And they shall make for Me a sanctuary and I will
dwell among them. (Shemot 25:8)
Our parasha discusses the construction of
the Mishcan. The Mishcan
was the portable sanctuary that accompanied Bnai Yisrael in the wilderness. Once Bnai Yisrael entered and conquered the
Land of Israel, this Mishcan – Tabernacle
– was replaced by a permanent structure.
This structure was the Bait
HaMikdash – the Sacred Temple – constructed by King Shlomo.
Our passage contains
the specific command to construct the Mishcan. However, Maimonides indicates in his Sefer
HaMitzvot that this passage is also the source for the commandment to build the
Bait HaMikdash. [1] Sefer Mitzvot Gadol – SeMaG – agrees that
there is a commandment to build the Bait
HaMikdash. However, he objects to
Maimonides’ contention that the mitzvah
is derived from our pasuk. He suggests that the proper source for the
commandment to build the Bait HaMikdash
is a set of pasukim in Sefer
Devarim. In these pesukim, Moshe tells
Bnai Yisrael that they will cross over the Jordan and inhabit the Land of
Israel. Moshe then tells the people
that Hashem will choose a place for His Mikdash,
and it is to that place that all sacrifices will be brought.[2],
[3]
Rav Yosef Karo suggests that there is an obvious reason for SeMaG’s rejection
of Maimonides’ position. Our passage is
not discussing the Bait HaMikdash. It is specifically commanding the
construction of the Mishcan. How can Maimonides contend that this passage
is the source for the obligation to build the Bait HaMikdash?[4]
It seems that SeMaG’s
objection to Maimonides’ position is reasonable. Why does Maimonides insist on citing our passage as the source
for the commandment to build the Bait
HaMikdash? Rav Yosef Karo suggests
that Maimonides’ position is based upon a problem within the wording of our
passage. What is this problem?
In our pasuk, Bnai Yisrael are commanded to
build a sanctuary for Hashem. There are
two terms used in the Torah for “sanctuary.”
These terms are Mishcan and Mikdash. The term Mishcan is
generally used to refer to the Tabernacle of the wilderness. In our passage, Hashem directed Bnai Yisrael
to build this Tabernacle of the wilderness.
Therefore, it seems that the passage should have used the term, Mishcan. However, in our passage, Hashem does not tell Bnai Yisrael to
build a Mishcan – a Tabernacle. He tells Bnai Yisrael to build a Mikdash. Why does the passage use the term Mikdash and not the seemingly more appropriate term Mishcan?
Rav Yosef Karo
suggests that Maimonides is answering this question. According to Maimonides, the term Mikdash is a more general term than Mishcan. It includes both
the Tabernacle and the Bait HaMikdash. The passage specifically uses the term Mikdash in order to include both forms
of sanctuary – the portable Tabernacle, and the permanent Bait HaMikdash.[5] It seems that according to Rav Yosef Karo,
Maimonides maintains that our pasuk
legislates the requirement to establish a sanctuary. This institution does not have a specific form. Instead, the structure of the sanctuary is
flexible. This commandment includes the
Mishcan constructed in the
wilderness, and the Bait HaMikdash
constructed by Shlomo.
How are these
different structures included in one mitzvah? Sometimes it is appropriate for this
sanctuary to be a portable structure.
At other times, a permanent structure is more fitting. The environment in which the sanctuary will
be placed determines its form. When
Bnai Yisrael were traveling in the wilderness, the nation was not permanently
situated. It was appropriate for the
sanctuary to travel with the camp. Once
Bnai Yisrael settled in the Land of Israel, the nation was permanently
situated. At this point, a permanent
structure became appropriate.
This is a reasonable
explanation of Maimonides’ position.
However, SeMaG raises an important objection to this position. The Midrash Sifri enumerates three
commandments that came into effect when Bnai Yisrael entered the Land of
Israel. These mitzvot are to appoint a king, to build a Mikdash, and to destroy Amalek.
It seems that Sifri is asserting that the commandment to construct the Mikdash – a sanctuary – is comparable to
the other two commandments mentioned by the Sifri. These other two commandments did not apply in the
wilderness. Similarly, it appears that
the commandment to build a Mikdash
did not apply in the wilderness.
Instead, the commandment first became operative with Bnai Yisrael’s
conquest of the Land of Israel.[6] It is interesting that Maimonides also
quotes this midrash in his Sefer HaMitzvot.[7] How can Maimonides’ position be reconciled
with this Midrash?
Maimonides explains
that there is a fundamental difference between the Mishcan and the Bait
HaMikdash. He explains that the Mishcan was originally constructed in
the wilderness and was intended to serve as a temporary structure. When the nation entered the Land of Israel,
the Mishcan was established in
Gilgal. It was then moved to
Shiloh. The Mishcan was subsequently replaced by a sanctuary constructed in
Nov. The Nov sanctuary was also
eventually replaced by a sanctuary build in Givon. In turn, the sanctuary of Givon was replaced by the Bait HaMikdash. Once the Bait
HaMikdash was constructed, its site became the permanent location for any
subsequent sanctuary. The second Bait HaMikdash was constructed upon this
location, and the third will also be built on this site. In short, all of the sanctuaries built
before the Bait HaMikdash were
temporary. These sanctuaries were
erected at a site for a period of time and then moved to a new location and,
sometimes, even replaced by a new structure.
However, once the Bait HaMikdash
was built upon the Temple Mount in Yesushalayim, this site became the permanent
location of the structure.[8]
This distinction
reflects a fundamental difference between the sanctuaries that preceded the Bait HaMikdash and the Bait HaMikdash itself. As explained above, the institution of the
sanctuary is expressed in different forms.
In the wilderness, the sanctuary took the form of the Mishcan – a portable structure. The sanctuary took other forms once the
nation entered the Land of Israel.
However, all of the iterations of the sanctuary were innately temporary
and precursors to the Bait HaMikdash. The Bait
HaMikdash represents the ultimate and final form of the sanctuary. Once the Bait
HaMikdash was built, it was the final form and site for the sanctuary. All subsequent sanctuaries are
reconstructions of this King Shlomo’s Bait
HaMikdash and built on its site.
This distinction
between the Bait HaMikdash and its
precursors resolves the contradiction between Maimonides’ position and the
Sifri. Although versions of the
sanctuary existed before the nation entered the Land of Israel, the final and
ultimate fulfillment of the commandment to build a sanctuary could not be
achieved until the Land of Israel was completely secured and the Bait HaMikdash was constructed.
Let us now reconsider
the dispute between Maimonides and SeMaG.
According to Maimonides, the mitzvah
to build a sanctuary includes the Bait
HaMikdash and all of its precursors.
According to SeMaG, the commandment specifically instructs us to build
the Bait HaMikdash. It does not include the precursor of the Bait HaMikdash. Why does SeMaG exclude
the Mishcan from the commandment?
It seems that
according to SeMaG, the Bait HaMikdash
is a fundamental element of the sanctity of the Land of Israel. In other words, the sanctity of the Land of
Israel has a specific structure. This
sanctity requires that the Land of Israel include as a central element the Bait HaMikdash. The Mishcan
and the other sanctuaries that preceded the Bait
HaMikdash were places for the offering of sacrifices and the worship of
Hashem. But, these structures were not
expressions of the sanctity of the Land of Israel.
Maimonides
disagrees. He argues that the
commandment to build a sanctuary was given in the wilderness. It was first fulfilled through the
construction of the Mishcan. According to Maimonides, the sanctuary is a
central element within the national community of Bnai Yisrael. This community first emerged in the
wilderness. With its emergence came the
requirement to build this community around a sanctuary. The appropriate sanctuary for the nation as
it traveled through the wilderness was the Mishcan. The structure of the national community
evolved, and did not achieve its final form until the people possessed the Land
of Israel. In other words, Bnai Yisrael
evolved from a nomadic nation into a people with a land. As the national community evolved, the
institution of the sanctuary evolved.
Once the people achieved possession of the land, the nation became
complete. The complete community required
a permanent Bait HaMikdash. In short, Maimonides and SeMaG disagree on the
framework of the sanctuary. According
to SeMaG, the sanctuary is an expression of the sanctity of the Land of
Israel. Therefore, the Mishcan and the Bait HaMikdash are fundamentally different institutions. According to Maimonides, the sanctuary is a
fundamental element of the national community of Bnai Yisrael. Therefore, at different times in the history
of Bnai Yisrael, the Mishcan and the Bait HaMikdash have served as
appropriate expressions of this institution.
Of course, Maimonides acknowledges that the Bait HaMikdash is the ultimate form of the institution of the
sanctuary. However, this is because the
nation of Bnai Yisrael is only complete once it is in possession of the Land of
Israel.
[1] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvat Aseh 2.
[2] Sefer Devarim 11:10-11.
[3] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Yaakov of Coucy (SeMaG), Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, Mitzvat Aseh 163.
[4] Rav Yosef Karo, Rav Yosef Karo, Hilchot Bait HaBechirah 1:1.
[5] Rav Yosef Karo, Kesef Mishne, Hilchot Bait HaBechirah 1:1.
[6] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Yaakov of Coucy (SeMaG), Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, Mitzvat Aseh 163.
[7] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvat Aseh 20.
[8] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Bait HaBeChirah 1:1-3.