Parshas Re'eh
1. In Hilchos Beis HaBechirah1 the Rambam says: "המקדש כולו לא הי׳ במישור אלא במעלה ההר" ("The entire Mikdash was not on level ground, but on the ascent of the mountain") (and further on he continues and explains the particulars of the differences and the ascents, etc.): "כשאדם נכנס משער מזרחי של הר הבית מהלך עד סוף החיל בשוה, ועולה מן החיל לעזרת הנשים בשתים עשרה מעלות כו׳, ומהלך כל עזרת הנשים בשוה, ועולה ממנה לעזרת ישראל שהוא תחלת העזרה בחמש עשרה מעלות כו׳, ומהלך כל עזרת ישראל בשוה, ועולה ממנו לעזרת הכהנים במעלה גבוהה אמה כו׳, ומהלך כל עזרת הכהנים והמזבח כו׳, ועולה משם לאולם בשתים עשרה מעלות כו׳, והאולם וההיכל כולו בשוה" ("When a person enters from the eastern gate of the Temple Mount, he walks on level ground until the end of the Cheil, and ascends from the Cheil to the Women's Courtyard by twelve steps, etc.; he walks the entire Women's Courtyard on level ground, and ascends from it to the Courtyard of Israel, which is the beginning of the Azarah, by fifteen steps, etc.; he walks the entire Courtyard of Israel on level ground, and ascends from it to the Courtyard of the Kohanim by a step one cubit high, etc.; he walks the entire Courtyard of the Kohanim and the Altar, etc., and ascends from there to the Ulam by twelve steps, etc.; and the Ulam and the Heichal are all on level ground").
As for the fact that the Rambam begins with (and adds) the negation — "the entire Mikdash was not on level ground (but on the ascent of the mountain)" — and does not merely state the positive, "the entire Mikdash was on the ascent of the mountain," it may be said:
Since, according to the Rambam, the positive mitzvah "ועשו לי מקדש" ("They shall make Me a Sanctuary")2 is fulfilled by building the Beis HaMikdash — in continuation of "the Mishkan that Moshe Rabbeinu made (in the desert)," as he says at the beginning of Hilchos Beis HaBechirah3; and as he also explains there regarding "the things" in the building of the House4:
"ואלו הן הדברים שהן עיקר בבנין הבית: עושין בו קדש וקדש הקדשים, ויהי׳ לפני הקדש מקום אחד והוא הנקרא אולם, ושלשתן נקראין היכל; ועושין מחיצה אחרת סביב להיכל רחוקה ממנה כעין קלעי החצר שהיו במדבר, וכל המוקף במחיצה זו שהוא כעין חצר אהל מועד הוא הנקרא עזרה, והכל נקרא מקדש" ("These are the things that are fundamental in the building of the House: One makes in it a Kodesh and a Kodesh HaKodashim, and before the Kodesh there shall be one place, which is called the Ulam, and the three of them are called the Heichal; and one makes another partition around the Heichal, at a distance from it, like the hangings of the courtyard that were in the desert; and everything enclosed by this partition, which is like the courtyard of the Ohel Moed, is called the Azarah; and the whole is called the Mikdash"). From the plain meaning of his words it is understood that "the things" that are "fundamental in the building of the House" are like, and similar to, what there was in the Mishkan5.
[Similarly, he says further on in Hilchos Beis HaBechirah6 regarding the "שלש מחנות" ("three camps") that existed in the desert, that so too there were "כנגדן לדורות" ("corresponding to them for all generations").]
Therefore one might have thought that just as the entire Mishkan was (simply) on one level surface, no part higher than another, so too was the Mikdash —
Therefore the Rambam begins with: "The entire7 Mikdash was not on level ground (like the Mishkan), but on the ascent of the mountain."
2. The Rambam is, after all, a book of "הלכות הלכות" ("halachos, halachos"). It is understood, then, that the Rambam's description that "the entire Mikdash was not on level ground but on the ascent of the mountain" is not merely because this was the actual form of the House — that since the Mikdash was built on a mountain, which rises continuously on a slope, one therefore had8 to build the parts of the House ever higher and higher — but rather9 this is a matter of halacha10, and of "the entire Mikdash"11 — and in both particulars, the negative and the positive: "the entire Mikdash" (a) must not be on level ground — "was not on level ground," and "but" (b) it must be "on the ascent of the mountain."
Moreover, it may be said: from the fact that the Rambam is precise to say it in the wording "לא . . אלא" ("not . . but") — and not "המקדש כולו הי׳ במעלה ההר ולא במישור" ("the entire Mikdash was on the ascent of the mountain and not on level ground") — it is implied12 that this is not merely a matter of lechatchilah, but an indispensable condition13.
But this needs to be understood: since the building of the Mikdash is a continuation of the mitzvah "They shall make Me a Sanctuary," whose fulfillment began with the Mishkan; and the things that are fundamental in the building of the House are modeled on the things in the Mishkan, as mentioned above — what is the explanation for why in this matter the Mikdash must be different from the Mishkan14?
And although the Beis HaMikdash differed from the Mishkan in many details, beginning with the dimensions of the Mikdash and similar details in the structure itself — (a) these too must have a reason; (b) in several of them the reason is simple, e.g., the Mikdash was (also) of stones and the like, much larger and higher than the Mishkan, etc., since it stood for all generations in the same place, etc.; (c) here specifically it is emphasized, and in great detail, that "the entire Mikdash was not on level ground (like the Mishkan) but on the ascent of the mountain, etc."
3. The explanation of this may be said to be as follows:
The differences between the places in the Mikdash "on the ascent of the mountain" — such that going from one part to the next was by way of ascending steps — correspond to the fact that each of them contained an addition, an ascent in holiness, relative to the place before it (as the Rambam says in the following chapter15). Accordingly, it may be said that the law that "the entire Mikdash was not on level ground but on the ascent of the mountain" is connected with the ascending levels in the holiness of the Mikdash — each part of the Mikdash that is higher in the area of its place has a higher holiness16.
And therefore this is a law only in the Mikdash and not in the Mishkan — because the fact that the differences of levels in holiness create a law regarding the area of their place is connected with the definition of holiness that was newly introduced in the Mikdash (relative to the holiness of the Mishkan).
The explanation of this:
There is a fundamental difference between the Mishkan and the Beis HaMikdash: The Mishkan was a temporary structure, as it is written17, "ואהי׳ מתהלך באהל ובמשכן" ("I have moved about in a tent and in a Mishkan"), and in the words of the Rambam cited above, "משכן שעשה משה . . הי׳ לפי שעה" ("the Mishkan that Moshe made . . was for a time"); whereas the Beis HaMikdash was a "דירת קבע" ("permanent dwelling")18, and in the words of the Rambam19: "כיון שנבנה המקדש בירושלים נאסרו כל המקומות כולן לבנות בהן בית לה׳ ולהקריב בהן קרבן, ואין שם בית לדורי הדורות אלא בירושלים בלבד ובהר המוריה" ("Once the Mikdash was built in Jerusalem, all other places became forbidden for building in them a House for G‑d and for offering a sacrifice in them; and there is no House for all generations except in Jerusalem alone, on Mount Moriah")20.
And the difference between them in the definition of holiness is this: In the Mishkan, the holiness took effect (primarily) in the structure and its parts — the beams and curtains, etc. (which were anointed with the anointing oil21, and which were fixed); in them there was no change. In the Beis HaMikdash, however, there was also22 "קדושת מקום" ("sanctity of place")23 — the very place of the Mikdash became sanctified. And this in two respects: (a) specifically regarding the Beis HaMikdash it is said in our parshah24, "המקום אשר יבחר ה׳ אלקיכם בו" ("the place that the L‑rd your G‑d will choose"); (b) there was the act of sanctifying the ground (floor) of the Mikdash, etc.25
And although regarding the Mishkan, too, it is stated in the verse26 (concerning a sotah), "ומן העפר אשר יהי׳ בקרקע המשכן יקח הכהן" ("And of the dust that is on the floor of the Mishkan the Kohen shall take") — (a) this was only temporary — "for a time"; (b) even at that time, it was not because of the holiness of the place27 and the ground in itself, but because of the Ohel Moed (curtains and beams) — the Mishkan that stood upon that ground.
For this reason there is a difference between the place of the Mishkan and the place of the Mikdash: with the Mishkan, after it was dismantled and "they journeyed from there"28, no holiness whatsoever remained in the original place29 (similar to what was the case at Mount Sinai after the Giving of the Torah30: "במשוך היובל המה יעלו בהר" ("When the ram's horn sounds long, they may go up on the mountain")31);
whereas regarding the Beis HaMikdash32, the law, as the Rambam rules33, is that "מקריבין הקרבנות כולן אע״פ שאין שם בית בנוי, ואוכלין קדשי קדשים בכל העזרה אע״פ שהיא חריבה ואינה מוקפת במחיצה" ("all the sacrifices are offered even though there is no House built there, and the most holy offerings are eaten throughout the entire Azarah even though it is in ruins and not surrounded by a partition"). Since the place itself became sanctified ("מפני השכינה" — "because of the Shechinah"34) — "the place that He will choose, etc." — the choice is in the place; therefore holiness remains there (forever)35.
4. Accordingly it is understood why specifically in the Mikdash there was the novelty that "the entire Mikdash was not on level ground but on the ascent of the mountain," together with the particular differences in the ascents from place to place in the Beis HaMikdash:
Specifically in the Mikdash, where there is a holiness connected with the "place" itself — the place is "a place that G‑d will choose, etc." — there it is relevant to say that the differences of holiness in the Mikdash create differences in the place of the Mikdash, in the height of the area of the places, whereby one place is set apart from another place. For the sanctity of place of the Beis HaMikdash is not (only) a general holiness, equal throughout the entire Beis HaMikdash; rather, there are differences of level in the sanctity of the place, in accordance with the levels of holiness of the parts of the House — Heichal, Azarah.
[And the special holiness of the particular place also remained forever — "even though there is no House built there," as is understood (also) from the Rambam cited above that "the most holy offerings are eaten throughout the entire Azarah even though it is in ruins, etc.," for the place for eating the most holy offerings is in the Azarah36.]
Whereas the Mishkan, which was not in a manner of permanence in a place — it was not "a place that G‑d will choose"; rather, the holiness of the Mishkan was in the (parts of the) Ohel Moed, the beams and curtains, etc. — therefore with the Mishkan, the distinction in holiness between the parts of the Mishkan did not exist, was not extended and fixed, in the place in the desert where the Mishkan (temporarily) encamped.
And therefore the place of the Mishkan was "on level ground" — within the area of the Mishkan itself, one place (of a part) of the Mishkan was not set apart from another place.
And this is why the Rambam emphasizes the difference between the Mishkan and the Mikdash — although there are (as mentioned above) many differences between them — because specifically in the fact that "the entire Mikdash was not on level ground but on the ascent of the mountain" (the differences in the ascents of the parts of the Mikdash) a fundamental novelty of the Mikdash relative to the Mishkan is expressed: being "the place that G‑d will choose," the Mikdash and its parts effected something in their place — in the sanctity of the place.
5. According to this, however, it needs to be understood:
According to the above, that the ascents in the area of the place are connected with the different levels and ascents in the sanctity of the place — the higher the holiness of a part of the Mikdash, the higher was its place (area) — why were there no steps (and many steps) to ascend to the Kodesh HaKodashim?
The Kodesh HaKodashim was, after all, (as its name, "holy relative to the holy ones," indicates) set apart in its holiness from all the parts of the House; and, as the Rambam concludes in the following chapter37, the highest holiness38 is in the chamber of the Kodesh HaKodashim, "שאין נכנס לשם אלא כה״ג ביוהכ״פ בשעת העבודה" ("which no one enters except the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur at the time of the service"). It should therefore have been higher (much higher) in the area of its place?!
This will be understood by first explaining the above — the difference between the Mishkan and the Mikdash — according to the approach of the teachings of Chassidus39:
The Mishkan, which was a temporary dwelling (so to speak) for the One Above, was built of wood (beams) — vegetable — and curtains — (made partly of) animal [matter] (only the ground, upon which it was set up for a time, was mineral, earth40); whereas the Beis HaMikdash, which was a "permanent dwelling" of the Holy One, blessed be He, was built primarily of stones ("ואין בונים בו עץ בולט כלל אלא או באבנים או בלבנים" — "and no protruding wood at all is built into it, but only stones or bricks"41) — mineral, which is lower than the category of vegetable and animal.
And the reason for this is explained: the purpose of the Mishkan was (not so much to effect a permanent change in the physicality of the world, but) (primarily) to "reflect" the order of the chaining-down of the worlds (seder hishtalshelus)42. Therefore the structure of the Mishkan corresponded to the way matters are drawn down in the order of hishtalshelus: the covering of the Mishkan above was of "animal," and likewise the curtains of goats' hair beneath it, and (mostly) the curtains beneath them. Below that, a minority of the curtains of the Mishkan and the lower parts of the Mishkan, the beams of the Mishkan, were of vegetable; and lower still, the sockets and the floor of the Mishkan were silver and earth — mineral.
The advantage and achievement of the Beis HaMikdash (relative to the Mishkan) is that through it is fulfilled the intent of "נתאוה הקב״ה להיות לו דירה בתחתונים" ("The Holy One, blessed be He, desired to have a dwelling in the lower realms")43 specifically — that holiness, the indwelling of the Shechinah, should be drawn down and permeate the world, down to the lowest level of the physicality of the world — also the category of mineral, in which its vitality and spirituality are not openly seen.
And since the purpose of the Beis HaMikdash is to draw down the indwelling of the Shechinah into the world in such a way that holiness should permeate and elevate physicality, this was therefore expressed also in the physical reality of the world itself — the place where the Beis HaMikdash stood was on a mountain, higher than the places around it44; and the higher the ascent and level of holiness in the Mikdash, the higher, physically, was the physical place as well.
Whereas the Mishkan, whose (main) purpose was not that the indwelling of the Shechinah within it should permeate the physicality of the world down to the mineral, the earth, below which there is nothing lower — therefore the indwelling of the Shechinah and the holiness within it remained, as it were, a separate entity; it was not reflected in the physical place. And therefore, although in the Mishkan there were differences in the levels of holiness, it was nevertheless — in its place in this world — entirely like level ground, not raised in accordance with the level of holiness, level even with the place of the desert.
6. Accordingly, the reason is also understood why the Kodesh HaKodashim in the Mikdash, the most sanctified place, was not distinguished in its height from the Heichal of the Mikdash:
The concept that the spiritual holiness of the Mikdash effects an elevation of the physical place — and that therefore one place is higher than another, according to the differences in holiness — applies to such levels of holiness where the lower level is comparable to the higher one, which is higher (only) "by twelve steps" and the like. When, however, we are speaking of a level of holiness that is incomparably higher (to the point of being above the very definition of above and below) — with an incomparably exalted level, it is not applicable that this should be expressed in a number of steps — in a measured and limited height, and consequently — not in the height of a physical place.
And this is the difference between the other parts of the Mikdash and the Kodesh HaKodashim: in the parts of the Mikdash, the holiness of one is higher, but comparably — it bears a relation to the adjacent part and level of holiness — and corresponding to the difference in relation is the difference between them in the number and height of the steps from place to place; one is higher than the other also physically.
But with (the holiness of) the Kodesh HaKodashim, where there was a revelation, in the place, of (the Essence, of) "נמנע הנמנעות" ("the impossibility of impossibilities")45 — in the place of the Ark (which "אינו מן המדה" — "did not take up measured space"46), which is utterly incomparable to the other parts of the Mikdash, altogether above the definition of above and below — such loftiness cannot be expressed (even by way of allusion and example) in the height of a physical place, which is measured and limited.
7. There is another aspect to this — prefaced by the precise wording of the Rambam: "When a person enters from the eastern gate of the Temple Mount, he walks on level ground until the end of the Cheil, and ascends from the Cheil to the Women's Courtyard by twelve steps, etc.; he walks the entire Women's Courtyard on level ground, and ascends, etc." — namely, that regarding the steps and ascents he speaks (not so much about the height of the place in itself, but) about how the person walks and ascends.
It may be said that the Rambam thereby alludes that all the levels of holiness in which a person "walks" from level to level are by way of "ascending": it must effect an elevation in the person; he must raise himself and ascend from level to level47.
When, however, it comes to the levels of the Kodesh HaKodashim, the manner is not that the person "walks . . and ascends," rising higher in his ascents in holiness; rather, he is entirely in a state of complete nullification of his existence, "כולו בשוה" ("entirely level")48.
And this is connected with the Beis HaMikdash, which is "(ושכנתי) בתוכם" ("[that I may dwell] within them")49 — with the level of "Kodesh HaKodashim" that is in the personal Mikdash of every Jew, the innermost depth of the heart, the level of yechidah of the soul50, in which there is no form or limitation, and all the more so no expansion (which is alluded51 in the tip of the yud52), by virtue of which a Jew "מבטל ומסלק את עצמו ורצונו ליבטל אליו ית׳" ("nullifies and removes himself and his will, to be nullified to Him, may He be blessed")53; and in this lies the essential bond of a Jew — which is above definition and form, "יחידה לייחדך" ("[my] yechidah, to unite with You")* — like the entry of the Kohen Gadol (as an emissary of "כל עמך בית ישראל בכל מקום שהם" — "all Your people, the House of Israel, wherever they are") once a year into the Kodesh HaKodashim.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Masei, 5744)
Notes
1) Ch. 6, halachos 1–4.
2) Terumah 25:8.
3) Beginning of ch. 1. See at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 15, p. 302ff., and the sources cited there; vol. 21, p. 149; and the sources noted in the notes there.
4) Hilchos Beis HaBechirah ch. 1, halacha 5.
5) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 16, p. 306, and the sources cited there. See also Kiryas Sefer by the Mabit on the Rambam there, ch. 4.
6) Ch. 6, halacha 11.
7) Seemingly, it may be said that this is the precision of the Rambam's wording here, "the entire Mikdash": since he already wrote (ch. 1, halacha 5) that only the Heichal (Kodesh, Kodesh HaKodashim and Ulam) and the Azarah (i.e., the Courtyard of Israel, as he puts it here in halacha 2: "the Courtyard of Israel, which is the beginning of the Azarah") are called Mikdash (since they are modeled on the Mishkan), whereas here he details "and ascends from the Cheil to the Women's Courtyard, etc." (and the Cheil and the Women's Courtyard were additions in the permanent House* — Rambam there, ch. 6, halacha 11) — he therefore needed to preface "the entire Mikdash," i.e., "Mikdash" in its general sense. But one could argue that even in "the entire Mikdash" his intent is to the parts of the Mikdash that are called Mikdash (there, ch. 1, halacha 5), i.e., the Courtyard of Israel and inward (enumerated here from halacha 3 onward). This is not the place to elaborate. See Encyclopedia Talmudis, entry "Beis HaMikdash." See also below, note 14.
*) See Yevamos 6b (cited in the Rambam here, ch. 7, halacha 1; see there): "What is reverence for the Mikdash? A person may not enter the Temple Mount, etc." See also Bikkurim 1:9, where it is called "the House of G‑d." And in Radak on Yechezkel (40:5), that the mountain as a whole is called the Beis HaMikdash. See also Meiri on Yevamos 7b, explaining the dispute between the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Yehudah whether the Women's Courtyard is included in "Mikdash" (so that an impure person who enters there is liable to kares) or is not included in "Mikdash"; and see there that some authorities rule that even the Women's Courtyard is included regarding kares, etc. And there (in the section of rulings, 6a): that the mitzvah of reverence for the Mikdash applies only from the entrance of the Azarah inward, etc., and by Rabbinic law also on the Temple Mount, but by Torah law . . it is not called Mikdash. See also Responsa Avnei Nezer, Yoreh De'ah vol. 2, sec. 451, par. 20ff. This is not the place to elaborate.
8) In addition to the main point, that this is not an absolute necessity: for just as one walks until the end of the Cheil on level ground, and the entire Women's Courtyard, etc., on level ground (and not on a slope), so could the entire extent of the whole Mikdash have been.
9) See Kiryas Sefer here, beginning of ch. 10. See also there, ch. 5.
10) For if we were to say that the Rambam's intent in the first four halachos of this chapter is only an introduction to what he concludes in halacha 5, "It turns out that the height of the floor of the Heichal above the floor, etc., and because of this they made the wall above this gate low, so that the Kohen, etc." (and so it is implied by the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Middos 2:4–5) — the Rambam would not have needed to elaborate so much in the first four halachos, but only to state how much higher the Women's Courtyard was than the Cheil, the Courtyard of Israel than the Women's Courtyard, etc. Or what he wrote in halacha 5 alone would have sufficed.
11) See also above, note 7.
12) Note Tosafos, s.v. "Masnisin dela" (Menachos 83b).
13) It may be said that this depends on the above (note 7) regarding the meaning of "the entire Mikdash"; and whether "everything in writing, etc." refers (also) to all (the details of) the Temple Mount (see the following note); and whether all the details included in "everything in writing, etc." are a mitzvah or also indispensable. This is not the place to elaborate. See also Sefer HaSichos 5749, vol. 2, p. 453.
14) For although "All this is in writing from the hand of G‑d, which He made me understand" (I Divrei HaYamim 28:19), for "all the work of the design the Holy One, blessed be He, made known to him, etc." (Rashi, Sukkah 51b, end; see also Yerushalmi Megillah 1:1); and moreover: in Sukkah there it is evident that this was said not only about the Azarah and inward (see Rashi there; see also Rashi on Divrei HaYamim there) — nevertheless, one cannot say of a matter, without qualification, that it is a Scriptural decree for which there is no explanation at all. See also Kiryas Sefer there, end of ch. 4.
15) Ch. 6, halacha 15ff.
16) But not every place in the Mikdash that is holier is higher in area. — See below in the text (section 5ff.) regarding the Kodesh HaKodashim; and this requires investigation regarding the Cheil, for according to the Rambam one "walks until the end of the Cheil on level ground"*. So too it requires investigation regarding the area between the Ulam and the Altar, where there are no steps, although "between the Ulam and the Altar is holier than it (the Courtyard of the Kohanim)" (there, ch. 6, halacha 12). See also below, note 47.
*) See above, in the marginal gloss to note 7.
17) II Shmuel 7:6. See Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:16 (3); [OCR unclear], beginning of Parshas Vayigash.
18) See Shir HaShirim Rabbah there; [OCR unclear] there.
19) There, ch. 1, halacha 3.
20) See at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 16, p. 466ff.
21) Tissa 30:26; Pekudei 40:9. See also Shevuos 16b.
22) See Maharsha there, 16a: "The Mishkan had no permanence of place, and there was no need to sanctify the place by encircling it with two thanksgiving offerings and the remainder of a meal offering; rather, the Mishkan was sanctified through anointing. But . . in the building of the Beis HaMikdash, which is called nachalah (inheritance), the place needed to be sanctified" (see there; and similarly he writes regarding Shiloh: that it is called menuchah (rest), with permanence of place, etc.; therefore the place needed to be sanctified. See also the sources noted below, note 24). See also the Tosafos cited in the following note, and below, note 27.
23) See Tosafos, s.v. "O idi," Shevuos 16b — in the interpretation of Rabbeinu Chaim Kohen.
24) Our parshah 12:11; Sifri and Rashi there. See at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 24, end of p. 79ff., and the sources cited there.
25) See Zevachim 24a, Rashi and Tosafos there; Rambam, Hilchos Beis HaBechirah ch. 1, halacha 14, and the commentators on the Rambam there.
26) Naso 5:17.
27) See Sifri, Naso there: "The verse tells us, etc., because the place sanctifies it." But see Ambuha DeSifri on Sifri Zuta there, that the intent of this is only that it prepares it to be fit for the sotah waters; see there. Note also the view in Sotah 15b, end (see Rashi there) [OCR unclear] placing it on the floor of the Heichal.
28) See Menachos 95a, end (and the sources cited there), and in many places. See also the following note.
29) See Tosafos, s.v. "BeShiloh" (Yoma 44a), who explains according to the discussion in Shevuos there; see there. Note that in Tosafos there: "But regarding the Mishkan, after they journeyed from there, dismantled it and set it up in another place, one is not liable regarding its first place" (see also the commentary of Rabbeinu Gershom Meor HaGolah on Menachos there: "for they are not fit to enter the place where the Beis HaMikdash was, because it was holy"). See also Ambuha DeSifri, Naso there. This is not the place to elaborate. See also the following note.
30) See Taanis 21b: "For so we find with Mount Sinai, that as long as, etc., and so we find with the Ohel Moed, etc."
31) Yisro 19:13, and Rashi there.
32) See [OCR unclear] 9a (and similarly Shevuos 16b): "the Mishkan, whose holiness is not an eternal holiness . . the Mikdash, whose holiness is an eternal holiness." See also Rabbeinu Chananel there; Tosafos, Yoma there; and Chiddushei HaRamban on Shevuos there: "It is possible that the meaning of 'its holiness is an eternal holiness' is that once the House was chosen, the Holy One, blessed be He, no longer rested His Shechinah in another place even though it was destroyed — unlike the Mishkan, for afterwards the Mikdash was chosen." See also Chiddushei HaRashba and the Ritva there.
*) Compare in this regard the daily Rambam study of Tuesday of this week (5744) — Hilchos Nezirus (ch. 6, halacha 13) — the distinction between a nazir and a Kohen: "for this one (the nazir) — his holiness is a temporary holiness (even if he was a lifelong nazir), whereas the Kohen — his holiness is an eternal holiness." See also Radbaz and Lechem Mishneh there.
33) Hilchos Beis HaBechirah ch. 6, halacha 15.
34) There, halacha 16. — Note that it is so called "because it dwells and is enclothed within it" (Tanya ch. 41 — 57b). It has already been explained several times that the fixing of the holiness of the Shechinah in the place came about through the act of sanctification with which Shlomo sanctified it (there, halacha 14). See Likkutei Sichos vol. 15, p. 206 (and note 49 there), and elsewhere.
35) None of the above contradicts what is explained in Likkutei Sichos vol. 21, p. 15 [OCR unclear], along similar lines, regarding the Mishkan — for there the discussion is not about the place of the Mishkan, but about the parts of the Mishkan.
36) See Zevachim 63a, and the sources cited there; Sifri, Korach 18:10. See also the Rambam's wording in Hilchos Maaseh HaKorbanos ch. 10, halacha 3.
37) Ch. 6, halacha 2.
38) For the part of the upper chamber that was directly above the Kodesh HaKodashim, which "is entered only once in a seven-year cycle, to know, etc." (there, halacha 3), is not an ascent in holiness relative to the Kodesh HaKodashim — [OCR unclear] the Rambam's wording there (for he did not write, as with the others before it, "holier than it"). And indeed it is explicit in the Rambam (above, halacha 3) that there are only "ten sanctities in Eretz Yisrael, one above the other." And in Kiryas Sefer there: "Although the upper chambers were not sanctified, etc., the upper chambers of the Heichal were sanctified . . and their sanctity is that one should not enter there without need, for this too is the sanctity of the Heichal, etc." See also Tosafos Yom Tov — Middos 4:5; Keilim, end of ch. 1, s.v. "Kodesh HaKodashim."
39) [OCR unclear], beginning of Parshas Vayigash; Torah Chaim, Vayigash there, ch. 8; Siddur 21b; and elsewhere. See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 7, p. 71ff.; vol. 9, p. 62ff.; and in many places.
40) So it is in [OCR unclear]. It requires investigation why the sockets, which were mineral, are not mentioned there. In Torah Chaim there, 92c, and there, 93b: "and in the aspect of the sockets of the beams of the Mishkan, from the mineral of silver."
41) Rambam, Hilchos Beis HaBechirah ch. 1, halacha 8.
42) See Rabbeinu Bachya, Terumah 25:9, and elsewhere; Toras HaOlah by the Rema, part 1, at length. Note also Tanya ch. 34.
43) Tanchuma, Naso 16. See also Bamidbar Rabbah 13:6.
44) See Zevachim 54b (and the sources cited there): "This teaches that the Beis HaMikdash is higher than all of Eretz Yisrael, and Eretz Yisrael is higher than all the lands." See also further on in Zevachim there — cited in Rashi, Berachah 33:12.
45) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 11, p. 319ff., and the sources cited there.
46) Yoma 21a, end, and the sources cited there.
47) Note Toras HaOlah there, ch. 4; beginning of ch. 7; and ch. 10. There he also explains the reason that there were no steps ascending to the Cheil, and likewise between the Ulam and the Altar, and from the Heichal to the Kodesh HaKodashim.
48) Something of an example of this: Rabbi Zeira fasted one hundred (60) fasts so that he would forget the Babylonian Talmud (Bava Metzia 85a), in order to be able to study the Jerusalem Talmud. For with intellects that are comparable, the ascent from level to level is through study and a more exalted ascent in intellect; whereas with an intellect that is incomparable — like the difference between "He has set me in dark places — this is the Babylonian Talmud" (Sanhedrin 24a) and the way of study of the Jerusalem Talmud, for "there is no Torah like the Torah of Eretz Yisrael" (see Sifri, beginning of Ekev; Bereishis Rabbah 16:4) — there must be a complete nullification of the previous comprehension, as explained at length in Sefer HaMaamarim 5708, p. 121ff., and the sources cited there.
49) Terumah 25:8. "And our Sages of blessed memory said: It does not say 'within it,' but 'within them'" (Likkutei Torah, Naso 20b).
50) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 16, p. 472, and the sources cited there.
51) Likkutei Torah, Re'eh 27a.
52) For even the yud itself is not in a state of expansion — see Likkutei Torah there. See also Likkutei Sichos vol. 9, p. 419ff., and the sources cited there.
53) Likkutei Torah, Teitzei 38d, end. There this is (also) in regard to the level of chayah.
*) So it is in many places in Chassidus. For now I have found it only in Reishis Chochmah (Shaar HaAhavah, ch. 6, near its beginning); Shelah, Shaar HaOsiyos, letter Lamed; Maseches Taanis, section beginning "Me'inyan HaAvodah"; Parshas Terumah — 325b, 326b — and elsewhere.
Key Lesson
In the Beis HaMikdash, holiness permeated the physical place itself, so each higher level of holiness was expressed in a physically higher place and a person ascended step by step. Yet the Kodesh HaKodashim, being incomparably higher, was not raised at all; so too, a Jew grows through ascending levels of service, while at the core of his soul, the yechidah, his bond with G‑d is one of complete self-nullification that transcends all measured ascent.