Parshas Pekudei
1. At the beginning of our parsha, on the verse "אלה פקודי המשכן משכן העדות וגו'" ("These are the accounts of the Mishkan, the Mishkan of Testimony, etc."), Rashi (in the second dibbur hamaschil) quotes the words "המשכן משכן" ("the Mishkan, the Mishkan") and explains: "Twice — an allusion to the Mikdash, which was taken as a pledge [mashkon] through two destructions, on account of the sins of Israel."
This needs to be understood:
a) Granted, the matter in itself — that at the beginning of our parsha there is an allusion to the two Batei Mikdash — is reasonable: since this parsha is a kind of summation of the building of the Mishkan and its vessels [as Rashi says in the first dibbur hamaschil of this verse: "In this parsha all the weights of the donations for the Mishkan were counted — of silver, of gold and of copper — and all its vessels were counted, for all its service"], this is therefore the place to allude to two more Batei Mikdash that would exist in the future.1 However, it is difficult to understand: why does the allusion in the verse come in a way that indicates their destruction — that the Mikdash "was taken as a pledge through two destructions" — and not through some other allusion that indicates the Mikdash as built and standing?
b) Furthermore: why did our Sages expound these words in the sense of mashkon, a pledge — which indicates their destruction — when in many places, and according to the plain meaning of Scripture, it is to be explained in the sense of "ושכנתי בתוכם" ("and I will dwell among them") — which applied to the Mikdash as well (and in a manner in which*1 one differed from the other)?
c) From the fact that Rashi quotes "the Mishkan, the Mishkan," it is self-evident that his inference is from the repetition of the word "Mishkan." Why, then, does he need to explain this explicitly: "Twice"? Especially since in most places — practically all of them — his way is to explain without first stating the question that his explanation resolves;2 all the more so in our case, where the inference from "twice" is conspicuous.3
d) Why was Rashi precise to say "an allusion to the Mikdash which was taken as a pledge" (in the singular) "through two destructions"? Are there not two Batei Mikdash? Seemingly it would have been more correct to say "an allusion to the Batei Mikdash which were taken as pledges," in the plural — which would also better fit both the beginning of his words, "twice," and their continuation, "through two destructions" (plural).
e) For what reason did he need to add and explain that the "destructions" were "on account of the sins of Israel," after the entire inference from the repeated wording "the Mishkan, the Mishkan" — "twice" — has already been resolved and explained by saying that this is "an allusion to the Mikdash which was taken as a pledge through two destructions"?
f) On the verse "ויפל על צוארי בנימין אחיו ויבך ובנימין בכה על צואריו" ("And he fell upon the neck of his brother Binyamin and wept, and Binyamin wept upon his neck"),4 Rashi explains that it refers to "the two Batei Mikdash that were destined to be in the portion of Binyamin and would ultimately be destroyed," and also to "the Mishkan of Shiloh that was destined to be in the portion of Yosef and would ultimately be destroyed." Thus the Mishkan of Shiloh was also destroyed, like the two Batei Mikdash. If so, one can ask: how does Rashi know that the intent of the verse (in saying "the Mishkan, the Mishkan" twice) is the destruction of the two Batei Mikdash (leaving it a question why the destruction of the Mishkan of Shiloh was not alluded to)? Perhaps (and on the contrary, it is closer to say that) its intent is the destruction of the Mishkan of Shiloh5 (which preceded them) and of the First Mikdash (while the destruction of the Second Mikdash was not alluded to, since it was lacking (as explained below), unlike the Mishkan of Moshe and the two mentioned above)?
g) Rashi explains (from the word "Mishkan") that the Mikdash "was taken as a pledge through two destructions," meaning that the destruction of the Mikdash was in a manner resembling the taking of a pledge.6 Seemingly, however, this is not so: a pledge is something taken from the borrower temporarily, until he repays the debt, at which point the pledge returns to its owner. Accordingly, in our case, when the Holy One, blessed be He, took the (First) Mikdash as a "pledge," He should have returned it just as it was — that is, the Second Beis HaMikdash should resemble the First in all its details. In actuality, however, several things that existed in its predecessor were lacking in the Second Mikdash. As Rashi explains on the verse7 "יפת אלקים ליפת" ("G‑d will enlarge Yefes"): "Although8 . . Koresh built . . the Second Temple, the Shechinah did not rest in it. And where did it rest? In the First Mikdash, etc."; and in Parshas Tetzaveh9 Rashi explains: "And in the Second Mikdash there was the Choshen, etc., but that Name was not within it." If so, how can one say that the First Beis HaMikdash "was taken as a pledge," when it (i.e., its like) was not returned to its children?
2. The explanation of this:
The essence of the Beis HaMikdash is as it is written:10 "אין זה כי אם בית אלקים וזה שער השמים" ("This is none other than the house of G‑d, and this is the gate of heaven") (aligned with the Beis HaMikdash Above); and it says:11 "מכון לשבתך פעלת ה'" ("The foundation of Your dwelling place which You, O L‑rd, have made"), and "המקום אשר הכינותי" ("the place which I have prepared").12 Therefore it is said of it: "לבנות את בית ה' בירושלים" ("to build the House of the L‑rd in Jerusalem"),13 and it is called "an eternal house"14 — and all this applies equally to both Batei Mikdash.
This is not so of the Mishkan and the Mishkan of Shiloh, which were not aligned opposite the Beis HaMikdash Above and are called "Ohel" ("tent"),15 "Ohel Mo'ed" ("Tent of Meeting")16 — a temporary dwelling for the Shechinah; and a temporary dwelling is not at all comparable to a permanent dwelling.
All this is understood simply even by a five-year-old (beginning the study of Scripture): the details in which one house differs from another house do not change the essential point they share — a permanent dwelling in which to live. Whereas a "tent," even if it has a great many details in which it is equal to a house, nevertheless differs in its essential point: it is only a temporary dwelling and not a permanent dwelling.
Accordingly it is understood that although the two Batei Mikdash do not resemble each other in a great many details, nevertheless, since their essential point is one and the same — a "house" for His Shechinah, may He be blessed — the second is the return of the pledge of the first. Whereas regarding the Mishkan, which was a "tent," one cannot say that it "was taken as a pledge" and that the "pledge" was returned in the Beis HaMikdash, since they are not alike in their essential point.
3. This can be further explained: the allusion to the two pledges is "the Mishkan, the Mishkan" twice — that is, two words that are alike. This itself teaches us about the things alluded to by them, that they too are equal to each other; that is, the intent is to the two Batei Mikdash, and not to the Tent of Shiloh and a Beis HaMikdash, as explained above.
This is the intent of Rashi's precise wording in explaining "the Mishkan, the Mishkan — twice": with this he emphasizes that this is not an allusion (derived from a superfluous word in the verse, in which case there is no necessity that the things be alike to each other), but that the lesson is from the fact that "Mishkan" [in the sense of mashkon, a pledge] is said "twice" — the same matter is said twice. And this tells us the "allusion to the Mikdash (that is: it is the First Mikdash and it is the Second Mikdash — one Mikdash, only) which was taken as a pledge through two destructions"; and it is obvious that the subject is not the Mishkan of Shiloh and the Beis HaMikdash.
Nevertheless, Rashi writes "(an allusion to the) Mikdash," and not "Beis HaMikdash"17 as above — because his way is that even the aggadah in his commentary must fit the words of the verse, and in Scripture we find that "Mishkan" and "Mikdash" are one and the same, which is not so of "Beis HaMikdash."
4. Accordingly (that the main point of the allusion is the concept of a "pledge"), the reason is understood why the verse alludes to the two Batei Mikdash as they are a "pledge," which is the matter of the destruction. On the contrary: "pledge" emphasizes and introduces the novel point18 that the thing remains in its completeness always, even when it passes from one domain to another. The destruction of the Beis HaMikdash was not in a manner that the Holy One, blessed be He, nullified its existence, Heaven forbid, but only that He took the Mikdash as a "pledge," and afterward returned it (and will return it in the future) to the Jewish people.
This also explains well why Rashi concludes his commentary with "on account of the sins of Israel" — for thereby he explains why it is only a pledge. Were we to imagine that the destruction came from the side of the Mikdash itself (that the end of the period of its existence that had been set for it at the outset had arrived, and the like), that would be a nullification. But since the cause is "the sins of Israel" — meaning that the conduct of the Jewish people caused it — this affects only the connection of the Beis HaMikdash to the Jewish people.
5. Another reason for this addition in Rashi's commentary, "on account of the sins of Israel," is to answer the following: granted, the wording of the verse proves that it speaks of the two Batei Mikdash and not of Shiloh, as explained above; nevertheless, this itself needs explanation: why did the verse not also allude to the destruction of Shiloh?
Rashi explains with "on account of the sins of Israel": here the Torah alludes to the Mikdash which "was taken as a pledge" (from the Jewish people, that is) for the sins of the entire Jewish people — unlike the Mishkan of Shiloh, which was destroyed through the sin of Chofni and Pinchas, the sons of Eli, as related in the Prophets.18*
6. One may also say that there is an allusion in Rashi's addition, "on account of the sins of Israel," showing the strength of the Mikdash's existence from the side of the Holy One, blessed be He — that is, the greatness of His desire and will, may He be blessed, that the Mikdash should endure among the Jewish people. For although the sins of the Jewish people are the cause of the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash — and many years before the destruction there already were "sins of Israel," a great many transgressions had already been committed, and so it was also in the Second Temple — nevertheless the Holy One, blessed be He, waited a long time, and the Mikdash was not destroyed until many years had passed. The Holy One, blessed be He, prolonged the existence of the Beis HaMikdash for many years so that the Jewish people would return from their sins and the Beis HaMikdash would remain standing.
This point, too, follows from what was explained above: the intent of the verse here is to allude to the Batei Mikdash that were destined to be among the Jewish people. Therefore it alludes to all the details that express the strength of their existence — that even at the time of their destruction they are only in the category of a "pledge," and this too not because of the Mikdash, but because of the sins of Israel; and moreover, all this is in a manner that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not want to destroy it.19
7. The lesson from this for a person's Divine service: "דיו לעבד שיהא כרבו" ("It is enough for the servant to be like his master").20 Just as the Holy One, blessed be He, refrained from destroying the Mikdash for a long time — even though the cause of the destruction ("the sins of Israel") had already existed for many years — and by prolonging the existence of the Mikdash He thereby gave the Jewish people additional strength and assistance to return in teshuvah; so too it is the duty of every person to conduct himself this way with his fellow: not to refrain, Heaven forbid, from being a helper and supporter to him in matters of Torah and mitzvos, helping him in making and sustaining the "Mishkan" — "and I will dwell among them" (the resting of the Shechinah within each and every Jew21) — even though his fellow's conduct is not as it should be. On the contrary, we are not permitted to exempt ourselves from this, since we have been commanded with the positive mitzvos "הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך" ("You shall surely rebuke your fellow")22 and "ואהבת לרעך כמוך" ("Love your fellow as yourself").23
In addition: regarding influencing one's fellow in matters of Torah and mitzvos, there is a further proof, so to speak, from the conduct of the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself, that one should not take into account that his fellow's spiritual state is not as it should be. In Parshas Tisa24 it is related: "ויתן אל משה ככלותו לדבר אתו בהר סיני שני לוחות העדות גו'" ("And He gave to Moshe, when He finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two Tablets of Testimony, etc."), meaning that when the Holy One, blessed be He, finished "speaking with him the statutes and ordinances,"25 He immediately gave him the Tablets. That is, on the fortieth day of his ascent of Mount Sinai the Holy One, blessed be He, completed His learning with Moshe, and at that very time gave him the Tablets in order to give them to the Jewish people. And it is also explained26 that the Jewish people made the Golden Calf on the thirty-ninth day of Moshe's ascent of Mount Sinai. It follows that even after they had made the Calf, the Holy One, blessed be He, still studied the Torah with Moshe (in order that he teach it afterward to the Jewish people), and also gave him the Tablets then in order to give them to the Jewish people — even though at that very time they had made the Calf.
If so, all the more so must this be a person's conduct: not to hold himself back from influencing his fellow in matters of Torah and mitzvos, without regard to his spiritual state not being as it should be. On the contrary: through this he will bring about improvement and spiritual elevation (in his fellow and) also in himself, for we have been assured: "מאיר עיני שניהם הוי'" ("The L‑rd enlightens the eyes of both of them").27
Through this we will merit the making of the Mikdash within each and every Jew, and thereby "ובנה מקדש במקומו" ("and he will build the Mikdash in its place")28 by Moshiach Tzidkeinu, speedily in our days.
(From the sichah of Shabbos Parshas Vayakhel-Pekudei, 5732)
Notes
1) This also resolves the question of the Gur Aryeh: "What does this have to do with here, to write it here — and why did it not write this in the entire preceding parsha?" And his answer is not according to the plain meaning of Scripture. The same applies to the answer of the Maskil LeDovid.
*1) See below, at the end of the section.
2) This is unlike Parshas Vayeshev (38:30), where Rashi explains "four hands are written here" — that is because otherwise Rashi's inference would not be clear. And in Parshas Mishpatim (23:19): "And in three places it is written in the Torah, etc.," and in Parshas Tisa (34:26): "And three times it is written in the Torah, etc." (and so too in Parshas Re'eh (14:21)) — because not all three times were written in that place.
3) But see below, note 5.
4) Vayigash 45:14.
5) As for what the Sifsei Chachamim writes — that from the fact that it says "HaMishkan" with the definite article, it is proven that "it refers to the special Mishkan, namely the eternal house, which is the Beis HaMikdash; if so, it is difficult why the verse calls it by the term Mishkan, except as an allusion, etc." — this is not at all understood: (a) How would a five-year-old (beginning the study of Scripture) know that "HaMishkan" with the definite article alludes to the Beis HaMikdash? (b) Rashi states explicitly that the inference is from what is written, "the Mishkan, the Mishkan," "twice" (and not "why the verse calls it by the term Mishkan"). Perhaps one may say that this is one of Rashi's intentions in adding the words "twice" — to rule out this interpretation. Similarly, there is a difficulty with what the Maskil LeDovid writes: "The letter hei of HaMishkan comes to include another; take away one for itself, and two remain for the exposition."
And as for what has been asked — "But only one Mishkan is superfluous for the exposition, and one is needed for itself"* — Rashi's intent is not that the allusion to the two pledges comes from two superfluous words, but from the fact that it is written twice — that is, the verse wrote it once more, even though it seemingly is superfluous, so that they be written "twice" (one after the other, to allude to two) pledges.
*) And although seemingly it should have said "אלה הפקודים" ("These are the counted ones"), as in Bamidbar (1:44) — one may say that there it is different, since before that it is explained that the subject is the Jewish people, whereas here it is only afterward that it explains that the subject is the Mishkan. Furthermore, in our parsha "the counted ones of the congregation" are also mentioned.
6) And although the Holy One, blessed be He, took this pledge after they had sinned — that is, after they did not repay the debt — and not at the time of the loan, it is already known that this too is a pledge, as Rashi explains (Mishpatim 22:25): "Every expression of chavalah does not refer to a pledge taken at the time of the loan, but rather that one takes a pledge from the borrower when the time arrives and he does not pay." On the contrary: from this comment of Rashi it appears that the Torah has not yet spoken about a pledge at the time of the loan, but only about a pledge not at the time of the loan.
7) Noach 9:27.
8) Although the intent is not that the Shechinah did not rest in the Second Temple at all — for that is the opposite of the entire concept of the Beis HaMikdash (see below, Section 2) — but rather that the Shechinah did not rest in it as in the First Temple [and this too suffices to understand the verse "G‑d will enlarge Yefes, and he will dwell in the tents of Shem"], and similar levels in the resting of the Shechinah (see Rashi, Tisa 34:9).
9) 28:30.
10) Vayetzei 28:17, and Rashi there.
11) Beshalach 15:17, and Rashi there.
12) Mishpatim 23:20, and Rashi there.
13) II Divrei HaYamim 3:1, cited in Rashi, Vayeira 22:2.
14) Rashi, Terumah 25:9.
15) As it is written (II Shmuel 7:6): "And I went about in a tent and in a Mishkan." The word "in a tent" also refers to the Mishkan of Shiloh, as is evident from the fact that Rashi (there) quotes from the verse the words "in a tent (and in a Mishkan)" and explains: "The Mishkan of Shiloh had no roof; rather, it was a house of stones below and curtains above." And also according to the commentators who hold that "in a tent" refers to the Mishkan in the desert ("and in a Mishkan" referring to Shiloh), it is likewise understood that the Mishkan of Shiloh was not a permanent house for the resting of the Shechinah, as it is written at the beginning of that verse: "For I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought up the children of Israel until this day."
Accordingly, it is understood why Rashi was compelled to explain in Parshas Re'eh (12:9), on the verse "For you have not yet come to the rest and to the inheritance," that "rest" — "this is Shiloh," and "the inheritance" — "this is Jerusalem," even though in the Gemara (Zevachim 119a) there are four opinions on the matter: because "inheritance" connotes possession and permanence, whereas "rest" can also be said of something temporary (similar to Rashi, Bereishis 2:2).
16) Nevertheless, on the verse "ועשו לי מקדש" ("And they shall make Me a Sanctuary"), which speaks of the making of the Mishkan, Rashi explains: "And they shall make for My Name a house of holiness" — because it comes in contrast to the "vessels" that follow it. See also Rashi in our parsha (38:22): "house . . vessels."
17) For seemingly "Mikdash" is a general term (applying also to the Mishkan), whereas "Beis HaMikdash" is not.
18) Therefore one cannot explain "the Mishkan, the Mishkan" here in the sense of "ושכנתי" ("and I will dwell"): for what would this be teaching us? It was already said, "and so shall you do — for future generations" (Rashi, 25:9). In addition, the "I will dwell" occurred four times, not two.
18*) I Shmuel 2:3, Rashi s.v. "Ba'u" (Zevachim 112b).
19) One may say that what Rashi writes in the following dibbur hamaschil — "The Mishkan of Testimony: a testimony for Israel that the Holy One, blessed be He, forgave them for the incident of the Calf, for He rested His Shechinah among them" — follows from what Rashi writes at the conclusion of this dibbur: "on account of the sins of Israel." That is, since we see that the two Batei Mikdash were destroyed "on account of the sins of Israel," then all the more so He would not give them a Mishkan at the very time of the sin;* hence it is proven from this "that the Holy One, blessed be He, forgave them for the incident of the Calf."
*) And although the two Batei Mikdash were not destroyed immediately after they sinned, as stated in the text, it is nevertheless understood that He would not give them a Mishkan in the first place if they were still in a state of sin.
20) Berachos 58b. Bereishis Rabbah 49:2. Zohar III, 111a. See also Shemos Rabbah 42:5.
21) As our Sages said (Reishis Chochmah, Shaar HaAhavah, ch. 6, near the beginning; Shelah, Shaar HaOsiyos, letter lamed; and elsewhere): "It does not say 'within it,' but 'within them' — within each and every one."
22) Kedoshim 19:17 — and our Sages said (Bava Metzia 31a): "even a hundred times." And even if you say that the mitzvah of "You shall surely rebuke" applies only to "your fellow" who is with you in Torah and mitzvos — and that not only regarding the prohibition of wronging one's fellow is it a condition that he be "with you in Torah and mitzvos" (Bava Metzia 59a; Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 228:1, in the gloss; Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, Laws of Ona'ah, sec. 30) — (and this requires great investigation; see Rambam, Laws of De'os, ch. 6; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 608; Choshen Mishpat 228; Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, Orach Chayim there, and Laws of Ona'ah; the glosses of the Tzemach Tzedek on Tanya, ch. 32 (in Kitzurim VeHe'aros, p. 36); Responsa Minchas Yitzchak, vol. 4, sec. 79–80, and the sources cited there; and elsewhere; this is not the place to elaborate) — it is nevertheless explicit in Shabbos (55a) that even the completely righteous are obligated to protest (to rebuke, as Rashi explains) against the completely wicked — to the extent that they are held accountable, etc., if they did not protest.
23) Kedoshim 19:18.
24) 31:18.
25) Rashi there.
26) As stated explicitly (ibid. 32:5–6): "And he said, 'Tomorrow shall be a festival to the L‑rd.' And they rose early on the morrow, etc." See also Rashi (there, v. 1).
27) Mishlei 29:13. See also Temurah 16a. . . the Introduction to Tanya. See also Torah Or, at its beginning (regarding "Tzedakah exalts a nation"): "his mind and heart become refined a thousand times over"; and Ohr HaTorah, Bereishis (vol. 6, p. 1026b), that "a thousand" is not meant as an exaggeration.
28) Rambam, Laws of Kings, end of ch. 11.
Key Lesson
Even when the Jewish people sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, delayed the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash for many years, and even then took it only as a "pledge" to be returned. So too, we may never hold back from helping another Jew build his inner "Mishkan" in Torah and mitzvos because his conduct is not yet as it should be; such help brings light to both the giver and the receiver.