Rashi comments on the opening verse of the portion
Pekudei,[315] "These are the accounts of the
Mishkan [the Tabernacle], the
Mishkan of Testimony..." and notes: "The word
Mishkan is repeated twice, alluding to the [first an second] Temple, whose destruction served as collateral [in Hebrew,
mashkon] as a result of Israel's sins."
Why does Rashi find it necessary to add that the destruction came "as a result of Israel's sins," when the question why "the word Mishkan is repeated twice" is already answered by stating that it "alludes to the Batei Mikdash [the Holy Temples] whose destruction served as collateral"?
Prior to the construction and subsequent destruction of the Batei Mikdash, a Mishkan was erected in Shiloh and subsequently destroyed. How does Rashi know that "Mishkan, Mishkan" refers to the destruction of the two Batei Mikdash and not to the prior destruction of the Mishkan of Shiloh -- an actual Mishkan -- as well as the later destruction of the first Beis HaMikdash?
As mentioned above, Rashi notes that the Batei Mikdash were collateralized. A loan is secured with collateral until time of repayment, at which time the collateral is returned in its entirety. However, when the first Beis HaMikdash was "collateralized" and then returned in form of the second Beis HaMikdash it lacked many things that were found in the first Beis HaMikdash.[316] How could the first Beis HaMikdash have been considered collateral when its like was not replaced?
The primary conception of the Beis HaMikdash is that of "a house for G-d and a gateway to heaven -- the heavenly Beis HaMikdash"[317]; it is a "place which You, L-rd, made for Your abode,"[318] "G-d's permanent residence."[319] All these conditions were equally met in the first and second Batei Mikdash; none of them were met in the Mishkan of the desert and Shiloh, which were but "ohalim," "tents" and temporary residences.
Thus, though the first and second Batei Mikdash were not entirely alike, nevertheless they are similar in their most crucial notion -- a house for G-d. The second Beis HaMikdash was therefore a return of the collateral of the first Beis HaMikdash, while the Mishkan of Shiloh could not have possibly been collateralized and returned in the form of something completely different -- the Beis HaMikdash.
Since the Batei Mikdash were merely taken as collateral, we understand why Rashi concludes, "as a result of Israel's sins," as this explains why it merely served as collateral:
Were the Beis HaMikdash to have been destroyed because it was supposed to have existed only for a limited amount of time, or for some similar reason, then its destruction would have served as its complete cessation and nullification.
However, since it was destroyed "as a result of Israel's sins" -- it was the Jews' conduct that brought about the destruction, and not something intrinsic to the Beis HaMikdash itself -- therefore it temporarily ceased to function only in regard to the Jewish people's connection to it.
By stating "as a result of Israel's sins," Rashi also alludes to how much G-d wanted for the Batei Mikdash to reside among the Jewish people: Although Israel's sins that caused the destruction of the Batei Mikdash took place long before the actual destruction, still G-d greatly delayed the actual destruction to enable the Jews to repent and thereby keep the Batei Mikdash standing.
There is a crucial lesson here in terms of our spiritual service. Just as G-d refrained for so long from destroying the Beis HaMikdash -- although the cause for its destruction ("Israel's sins") already existed for an extended time -- in order to give the Jewish people a chance to repent, so too should we act toward others:
We are to assist our brethren in their performance of Torah and mitzvos and erecting their personal Beis HaMikdash wherein G-d dwells within them, even if the other person does not conduct himself or herself properly.
There is added proof from G-d's conduct with regard to yet another matter that we are to act in this manner:
In the portion of Sisa we read[320] that G-d concluded His teachings to Moshe on the fortieth day of Moshe's ascent of Mount Sinai. On the fortieth day He also gave him the Tablets of the Ten Commandments, in order for Moshe to present them to the Jewish people. It also states there[321] that the Jews made the Golden Calf on Moshe's thirty-ninth day on the mountain.
We thus see that even after the sin of the Golden Calf, G-d studied Torah with Moshe and gave him the Tablets, all of which was for the sole purpose of their later transmission to the Jewish people.
Surely, we can do no less -- we must assist our brethren in their performance of Torah and mitzvos whatever their current spiritual standing. By doing we not only improve our friend's spiritual lot, but our own as well, in keeping with the promise, "G-d will enlighten both [benefactor and recipient]."[322]
All the above help us to merit building our personal Batei Mikdash, leading to the return of our "collateral," the building of the third Beis HaMikdash through Mashiach Tzidkeinu.[323] Surely this will take place speedily in our days.
Based on Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XI, pp. 175-180.
Notes:
- (Back to text) Shemos 38:21.
- (Back to text) Yoma 21b.
- (Back to text) Bereishis 28:17 and commentary of Rashi.
- (Back to text) Shemos 15:17.
- (Back to text) Rashi, Shemos 25:9.
- (Back to text) Shemos 31:8 and commentary of Rashi.
- (Back to text) Ibid. 32:5-6. See also commentary of Rashi, ibid., verse 1.
- (Back to text) Mishlei 29:13. See also Temurah 16a.
- (Back to text) Rambam, Hilchos Melachim, conclusion of Ch. 11.
Vayakhel