|
Vol 36.23 - Terumah 3 Spanish French Audio Video |
| Hebrew Text:
Page 136 Page137 Page138 Page139 Page140 Page141 Page142 Page143 Page144 Page145 |
|
Summary: (5750 Vol. XXXVI 36 Pg. 136) |
|
Translation: 1. Rambam writes in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah (4:2): “The First Temple had a wall which separated the Kodesh (Sanctuary) and the Kodesh HaKadoshim (Holy of Holies) that was one-cubit (Amah) thick. When the Second Temple was constructed, they were unsure whether the width of that wall was included in the measure of the Kodesh or the Kodesh HaKadoshim. Therefore, they made the Kodesh HaKadoshim a full twenty cubits long, and they made the Kodesh a full forty cubits long, and they left one additional cubit between the Kodesh and the Kodesh HaKadoshim. They did not build a wall in the Second Temple. Rather, they hung two curtains (Parochot), one from the side of the Kodesh HaKadoshim, and one from the side of the Kodesh, with a cubit between them in place of the width of the wall of the First (Temple)”. The Kesef Mishneh writes that the source of Rambam’s words, “When the Second Temple was constructed, they were unsure" – is from the Talmud Yerushalmi tractate Kelayim: "Was the Amah Teraksin (Note: the one-cubit partition) inside or outside etc.?
This debate in the boundary of the Amah Teraksin is also in the Talmud Bavli (in Tractate Yoma): “With regard to the Amah Teraksin, the Sages did not determine its status, namely whether it was part of the interior area (of the Kodesh HaKadoshim) or part of the exterior area (of the Kodesh). Ravina objected: What is the reason for this uncertainty? If we say it is because it is written: “And the house . . was sixty cubits in length . . and it is written: “And the house, that is, the Heichal, was forty cubits long”; and it is written: “And before the Dvir (partition) twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in width, and twenty cubits in height” and therefore we do not know whether the one-cubit partition was part of these twenty cubits of the Kodesh HaKadoshim, or part of these forty cubits of the Kodesh, then this problem can be resolved. However, perhaps it was not part of these twenty cubits nor part of these forty cubits. For in establishing the measurements, the verse counts the space but does not count the walls themselves (i.e., the cubit of the wall is not included in either measurement). Know that it is so, for everywhere that the verse counts the walls, they are considered separately. For we learned in a Mishna: The Heichal was one hundred cubits by one hundred cubits . . with a height of one hundred cubits . . the wall of the Heichal was six cubits and its length was forty cubits. The Amah Teraksin and the twenty cubits of the interior of the Kodesh HaKadoshim . . Rather, the question is whether the sanctity of the Amah Teraksin is as that of the inner part (Kodesh HaKadoshim), or the outer part.” However, according to the plain meaning of the simplicity of the section (Sugya) of the Bavli (according to its conclusion), they knew the place of Amah Teraksin. (That it was not was part of the twenty cubits (of the Kodesh HaKadoshim), or part of the forty cubits (of the Heichal) but rather an Amah in its own right) They were only in doubt whether its sanctity was inside (the Kodesh HaKadoshim) or outside (the Heichal). And since they could not make a wall in the second Temple (as will be explained), therefore they hung two curtains (Parochot), between them having a space of one Amah corresponding to the space of the Amah Teraksin. According to this, they did not add to the measurement of the building, but rather made two curtains in place of the wall - the Amah Teraksin. However, Rashi maintains (according to the Kesef Mishneh) like the words of the Yerushalmi, that: “They were unsure whether the width of that wall was included in the measure of the Kodesh or the measure of the Kodesh HaKadoshim. Therefore, they made an additional cubit between the Kodesh and the Kodesh HaKadoshim”. This seemingly requires examination: Since, in any event, they did not make a wall in the Second Temple, why was it necessary to place an additional Amah in place of the thickness of the wall? Why did they not suffice with making a curtain between the forty Amot of the Kodesh and the twenty Amot of the Kodesh HaKadoshim? One must also examine how they were permitted to add to the building's measurement. For “all of this was in writing, from the hand of the L-rd, which He gave me to understand' (הכל בכתב מיד ה' עלי השכיל). The difference in this, is in two things:
One cannot say that according to Rambam there is no contradiction to “All of this was in writing etc."
For according to this it is not understood: Why did they not build a wall in the Second Temple, and instead just made two curtains? For in the Talmud, it states that the reason that they did not make a wall - Amah Teraksin - is because: “A partition-wall it is able to remain standing up to thirty cubits in height. But it will not be able to stand if it is more than that height”. (In other words, a wall that is one Amah thick is not able to stand more than thirty Amot high. (Note: Therefore, since the Second Temple was taller than the First Temple, the partition separating the Kodesh HaKadoshim from the Kodesh also had to be higher)) Rashi explains (in the section of Talmud Yoma): “And to add on its thickness is impossible for it states, “all of this was in writing, from the hand of the L-rd, which He gave me to understand”. Additionally, in another place Rashi explains that, “They were unable to widen it for they would decrease in the measurement of the Heichal or the Kodesh HaKadoshim”. However, if one were to say that according to Rambam, adding area between the Kodesh and Kodesh HaKadoshim does not affect the “all of this was in writing etc.”, why did they not add the measurement of an “additional Amah” to the building of the wall and “to add to its thickness? 2. One must also understand: In Tosafot, they ask why it was necessary to make two curtains (Parochot), and not just make one curtain the thickness of an Amah? They answer that: “It appears to the rabbis that the explanation of the verse, “and the Parochet will divide for you between the Kodesh etc.”, is that on the exterior side of the Parochet it will be Kodesh and from the beginning of its thickness and inward it will all be Kodesh HaKadoshim. Therefore they could not make a single Parochet, whose thickness is one Amah and to place it in place of the Amah Teraksin. For perhaps its sanctity is toward the exterior and we will find that from the beginning of its thickness inward it is not all Kodesh HaKadoshim. However, now that they made it two Parochot it is good. For one was placed in the beginning of the place of the Amah Teraksin. And the second and the end of the Amah Teraksin in the Kodesh HaKadoshim at the end of the twentieth space of the Kodesh HaKadoshim toward the outside, which is connected to the place of the end of the Amah Teraksin. For if the place of the Amah Teraksin was inside, then from the thickness of the outer curtain and inward, it would all be Kodesh HaKadoshim. And if the place of the Amah Teraksin is outside of the thickness of the second curtain and inward, it would be Kodesh HaKadoshim”. However from the words of Rambam, "They left one additional cubit between the Kodesh . . and a cubit between them in place of the width of the wall of the First Temple.” it is proof that he does not maintain the view of Tosafot that the separation must be from the curtain itself.
“One from the side of the Kodesh HaKadoshim, and one from the side of the Kodesh, with a cubit between them”.
According to this, it is not understood. Why according to Rambam did they not make a single Parochet, the thickness of an Amah? 3. In the continuation of Rambam’s words, he writes: “However, in the First Temple, there was only one Parochet, as (Exodus 26:33) states: "The Parochet will divide for you (between the Kodesh and the Kodesh HaKadoshim)". The Kesef Mishneh comments there: “The reason that the Rabbi writes that in the First Temple there was only one curtain etc. appears to be that he is calling the Mishkan - the First Mikdash. For in the First Temple there was not a curtain but rather a wall”. The commentators have already questioned this. For Scripture expressly states in Divrei HaYamim (regarding the First Temple) “and they made the Parochet”. Therefore, even in the First Temple there was also a Parochet. This is expressly written in the Talmud that there was a “curtain of the Temple”. Similarly, Rambam himself writes so in his Pirush HaMishnayot. Therefore, they answer that it is simple that, even the Kesef Mishneh maintains, that according to Rambam there was in the entrance of the Amah Teraksin a Parochet, as is explicitly stated in Scripture and in the Talmud.
Therefore, the Kesef Mishneh writes that Rambam’s intent in writing (in continuation to the two curtains in the Second Temple): “However, in the First Temple, there was only one Parochet, as it states, "The Parochet will divide for you”, is that he is referring to the Mishkan. Yet this is questionable. Why did the Rambam need to conclude that "However, in the First Temple, there was only one Parochet"? For even according to the commentators that Rambam's intent is plain, namely that it refers to the First Temple, requires clarification. Why did not Rambam speak of this Parochet immediately at the beginning of Halacha?
“In the First Temple there was a wall that separated .. it thickness was an Amah as it states “and the Parochet will divide for you etc.". In other words, that in the Beit HaMikdash there was a physical wall instead of a curtain.
Why didn’t Rambam include the two aspects together by stating: “In the First Temple there was a wall that separated etc., that was an Amah thick, and also a curtain as it states “and the Parochet will divide for you etc.". (And later he could have explained the differences in the Second Temple, namely that they left an additional Amah corresponding to the wall, and that they made two curtains). Why did he mention regarding the Parochet and the verse “and the Parochet will divide for you etc." only after he had explained the making of the two curtains in the Second Temple? 4. The explanation of this can be explained, by prefacing a clarification in the scope of the Amah Teraksin according to Rambam’s view: Regarding the Parochet, we find in Scripture many expressions: In the first command (בציווי הראשון) it states: "And the Parochet will divide for you between the Kodesh and the Kodesh HaKadoshim”. However, after this in the command of the erecting the Mishkan, it states: “Place the Ark of Testimony there, and spread the Parochet over the Ark". And when they completed this, it states: “He brought the Ark into the Mishkan and fastened the Parochet screen so that it covered the Ark of Testimony”, and so forth. Thus, there are two aspects in the Parochet:
According to this, one must examine the law of the Amah Teraksin in the First Temple: In simplicity, since the place of this Amah was instead of the curtain of the Mishkan, and it was just that it was physical wall, one must say that even in this, it contained these two aspects – a partition between the Kodesh and the Kodesh HaKadoshim, as well as a cover on the Aron. This is also the explanation of the word “Teraksin” (טרקסין), as Rashi cites from the Yerushalmi that it is “an expression of interior and exterior” (לשון פנים וחוץ). In addition Tosafot explains that “some explain it from the word” troko gali” meaning that it encloses that which is inside of it referring to the Luchot that were given at Sinai." ("וי"מ מלשון טרוקו גלי שסגור הי' לפנים הימנו הלוחות שניתנו בסיני").
(The difference is only what is the main thing, whether it is a partition that separates or whether it is a protection on the Ark. Accordingly, Rashi maintains it is primarily from the law of a partition which is why it is called Amah Teraksin from the expression ‘interior and exterior’, as opposed to Rabbeinu Tam and the “some explain” in Tosafot). 5. One could say that Rambam has a different view of this. Namely that the two aforementioned aspects of the curtain (and the Amah Teraksin) are just a detail and secondary aspect in another part of the Mishkan and Mikdash (הם רק בתור פרט וטפל בחלק אחר של המשכן ומקדש) - a partition that serves the Kodesh HaKadoshim, or a protection for the Ark; However, Rambam maintains that the Amah Teraksin in the Mikdash is not the same as the Parochet in the Mishkan. For the “Parochet” is like its name – it serves just as a partition that separates, or as a cover on the Ark, However, “Amah Teraksin” also has a place in its own right, it is an object in its own right. However, it was also used for these two aforementioned matters. (The separation between the Holy and the Kodesh HaKadoshim, as well as a cover on the Ark). Yet, this is only its effect and not its very nature (רק פעולתה ואינו מעצם גדרה). This is also apparent, since this area is also called in Scripture with a unique name – “Dvir”. This is more so proven from the words of Zohar who cites the verse: “And it was when Solomon had finished building the Temple of the L-rd and the King's palace” -that “this is the Beit HaMikdash like the courtyards and the chambers and the Hall of the Ulam and the Dvir” We thus see that the Zohar counts the "Dvir" as one of the parts of the Beit HaMikdash. However it can be explained why the Zohar specifically mentions these four aspects, in any event, it is clear that the “Dvir” is not just a detail and secondary part of another part of the Mikdash, but rather it is an aspect in its own right (like the courtyards and chambers and the hall of the Ulam). (This is especially so according to what is explained in the writings of my father on the Zohar, that the four aspects that are enumerated in the Zohar correspond to the “four letters of G-d’s name - Havaye”. If so, it certainly is a reason why the Dvir has a unique name and an importance in its own right). One can say that the reason of the matter is, according to Rambam, in the beginning of Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, who states: “It is a positive commandment to construct a House for G-d,. . as (Exodus 25:8) states: "And you shall make Me a Mikdash." The Mishkan constructed by Moshe Rabbeinu is already described in the Torah. It was temporary etc. (והי' לפי שעה)” It is explained in another place that Rambam’s intent in emphasizing this (namely that the Mishkan is “only temporary”, for what is it telling us?) – is that he is distinguishing the difference between the Mishkan that Moshe made and the Temple. For the Mishkan was just “temporary” whereas the Temple is a house and a permanent structure (בית ובנין קבוע). (“a house for generations”). This is the foundation of the differences between the details of the building of the Mishkan and the details of the building of the Temple. In other words, many of the differences between the building of the Temple and the Mishkan arise from the difference between a temporary structure (בנין עראי) (temporary) and a permanent structure (בנין קבוע). The same is in our case: In the Mishkan, which was just a temporary structure (“according to its time”) the thing that separates between the Kodesh and the Kodesh HaKadoshim (and protects the Ark) is not part of the essential structure (מגוף הבנין), but only a "Curtain/Parochet”. This name depicts that it is not a permanent thing in the body of the building, but rather a partition for the act of separating (or protection of the Ark). Whereas in the Temple, which is a permanent building there was a "a wall that separates . . its thickness an Amah”. This “wall" is not a temporary thing, but rather a part of the building itself. And this place has its own name - "Dvir". And in another style: The Kodesh HaKadoshim is different in its holiness from all the parts of the Temple – it is the most holy of all the sanctified places. Its holiness is not only another level in sanctity, similar to the other sanctities where each one of them is holier than the level below it. Rather its holiness is separate from all the sanctities that are below it. Therefore, it is not sufficient that the separation (that is set in the Beit HaMikdash) should only be through a partition of a wall (like the other separations between two places). Rather it must be a place in its own right – like an “intermediary” between the Kodesh and the Kodesh HaKadoshim. And this place is that which separates between them. (One could say that, this mainly relates to the person (Gavra). For in order to enter the Kodesh HaKadoshim, the most sacred place, where "no one would enter there except for the Kohen Gadol on the Day of Atonement during the Service (Avodah)" (even from the place of the Kodesh, where all the Kohanim would enter the entire year), it fits, and there must be a division and barrier to its entrance). 6. According to this, one could say that Rambam maintains that even in the Second Temple where they did not make a wall, they were obligated to place this Amah of the place of the “Dvir”. For this is one of the boundaries of the “Beit HaMikdash” (House) – namely, that it must be a place in its own right – the width of an Amah – between the Kodesh and the Kodesh HaKadoshim. This aspect is stated precisely in Rambam’s words, in this Halacha, as he writes: “They did not build a wall in the Second Temple. Rather, they hung two curtains (Parochot), one from the side of the Kodesh HaKadoshim, and one from the side of the Kodesh, with a cubit between them in place of the width of the wall of the First (Temple)”. Seemingly, Rambam’s elaborate wording: “in place of the width of the wall of the First (Temple)” is superfluous. However, with this he is coming to teach us that the boundary of the Temple requires that this Amah be placed. This is also the reason why they did not make a single curtain that was an Amah thick, but (as Rambam states): "they hung two curtains, one from the side of the Kodesh HaKadoshim and one from the side of the Kodesh, with a cubit between them in place of the width of the wall" – For the purpose of making the curtains was not (only) to make a partition and separation between the Kodesh and the Kodesh HaKadoshim, but rather for the purpose of making the place of the “Dvir”. This is why they hung two Parochot from the two sides. For through this, the area of this Amah was distinguished in its own right. (Similar to Rashi’s commentary “they made two Parochot - to absorb (לקלוט) between them the air of the place of the partition). Whereas if there would only be one Parochet (even if it’s thickness was an Amah), then in addition to the “Parochet” being temporary, as aforementioned, through one Parochet whose thickness is an Amah, this place would not be distinguished (נתייחד) as a separation place in its own right (as aforementioned Par. 5) This is also the reason for the difference between the views of Rambam and Tosafot regarding the placement of these Parochot (as aforementioned Par. 2), where
For, according to Tosafot, where the aspect of these curtains is from the law of “and the Parochet will divide for you etc.", and that the separation must be in the curtain itself, (as Tosafot writes). Therefore, the outer curtain must specifically be in the place of this Amah, in order that “From the outside of the Amah Teraksin it is Kodesh and from the beginning of its thickness and toward the interior it is all Kodesh HaKadoshim”. Whereas according to Rambam’s view, the main purpose of making these Parochot was to distinguish the place of the Amah Teraksin. If so, it is the opposite. There must be “between them in place of the width of the wall of the First (Temple).” This also answers why they did not make a wider wall in the Second Temple, even though they left an additional Amah (more than in the First Temple). For even Rambam maintains that they were not allowed to plainly add to the width of the building. However, with regard to this Amah, since they were required to make a fixed place of an Amah between the Kodesh and the Kodesh HaKadoshim, and they were not allowed to make it from the measurement of the Kodesh nor from the measurement of the Kodesh HaKadoshim (As in the First Temple) for “they were unsure whether the width of that wall was included in the measure of the Kodesh or the Kodesh HaKadoshim” (And if they would make it in the Kodesh or the Kodesh HaKadoshim, they might reduce the area of the place of the Kodesh or the place of the Kodesh HaKadoshim), they were forced due to the law of the “Amah Teraksin” to place an “additional Amah”. According to all this, one can also explain the conclusion of Rambam: “However, in the First Temple (which refers to the Mishkan, according to the Kesef Mishneh), there was only one curtain, as it states: "and the Parochet will divide for you etc." With this, his intent is to emphasize that the making of the two curtains in the Second Temple is (not the making of a separation between the Kodesh and the Kodesh HaKadoshim, but rather) distinguishing the place of the Amah Teraksin,. This is why they needed to specifically make two curtains in the Second Temple, not like the First Temple – the Mishkan (where) - there was only one curtain, alone. (Since the scope of the curtain of the Mishkan is like it states,) “The Parochet will divide for you etc." 7. One can explain the conclusion of the aforementioned Rambam also according to the words of the commentators that Rambam's intent is to actually refer to the First Temple (and not to the Mishkan). For even in the First Temple they also made a Parochet (in addition to the wall of the Amah Teraksin). For seemingly, Rambam should have written this is the beginning of the Halacha (as aforementioned Par. 3). To preface: This law, that was innovated in the Beit HaMikdash versus the Mishkan, namely that a single curtain alone was not sufficient but rather a wall - Amah Teraksin - was required (as aforementioned. Par. 5) – can be explained in two ways:
“and the Parochet will divide for you etc.” Which is similar what is written in Tosafot, “In the First Temple . the Amah Teraksin was made according to (G-d’s) Word as it states, ‘all of this was in writing’“ ("This is why the Amah Teraksin does not have the boundary of “and the Parochet will divide for you etc.” For the Parochet itself must separate between the Kodesh and the Kodesh HaKadoshim). One can say according to the Second Manner that this is Rambam's intention in this Halacha. Namely, that in the beginning of the Halacha he just writes: “The First Temple had a wall which separated the Kodesh and the Kodesh HaKadoshim”. and he does not cite regarding this, the verse, “and the Parochet will divide for you etc.” And just at the conclusion of the Halacha, after the elaboration regarding the making of the two curtains, in the Second Temple, he concludes, “However, in the First Temple, there was only one Parochet, as it states: "The Parochet will divide for you etc.” With this he emphasizes that the obligation to make Amah Teraksin (as well as placing the additional Amah instead of the thickness of the wall in the Second Temple) is not from the law of "The Parochet will divide for you etc.”. Rather.it is an independent obligation. This was the purpose of making the curtain (at the entrance to the wall) in the First Temple (due to the obligation of "The Parochet will divide for you etc.”). 8. The words of the Zohar were previously cited, in which four parts of the Mikdash are enumerated – “the courtyards and the chambers and the Hall of the Ulam and the Dvir”, as well as the explanation of my father, that they correspond to the four letters of G-d’s name Havaye (the Tetragrammaton). One could say that in this note, my father is innovating an aspect in Halacha according to the view of Zohar: To preface, the Zohar there explains the wording of the verse “the house of G-d and the house of the King” –
From the plain meaning of the Zohar, seemingly, he holds that the sanctity of the Dvir is not like the sanctity of the Kodesh HaKadoshim. For the Kodesh HaKadoshim is delineated in Scripture in its own right, "the Temple of the King," which, is an aspect in its own right. If so, it is impossible to say that the Dvir is from the measurement of the Kodesh HaKadoshim and from its sanctity. (And even though, in the Talmud it states that the Rabbis were unsure of the sanctity of the Dvir, namely whether it was like the interior (the sanctity of the Kodesh HaKadoshim) or like the exterior (like the sanctity of the Kodesh) - we find that according to many commentators, R’ Yose maintains that there is no doubt in this matter. If so, there is room to say that even the Zohar decides like the First Manner). According to this, it is also possible to answer why the Zohar mentions only the Ulam Hall, and does not mention the Heichal at all. For according to the Zohar, the sanctity of the Dvir is like the sanctity of (the exterior, which is) the Heichal. If so, even the Heichal is included in the division of the “Dvir”. This is what my father is innovating with “the four things . . correspond to the four letters of G-d’s name - Havaye”. From the order of the things it is understood, that the Dvir corresponds to the letter Yud of G-d’s name Havaye. According to this it is understood that the sanctity of Dvir is not like the sanctity of the Heichal but rather like the sanctity of the Kodesh HaKadoshim. Regarding the four letters of G-d’s name -Havaye, it is known that the letter Yud (which corresponds to the level of Wisdom) is completely separate from the other letters of G-d’s name. This is like the difference between Wisdom and the other Sefirot (emanations). In Avodah, Wisdom represents utter Bitul (self-abnegation). Therefore, “Ein Sof is enclothed in the level of Chochmah/Wisdom”, as it states in Sefer HaTanya in the name of his teacher (the Rav HaMaggid), that: "Ein Sof is “the true One”; which means that He alone exists, and there is naught besides Him; and this, in fact, is the level of Chochmah”. According to this, it is understood that the sanctity of the Dvir (that corresponds to the letter Yud) is completely separate from the sanctity of the other parts of the Temple. Therefore, it is understood that one cannot say that its sanctity is just like the sanctity of the Heichal. For the sanctity of the Heichal is not completely separate from the sanctity of the Ulam. Rather one must say that the sanctity of the Dvir is like the sanctity of the Kodesh HaKadoshim (Which is completely separate from the other parts of the Temple). This does not contradict the Zohar who states that the “’House of the King’ – refers to the Kodesh HaKadoshim”. For the Kodesh HaKadoshim is separate even from the Dvir. So much so, that it is specified in its own right. For even according to the view that the sanctity of the Dvir is like the sanctity of the Kodesh HaKadoshim, there is a (primary) difference between the sanctity of the Kodesh HaKadoshim and the sanctity of the Dvir. The explanation of the matter is: Just as Dvir is physically between the Kodesh HaKadoshim and the Kodesh, so too is it in the spirituality of the matters. For the aspect of the Dvir depicts the sanctity of the Kodesh HaKadoshim as it effects from outside of the Kodesh HaKadoshim. This is the distinction between the sanctity of the Kodesh HaKadoshim itself and the sanctity of the Dvir.
(Which is why we find that in the Kodesh HaKadoshim, “the place of the Ark of the Covenant is not included in the measurement of the Holy of Holies” (מקום ארון אינו מן המדה). And as is explained in another place, this is the aspect of "nimna hanimno'ot", (נמנע הנמנעות) (Note: a term meaning G-d can do the impossible or logical opposites) – the connection of above space with space). Whereas the “Dvir” alludes to the effluence of the sanctity of the Kodesh HaKadoshim in the world (space). However, since this is the sanctity of the Kodesh HaKadoshim, this is alluded to specifically in the letter Yud, the level of Chochmah, whose aspect (as aforementioned) is complete bitul. Therefore, it is a receptacle for the sanctity of the Kodesh HaKadoshim: “Ein Sof, blessed be He, that is above the world.” MSichas Shabbat Parshat Shmot 5733 |
| Links: |
| Date Delivered: | Reviewer: | ||
| Date Modified: | Date Reviewed: | ||
| Contributor: |