cite the Rambam quoted below in the text).

8) Sefer HaMitzvos, Shoresh 11. See also Positive Mitzvah [OCR unclear].

9) Lev Same'ach, Shoresh 12.

10) In Rabbi Y. F. Perla's commentary there, he brings a proof that "the Sanctuary and its vessels do not hold each other back, and if so they are necessarily two mitzvos (not as some later authorities, of blessed memory, thought to say in the Rambam's view, that he holds that they hold each other back — and this is certainly not at all possible)," from the fact that they offered sacrifices in the Second Temple even though it had no Ark and Kapores. But: a) the proof concerns only the Ark, and not all the vessels (see Kli Chemdah, beginning of Pekudei); b) even regarding the Ark, the proof applies only according to one who holds that the first sanctification did not sanctify for the future, and not according to the Rambam, who holds that it sanctified for the future (cited in note 18) — as he himself writes there. See also Kli Chemdah, Parshas Terumah; c) the Rambam, in Sefer HaMitzvos, Positive Mitzvah 20, in enumerating the vessels, did not mention the Ark. See also Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, beginning of ch. 4. See also below, note 24.

11) See Tzafnas Pa'neach on the Rambam (at its beginning), in the Enumeration of the Mitzvos, Positive Mitzvah 20; Tzafnas Pa'neach, Mahadura Tinyana 73b–d (cited in a note in Tzafnas Pa'neach on the Torah (Terumah p. 144; Va'eschanan p. 30; and see there in the text, pp. 29–30)). See also the sources cited below, note 39.

12) Ch. 4, halachah 2.

13) That it is forbidden to offer a sacrifice if these are not in their place — so explain Korban HaEidah, Pnei Moshe and Tiklin Chadtin. Korban HaEidah there adds: "And it seems more correct that it is forbidden to offer upon them a sacrifice, such as the showbread on the Table, etc."

14) According to the version of Pnei Moshe and Korban HaEidah. See Tiklin Chadtin, and the glosses of the Gra and Gilyon HaShas there.

15) In the words of the Rogatchover (Mahadura Tinyana there): "Whether the Mishkan with its vessels is one entity which has many details, or each and every thing is an entity of its own."

16) With difficulty one could say that he holds so because it is also stated in the Tosefta (Menachos 6:6) that "the Table, the Menorah and the Altars hold each other back." But it is among the Rambam's principles that he rules like the Yerushalmi against the Tosefta (see Yad Malachi, Principles of the Two Talmuds, sec. 3) — although one could say that our case is different, since in the Yerushalmi it is taught as a dispute.

17) See Tzafnas Pa'neach, Mahadura Tinyana 81a (cited in Mefa'ne'ach Tzefunos, ch. 4, sec. 22): "And so too regarding the Sanctuary we hold like the Chachamim in the Yerushalmi, ch. 4 of Shekalim, that the vessels in the Sanctuary do not hold each other back."

18) Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, ch. 6 [OCR reads "ch. 10"], halachah 15.

19) See Meiri (Shekalim there), that the reason "they all do not hold back the sacrifices" is "because one offers even though there is no House."

20) In Chasdei David (on the Tosefta) he writes that what is stated in the Tosefta (there) — "the Table, the Menorah and the Altars hold each other back" — can accord even with Rabbi Yehoshua, who holds (end of Eduyos) that one may offer even though there is no House: that applies only when they are absent, but when they are present they hold each other back. But: a) from the Meiri (in the previous note) it is implied that even when they are present they do not hold back, for the reason that one offers even though there is no House; b) if we say that when they are present they hold each other back because they are parts of the House, they should hold back at all times — even when they are absent; and from the fact that they do not hold back when they are absent, it is evident that they are not part of the essence of the House, but rather that when they are present there is a specific law that they hold back. See Kli Chemdah (beginning of Pekudei), who writes that this is along the lines of the Ramban's reasoning. See also the end of the next note.

21) And even if we say (as in Kli Chemdah, Parshas Terumah, sec. 3 (and see there, beginning of Pekudei); see also Tzafnas Pa'neach on Positive Mitzvah 20) that the Rambam holds like the answer in Shekalim there — "here it refers to the inner services, there to the outer services" (in the Heichal, such as the incense on the Golden Altar, the lamps of the Menorah and the showbread on the Table — it is in these that (the Amora'im there) disagree about what holds back, etc.; whereas regarding the outer services, on the Outer Altar, it is there that they said "nothing holds back except the Laver and its base alone" — Pnei Moshe (and similarly in Korban HaEidah and Tiklin Chadtin* there)) — then: a) since the outer service does not need all the vessels, and in the Beis HaMikdash one offers on the Outer Altar even without these vessels, why should they all be considered part of the House (as the Ramban challenged, cited in section 1)? b) The Rambam rules (Hilchos Temidin uMusafin 3:2) that if the [Golden] Altar was uprooted, one burns the incense in its place, and he does not write that it is impossible to perform all the other inner services.**

*) Except that according to Korban HaEidah and Tiklin Chadtin, according to one opinion the Ark and Kapores also hold back in the inner service; see Kli Chemdah, cited in the note, and below, note 24; this is not the place to elaborate.

**) Similarly this requires examination according to the explanation of the Tzafnas Pa'neach there — regarding the first question. The second question, however, one can answer: on the contrary, this is among the foundations of the Rogatchover's novel explanation (unlike all the commentators on the Yerushalmi), that they do not hold back in the inner service (such as the incense), but outside they do hold back (such as the blood — Zevachim 59a).

22) See also what he writes on Parshas Eikev 10:5.

23) Our Parsha, 25:22.

24) Regarding the Ark and the Kapores according to the Rambam: in "Derech Mitzvosecha" (at the end of Sefer HaMitzvos), part 1 (on Mitzvah 18 according to the Ramban), he writes that the Rambam did not count the making of the Ark, etc., because it is part of the mitzvah of building the Beis HaMikdash; and so writes Kinas Soferim on Positive Mitzvah 33 there. And in Minchas Chinuch there: "And the Ark is not indispensable, although it is among the laws of the mitzvah according to the Rambam; nevertheless there are many laws of the mitzvos that are not indispensable after the fact." He remains with a question on the Rambam, why he did not write the details of making the Ark. But the Megillas Esther writes that the making of the Ark was not counted "because the mitzvah does not apply for all generations, since we will never need to make another, etc." Rabbi Y. F. Perla's commentary there challenges this; see there at length, that in his view one is compelled [to hold] like the Ramban. See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 4, p. 1346, note 26. It should be noted that in Shoresh 12 he writes, "It is not proper to count everything about which it says 'You shall make' as a mitzvah in its own right"; and regarding the Ark it says (25:10), "They shall make an Ark, etc." — but it is understood that he used the common phrasing; is he then like a peddler who must count off [every item] and go on? (along the lines of the expression of our Sages — Gittin 33a).

25) This is also asked in Kli Chemdah (Parshas Terumah, at the end of the section) and in Chemdas Yisrael (Kuntres Ner Mitzvah, Positive Mitzvah 20). In Chemdas Yisrael there he answers that "before the sin of the Golden Calf, the main intent in building the Mishkan was for the dwelling of the Shechinah, i.e., regarding the Ark and the Kapores. However, afterwards, when they sinned with the Calf and the Mishkan was an atonement for the sin of the Calf — namely, through the sacrifices — it then became a mitzvah in its own right, etc." But seemingly it is impossible to explain this way, for the Ramban's view (beginning of Vayakhel) is that the command to make the Mishkan, from the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moshe, was before the sin of the Calf, and Moshe's command to the Jewish people was after the sin of the Calf; and he writes that "after the Holy One, blessed be He, was appeased with them and gave him the Tablets, etc., they returned to their former state, etc., and it was known that His Shechinah would be among them, as He had commanded originally, as it says, 'They shall make Me a Sanctuary and I will dwell within them'; therefore Moshe now commanded them all that he had been commanded originally." Furthermore, according to the explanation of the Chemdas Yisrael, it is simply understood why Moshe, in Parshas Vayakhel, put the Mishkan, etc., first and not the Ark — because in the interim the sin of the Calf had occurred (according to the Ramban, as above); and the Ramban (at the beginning of Terumah) would not have needed to explain the reason for the change — that Moshe put the Mishkan first, and so did Betzalel — "because it is fitting to come first in the making."

26) The Rambam in his Introduction to the Commentary on the Mishnah. Cited and explained in Tosafos Yom Tov, in the preface to Tractate Middos.

27) The Rambam's wording in Hilchos Bi'as HaMikdash 6:11: "The Great Court would sit and judge the Kehunah, and examine the Kohanim regarding lineage and blemishes."

28) "Meaning: those in whom no disqualification was found would call each one to his friends and acquaintances and rejoice with him, and they would also thank and praise the Blessed One" (Tosafos Yom Tov at the conclusion of the tractate). See also Tiferes Yisrael and Ezras Kohanim on the conclusion of Tractate Middos.

29) Biurei HaGra there.

29*) Note Divrei HaYamim I 23:13: "The sons of Amram: Aharon and Moshe; and Aharon was set apart to sanctify him as holy of holies, he and his sons" — so that all the Kohanim are called "holy of holies."

30) Mishnah 6 ff.

31) Ch. 4, mishnah 7 ff.

32) There, mishnah 5.

33) One from the aspect of the revelation from Above, and one from the aspect of the service from below.

34) Tehillim 132:14. The Rambam cites it at the beginning of Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, halachah 3. See Zevachim 119a.

35) See the verses that the Ramban cites there; and see Moreh Nevuchim (part 3, ch. 45): "We were commanded to build a sanctuary to His Name, may He be exalted, and to place in it the Ark in which there is, etc."

36) As in his wording in Positive Mitzvah 20 (cited above at the beginning of the Sicha): "that He commanded us to build a Beis HaBechirah for service, etc."

37) Unlike Sefer HaMitzvos, which is not a book of halachic rulings. Furthermore, the Yad [Mishneh Torah] he wrote in the Holy Tongue (and it is the later work), whereas Sefer HaMitzvos he wrote in Arabic.

38) Similarly in Shoresh 12: "that we should have a prepared House to which they would come, etc." So it is in Sefer HaMitzvos, Heller edition (and in the Kafich edition: "that we should have a House to which they turn").

39) Note Tzafnas Pa'neach (Mahadura Tinyana 3b; 82c–d — cited in Klalei HaTorah VehaMitzvos, part 1, p. 99), that the Rambam wrote that the mitzvah is "to make" a Beis HaBechirah, and did not use "to build," since the building of the Sanctuary is only so that it will be (the completion, so that it will be), etc., not that it be built. He distinguishes between the Mishkan and the Sanctuary: with the Mishkan the mitzvah is the building, and therefore its building overrode Shabbos.* See there further, a difference in law as to whether women, slaves and minors are fit for the building. See also Tzafnas Pa'neach, Hilchos Arachin, in the omissions, 54a; [on the Torah,] Vayakhel pp. 168–169.

*) So it appears from Tzafnas Pa'neach on the Torah, Vayakhel p. 165, and so it is evident from the continuation in Mahadura Tinyana there (although in print it says "the Chinuch" — which is not understood, for the inauguration in the Beis HaMikdash also overrode Shabbos. And perhaps he (also) alluded to this question by immediately citing Moed Katan (9a)). In any case it requires much examination, for it is explicit in the Mechilta, beginning of Vayakhel (cited in Tzafnas Pa'neach there), that the work of the Mishkan does not override Shabbos, and there it speaks of the making of the Mishkan. Perhaps this is his intent in citing the Mechilta — that it implies otherwise; or [he relies on] the precision of the conclusion in the Mechilta, which specifies "e.g., if the horn of the Altar was broken off, etc.," and does not simply say the labors of making the Mishkan. This is not the place to elaborate.

40) See the Chinuch there: "And this mitzvah ('They shall make Me a Sanctuary') includes with it the vessels that are needed in the House for the service, such as the Menorah and all the other vessels." The Minchas Chinuch (there) writes that "here, at the beginning of the chapter, the Rambam explains in this wording only the positive mitzvah to make a House, etc., and afterwards, in halachah 6, he writes laws that one makes vessels, etc.; but these are not laws of this positive mitzvah." But (besides the fact that the Rambam writes this explicitly in Sefer HaMitzvos, Positive Mitzvah 20 and Shoresh 12 (cited at the beginning of the Sicha) — except that the Minchas Chinuch did not then have Sefer HaMitzvos at hand, as he writes there), it is evident also from the Yad: a) from his writing that the mitzvah is "to make a House for G‑d prepared for offering the sacrifices in it, etc." — as in the text; b) from the fact, seemingly puzzling, that he included the laws of making the vessels of the Sanctuary (the Altars, the Table, the Menorah, etc.) in Hilchos Beis HaBechirah and not in Hilchos Klei HaMikdash; c) in Hilchos Beis HaBechirah ch. 1 itself, after explaining in halachah 5 the things that are essential in building the House, he explains in halachah 6, "And one makes vessels for the Sanctuary, etc.," before explaining in halachah 8 how the Heichal and the Courtyard are built, etc.

41) Accordingly it will also be understood, according to the Rambam, that the mitzvah of building the Sanctuary is not a "preparation for a mitzvah" (hechsher mitzvah) — as in Tosafos, Shabbos 131a, end of the passage beginning "VeShavin." Accordingly, one can explain why in Positive Mitzvah 20 he needed to add, "It is thus clarified (from the Sifri that he cited) that building the Beis HaBechirah is a mitzvah in its own right."* For since he wrote (there, at the beginning of his words) that the mitzvah to build the Beis HaBechirah is for service, in which there would be offering, etc., one might have said that it is only like a "preparation for a mitzvah" for the service of the sacrifices that follows; therefore he adds that it is "a mitzvah in its own right" (not a preparation). And in Hilchos Beis HaBechirah it is understood from the precision of his wording, "to make a House for G‑d prepared," as in the text. See also Tzafnas Pa'neach, cited in note 39.

*) One cannot say that his intent is that building the Beis HaBechirah is a mitzvah separate from the mitzvah of building the Mishkan, etc. See above, note 3.

42) See the wording of Korban HaEidah, Shekalim there, in the second explanation (cited above, note 13): "to offer upon them a sacrifice — the showbread on the Table and the lamps in the Menorah, etc."

43) For according to the Rambam (Hilchos Temidin uMusafin 3:12; Sefer HaMitzvos, Positive Mitzvah 25) it is one mitzvah, and the kindling of the lamps is their preparation.

44) Note Tosafos, s.v. "Balaylah," Menachos 100a, end; s.v. "VeChol HaKarev," Temurah 14a — that according to Rashi's explanation, "everything that is offered (at night)" is the preparation of the lamps (the oil for the Menorah). See also Tzafnas Pa'neach on the Torah, Pekudei 39:36, that Rashi holds (according to this version) that it has the status of a sacrifice.

45) For without a Table one cannot arrange the bread, and without a Menorah (at least one of iron spits — in the wording of Megillas Ta'anis, ch. 9, and sources cited there) one cannot kindle, etc., even after its erection. Similarly it is evident from the fact that only regarding the Inner Altar did the Rambam write (cited above, note 21) that if it was uprooted, one burns the incense in its place. Regarding the Menorah, note the Ramban at the beginning of Beha'aloscha.

46) One may say that after it was built in its entirety with all its vessels and inaugurated, even when it is not destroyed, the vessels do not hold back the sacrifices on the Altar, as the Megillas Esther (cited in section 1) and the Minchas Chinuch (there) write. See also Tzafnas Pa'neach on the Torah, Pekudei 40:9: "In the Mishkan all the vessels hold back and all the details hold back, unlike in the Sanctuary. And this was made in the category of a completion for the Mishkan; and so is the law in everything: for the mitzvah, initially, everything is required, but afterwards, to maintain it, individual things suffice." One can say that the same applies to the Sanctuary itself (all its parts).

47) But nevertheless an Altar is required (see Mishneh LaMelech, Hilchos Beis HaBechirah 6:14; Magen Avraham, Orach Chaim 561:2; the responsum of Rabbi Moshe Galante (copied in Sefer Halachos Ketanos, part 2, sec. 14); Responsa Divrei Emes (by Rabbi Y. Bachar David), Kuntres 11, sec. 14). This is also evident from the fact that the Rambam (Hilchos Beis HaBechirah 2:4) added "(one testified for them that they may offer) on this Altar (all the sacrifices even though there is no House there)," which is not in the wording of our Sages (Eduyos 8:6; Zevachim 62a, and sources cited there). And the Minchas Chinuch there: "Without the (Outer) Altar it is not called a Beis HaMikdash, for the main point of the Sanctuary is to offer sacrifices." See also Zevachim (27b, end): "This is a floor (the Outer Altar — a structure of stones); that is a sacred vessel (the Inner Altar)." There (60a): "One derives a vessel from a vessel, but one does not derive a vessel from a structure." See also Tzafnas Pa'neach on the Torah, Tetzaveh 30:10; Pekudei 39:39.

48) Accordingly, one must say that what he wrote — "but they are two mitzvos that do not hold each other back, and one offers in the House even though these vessels are not in it" — he wrote mainly according to the Rambam's approach.

49) The Ramban there, on Positive Mitzvah 33. Accordingly, he must seemingly hold like the opinion (Yoma 55a, beginning; 57a; Yerushalmi there 5:4) that the Yom Kippur sprinklings need not touch the Kapores, etc.; for otherwise it would be a preparation for a mitzvah (like the vessels). See Tzafnas Pa'neach on the Torah, beginning of our Parsha; Vayakhel p. 169.

50) Seemingly this is also evident from the Ramban's words there, where he wrote, "Therefore he placed the Ark and the Kapores first here, for it is foremost in stature"; for if the entire desire in the Sanctuary, etc., were the Ark, it would not merely be foremost in stature, but rather it would be the entire purpose of the Mishkan, etc.

51) Noted in Shinuyei Nuschaos on the Mishnayos there. So too in the Meiri on Middos.

52) For in all likelihood the Rambam also wrote the Mishnayos themselves together with his commentary. See the Mishnayos, Kafich edition, and its version.

53) See the Ramban's "Derashas Toras Hashem Temimah" (Kisvei HaRamban, vol. 1, p. 168), and what is cited in note 57.

54) Note the Rambam's Sefer HaMitzvos, which in Positive Mitzvah 32 counts only "that He commanded us to honor the descendants of Aharon and to glorify them, etc.," and in Positive Mitzvah 36 "that He commanded us that the Kohanim serve in shifts"; but he did not write as a positive mitzvah the very matter that He commanded that the Kohanim serve in the Beis HaMikdash, etc. — as [he did] for the Levi'im: Positive Mitzvah 22; Hilchos Klei HaMikdash, beginning of ch. 3 (but see his wording at the beginning of ch. 10 there; and see Positive Mitzvah [OCR unclear]: "that He commanded the Kohanim, etc.").

55) Note Menachos (20a, beginning): "Just as there are no sacrifices without Kehunah, etc."

56) Pekudei 40:34.

57) Shemini 9:23. And similarly it was in the Beis HaMikdash. See the Ramban, Derashas "Toras Hashem Temimah" (Kisvei HaRamban, p. 163 [OCR; note 53 reads p. 168]): "The Shechinah did not rest in the Mishkan except through the sacrifices ... and in the Beis HaMikdash too, through a chosen sacrifice, etc."

58) For its meaning at length, see Ramban, Vayikra 1:9.

59) It would also not have been so fitting — as explained above in the text, section 8.

60) Sanhedrin 88b. See also Rambam, beginning of ch. 3 of Hilchos Sanhedrin.

61) Berachos 26b.

62) End of Menachos. Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, sec. 1, par. 11; and in the Mahadura Tinyana there, par. 9.

63) See Kuzari, part 2, ch. 26; Likkutei Torah, Pinchas 76a; Siddur 33a ff.; Ohr HaTorah, Bereishis 188a ff.; Pinchas p. 1072 ff., and sources cited there; the maamar Basi LeGani 5710; below, Sicha 2 on Parshas Vayikra, at its end.

64) See Tanya, ch. 36.

65) Reishis Chochmah, Sha'ar HaAhavah, ch. 6, near the beginning. Several sources are cited above, p. 109, note 10.

66) See Tanya, ch. 53; Siddur 97c ff.

67) See Hemshech VeKachah, ch. 7 ff.

68) See the sources cited below, p. 185, note 39. And there (in the text it is explained) that the above-mentioned Rambam (regarding the purpose of building the Sanctuary) follows his own approach. See also there, note 42.

Key Lesson

Just as the Kohanim's service throughout the Beis HaMikdash drew the Shechinah into the Holy of Holies, every Jew's Torah study and prayer today not only brings "a pleasing fragrance to G‑d" but draws the Shechinah into the Holy of Holies of the entire world. A lack in one person's service therefore affects all of Israel and the whole world, while each person's service hastens the time of offering sacrifices in the Third Beis HaMikdash.