Torah Convention on Hilchos Beis Habechirah - Kfar Chabad

00:02 Good evening, and welcome to everyone who has come to take part in this Torah gathering on matters concerning the Beis Hamikdash. Today’s gathering is a special event organized by the Kfar Chabad Rabbinate, headed by the local rabbi, the distinguished Rabbi Ashkenazi shlita. Its main purpose is to fulfill the Rebbe’s sacred directive. The Rebbe repeatedly urged us to study and engage with the laws of the Beis Hamikdash, particularly during these days of Bein Hametzarim. This is based on the Midrash Tanchuma, which says that when Hakadosh Boruch Hu showed Yechezkel the plan and form of the Beis Hamikdash and instructed him to teach it to the Jewish people, Yechezkel protested: “Master of the Universe, we are still in exile in the land of our enemies, and You tell me to go and tell the Jewish people what the Beis Hamikdash looks like? Let them be until they return from exile, and then I will go and tell them. Why should I tell them about its form now? First let them leave exile, and then I will tell them how to build the Beis Hamikdash.” Hakadosh Boruch Hu replied: “Because My children are in exile, should the building of My house cease? Let them study its form in the Torah, and I will consider it as though they are engaged in building it.” Hakadosh Boruch Hu told Yechezkel: “Just because the Jewish people are in exile, should the building of the Beis Hamikdash cease? On the contrary, teach them its laws. By studying the laws and the form of the Beis Hamikdash, it will be considered as though they are engaged in building it.” On the basis of this Midrash, the Rebbe instructed and urged us to study the laws of the Beis Hamikdash during these days. The Midrash tells us that when the Jewish people engage with its construction, it is considered as though they are building it. In this way, we do the opposite of what these days represent—the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash. We build it. Furthermore, the mitzvah “They shall make Me a sanctuary” is an eternal mitzvah for all generations. Even during exile,

02:38 every single Jew is obligated to build the Beis Hamikdash. The question is: How can we fulfill this mitzvah? We cannot actually build the Beis Hamikdash now. So what does the Rebbe say? We must say that by studying its construction as set out in the Written and Oral Torah, we fulfill the mitzvah of “They shall make Me a sanctuary” as though we were building it. The Rebbe explains this principle several times in Likkutei Sichos: When a mitzvah has several components, and some of them cannot be fulfilled during a particular period, the mitzvah must still be fulfilled through the components that can be performed. For example, take a person who comes to convert. There are three requirements for entering the Jewish people: circumcision, immersion in a mikveh, and bringing a korban. During exile, one cannot bring a korban. Does that mean a person cannot enter the Jewish people? That a person cannot convert? Of course not. That person has the status of a Jew and may marry. They are fully Jewish. We must say that since bringing a korban is impossible, circumcision and immersion suffice for entry into the Jewish people. The same applies to teshuvah. We know that for a person who has sinned to receive atonement, there must be confession and teshuvah, and a korban must be brought—a sin offering or a guilt offering. What do we do nowadays, when a korban cannot be brought? Is the atonement incomplete? This has practical halachic implications regarding [unclear], and so on. We must say that complete atonement is possible even during exile. Since bringing a korban is impossible, atonement must be completed through confession and teshuvah, which are the things we can do during exile. The Rebbe says the same about the mitzvah “They shall make Me a sanctuary”: Since we cannot actually build the Beis Hamikdash during exile, we must say—and this is what

04:45 the Midrash explains—that by studying its construction we fulfill the mitzvah “They shall make Me a sanctuary.” That is why the Rebbe urged us to engage with matters concerning the Beis Hamikdash particularly during these days. We cannot let this occasion pass without mentioning another point. The Gemara says that Hakadosh Boruch Hu sought to make King Chizkiyahu Moshiach. Why did He not do so? Because Chizkiyahu did not give thanks for the miracles Hashem had performed for him—the defeat of Sancheriv and his miraculous recovery from illness. We are gathered here now, a group of Jews, and we have a duty to speak about this and urge everyone to thank, praise, and extol Hakadosh Boruch Hu for the kindness He is showing us at this time. Many people here are from Tzfas and from northern Israel. Those who were there during these days, at those very moments, merited to see the miracles and wonders with their own eyes. With almost every missile, you could say, there was a good angel that moved it a few yards away from an inhabited house, a few yards away from a gas station. These are things I saw with my own eyes. We cannot fail to mention the kindness Hakadosh Boruch Hu has shown us: this situation has come to a head and is being dealt with now, before it becomes a threat to all the residents of the Holy Land. For all this, we have a duty to give thanks. The Rebbe says that the month of Av is a month of mercy, as in the verse, “As a father has compassion.” We see the same point in the order of the letters of the month’s name: it is a month of mercy. The Zohar says that when letters run in descending order, it indicates judgment; when they run in ascending order, it indicates mercy. That is why, the Zohar says, the Day of Judgment was established in the month of Tishrei, whose letters—tav, shin, reish—run in descending order. Parshas Shoftim. By this reasoning, the month of Av, whose letters run in ascending order—alef followed by beis—indicates

07:25 an outpouring of mercy. The Rebbe asks: How is it possible that so many calamities befell the Jewish people specifically in the month of Av, which signifies an outpouring of mercy? The most significant calamities, beginning with the sin of the spies and followed by the destruction of the First Beis Hamikdash and the Second Beis Hamikdash, as well as others listed by the Gemara in Taanis—all occurred specifically in Av, the month of mercy. The Rebbe explains that there are two kinds of mercy. There is mercy within the bounds of the order of creation, and there is mercy beyond those bounds. When there is a time of judgment, Hakadosh Boruch Hu bestows upon the Jewish people mercy that transcends the order of creation. That mercy comes clothed in judgment, but when we look at its inner dimension, it is mercy—great mercy. If I may say so, that is what we see now. On the one hand, there is judgment, there is war, and hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps more, are displaced from their homes. But on the other hand, within this period, within this very situation, we see great mercy. Our prayer is that, as the Rebbe explains, the month should be called not merely Av but Menachem Av. Menachem Av, the Rebbe says, signifies that great mercy is revealed openly, rather than coming clothed in judgment. We know that since 5750, the Rebbe has said that all the developments taking place in the world are the work of Moshiach in the world: he is setting the world right, bringing goodness and kindness into it, and preparing it for the true and complete Geulah. The Rebbe said this regarding the fall of the Iron Curtain and regarding the Gulf War. We hope and are certain that what is happening now is also part of the work of Moshiach. One of his central tasks, at least according to one version of the Rambam’s text, is that “he will defeat all the nations around him.” May this happen for us immediately, now. And this is the place to offer heartfelt thanks, on my own behalf and on behalf of our fellow Chabad chassidim in northern Israel, many of whom are here, to the residents of Kfar Chabad, who stepped forward from the very first moment to host us, giving of themselves, their energy, and their money. Some hosted children whose parents chose to remain at home for reasons beyond their control and sent the children on their own, sometimes very young children; others took in entire families. Many have also kept the children busy during the afternoon hours. Special mention should be made of the chairman of the committee, Reb Binyamin Lipschitz, who welcomed the children and welcomed us from the very first moment, took the children into the day camps, and tried to help in every way possible; and of the administration of the Bukharian Yeshiva, which made its buildings available to us. G-d willing, may the residents of Kfar Chabad merit to host us on happy occasions. And may Hashem grant you and all of us abundant children, life, and sustenance—abundance in all of them—and may we merit the revelation of the Rebbe immediately, now. We will now invite the head mashpia of the central Tomchei Temimim Yeshiva, a man who has the merit of taking part and speaking at every Torah gathering in Kfar Chabad, the chossid Rabbi Schneur Zalman Gopin, to speak on matters concerning the Beis Hamikdash.

09:56 The first to host us gave of themselves, their time, and their money. Some hosted children whose parents, for reasons beyond their control, preferred to stay at home and sent the children alone—sometimes very young children—while others took in entire families. Many have been keeping the children busy in the afternoons. Special thanks go to the chairman of the committee, Reb Binyamin Lipschitz, who welcomed the children and us from the very first moment, took the children into the day camps, and tried to help in every way possible; and to the administration of the Bukharian Yeshiva, which put its buildings at our disposal. If Hashem wills it, may the residents of Kfar Chabad have the opportunity to host us on happy occasions. And may Hashem grant you and all of us children, life, and ample sustenance, with abundance in all of them, and may we merit the revelation of the Rebbe immediately, right now. We will now invite the head mashpia of the central Tomchei Temimim yeshiva, a man who has the privilege of participating and speaking at every Torah gathering in Kfar Chabad, Rabbi Schneur Zalman Gopin, to speak on matters concerning the Beis Habechirah.

00:03 In Derech Mitzvosecha, in the mitzvah of building the Beis Hamikdash, he explains the meaning of the command “They shall make Me a sanctuary.” This command includes building the Mishkan and making its vessels. Right at the beginning, he says that the purpose of building the Mishkan is to bring a revelation of G-dliness into the world, and that this revelation of G-dliness is seen among the Jewish people and in every vessel of the Mishkan. Regarding the Ark, it says, “I will meet with you there, from between the two cherubim”—a revelation of G-dliness. Fire descended from above onto the altar—a revelation of G-dliness. Of the menorah, too, it says, “It is a testimony to all who enter the world”—a revelation of G-dliness. And with the table, the bread remained warm: you could see a revelation of G-dliness in that miracle. So the purpose of the Mishkan and its vessels is to bring a revelation of G-dliness among the Jewish people. Broadly speaking, the Mishkan has two components: its coverings and its vessels. The coverings are in the category of makif, an encompassing light; that is the plain meaning of it. The coverings surround the Mishkan. The vessels of the Mishkan are in the category of an inner light. The very word “vessels” tells you that this is an inner light. And so there are distinctions among them. There is an altar, an Ark, a menorah, a table—each a different vessel for a different form and level of revelation of G-dliness. In other words, the revelation of G-dliness among the Jewish people, the revelation of G-dliness in the world, comes into the world through the Mishkan, through the Beis Hamikdash. That applies both to the encompassing lights and to the inner light: they are all revealed through the Mishkan. The higher encompassing lights are revealed through the coverings of the Mishkan, and the inner light is revealed through its vessels. He discusses these two aspects, the coverings and the vessels of the Mishkan—makif and pnimi—at length. He explains that it begins with two verses. One says, “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?” “I” implies I Myself. The second says, “The whole earth is filled with His glory.” Glory is only

02:40 something associated with a person, something around him. It is only his light. So the two verses seem to contradict each other. What fills the whole earth? Is it Hakadosh Boruch Hu Himself, or only something associated with Him? He resolves this by explaining at length the concepts of sovev kol almin and memale kol almin, and how both illuminate and act within the world. Sovev kol almin also acts within the world in bringing something into being from nothing. That is possible specifically through the power of the Infinite, through the power of sovev. Memale kol almin is the Divine life-force that enters created beings inwardly, each according to its level and capacity. So both sovev and memale illuminate the world. He gives an analogy for this, discussing at length the human soul as an analogy for sovev and memale. The analogy for memale kol almin is the soul’s inner faculties. The soul gives life to the limbs inwardly, with the life-force measured and limited to suit each vessel: intellect in the brain, sight in the eye, movement in the hands. That life-force, which enters the limbs inwardly, is an analogy for memale kol almin. The other life-force in a person’s soul is the will, which is present equally in every limb, throughout the body. That is an analogy for sovev kol almin. Both sovev and memale act within the world. This is how he reconciles the two verses: “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?” refers to sovev; “The whole earth is filled with His glory” refers to memale. This also explains the coverings and vessels of the Mishkan. The coverings bring the light of sovev kol almin into the world. Sovev is thus vested in the coverings; through them it reaches the world. And through the vessels of the Beis Hamikdash, the light of memale illuminates the world. Because everything,

04:58 every revelation, passes through the House, through the Mishkan, through the Beis Hamikdash. When he lists the vessels of the Mishkan as expressions of inner light, he mentions the Ark, the menorah, the table and the altar; then the inner altar and the outer altar. He details the vessels, and one of them is the Ark. It follows that the Ark, too, is a vessel through which memale illuminates, a vessel for an inner illumination. It is one of the vessels, and that seems to call for explanation. The Ark with the Tablets, as he explains in Tanya, chapter 51—and he refers here to Likkutei Amarim, part one, chapter 53—is like the human brain. The principal presence of the soul is in the brain, and from the brain the soul’s life-force spreads to all the limbs. So the Ark and the Tablets are like the brain of the entire world. That is the brain, and the principal presence of the Shechinah is there. From there, from the Ark, it spreads to everything else. The plain implication is that the Ark is not a particular vessel like the others. It is the central vessel, the source from which all the particulars derive. Yet here he apparently mentions the Ark, too, as an inner vessel. So we need to understand that although the Ark is indeed one of the inner vessels, it is nevertheless unique even among them. That is why it is the source of all the vessels, like the human brain. Let us dwell on this a little, to understand what is special about the Ark and the Tablets, about the Ark in the Beis Hamikdash. As he points out in Likkutei Amarim, in the final chapters of the first part of Tanya, he begins this discussion in chapter 51 by asking: What does it mean that the Shechinah rests in the Holy of Holies? Does the Shechinah rest only in the Holy of Holies? “The whole earth is filled with His glory”; there is no place devoid of Him. What is special

07:52 about the Holy of Holies? That is how he begins chapter 51 of Tanya. There is the Holy of Holies, but “the whole earth is filled with His glory.” So he compares the Ark to the human brain. Although the soul spreads throughout all the body’s limbs to give them life, its principal presence is in the brain, and from the brain it spreads to all the limbs. What does it mean that the soul’s principal presence is in the brain? In chapter 51 he asks: How can we say that? The soul is utterly simple; it has no form whatsoever. When something is formless, you cannot distinguish between the head and the foot in relation to it. How can we say that the soul is in the brain? It is formless. Suppose, for example, we take a color—blue. We might say that blue is closer to green and perhaps the opposite of yellow. I don’t know; perhaps I’m not such an expert on colors, but we can make distinctions. It is closer to one color because it is itself a color. It has a particular character, so some colors are closer to it and others are opposed to it. But something completely formless has no color at all. You cannot say it is closer to red and farther from black. It has no particular color, so all colors are the same in relation to it. For something utterly formless, there are no such distinctions. The essence of the soul is utterly formless, so there is no difference for it between the brain and the foot. We cannot say that the essence of the soul belongs in the brain. Yet we do say that the soul’s principal presence, its essence, is in the brain. How can we say that when the soul is utterly formless? So he explains in chapter 51 that when we say the principal life-force, the essence of the soul, is in the brain, that does not mean the essence

10:17 The soul itself; rather, he goes into detail. He discusses this at length, as explained in the maamarim from the end of 5663 and in many other places. What does he mean there? He explains it plainly in chapter 51: when we say that the soul’s primary presence is in the brain, that refers to the level called “life in its essence,” not the essence of the soul. What is the difference? Life in its essence is still a level connected with giving life. It is a level of the soul called vitality. In other words, it is a level connected with giving life to the body, only it is the essence of that vitality. It is like the expression “the essence of light.” The essence of light is still light. The purpose of light is to illuminate, to illuminate the world, but within light itself there is the essence of light. So too with life in its essence: it is a level connected with life, but it is the essence of that life. It is not the essence of the soul. Since this level of life in its essence is already connected with giving life, we can say that it is located in the brain. At this level, there is a difference between the brain and the other limbs. But with regard to the essence of the soul, there is no difference. To put it simply, what is life in its essence, the essence of life? And what is the essence of the soul? What is the difference between them? These are words; we’re using words. Let’s put it this way, very simply. Suppose someone comes and asks—or you ask a Jew: “Do you believe that a person has a soul? Do you believe that?” “Yes, a soul, a neshamah. There is a neshamah.” “Can you tell me what a neshamah is?” He’ll tell you: “The neshamah is what gives life to the whole body. It gives us all our faculties and all our senses. It is something very precious, very important. It gives life to the whole body; all life comes from the soul.” So you, having learned Chassidus, might give him a little—perhaps

12:30 hit him over the head with a stick. You’ll say: “That’s the soul? That’s the neshamah? Your neshamah is what gives life to the body? That’s the body’s engine! A neshamah is something else. It is a part of G-d above; it is bound and attached to Him. A neshamah is attached to G-dliness. ‘Yechidah, to affirm Your oneness’—it is united with G-dliness. That is a neshamah. Its life is G-dly life. Why are you defining it by saying that it gives life to the body and gives the body the ability to eat and speak, and even to grasp ideas? A neshamah is something G-dly.” So he’ll say to you: “Wait, are you telling me that the neshamah doesn’t give life to the body? That someone or something else does?” What will you answer him? Of course it’s the neshamah. But that isn’t what the neshamah is about. It does that incidentally. Because the neshamah lives a G-dly life, if it wants or needs to give life to the body—to provide physical life—it can do that too, incidentally. A small radiance extends from the neshamah to give life to the body. That doesn’t begin to capture the essence of the neshamah. It is an entirely external matter. By way of analogy—I won’t tell the story at length—there is the well-known story about the Rebbe Maharash. Chassidim were traveling to the Rebbe Maharash and talking on the way about the Rebbe’s greatness. A non-Jew sitting beside them heard them talking about the Rebbe. He said: “You know how great your Rebbe is? I’ll tell you—you don’t know. I know how great he is.” And he told them about his travels. This was when sewing machines had first appeared, and he was an agent who sold them. What would he do? He would take sewing machines

14:32 and travel from place to place, from village to village. He would come to the market in the center of a village or town, and all the women would gather while he showed them the great marvel of the sewing machine. People would place orders, and the machines would be delivered afterward. The agent related that he had also come to Lubavitch. People gathered in the market, and he showed them the wonders of the sewing machine. Among them was Rebbetzin Rivkah, the wife of the Rebbe Maharash. She too saw this marvel and wanted to buy a sewing machine for herself. She went to the Rebbe Maharash and asked him to buy her one. The Rebbe Maharash told her to invite the non-Jewish agent to his home; he wanted to see it. The agent came to the Rebbe Maharash’s home with the machine. The Rebbe Maharash took it and began to take it apart. The agent wanted to step in and help him—this was something new, after all—to show the Rebbe how to take it apart properly. The Rebbe Maharash told him, “Leave me be.” He took it apart himself, while the agent stood to the side in amazement. It was the first time the Rebbe had taken one apart, yet he did it methodically. The agent was very impressed by the Rebbe Maharash’s skill. He thought, “Well, perhaps he can take it apart, but let’s see whether he can put it back together by himself.” He stood aside, and when the Rebbe Maharash had finished taking the whole machine apart, he began putting it back together. He assembled it methodically and precisely, like a professional. The non-Jew was greatly impressed and told the chassidim, “Now you know how great your Rebbe is. He knows how to take apart and reassemble a new sewing machine.” And that’s true: the Rebbe Maharash knew how to do that. But to say that this is what the Rebbe Maharash was? Because of who the Rebbe Maharash was,

16:20 if he wanted to take apart and reassemble a sewing machine, he could do that too, incidentally. It follows from his greatness, but that isn’t his greatness. It is incidental, an entirely external matter. The same is true when we speak about the life that comes from the soul. Is giving life to the body what the neshamah is about? What does that have to do with it? The neshamah’s concern is “Yechidah, to affirm Your oneness.” But if it wants or needs to give life to the body, that too can come from it, among other things, incidentally. So now we understand what the essence of the soul is: the neshamah’s “Yechidah, to affirm Your oneness,” its G-dliness and G-dly life. But something also extends from this neshamah to give life to the body. And within this physical life that comes from the neshamah, there is the essence of life and there is the life that spreads outward. The essence of that life is called “life in its essence.” It is the essence of the life that is already connected with giving life to the body. Clearly, there is a great distance between the essence of the soul and life in its essence. His point is that when we say the soul’s primary presence is in the brain, we are referring to life in its essence—to the aspect of the neshamah that gives life to the body. The essence of this life is in the brain, and from there life spreads to all the limbs. The essence of the soul is higher than that. For it, there is no difference between head and foot; it is equally present throughout the body. That is the basic analogy. We’ve tried to understand more clearly, within the neshamah itself, these two levels: life in its essence and the essence of the neshamah. This is explained plainly in Tanya. To understand the difference between them: there are two main places in Tanya where the Alter Rebbe discusses the G-dly soul. In chapter 2, as is well known, he says, “The second soul in a Jew is truly a part of G-d above.” In chapter 2,

18:29 he gives an analogy: a child who comes from the father’s brain. Because the child comes from the father’s brain, he resembles his father, and he is born complete, with all his limbs. So too, the neshamah comes from the Father’s brain. The Father’s brain means Chochmah—G-dly Chochmah, the Chochmah of Atzilus, the Chochmah of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. This is called the Father’s brain above, and the neshamah that comes from it is a part of G-d above. Later, in chapter 18 of Tanya, he again discusses the G-dly soul at length. In chapter 18 he sets out to explain the short path: every Jew has a hidden love in his neshamah. He is even prepared to go as far as mesirus nefesh, and this is found in everyone, even the most unworthy. A Jew will “give his life for the sanctity of Hashem’s name.” Every Jew’s neshamah contains a hidden love, simple faith, and the power of mesirus nefesh. How is this present in every neshamah? In chapter 18 he explains that it is an inheritance from our forefathers. We have an inheritance from Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov: they passed on this hidden love to us. That is what chapter 18 says. And an inheritance passes to each and every person. Everyone inherits. Even a one-day-old child inherits; even the most unworthy Jew is a descendant of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, and he inherits. He too has a hidden love. He too has the power of mesirus nefesh. But this raises a question: what happened here? In chapter 2 we already learned that every Jew has a neshamah, and that the neshamah is truly a part of G-d above, with all that implies. Yet chapter 2 makes no mention at all of inheritance. Is our having a neshamah an inheritance from our forefathers? Every Jew has a neshamah—that is what a neshamah is. Then chapter 18 suddenly offers a new explanation: there is an inheritance from our forefathers. That is something new.

20:52 that is in the soul. Why didn’t you mention it? If the entire soul is an inheritance, why didn’t you mention that inheritance in chapter 2? Suddenly, in chapter 18, you come to explain that we have an inheritance. What more do you need to tell us? We already know from chapter 2 that every Jew has a soul, and the soul is literally a part of G-d above. So he has a hidden love; he has the capacity for self-sacrifice. What changed? Chapter 18 suddenly introduces this new idea of an inheritance from our father. The Tzemach Tzedek explains in his commentaries that chapter 18 adds two things to chapter 2. We’ll get to one of them, which is relevant to our discussion. And let’s make the question a little stronger: Here too, in chapter 18, he speaks about the soul’s hidden love. So where does that hidden love come from? From the level of chochmah in the soul. The chochmah in every person’s soul is rooted in the chochmah of Atzilus, in Divine chochmah. Again, it’s the same idea of chochmah. Here too, in chapter 18, he explains that the soul’s root is in supernal chochmah. He mentioned that in chapter 2 as well. So it’s the same idea. Why does he suddenly introduce this new idea of an inheritance from our father? The Tzemach Tzedek explains that there is an addition here beyond chapter 2. What is it? Chapter 2 also says that the soul’s root is in chochmah, the chochmah of Atzilus. Chapter 18 adds that the soul’s root is not only in chochmah, but in the infinite light that dwells in chochmah—the light of Hashem, the infinite light of the Blessed One Himself, so to speak, which dwells in chochmah. Chapter 2 spoke about chochmah itself, while here he speaks about the infinite light that dwells in chochmah. In other words, there is an addition here. Besides the fact that the soul is rooted in the chochmah of Atzilus, the chochmah of Atzilus also has

23:08 another aspect: the infinite light of the Blessed One dwells in chochmah. Because chochmah is koach mah, a state of bittul, it can receive the infinite light. So in chapter 18 he is telling us that the soul also contains the infinite light—the light of Hashem. That is how the Tzemach Tzedek explains it. So first, a question arises: If chapter 2 says that the soul’s root is in chochmah—not in the infinite light that dwells in chochmah, not in the infinite light of the Blessed One Himself that dwells there, but in the sefirah of chochmah—how is that different from the chochmah that gives life to all created beings? After all, “You made them all with wisdom.” All created beings have their source in chochmah. “With wisdom He founded the earth; with understanding He established the heavens.” Chochmah extends into all the worlds. How is the soul’s being rooted in chochmah different? Why does that make you say it is a part of G-d? What is special about the soul? Granted, if we were saying, as chapter 18 explains, that the soul is rooted not only in chochmah but in the infinite light that dwells in chochmah, that would be a tremendous distinction. But if chapter 2 says that the soul is rooted in chochmah alone, then seemingly all the worlds are rooted in chochmah. The explanation is given in maamarim of Chassidus, including the first maamar in [unclear] and other maamarim: the difference between transmitting one’s essence and what a teacher transmits to a student. A teacher teaches his student chochmah, gives him chochmah. What does chochmah mean here? Intellect. He gives him something of his intellectual capacity; he explains an idea to him. That is what the teacher gives the student. For a father to beget a child, the transmission also comes from the father’s chochmah. But what does chochmah mean in relation to begetting a child? It does not

25:29 mean the father’s intellect, as though the son comes from his intellectual ideas. The father’s drop comes from the brain itself, from the very substance of the brain. And the entire soul is present in the brain. So from this a son is born who is complete, with all his limbs. That is the difference: When we speak of the chochmah transmitted from teacher to student, we mean just one of the ten faculties, the faculty of intellect. But when we say that begetting a child comes from chochmah, we mean from the very substance of the father’s brain, where the essence of his vitality is present—all his vitality, all his faculties and all his limbs. From this comes the child, complete with all his limbs. That is what is special about the soul’s connection to chochmah, as compared with the connection of all created beings to chochmah. All created beings were created through the flow of chochmah from the chochmah of Atzilus. That is like the chochmah a teacher gives: as though it comes from the Holy One, blessed be He’s, intellect. The Holy One, blessed be He, understood and conceived how and why to make worlds, how to make worlds and create beings. That is a matter of intellect—supernal intellect. But when we speak of chochmah in relation to the soul, it is like the brain itself: a father gives something of the very substance of his brain. So to speak, the Holy One, blessed be He, gave from the very substance of His “brain,” the source of all the faculties, and from that the soul comes. This is called [unclear] in Eitz Chaim. So all of this is speaking about chochmah, about the vessel, without the infinite light that dwells in chochmah. It is chochmah as the source of all the sefiros, the very essence of Chabad. Why, then, does chapter 18 speak not about chochmah but about the infinite light that dwells in chochmah? What is the difference? We can ask: Why does chapter 2 speak of the soul as a part of the sefirah of chochmah—not of the infinite light that dwells in chochmah, but of chochmah,

28:00 of the very essence of chochmah—while chapter 18 speaks of the infinite light that dwells in chochmah? The difference lies in what he wants to explain in those chapters. In chapter 2, he is explaining Tanya’s long path. In chapter 18, he is explaining the short path. The long path explains how a Jew can come to love Hashem through contemplation, through intellect. You can come to love Hashem by contemplating His greatness. For that to be possible, what do we need to understand? For the soul to come to love Hashem through intellect and contemplation, it needs an intellect capable of grasping G-dliness. To grasp G-dliness, you need a G-dly intellect. A G-dly intellect can grasp G-dliness. So what do I need to understand? That the soul has something within it: its intellect is not the intellect of a created being, like the intellect of angels, for example. The soul’s intellect is G-dly. How do I understand that? Just as something of the father’s very essence is transmitted to his son, so something of the very essence of the Holy One, blessed be He’s, Chabad faculties is transmitted to the soul. The soul therefore has G-dly Chabad faculties, a G-dly intellect. That is the meaning of “literally a part of G-d above.” What does “a part of G-d” mean there in chapter 2? It refers to the Chabad faculties, but to those faculties themselves. It is not merely something they produce; the Chabad faculties themselves are transmitted to the son, to the soul, giving the soul a G-dly intellect. Perhaps I should add a little more to sharpen the point. Take, for example, the difference between someone drawing a picture and, as we mentioned, a teacher teaching an idea to a student. When you draw a picture, you also use your intellect.

30:22 Without your intellect, you cannot draw. But the drawing does not contain the essence of your intellect. Your intellect knows how to draw, but your intellect is not in the drawing itself. The drawing itself is inanimate; it has no intellect. Your intellect knows how to draw, but you have not put the essence of your intellect into the drawing. By contrast, when a father has a son, he gives his son the intellect itself. From the essence of his brain, he gives him the intellect itself. And that is the difference: Hakadosh Boruch Hu created all the worlds and beings with wisdom. Meaning, Hakadosh Boruch Hu created all the worlds with His intellect, but the worlds themselves are not the intellect of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. They are a product of Hashem’s intellect. In the neshamah, by contrast, the intellect of Hakadosh Boruch Hu Himself is present. So the intellect of created beings, of angels, is the intellect of a created being that understands G-dliness. But the intellect of the neshamah is itself G-dliness. It is like a G-dly intellect understanding G-dliness; it can comprehend the essence of G-dliness. This is the meaning of “an actual part of G-d above” in chapter 2: the neshamah has something of the essence of the wisdom of Hakadosh Boruch Hu, and therefore the neshamah can grasp G-dliness. This matters for Tanya’s long path, where all love of Hashem comes from contemplation—that is, from engaging the intellect. So we need to understand how the neshamah has a G-dly intellect. Chapter 18, by contrast, begins to explain the short path. The short path means attaining love of Hashem by awakening the power of mesirus nefesh. The power of mesirus nefesh in the neshamah does not come from its Chabad faculties; it does not come from the essence of the Chabad of Atzilus, from the essence of the Chabad of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. Mesirus nefesh is entirely above intellect, above even the wisdom of Atzilus. To understand how the neshamah has mesirus nefesh, I

32:18 need to understand that the neshamah contains not only the Chabad faculties—the very essence of the Chabad of Atzilus of Hakadosh Boruch Hu, so to speak—but also the infinite light that is above wisdom altogether. That is what matters for mesirus nefesh. So in chapter 2, which explains the long path, we need to understand how to serve Hashem through the intellect, contemplating G-dliness deeply and grasping it. In that context, it can be called “a part of G-d.” But in chapter 18, we need to understand mesirus nefesh. Mesirus nefesh comes from—it is not enough that the root of the neshamah is in the wisdom of Atzilus; it comes from the Infinite that is above wisdom. That is why he explains there that the light of Havayah rests in wisdom, and that this comes as an inheritance from the Patriarchs. So chapter 18 is discussing something further. The wisdom we discuss in chapter 2, when we say that the neshamah is a part of G-d, helps us understand how the neshamah has something of the essence: just as a son has something of the essence of his father’s brain, so the neshamah has something of the essence of the Chabad faculties of Hakadosh Boruch Hu. This is called “intrinsically alive.” It, too, is a part of G-d; it is an essence, but it is the essence of the Chabad faculties. It is the essence of nefesh, ruach, and neshamah—the essence of their Chabad faculties, as he calls it. That is what “intrinsically alive” means. What he discusses in chapter 18, the power of mesirus nefesh that comes from the Infinite above wisdom—that is the very essence of the soul. So within the G-dly soul itself, the soul’s service according to intellect is called the essence of nefesh, ruach, and neshamah: it is intrinsically alive. Its service through mesirus nefesh, above reason and understanding, which he discusses in chapter 18, comes from the very essence of the soul. Good, that is the point. Just as we understand that the soul has these two aspects, so too, as we can understand,

34:26 there are also two aspects in G-dliness. As we said, go up to a Jew and ask him, “Tell me, do you believe?” “Of course I believe in Hashem.” “What is G-dliness?” He will tell you, “G-dliness? G-dliness is creation. Hakadosh Boruch Hu creates the world.” Ask him, “Is that all G-dliness is—that He creates worlds and watches over His world? Is the whole idea of G-dliness something to do with worlds?” It would not hurt to ask: What connection does G-dliness have with worlds? G-dliness is above everything—for “no thought can grasp Him”; He is beyond all comparison, utterly simple, utterly infinite. What connection does He have to worlds? So would you say that G-dliness does not create worlds? G-d forbid. But the fact that He creates worlds is only an external light that comes from Him. These two aspects parallel what we understood about the soul: there is what is intrinsically alive, which can give life to the body, and there is the essence of the soul, which is G-dly life and has no connection to matters of the body. Likewise, in G-dliness there is the aspect that gives life to worlds. This is analogous to what is intrinsically alive. It is the level of memalei kol almin, the aspect of G-dliness that relates to worlds. And there is an aspect of G-dliness called sovev kol almin, which is above any connection to worlds. Both of these aspects need to have an effect and be revealed within the Jewish people, and both are revealed through the Mishkan. So there is the level of memalei kol almin and the level of sovev kol almin. The aspect of G-dliness that relates to giving life to worlds also enables the neshamah to serve Hashem with its intellect, with its Chabad faculties. It shines within the neshamah and is revealed through the vessels of the Mishkan. The aspect of G-dliness called sovev kol almin, which is above worlds, gives rise in the neshamah to serving Hashem through mesirus nefesh, above reason and understanding. That comes through

36:24 the coverings. So when it says here that the Mishkan—that the Aron—is associated with the light of memalei, it is because the Aron is one of the vessels of the Mishkan. Both points are indeed true. It is also part of the inner dimension; it belongs to the vessels because it is internal, because it corresponds to what is intrinsically alive, and that is connected to memalei kol almin. As we said, the brain, insofar as it is intrinsically alive, is connected to giving life to the body. So it corresponds to memalei kol almin. But within memalei kol almin itself, it is what is intrinsically alive. That is the Aron’s superiority over all the other vessels of the Mishkan. All the vessels of the Mishkan represent an inner light, while the Aron corresponds, as it were, to what is intrinsically alive above. And these two aspects shine openly within a person through the coverings and the vessels of the Mishkan. Good, let us finish with just one point. Now that the Beis Hamikdash has been destroyed, how does the revelation of G-dliness reach the Jewish people? As noted in Tanya, chapter 53, today Hakadosh Boruch Hu has nothing in His world except the four cubits of halachah. At first glance, the four cubits of halachah simply mean Torah, like the Aron and the Tablets. So through the four cubits of halachah shines memalei kol almin—what is intrinsically alive above—and that makes it possible to serve Hashem through inner contemplation with the Chabad faculties. But what takes the place of the coverings? How is sovev kol almin revealed in the world, and through what does it shine here, enabling a person to serve Hashem on a higher plane, through mesirus nefesh? To understand that, what does “four cubits of halachah” mean? How do we account for

38:15 four cubits in halachah? Since when do we measure halachah in cubits? What are these four cubits? The Rebbe explains that the four cubits refer to the person. Why four cubits? Every person has four cubits; a person’s four cubits can acquire property for him. Why is a person allotted four cubits? Rashi says that three cubits correspond to the body—the human body measures three cubits—and the fourth cubit allows him to extend his hand. The Rebbe explains that the three cubits are the head, torso, and legs. These are nefesh, ruach, and neshamah, the inner faculties. Extending his hand reaches the area around the person. That is the encompassing level, chayah and yechidah, the person’s encompassing faculties. That is how we arrive at four cubits. They include both nefesh, ruach, and neshamah and the level of yechidah. And as it relates to our discussion, they include both what is intrinsically alive, which belongs to nefesh, ruach, and neshamah, and chayah and yechidah, which belong to the essence of the soul. So those are the four cubits. What, then, does “the four cubits of halachah” mean? The four cubits of halachah are created by the person. You study halachah in such a way that you invest your nefesh, ruach, and neshamah in it—the three cubits of your inner faculties—and you also invest your chayah and yechidah in your learning. You learn with mesirus nefesh, without limits. You invest even your yechidah in the learning. That creates the four cubits of halachah. Halachah itself has no four cubits. The four cubits of halachah come from the person studying it, when you invest your four cubits in the halachah. That means that when you study within the four cubits of halachah, it includes nefesh, ruach, and neshamah, corresponding to the Aron, and it also includes your yechidah, corresponding to the coverings. In this way, both the encompassing light and the inner light are drawn down,

39:59 and may we soon merit to see all of this openly revealed.

00:01 Speaker 1 Thank you to Rabbi Schneur Zalman Gopin for his words. Rabbi Schneur Zalman Gopin deserves special thanks for taking part in this Torah gathering, having risen from shivah for his mother, a”h, only a few days ago. We all wish him that from now on, only goodness and kindness will follow him all his days, in revealed and evident good. We are involved with the spiritual administration of the Tomchei Temimim yeshivah. I forgot earlier to thank the yeshivah’s administrative staff in particular. They made the buildings of the vocational school available for the children’s camp, and have been sending food for the children every day for weeks, all with a warm welcome. May Hakadosh Boruch Hu repay them with true abundance for the institutions, G-d willing. I would now like to invite the local rabbi, a man who spends day and night studying the teachings of our Rebbeim and explaining and clarifying Chabad customs—my father and teacher, may he live, the distinguished Rabbi Ashkenazi, shlita—to speak about the Beis Hamikdash.

01:35 Speaker 2 First, a correction: not “my father and teacher,” but “my teacher and father.” Rabbi Gopin concluded with the four cubits of halachah. We, however, are dealing with the laws of the Beis Hamikdash, which are halachah for the days of Moshiach. I wanted to clarify a subject I myself am uncertain about. It would seem to be a matter of halachah for the days of Moshiach, but it appears to touch on the prayers we say every day, and on Shabbos, Yom Tov and the festivals. I’ve searched a great deal lately and haven’t found an explanation. Perhaps by putting it before the public, together we can try to clarify it. It’s a very interesting matter. We are studying the laws of the Beis Hamikdash. In the Shemoneh Esrei prayers said three times a day, there are two blessings: “Return in mercy to Jerusalem, Your city, and dwell within it as You have spoken.” We also mention “the Comforter of Zion and Builder of Jerusalem.” We speak about Jerusalem as a whole, without specifically mentioning the Beis Hamikdash. Of course, when we say, “Return in mercy to Jerusalem, Your city, and dwell within it as You have spoken,” where will He dwell? In the Beis Hamikdash. But we don’t say so explicitly. In the Shabbos prayers, of course, the three prayers—Maariv, Shacharis and Minchah—were instituted corresponding to the offerings, but we don’t specifically mention the offering. The prayer specifically for the offering is Musaf. The Sages instituted a fourth prayer on Shabbos, Yom Tov and Rosh Chodesh—days when an additional offering was brought in the Beis Hamikdash. We say an additional prayer corresponding to that offering, and there we mention it. Our custom differs from Sephardic custom. Sephardim do not mention and detail the offerings, but say it as written in Orach Chaim. We, however, follow the ruling of the Rema and specify on every Shabbos and Yom Tov which offerings are brought. But what do we say in the introduction to this prayer

03:58 Speaker 2 ? We say, “You established Shabbos,” and so on. “May it be Your will, Hashem our G-d and G-d of our fathers, to bring us up in joy to our land and plant us within our borders, and there we will offer before You the offerings that are our obligation.” We ask Hakadosh Boruch Hu, “Plant us within our borders.” Of course, what does that mean? It refers to Jerusalem in general, but it does not explicitly mention rebuilding the Beis Hamikdash. Yet we say, “And there we will offer before You the offerings that are our obligation.” So it’s clear that “plant us within our borders” is connected to the offering we will bring: “There we will offer before You the offerings that are our obligation.” In the Rosh Chodesh prayer we say, “Establish a new altar in Zion, and we will bring the Rosh Chodesh burnt offering upon it.” We don’t say “plant us within our borders”; instead, we ask Him to build us a new altar, where we will offer the offerings that are our obligation. We already mention more detail, adding another phrase: “Establish a new altar in Zion, and we will bring the Rosh Chodesh burnt offering upon it.” Then, in the middle blessings of the Yom Tov prayers, there is something interesting. First, of course, in the Maariv, Shacharis and Minchah prayers of the three pilgrimage festivals, we don’t mention the offerings at all. We pray about Yom Tov: “festivals for joy, holidays and seasons for rejoicing,” and all of that. Then we say: “Because of our sins we were exiled from our land, and we are unable to ascend, appear and bow before You, and fulfill our obligations in Your chosen House.” After that we say: “May it be Your will, Hashem our G-d and G-d of our fathers, merciful King, to return and have mercy on us and on Your Sanctuary in Your abundant mercy; rebuild it speedily and magnify its glory.” Here we do mention it. Unlike on Shabbos, when we say “plant us within our borders,” here we explicitly ask: “Rebuild it speedily and magnify its glory.” But then we say again: “Our Father, our King, reveal the glory of Your kingship over us.” And we continue: “Bring us to Zion, Your city, in song, and gather our scattered people from among the nations.” Incidentally, we don’t mention that on Shabbos. “Bring us to Zion, Your city

06:09 Speaker 2 in song, and to Jerusalem, the home of Your Sanctuary, with everlasting joy, and there we will offer before You the offerings that are our obligation.” In the prayer connected with the offerings, we don’t mention building the Beis Hamikdash itself. Instead, we say: “Bring us to Zion, Your city, in song, and to Jerusalem, the home of Your Sanctuary, with everlasting joy, and there we will offer before You the offerings that are our obligation.” In other words, almost in passing: when we are in Jerusalem and have the Beis Hamikdash, there we will offer before You the offerings that are our obligation. But that is not all. The prayer continues: “Our G-d and G-d of our fathers, merciful King, have mercy on us; good and beneficent One, let Yourself be sought by us. Build Your House as in the beginning and establish Your Sanctuary on its site. Let us see it built and rejoice in its restoration. Restore the kohanim to their service, the Levi’im to their songs and melodies, and the Jewish people to their dwelling places. And there we will ascend, appear and bow before You on our three pilgrimage festivals.” We will ascend, appear and bow before You on our three pilgrimage festivals—with the offering of appearance, which every Jew was obligated to bring in the Beis Hamikdash when he went up for the festival. We will offer before You the offerings that are our obligation. Even a five-year-old learning Chumash—perhaps an even younger child, four or three years old, who is already beginning to pray—can see that for the Musaf offerings we mentioned earlier, we apparently don’t need the Beis Hamikdash established on its site. We don’t need “let us see it built”; we don’t need the kohanim restored to their service or the Levi’im to their songs and melodies. We don’t need the Jewish people restored to their dwelling places. Why aren’t these mentioned there? Only at the end, when we mention the Jewish people and say, “There we will ascend before You on our three pilgrimage festivals,” do we introduce it with this lengthy passage. What do we need there? “Build Your House as in the beginning,” “let us see it built,” “rejoice in its restoration,” kohanim, Levi’im, the Jewish people in their dwelling places—and then, “There we will ascend, appear and bow before You on our three pilgrimage festivals.” Why all of a sudden? Why specifically in connection with “there we will ascend”? What about all the offerings? On Yom Kippur, in the Musaf prayer and the Yom Kippur confession; in the Rosh Hashanah Musaf prayer—we don’t mention the kohanim

08:25 Speaker 2 returning to their service and the Levi’im to their platform. Yet the goat offering could not be brought without the Kohen Gadol. No service at all could be performed in the Beis Hamikdash without them. We mourn the Beis Hamikdash, the Kohen Gadol and the Levi’im, but don’t mention them in a single word. Here, suddenly, three times a year, we mention the kohanim returning to their service and the Levi’im to their platform. On the face of it, this is hard to understand. I’m not a contractor, and I’m not going to try to supply answers to all of this. But I have one observation that seems to offer an explanation, based on a teaching of the Alter Rebbe. The Alter Rebbe says that everyone who lived in Eretz Yisroel—this is the Alter Rebbe’s wording, though I don’t have it in front of me—when the Beis Hamikdash stood was obligated to bring three offerings on the festival: an offering of appearance, peace offerings of rejoicing, and a festival offering. Three offerings. Everyone who lived in Eretz Yisroel. The Gemara in Pesachim, page 8b, says that someone who owns land is obligated to appear, while someone who does not own land is exempt. It says, “No one will covet your land.” The Tanna derives from this that, to go up for the pilgrimage festival, a person had to own land. The commentators have noted that the Rambam does not cite this halachah; the Mishneh Lamelech points it out. The Rambam does not state that only someone who owns land is obligated to go up for the festival, while someone without land... In other words, a young married Jewish man who has only just married, has not yet had time to buy a home and lives in a rented place, would be exempt from appearing. And further: think of Jewish millionaires and billionaires who live in Miami, Los Angeles or New York and own land here, but don’t live here—they live in New York. Are they obligated to appear or not? Does each of them have to take his private plane and go up to Jerusalem for the festival?

10:35 Speaker 2 Or is he exempt? This question is not addressed by the halachic authorities. A Jew who lives in Eretz Yisroel but does not own a home, as we said earlier—he lives in a rented apartment—is he obligated to go up for the pilgrimage festivals or not? That is not addressed either, because the Rambam did not include this entire halachah at all. If we look closely at the Alter Rebbe’s ruling, that anyone who dwells in Eretz Yisroel is obligated to bring these three offerings, “dwells in Eretz Yisroel” means that owning land is not enough; he has to live there. In other words, when the Gemara says that someone who owns land is obligated in the mitzvah of appearing at the Beis Hamikdash, it means that he lives in Eretz Yisroel. The question is: Where does that come from? In other words, he lives in Eretz Yisroel, and he lives in his own home. If we put the statements together with the Gemara, he lives in Eretz Yisroel in his own home—it makes no difference whether it is an apartment building or a villa—and he is obligated to go up for the pilgrimage festivals and bring the three offerings. Where did the Alter Rebbe get this idea of “one who dwells”? The point regarding the pilgrimage festivals is that he dwells in Eretz Yisroel. I’ll tell you that I don’t know, but I think this is the meaning of the Musaf prayer: “And return Israel to their dwellings.” What does “their dwellings” mean? Until recently, I thought it meant the Beis Hamikdash as well. In Tikkun Chatzos they say “[unclear] over His dwelling.” I don’t say Tikkun Chatzos, but there is a melody by Yossele Rosenblatt with those words. That is how I know the phrase “[unclear] over His dwelling,” which I understood to mean the Beis Hamikdash. So what does it mean? When a Jew davens Musaf three times a year, what does he think “And return Israel to their dwellings” refers to? Their dwellings where? Again, the Beis Hamikdash? [unclear]

12:32 Speaker 2 “And establish Your Sanctuary on its site, and Israel in their dwellings.” The Beis Hamikdash, the Beis Hamikdash, the Beis Hamikdash. In my humble opinion, “and Israel in their dwellings” in the prayer means what the Alter Rebbe says in Shulchan Aruch: one who dwells in Eretz Yisroel is obligated to go up for the pilgrimage festivals. “Their dwellings” refers to their homes. There is a Mishnah at the end of Kesubos about a husband and wife who disagree over which home to live in. The Mishnah’s wording is “from a pleasant dwelling to an unpleasant dwelling, from an unpleasant dwelling to a pleasant dwelling.” A dwelling means a home, a pleasant home. So when we say “and Israel in their dwellings,” we mean that the Jewish people should live in their own homes in Eretz Yisroel, in peace and tranquility. Then we will be able to observe our three pilgrimage festivals. In other words, in my humble opinion, this entire passage in the prayer is not only a prayer. It also sets out the laws of going up for the pilgrimage festivals. I’ll start at the end: “And Israel in their dwellings.” When will we become obligated to appear at the Beis Hamikdash on our three pilgrimage festivals? When Israel is in their dwellings. It is not enough to have the Beis Hamikdash. It is not enough to have the kohanim at their service or the Levi’im at their stations. The Jewish people must also live in Eretz Yisroel. If the Beis Hamikdash is standing, the kohanim are at their service and the Levi’im are at their stations, but all the Jewish people live outside Eretz Yisroel, they are not obligated to appear at the Beis Hamikdash. Because it says, “and Israel in their dwellings.” This may have several practical halachic implications; perhaps we will still have time to address them. So, in other words, with the words “and Israel in their dwellings,” our prayer states the relevant halachah—a fundamental halachah of the pilgrimage festivals. Once the Jewish people are in their own homes, they will consequently become obligated to appear at the Beis Hamikdash. But it is not enough to own land in Eretz Yisroel. It is not enough to live in Eretz Yisroel without owning a home. Once Israel is in their dwellings, they will become obligated

14:42 Speaker 2 to appear at the Beis Hamikdash. If this is correct, we can work backward and understand that everything said in this prayer—“Build Your House as at first, establish Your Sanctuary on its site, show us its building and gladden us with its restoration”—is not enough on its own. I’ll give an example. The Rambam rules in Hilchos Beis Habechirah—a well-known ruling that the Rebbe discusses at length in his holy sichos—that offerings may be brought even when there is no Temple building, because the sanctity of the site of the Beis Hamikdash never ceased. Someone who enters the Temple site today while ritually impure is liable to kares, G-d forbid. Why? Because its sanctification was effective both for its time and for the future. And so the Rambam cites, “I will make your sanctuaries desolate”: even when they are desolate, they retain their sanctity. That is why the Rambam says offerings may be brought even when there is no Temple building. Even though the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed, in principle an offering can be brought without the building, because the site itself is holy. Of course, there are requirements that specifically call for [unclear], and we do not have the incense altar. But in principle, offerings can be brought at that site by virtue of its sanctity; the Beis Hamikdash building is not required for that. But that leads to the question: Why, then, do we not go up for the pilgrimage festivals today? Why don’t we? The Noda BiYehudah says—and so does the Cheshek Shlomo—that we do not go up. Why is there no mitzvah of appearing at the Beis Hamikdash today? Because we are ritually impure and cannot bring the offerings. The main thing is not merely appearing there, but bringing the three offerings: the appearance offering, the festival offering and the rejoicing offering. Now, the rejoicing offering is not as indispensable, but we are ritually impure and cannot bring the offerings; we do not have the ashes of the red heifer. In my opinion, we can say more. If we look at the prayer, we will see that it is not only for that reason. Suppose that today we had the ashes of the red heifer and could become pure, and we had kohanim whose priestly status was established. But suppose

17:03 Speaker 2 we still had not managed to rebuild the Beis Hamikdash. We have the ground, the floor; the Sanctuary building is gone, but we have the holy site. We can enter the area. Are we obligated to appear at the Beis Hamikdash, or are we exempt? If we look at the prayer, we see that this is what we say: “Build Your House as at first, establish Your Sanctuary on its site, show us its building and gladden us with its restoration, and then we will go up before You on our three pilgrimage festivals.” In other words, it is as though we are saying in the prayer that the Beis Hamikdash is a condition for going up for the pilgrimage festivals. There is something very profound here, something new. An offering can be brought even when there is no Temple building, if we are pure or have kohanim who are pure. But to become obligated in the mitzvah of going up for the pilgrimage festivals, we need the Beis Hamikdash built—and not only built, but “on its site.” What does “on its site” mean? With all its vessels and everything else, with the kohanim at their service and the Levi’im at their stations. Then, indeed, we will be able to go up. That is what creates the obligation to go up for the pilgrimage festivals. Seemingly, that is the meaning of the prayer. It is a beautiful interpretation. If this is correct, we can understand that it is the basis of the Rambam’s words. Right at the beginning of Hilchos Beis Habechirah, the Rambam writes: “It is a positive commandment to build a House for Hashem, prepared for offerings to be brought in it and for the pilgrimage festivals to be celebrated there three times a year, as it says, ‘They shall make Me a Sanctuary.’” The Rambam gives two purposes for Hashem’s command to build the Beis Hamikdash: first, for offerings to be brought there; second, to celebrate the pilgrimage festivals there three times a year. The Radbaz asks there—in the newer editions of the Rambam, the Radbaz’s commentary is included—what does going up for the pilgrimage festivals three times have to do with this? That is a separate mitzvah. So the Radbaz gives a somewhat strained explanation, saying that it further explains the need for building the Beis Hamikdash. But anyone who understands this, who is familiar with the subject and studies it

19:29 Speaker 2 The sichos—well, the Rebbe’s sichos—explain the first part of what the Rambam wrote: “to offer sacrifices in it.” Everyone knows that this is the main purpose of building the Beis Hamikdash: to offer sacrifices. And the Rebbe says that the Rambam and the Ramban disagree about this. According to the Ramban, the main purpose of building the Beis Hamikdash is the light, the resting of the Shechinah. According to the Rambam, the main purpose of erecting the Beis Hamikdash is to offer sacrifices in it. If we look closely at the prayer—and the Rambam repeats this twice, both in Sefer Hamitzvos and here. The Sefer Hachinuch quotes the Rambam’s words. If “celebrating there three times a year” were mentioned only in passing, to tell us about the significance of building the Beis Hamikdash, it would be a little puzzling, since the Sefer Hachinuch is brief and does not elaborate on the laws. It seems that “celebrating there three times a year” is a requirement. In other words, just as we understand the Rambam to mean that the purpose of building the Beis Hamikdash is to establish a place for offering sacrifices, why did Hakadosh Boruch Hu want the Beis Hamikdash built? So that we could go there for the pilgrimage festivals three times a year. That is the reason for building the Beis Hamikdash; that is its purpose. In other words, if we do not have the Beis Hamikdash, we have no reason to make the pilgrimage, even though we have the site. Now we will see even more clearly what changed here. Of the two reasons the Rambam gives for why we must build the Beis Hamikdash—so that sacrifices can be offered in it, and so that we can go there three times a year on the festivals—the first was indeed its purpose. But afterward, when the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed, sacrifices could still be offered even though there was no building there, as the Rambam goes on to write. In other words, initially the Beis Hamikdash was built so that sacrifices could be offered there and the place would be sanctified. The Beis Hamikdash was destroyed, and sacrifices could still be offered because the place retains its sanctity. But the Rambam

21:32 Speaker 2 does not write there that people still make the pilgrimage. In other words, that is not possible because of ritual impurity. But nothing has changed about the idea of making the pilgrimage. In other words, once the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed, we had no reason to go there, because the entire mitzvah of making the pilgrimage depends on the building—the building is there for the pilgrimage. And when there is no building, even though we have the land and the courtyard, and can even offer the olas re’iyah and the Chagigah offering of the fifteenth, and can sprinkle the blood, and we have the walls, we do not have the building. We cannot make the pilgrimage. In my opinion, we can say that this is the meaning of the Rabbi’s words, and this is what... But this helps us understand why we speak at such length about building the Beis Hamikdash. And I would go further still. Perhaps this is a homiletic interpretation, but what does “Build Your House as at first” mean? In no other prayer, even when we say “Build Jerusalem,” do we say “as at first.” What does “as at first” mean? I searched for days, I’m telling you. What does it mean? And they have the CD-ROM—surely someone explains it. What does “as at first” mean? “Build Your House as at first.” On the contrary, we say that the third building will be greater, and we also say that the glory of the third Beis Hamikdash will surpass that of the second Beis Hamikdash, surpass... So what is “Build Your House as at first”? Seemingly, we could explain it this way. It says, “Build Your House as at first”—just as, at first, the mitzvah of building the Beis Hamikdash was for the sake of making the pilgrimage. Having had a building, even though it was destroyed, is enough when it comes to sacrifices; but to make the pilgrimage, the building itself must be rebuilt. That is the meaning of “Build Your House.” Why did You first command us to build the Beis Hamikdash? In other words, if we look carefully at the prayer, we will see that the two parts of the Mussaf prayer correspond to the two parts of the Rambam’s opening statement. When we say, “Because of our sins we were exiled from our land,” and then say, “Our G-d

23:35 Speaker 2 and G-d of our fathers,” the first part deals with sacrifices. There it says, “Because of our sins” ... “Bring our scattered people near from among the nations, gather our dispersed from the ends of the earth, and bring us to Tziyon, Your city, in song, and to Jerusalem, the site of Your Beis Hamikdash, with everlasting joy; and there we will offer before You the sacrifices that are our obligation.” Why? Where is the building of the Beis Hamikdash? What does “there we will offer before You the sacrifices that are our obligation” mean? I know. I would say it is enough to take down Al-Aqsa and level the area. Then we could offer the sacrifices we are obligated to bring there; we could offer the Mussaf sacrifices. We say the same thing in the Mussaf prayers of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. How would it work there? Perhaps it could be done, since the site of the Holy of Holies is there; perhaps the blood service and the incense service could also be performed. I do not know how it would work, but the building itself is not such an absolute obstacle here. Certainly, at the outset we say, “Build Your House as at first,” and so on. But later, when we come to “Our G-d and G-d of our fathers,” notice this point: “Reveal the glory of Your kingship over us, bring our scattered people near from among the nations, gather our dispersed from the ends of the earth, and bring us to Tziyon, Your city, in song, and to Jerusalem, the site of Your Beis Hamikdash, with everlasting joy”—before You. Is there any mention of building the House? It is not mentioned, because what is it needed for here? Even if, G-d forbid, we did not have the building, we would still be able to offer the sacrifices, to offer the Mussaf sacrifices. Later, when we come to making the pilgrimage, that is where we ask, “Build Your House as at first, and establish Your Sanctuary on its site”—so that we can make the pilgrimage. What is more, the Rambam writes—just a moment—the Rambam writes here: “It is a positive commandment to build a House prepared for offering sacrifices in it.” The Rebbe examines what “prepared” means. A House prepared—we have a building. What does “prepared” add? It means prepared with all its vessels, all the vessels it contains. Now we understand what “establish Your Sanctuary on its site” means.

25:46 Speaker 2 With all the vessels and the vessels inside it, with the Ark and with the... Granted, there is a discussion about the Ark, whether perhaps something else has the same halachic status as the Ark. That is “Your House” and “Your Sanctuary” and so on. Then we can become obligated in [unclear]. It is as though, in this prayer, we reach the very peak of what we need: the entirety of our Beis Hamikdash, and the Levites at their platform, and the Israelites at their stations in our Sanctuary. At their platform or in our Sanctuary—all of this is for the sake of making the pilgrimage. And that follows from it. We now understand why we do not mention building the Beis Hamikdash in the Shabbos prayer. In the Shabbos Mussaf prayer, we do not begin with the Beis Hamikdash, because there, in practice, the entire Mussaf sacrifice of Shabbos can be offered even when there is no building. So it is enough for us to be back within our borders. If we had a few bulldozers to take down Al-Aqsa, we could already offer the sacrifices. We do not mention building the Beis Hamikdash. Why? Because we do not make the pilgrimage on Shabbos. So, consequently, we do not mention it. Perhaps, by way of a more intricate halachic argument—I might mention here that they studied tractate Shabbos that year—why, indeed, do we not mention building the Beis Hamikdash on Shabbos? Perhaps because it is forbidden to build the Beis Hamikdash on Shabbos. Why do we mention it on Yom Tov? Even though the Rambam rules that building is permitted on Yom Tov, it is also forbidden to build on Yom Tov. That is what the Gemara says in [unclear]: one does not build on Yom Tov either. But there is a well-known discussion on daf 95 in Shabbos: if one who curdles cheese is liable for building, as Tosafos says, then a person should be permitted to build a house on Yom Tov, since building was permitted for food preparation. Why would it be forbidden? But according to Tosafos, the prohibition is rabbinic, and that raises the question: after all, rabbinic restrictions apply in the Beis Hamikdash. So according to this, it should be permissible to build the Beis Hamikdash even

27:47 Speaker 2 On Yom Tov. But on Yom Tov we do not mention building; on Yom Tov we mention the building of the Beis Hamikdash. Perhaps it would be permitted on Yom Tov and forbidden on Shabbos. But we will not get into all those intricate arguments. To get to our subject, I wanted to mention something else interesting that I happened to see in the Shulchan Aruch. It says something quite novel. There are scribes here. I once asked several scribes what the wording in the Shulchan Aruch means, and I did not hear a clear answer. What does it mean? Just the plain meaning of the words. In section 32, paragraph 6, I think, it says that when writing the passages, the lettering should be beautiful on the inside and the outside: one should beautify the letters on the outside, above, and certainly on the inside. “And certainly on the inside.” Where are the outside and inside of letters? What does “on the outside” mean? “And certainly on the inside.” All right, we will not get into that. It says that the Beis Hamikdash was covered with gold on the inside, and therefore the letters should be beautified both on the outside and on the inside. What does “inside” mean? What does “outside” mean? The Rema does not spell it out; the Rema is speaking about the passages in general. But if you are talking about the letters, where is the outside? The inside? An experienced scribe once told me that “outside” means around the letters, while “inside” means, for example, that the letter samech has an outer side and an inner side, and both should be beautiful. Why? It says, “And certainly on the inside, for the Beis Hamikdash was covered with gold on the inside.” Where does this comparison with the Beis Hamikdash come from? It is very interesting. In fact, it is not cited here at all. In section 147 there is a Rema concerning a practice that is not so common among us; you see it more among Sephardim. They wrap a Torah scroll in a cloth, all the way around the Torah scroll.

30:26 Speaker 2 The Rema discusses a case where the cloth around the Torah scroll was ordinary fabric on one side and silk on the other. Which side should face the Torah scroll, and which should face outward? Silk, of course, is a finer material than ordinary fabric. The first opinion the Rema brings from the Mordechai is that the silk should face the Torah scroll. But the Rema says, “This is not our practice”; in other words, it may also face outward. The Magen Avraham discusses it briefly, and it is quite a tangle. What does it mean? Which side really should face where? Which is more important, the inside or the outside? And there are three versions of the text of the Mordechai. Where does this whole idea come from? According to one version, the proof is from the Ark in the Mishkan: it was gold on the inside and gold on the outside. As the Gemara in Yoma says, they made three nested chests: one of wood, an outer one of gold, and an inner one of gold. So that would mean that gold is needed both inside and outside. And the Biur HaGra asks: What is this about? Tosafos says in Menachos that the passages of tefillin do not need ruled lines. Why? Because ruling the lines is a matter of “This is my G-d, and I will beautify Him.” What beautification is there in something closed up? Beauty applies to something you can see, not to something enclosed in the tefillin. With the tefillin boxes, one could say that “This is my G-d, and I will beautify Him” applies, but the passages are enclosed inside. That is why Rabbeinu Tam says they do not need ruled lines, and that is also the Rambam’s view. The Rosh and other sages disagree. In any event, the question arises: what is the point of this? So he brings proof from the Ark, which had gold on the inside and gold on the outside.

32:26 Speaker 2 But what, seemingly, is the meaning of that proof? The Ark was closed. The cherubim and the cover were on top of it. In practice, no one saw the gold on the inside; they saw only the gold on the outside, and yet it had gold on the inside. Someone offers another explanation: the proof is from the Mishkan, whose boards were covered with gold on the inside. The Or Zarua alone says that the Beis Hamikdash was covered with gold. His proof is not from the Mishkan or the Ark, but from the Beis Hamikdash itself, which was covered with gold only on the inside. I would say, by way of contrast, think of the dome they made. They were particular that the entire dome be gold. From what Tosafos writes, it would seem just the opposite: the gold should be only on the inside, not on the outside, and it appears that this is essential. Though today—well, perhaps we will leave it here. I am making a note of it. My son quoted to me that...

33:46 Speaker 5 Thank you to the great scholar Rabbi Ashkenazi for those wonderful words. We heard a wonderful insight here into the wording of the prayers—how precise every word is. “Turn it over and turn it over, for everything is in it.” But we have heard a new principle and foundation here: the mitzvah of making a pilgrimage is a part of, indeed a central purpose of, the mitzvah of building the Beis Hamikdash. One might have thought—and that is the straightforward understanding—that according to the Rambam, the purpose of building the Beis Hamikdash is to offer sacrifices. But now we have heard, seen and understood that it is all part of one continuum: both the offering of sacrifices and the pilgrimage. Both are central purposes in building the Beis Hamikdash. This has very interesting implications for the Rebbe’s sichos. I will give an example. The commentators examine the question of whether the mitzvah of making a pilgrimage began only with the Beis Hamikdash on Mount Moriah. We welcome the great scholar Rabbi Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, who has come to join our Torah gathering from afar and at this late hour. Please.

35:11 Speaker 5 There is a question discussed by the commentators: Did the mitzvah of making a pilgrimage begin with the Beis Hamikdash in Jerusalem, or did it apply earlier, in Shiloh? First there was the Mishkan, then Gilgal, Shiloh, and so on. Was there a mitzvah of making a pilgrimage there too? The Ramban, in Parshas Re’eh, leaves this question unresolved. The commentators discuss it. The Rebbe’s view in Likkutei Sichos is that the mitzvah of making a pilgrimage applied in the Mishkan and the other places as well. In light of what we have just heard, that makes a great deal of sense. And this applies to the Rambam’s view, because the Rambam connects the mitzvah of making a pilgrimage with the mitzvah of “They shall make Me a sanctuary.” The Rambam says, as we have just heard, that part of the purpose of the mitzvah of “They shall make Me a sanctuary” is the pilgrimage. The Rambam derives the mitzvah of building the Beis Hamikdash on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem, and the Third Beis Hamikdash, from the verse “They shall make Me a sanctuary”—the very verse that refers to the Mishkan. So if we say that pilgrimage was one of the central purposes of building the Beis Hamikdash, we must say the same of the Mishkan, since it is the same verse. That is one point made much clearer by what we have just heard. Another point, briefly: as was mentioned, the Rebbe explains that the Rambam and the Ramban disagree about the central purpose of building the Beis Hamikdash. The Ramban states explicitly that its purpose is for the Divine Presence to dwell there. But the Rambam writes—or, at least, it would seem from his words—that the purpose is the offering of sacrifices. The Rebbe takes that as the straightforward reading, and explains a practical difference between the Rambam and the Ramban regarding the vessels: Is making the vessels a mitzvah in its own right, or part of the mitzvah of building the Beis Hamikdash? This applies especially to the Ark: is it a mitzvah in its own right or not? The Rebbe explains that this is how it appears on a straightforward reading. But in volume 14 there is a letter in which the Rebbe says that it is impossible to say that, according to the Rambam, the main mitzvah is the offering—the main purpose of building the Beis Hamikdash...

37:36 Speaker 5 It is the offering of the korbanos. But there is a verse, “They shall make Me a sanctuary, and I will dwell among them.” That means the purpose is for the Shechinah to dwell there. So how can we say the purpose is the offering of the korbanos? The key to the explanation is in another sicha of the Rebbe’s, where the Rebbe draws a very interesting distinction between the nature of offering korbanos in Shiloh and the nature of offering korbanos in the Beis Hamikdash in Jerusalem. In Parshas Re’eh there are two verses. One says, “You shall not do so to Hashem your G-d.” That is, as Rashi says, you must not offer sacrifices to Heaven anywhere you please, as, lehavdil, is done in idol worship, where sacrifices are offered everywhere. “You shall not do so to Hashem your G-d, but only at the place that Hashem your G-d will choose from among all your tribes.” A few verses later it says, “You shall cross the Jordan, and the place that Hashem your G-d will choose to establish His Name there—to there you shall bring...” The question is, why are there two verses? The Sifrei says that the first verse refers to Shiloh and the second to the Third Beis Hamikdash—to, excuse me, the Beis Hamikdash on Mount Moriah. The Rebbe says that, if so, there is an essential difference between offering korbanos in Shiloh and offering them in the Beis Hamikdash. Regarding Shiloh, why does the verse say to offer the korban at that particular place? Because “You shall not do so to Hashem your G-d”—you must not offer sacrifices to Heaven everywhere. In other words, Hakadosh Boruch Hu did not want korbanos offered to Him in every place. That is the practice, lehavdil, of idol worship: people set up an altar anywhere and offer sacrifices. And it is written, “You shall not do so to Hashem your G-d.” What, then, did Hakadosh Boruch Hu want? One designated place where korbanos would be offered to Heaven. He established that place in Shiloh. By contrast, regarding the Beis Hamikdash, the wording is, “The place that Hashem your G-d will choose... to there you shall bring.” What does that mean?

39:36 Speaker 5 First, the place is chosen. The Rebbe says that first the Shechinah dwells in the place, and because the Shechinah dwells there, the korban must be offered there. In other words, in Shiloh, offering the korban at that place was not because the Shechinah dwelt there. It was because that was the designated, particular place where Hashem had decreed that offerings be brought. By contrast, in the Beis Hamikdash, korbanos are offered there because the Shechinah dwells there. So it emerges that the Rambam, too, understands that the Beis Hamikdash is intended first and foremost for the Shechinah to dwell there. But what is the purpose of the Shechinah dwelling there? The purpose of that itself is the offering of the korbanos. Accordingly, this is how to understand the Rambam’s words. The Rambam writes that there is a mitzvah to make a house for Hashem, prepared for offering korbanos in it. What does that mean? There is a mitzvah to make a house for Hashem. Full stop. A mitzvah to make a house where the Shechinah will dwell, a place for the Shechinah to dwell. Why? What is the purpose of that? What do we gain from the Shechinah dwelling there? What do we gain from the Shechinah dwelling there? That it enables us to offer korbanos there. For in the Beis Hamikdash, korbanos are offered because the Shechinah dwells there. In light of what we have just heard about how to read this halachah in the Rambam—that it is all one whole, that the celebration and the pilgrimage to the Beis Hamikdash, and the offering of the korbanos, are all part of one whole and all belong to the mitzvah of building the Beis Hamikdash—the halachah becomes much clearer. After all, the pilgrimage is certainly because the Shechinah dwells there. We come to appear and to see before whom? To see whom? To see the Shechinah. So the Rambam is saying: There is a mitzvah to make a house for Hashem, a mitzvah to make a place where Hakadosh Boruch Hu will dwell. That is the mitzvah. Why? In order to offer korbanos and to celebrate there three times a year. Those are the two central purposes of building the Beis Hamikdash, because both stem from the Shechinah dwelling in that place. We now have the honor of inviting Rabbi

41:51 Speaker 5 Yitzchak Goldberg, a kohen, one of the Rebbe’s shluchim to the Holy Land and rosh yeshivah of Tomchei Temimim in Migdal HaEmek, who has come from afar to join us at this gathering. Please.

42:36 Speaker 6 I wanted to mention a sicha of the Rebbe’s in Likkutei Sichos, volume 13, on guarding the Beis Hamikdash. I wanted to raise one point concerning the plain meaning, and a second point concerning the Rebbe’s novel explanation in the sicha, which, it would seem, needs a little clarification. I won’t be long. Regarding the mitzvah of guarding the Beis Hamikdash, the Rambam writes in chapter 8 of Hilchos Beis Habechirah: “Guarding the Beis Hamikdash is a positive commandment. Even though there is no fear there of enemies or thieves, its guarding is solely an honor to it. A palace with guards is not like a palace without guards.” That is a halachah in the Rambam. So there is a question here, apparently, and people ask it: What does the mitzvah of guarding the Beis Hamikdash have to do with Hilchos Beis Habechirah? Hilchos Beis Habechirah discusses building the Beis Hamikdash, making the Beis Hamikdash, and its dimensions. What does the mitzvah incumbent on the kohanim to guard the Beis Hamikdash have to do with that? Seemingly, it should have been written in Hilchos Klei Hamikdash Veha’ovdim Bo, or in Hilchos Sanhedrin Vehadinin. The same question is asked about the Gemara. The first Mishnah in Tractate Middos begins, “In three places they would keep watch.” So what does the kohanim’s mitzvah of guarding the Beis Hamikdash have to do with Middos? Middos concerns the dimensions of the Beis Hamikdash. Seemingly, this has no place there; it should be in another tractate. And there the question is even stronger. After all, it already appears earlier, in Tractate Tamid, where it does belong. So if that is the case, why is it repeated afterward in Tractate Middos? This apparently proves that the nature of guarding the Beis Hamikdash is connected to the very matter of building the Beis Hamikdash and to the existence of the Beis Hamikdash. We need to understand how. That is the question. The Rebbe raises it as well, not right at the beginning but later on. Yet on a straightforward reading, the question seems surprising. The Rambam answered it. The Rambam’s wording, right there in chapter 8, halachah 1, already resolves it.

45:16 Speaker 6 He has already explained it. When we speak of the mitzvah of guarding the Beis Hamikdash, there is room to ask what the purpose of this mitzvah actually is. Is its purpose, as we said, to place a mitzvah on the kohanim so that they perform a form of avodah, a way of serving Hashem? In other words, is guarding the Beis Hamikdash one of the ways of performing avodah or serving Hashem? Or is it intended from the outset for the sake of the Beis Hamikdash itself—that we want the Beis Hamikdash to be guarded, for whatever reason? If so, it is a matter concerning the Beis Hamikdash. If it is indeed a matter concerning the Beis Hamikdash itself, there is no place for the question, “What is it doing in Hilchos Beis Habechirah?” That is exactly where it belongs. It concerns the Beis Hamikdash itself; it belongs in Tractate Middos. So what is the question in the first place? If you look at the Rambam, he wrote this explicitly. The Rambam writes, “Even though there is no fear there of enemies or thieves.” What is this guarding about? The Rambam says, “Its guarding is solely an honor to it.” Even more than that: the Rambam is not merely saying that we want the building to be protected. He says something more: it is simply a matter of honoring the Beis Hamikdash, adding to its honor. Well, if it adds to the honor of the Beis Hamikdash, it is certainly part of the matter of the Beis Hamikdash. He is saying that it belongs in Hilchos Beis Habechirah. So what is the distinction? What is the question? But the truth is, on a straightforward reading, it is simple. The Rambam is no proof of that at all. The Rambam is only explaining the content of guarding the Beis Hamikdash. Because the obvious question is: What purpose does it serve? There is no fear of enemies or thieves. Whether one understands that to mean there are no thieves there, or, as Rashi says, that there is no need for it—there is no practical purpose to the guarding. So if it has no practical purpose, what are we doing with it? Nor can it be considered

47:19 Speaker 6 Yes, you can say there is a form of service of Hashem here. If it has no content, then there is no content to it at all. So what is the point? The Rambam simply tells us what the content of guarding the Beis Hamikdash is: honor. But even once we know the content of guarding the Beis Hamikdash, we can still ask about its purpose. Why did Hakadosh Boruch Hu command it? Did He command it because He wants the Beis Hamikdash to be honored, or did He command it for the sake of the kohanim’s service? It’s just that guarding does have content, because a palace with guards is not the same as one without guards. That, seemingly, is the straightforward reading. But then a question arises from the other direction. When we look here in Likkutei Sichos, as the Rebbe continues the sicha, he does say the following: Whether this is an aspect of the kohanim’s service or an aspect of the Beis Hamikdash depends on two different ways of understanding why guarding the Beis Hamikdash has this content in the first place. What is the content of guarding the Beis Hamikdash? The Rebbe cites the Rambam’s view: the Rambam writes that “its guarding is only for its honor”; a palace with guards is not the same as one without. Accordingly, it is an aspect of the Beis Hamikdash. According to Rashi on the Chumash, he cites the explanation that the purpose, the content, of guarding the Beis Hamikdash is to prevent an unauthorized person from entering it. Accordingly, it really belongs to the kohanim’s service. So according to the Rambam, this is understood. But seemingly, we just said there is no proof from the Rambam, as we explained. If there were, the question would never have arisen in the first place. The Rambam only explains that guarding has content. Once you know it has content, you can still ask why we were commanded to do it.

49:17 Speaker 6 Was it for the sake of that content—that the Beis Hamikdash should be honored—or for the sake of the kohanim’s service? And in truth, even when the stated reason is to prevent an unauthorized person from entering, you can still ask the same question: Does that reason mean it was given as part of the kohanim’s service, or was it given for the sake of the Beis Hamikdash? After all, we do not want the Beis Hamikdash to be desecrated or defiled, for there to be impurity in the Beis Hamikdash or disrespect toward it. In fact, that is how the Avnei Nezer understands it. He takes the reason of preventing an unauthorized person from entering and says it falls within the category of honoring the Beis Hamikdash. So what is the connection between the two? Presumably, the explanation is simple. The Rebbe does not actually write here that this is conclusive. It is not conclusive at all, but it is reasonable. Seemingly, there is a basis for it. But this still needs explanation. The explanation, though, is probably straightforward. When I have a mitzvah with a particular content—the mitzvah of guarding the Beis Hamikdash, I say, has content—what is that content? It is showing honor. If showing honor is the content of the mitzvah itself, why go on to ask, “But why were we commanded to do it?” Why say it was so the kohanim would have something to do, a mitzvah of guarding to perform? Why not say that this itself is the point? If the mitzvah has content, if honoring the Beis Hamikdash is meaningful, why not say that this is what defines the mitzvah and is its reason? That is the idea. Since we say the reason for it is to honor the Beis Hamikdash, it seems very reasonable to me that this is also the reason for the mitzvah, rather than saying it has some other reason. And the same applies to the other reason given. When you say the mitzvah is to prevent an unauthorized person from entering, and there is a prohibition in the Torah against an unauthorized person

51:10 Speaker 6 entering the Beis Hamikdash, against bringing impurity into the Beis Hamikdash, why say that its content is not simply preventing that prohibition? Why say, “No, I have another goal: preventing disrespect toward the Beis Hamikdash”? Here too, it seems reasonable to me that preventing the prohibition is itself the point. Why detach it from the very thing at issue? That is seemingly the straightforward explanation. But there is something here that needs clarification. I am not going to repeat the whole sicha. There are two points. The Rebbe asks two questions and says this does not explain them. There are other matters too, but I am focusing on two questions. First, he says that even if we explain that guarding the Beis Hamikdash is meant to honor it, that still does not explain everything. There are two questions about this. The first is: Why are twenty-one locations needed? One guard would be enough. What does this question mean? If the point here is to ensure that the place is not left unguarded, but is a place with a guard—not because of thieves, but out of respect for the place—then fine: the number of guards should be whatever is needed to give it honor. That honor comes from taking it out of a state in which it has no guard. Why twenty-one guards? With one or two guards, once people sense that the place is guarded, I have achieved what I wanted. Why do we need twenty-one? That is one question. The second is that this still does not explain why it appears in Tractate Middos and in the chapters of Hilchos Beis Habechirah. Why? What is the connection? Middos discusses the Beis Hamikdash itself—its construction, its form, its very structure, how it is made.

53:10 Speaker 6 Here we are not talking about how it is made. We are talking about something the kohanim do: they perform an act of guarding, which benefits the Beis Hamikdash. But the act itself is something the kohen does. Granted, the Beis Hamikdash benefits from it; it matters to the Beis Hamikdash. Still, something like that does not belong in a discussion of how to build the Beis Hamikdash. It belongs in a discussion of the services performed there. True, one of those services adds something to the Beis Hamikdash. Fine, but it is not the building of the Beis Hamikdash. That is the question. What does the Rebbe introduce here? A novel idea. He says, “Therefore it seems to me”—this is a new insight—“that this guarding for the sake of honor means that one must not take one’s mind off the Beis Hamikdash.” He cites the Rosh in connection with this: honoring the deceased means not taking one’s mind off the deceased. This gives a different explanation of what the Rambam means by honor, along the lines of the Rosh: it means not taking one’s mind off it. It is a matter of not letting one’s attention lapse. What is the point of that? It attests to the exaltedness and greatness of the House. Twenty-one people around it do not take their minds off it. That expresses exaltedness, greatness, and so on. Based on this, the Rebbe continues and says: Now it is understandable. Since we say the point is not to take one’s mind off it, it is understandable why this belongs in Middos, why it belongs in Hilchos Beis Habechirah. It is now something affecting the Beis Hamikdash itself. This also explains why more guards are needed, because every guard adds something. But seemingly, what has changed? What is the difference? What difference does it make if I explain that the Beis Hamikdash is honored through guarding—that when something is guarded, the guarding itself honors the Beis Hamikdash—or if I say that what honors the Beis Hamikdash is not taking one’s mind off it? Those are two ways of

55:25 Speaker 6 achieving, seemingly, the same result: the same honor. And in the Rebbe’s words, it conveys exaltedness. Fine, greatness. So why, when I said that I honor the Beis Hamikdash by guarding it, did I have a problem? It still was not connected; it was not part of the Beis Hamikdash itself. I also had the question: Why do we need additional guards? One guard accomplishes that. Yet when I say the point is to prevent attention from lapsing, everything changes and it all makes sense. I understand why it is an aspect of the Beis Hamikdash, and I understand why more guards are needed. Seemingly, the explanation is missing something. There are not many lines or words explaining it here. It is simply stated. Perhaps we can say that the intention is as follows. It is quite straightforward. There is a major difference between honoring the Beis Hamikdash through guarding it and honoring the Beis Hamikdash by not taking one’s mind off it. The difference is twofold: it concerns both the person performing the act of guarding or of keeping the Beis Hamikdash in mind, and the object—the Beis Hamikdash itself. What does it mean for the Beis Hamikdash when people do not take their minds off it, and what does it mean when they honor it by guarding it? There is an enormous difference. What is it? It is straightforward. The concept of honor, of showing honor, is essentially—if we can call it that—an act of the person. From its very beginning, it is entirely the person’s act. He does something, and through that action he honors Hashem. It comes from him. That is what showing honor is. Not taking one’s mind off something is the opposite. There is a Beis Hamikdash. It is such a thing that it does not allow people to take their minds off it. It comes from the Beis Hamikdash. Its very nature is such that it does not let people take their minds off it, and that leads to another difference. When you speak about showing honor, then first, the meaning is

57:51 Speaker 6 Here, it is a person’s action and deed. Second, when we speak of the one receiving the honor—the Mikdash, which is honored by this—it has not actually changed. It has now received honor. Honor is something external. It does not mean that it has become a different Mikdash. When a person is honored or not honored, that does not mean he is a different person. There is significance to it, but that is not the point. It is something added to him; it is not his very being. The Mikdash already exists, and it has also received honor. But when we speak from the perspective of not diverting one’s attention, the meaning is entirely different. The point here is that this is a different kind of Mikdash. In other words, it is not a Mikdash that only Hakadosh Boruch Hu knows about. It is a Mikdash that does not allow the kohanim and the Levi’im to divert their attention from it. This is the Mikdash extending beyond itself: it is present not only in its own place, but also among the Jewish people, among the kohanim and Levi’im around it. That is what is meant here. So certainly this is part of the very nature of the Mikdash. More than that, it is not merely a part; it defines what kind of Mikdash it is to be. Build Me a Mikdash that will be felt, not a Mikdash whose presence is not felt. This comes from the Mikdash itself. But if I were to say that the kohen gains honor, that is not part of the Mikdash; it is something additional. And the same is true from the person’s perspective. By not diverting his attention, the person does not do anything. It does not mean that he gives the Mikdash something. He has given it nothing. He is simply the place to which the Mikdash extends. The person is, after all, simply the place that the Mikdash reaches, and the intent is that this Mikdash should be the kind of Mikdash that reaches here as well. So it follows that, first, we understand why this is written in Sefer Hamitzvos: because it is not just some incidental matter. It is truly a matter

59:44 Speaker 6 within the Mikdash itself. We understand that it has nothing to do with an action by the kohen, because we are not speaking about the kohen at all. The kohen is the means through which the Mikdash becomes manifest and reaches down among the Jewish people, through the kohanim and Levi’im. But if I were to say, as we discussed, that guarding the Mikdash is a matter of honor, then, yes—is it an action? Remember? He asked that earlier. One could say it is. In fact, the Rebbe’s wording is somewhat precise here, because later, when he discusses not diverting one’s attention, he uses a different phrase. He says that if this is not an action performed in the Beis Hamikdash, then guarding the palace changes the palace. That change in the palace applies specifically here. He writes, “This is an action in the Beis Hamikdash,” but seemingly one could say that this is what he means. In fact, there is another point. Here the Rebbe writes in square brackets that it is similar to the matter of tefillin and the tzitz: as long as one wears them, one must not divert one’s attention from them for even a moment, because of their holiness. He gives the example of tefillin and the tzitz. As it says in Menachos, the law concerning tefillin is derived from the tzitz by a kal vachomer: with tefillin too, one may not divert one’s attention for even a moment. Now, in practical halachah there is a dispute among the Rishonim. In any case, the Rosh holds—and this is how the halachah is ruled by the Magen Avraham and the Alter Rebbe—that diverting one’s attention means only frivolity and levity. The Kesef Mishneh says that he infers from the Rambam that it applies even without frivolity or levity: one must constantly, at all times, not divert one’s attention from the tefillin for even a moment, in the literal sense. One could seemingly examine what defines diverting one’s attention from tefillin. When we speak of frivolity and levity, does that mean they show disrespect for the tefillin? Is that what defines frivolity and levity—that they lead to disrespect, and one may not disrespect tefillin? Or is the meaning the reverse?

1:01:51 Speaker 6 Tefillin are holy, and they are present here. Tefillin do not allow for frivolity and levity. Wherever tefillin are present, their holiness rules out frivolity and levity. In fact, there is [unclear] in Menachos there. He writes that he wants to resolve the Shaagas Aryeh’s question. So he says there are two aspects to tefillin. Outright frivolity and levity are prohibited as disrespect, while diverting one’s attention in general is a condition for fulfilling the mitzvah of tefillin. You have tefillin on; you need to be aware of them. If you are not aware of them, you are not fulfilling the mitzvah. That is how he explains the requirement of the mitzvah, of the laws of tefillin: you must be aware of them. Seemingly, one could say that this is the point—and more than that. This is the entire basis of the rule against diverting one’s attention from our tefillin. The prohibition concerning tefillin is not phrased as a prohibition against frivolity and levity. Nowhere is such a prohibition stated. The law is that one may not divert one’s attention; that is the law. How does it apply? What does diverting one’s attention mean? In the Rebbe’s words, it is not considered diverting one’s attention except when there is frivolity and levity. But if a person goes about his affairs with reverence, that is fine. What is the meaning here? In other words, one could say that frivolity and levity are merely the circumstances in which it happens, but the actual requirement concerns not diverting one’s attention. Or the point is that this comes from the tefillin themselves. Diverting one’s attention means this: since the tefillin are here and are meant to be upon you, if you divert your attention from them, then they are not fully present here. You create

1:03:45 Speaker 6 a deficiency in the presence of the tefillin upon you. That is essentially the law. And this, seemingly, is the sense of the phrase “because of their holiness.” In other words, it is a law concerning the tefillin themselves: the manner in which they must be present here requires that one not divert one’s attention from them. Then there is a further point: if there is no frivolity or levity, and the person goes about his affairs with reverence, the tefillin can remain as they should. The tefillin are present, because the whole purpose of tefillin is to instill yiras Shamayim in you, as it says. So this is understood. And we also understand why the Rebbe refers to tefillin, because this is the requirement there too. It is not that the person gives something to the tefillin; it comes from the tefillin, from their holiness. Their nature requires that one not divert one’s attention from them, so that they can be present as they should. The same applies to the Mikdash. In brief, let us conclude: based on this, one could say something further that seemingly remains unresolved; it, too, is seemingly a question. In chapter 7, the Rambam writes, “It is a positive mitzvah to stand in awe of the Mikdash.” He then discusses awe and its laws—the matter of reverence for the Mikdash. What is that doing in Hilchos Beis Habechirah?

1:04:59 Speaker 7 Thank you very much to Rabbi Goldberg for those interesting remarks. Rabbi Goldberg mentioned what is brought in the sicha: the prohibition against diverting one’s attention applies to tefillin, and there is also a prohibition against diverting one’s attention from the Mikdash. Now, the truth is that there is a practical halachic difference between them. That is, both have two aspects. The Rebbe says in the Siddur that with tefillin, one may not engage in frivolity and levity, and it is a mitzvah min hamuvchar to think about the tefillin all the time. The Beis Hamikdash also has these two aspects. We know that on the Temple Mount, or anywhere one can see the Temple Mount, one may not engage in frivolity and levity. And also, as the Rebbe explains in his novel interpretation of the mitzvah of guarding the Mikdash, there is the matter of thinking about the Beis Hamikdash all the time. But what is the practical halachic difference between them? The requirement to think about the tefillin all the time is only a mitzvah min hamuvchar. With the Beis Hamikdash, by contrast, it is an obligation. One must station guards, because that is a mitzvah; it is not merely a mitzvah min hamuvchar. On the other hand, with tefillin, the mitzvah min hamuvchar applies to everyone who wears them. With the Beis Hamikdash, by contrast, the mitzvah is only to station a number of guards; there is no obligation for every person to think about the Beis Hamikdash all the time. Simply put, the explanation can be summed up in one word: with tefillin, the prohibition against diverting one’s attention stems from their holiness, as Rabbi Goldberg mentioned. If it stems from their holiness, then it necessarily applies to everyone who wears tefillin. With the Beis Hamikdash, by contrast, it apparently stems from honor. The proof is that guarding the Mikdash was done mainly—that is, the kohanim also stood guard at three places, but most of the guards were Levi’im, and the Levi’im stood outside. In other words, the outward aspect matters here; the honor matters here. As the Rambam

1:06:51 Speaker 7 He writes: “A palace with guards is not like a palace without guards.” That itself is an honor: people see that the Jewish people do not take their minds off the Beis Hamikdash, and that they appoint people to stand there even at night and keep their minds on it. That itself is an honor. So since it is only a matter of honor, not everyone is obligated to do it—just as the entire nation does not have to stand guard over the king’s palace. It is enough to appoint a few guards; that itself is the honor. We will now invite someone whom we are privileged to have participating with us in this Torah gathering, a friend of Chabad and a friend of the Rebbe’s endeavors: the great gaon Rabbi Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, head of the Sadigura kollel and a judge on the court. We invite and honor him—a judge on the Supreme Rabbinical Court—to deliver words of Torah on matters concerning the Beis Hamikdash.

1:08:08 Speaker 8 Esteemed rabbis, shlita, esteemed audience, I will mention a few points about the mitzvah of the Beis Hamikdash and what makes it unique. The Beis Hamikdash has a unique place in the Torah, unlike all other mitzvos. With every other mitzvah, we know that no prophet may introduce a new mitzvah from now on. The mitzvos are these and no others. But with the Beis Hamikdash, Hashem initially said to build it “in the place that Hashem your G-d will choose.” How would He choose it? Through prophecy. Here the Torah commanded us to follow prophecy. So it is not only the location of the Beis Hamikdash, but also its design. We see that the Mishkan was a sanctuary of one design, and Shiloh had a different design. The First Beis Hamikdash had one design, and the Second differed from it. As they say, the First Beis Hamikdash was thirty cubits high and the Second was forty cubits high. That is why they had to make a curtain: a wall one cubit thick could not stand forty cubits high between the Holy and the Holy of Holies. And the Third Beis Hamikdash will differ from the Second. As the Rambam writes, the Third will be built according to Yechezkel, while the Second was different. How can that be? The verse says, “According to all that I show you, the form of the Mishkan and the form of all its vessels, so shall you make it.” Rashi says that “so shall you make it” means for future generations too. The Rambam asks: But future generations did not make it that way! As we have seen, every Beis Hamikdash had a different design. The Chasam Sofer said that this is what Rashi means: Just as I am now showing you the form of the Mishkan and its vessels, so too in future generations you shall make it as I show you. In other words, the mitzvah is to build it as the prophet instructs you through prophecy. There is an explanation for why it differs in this way.

1:10:29 Speaker 8 Why are these mitzvos like this? But we will not go into that explanation. This much, though, we can see. There are therefore several things unique to the Beis Hamikdash. The Gemara expounds the verse, “For you have not yet come to the resting place or to the inheritance.” “Resting place” means Shiloh, and “inheritance” means Jerusalem. After Jerusalem, there is no further permission to offer sacrifices elsewhere. An inheritance passes from generation to generation, through all future generations. Jerusalem, then, is the inheritance. Shiloh was a resting place; it was temporary. But after Jerusalem, there is no further permission. The Rambam says this, and other verses say, “For Hashem has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His dwelling,” and “For Hashem has chosen Yaakov for Himself, Yisroel as His treasured possession.” Hakadosh Boruch Hu made two choices: one was Zion, chosen forever, and the other was Yaakov, the Jewish people. Then the next verse continues: “For Hashem will not forsake His people, and He will not abandon His inheritance.” This is a choice for all time. “He will not abandon His inheritance”—that is Jerusalem. This is a fundamental principle concerning the Batei Mikdash. We also find many points related to this. The Gemara says that three prophets came up from exile. One testified to the location of the altar. One of the challenges in building the Beis Hamikdash is knowing where the altar belongs. As the Rambam says, its location is extremely precise; it cannot be moved. It must be in exactly the right place. And sacrifices cannot be offered without knowing the altar’s location. So three prophets came up from exile: one testified to the altar’s location, one testified that the altar could be enlarged, and the third testified that sacrifices may be offered even when there is no building. Those are the three points. Let me add an insight from the Ohr Sameach concerning the verse that calls the Mishkan “the Mishkan of Testimony.” The Ohr Sameach asks: What exactly is the difference between the Beis Hamikdash and a large altar? There were also the altars at Nov, Givon, and Gilgal. At times when there was a large altar, sacrifices were permitted on other altars.

1:12:50 Speaker 8 But when there is a Beis Hamikdash, as there was with the Mishkan at Shiloh and the First Beis Hamikdash, one may no longer build an altar elsewhere. What exactly defines a Beis Hamikdash? What gives it that status, rather than the status of an altar? The difficulty goes further: in the wilderness, the Mishkan had the status of a sanctuary. When they arrived at Gilgal, it was the very same Mishkan, yet it now had the status of an altar, and other altars became permitted. The Ohr Sameach says that the defining feature of a Beis Hamikdash is the presence of the Aron, the Ark of Testimony. That is what defines it. Once the Ark of Testimony is there, it becomes a Beis Hamikdash. When the Aron is not there, it is called an altar. He therefore offers a novel point about Shiloh too: once they took out the Aron, it became an altar. So this explains why the Mishkan at Gilgal did not have the sanctity of the Beis Hamikdash: they did not place the Ark of Testimony inside it. This shows that the purpose of the Beis Hamikdash encompassed several things, not only sacrifices. Sacrifices are a mitzvah, but we see that the status of the Beis Hamikdash itself depends on something else, as the Ohr Sameach demonstrates from the Torah. And it is not only that the sanctity of the Torah was there. The very basis of the Sanhedrin is its sitting near the altar, as the Torah says: “If a matter of judgment is too difficult for you, between blood and blood, between one ruling and another, between one affliction and another, matters of dispute in your gates, you shall arise and go up to the place that Hashem your G-d will choose” to cause His name to dwell there. “You shall come to the kohanim and to the judge who will be in those days; you shall inquire, and they will tell you the ruling.” You shall act “according to the instruction they teach you”; “you shall not turn aside from the matter, right or left.” You shall do everything they tell you. Here the Torah tells us, as the Rambam explains at length in chapter 1 of Hilchos Mamrim, that the Great Sanhedrin is the foundation of Torah. Whenever there is a doubt, one must go and ask the Great Sanhedrin. What is the Great Sanhedrin? It is the court sitting near the altar, in the Chamber of

1:14:52 Speaker 8 the Chamber of Hewn Stone. They sat there, with half the chamber in the holy area and half outside it. Sitting near the altar is what defines the Great Sanhedrin. That is because they sit in the Beis Hamikdash, and it shows that Torah is fundamental to the Beis Hamikdash. The Torah also says that when Hashem told Moshe to make the cover of the Aron, He said, “I will meet with you there and speak with you there.” This is a purpose of the Beis Hamikdash: that the Great Sanhedrin should be there. We see even more in the Gemara: as long as the Sanhedrin is sitting in its place, a court of twenty-three anywhere can judge capital cases. But once the Great Sanhedrin is no longer in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, no court can judge capital cases. For capital cases to be judged, the Great Sanhedrin must be sitting in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. That is why the Gemara says that forty years before the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash, the Sanhedrin went into exile and sat in the shops. They stopped judging capital cases. How did they stop? The court simply left its place and moved elsewhere. From the moment the Great Sanhedrin was no longer in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, capital cases could no longer be judged. So we see that Torah is fundamental to the Mishkan and the Beis Hamikdash. The second thing we see is prayer. Anyone who looks at King Shlomo’s prayer when he inaugurated the Beis Hamikdash sees that his whole prayer was that prayers be accepted—both the prayers of a Jew and those of a foreigner who is not of the Children of Israel. Hashem should hear their prayers. The verse there says another interesting thing. King Shlomo asked: If a Jew asks You for something, give him whatever is good for him. If a non-Jew asks, give him whatever he asks for. Give a Jew what is good for him, not necessarily what he asks for. Rashi explains that if You do not give a non-Jew what he asks for, he will deny You. A Jew knows what

1:16:49 Speaker 8 What Hakadosh Boruch Hu does is good. That is why there is a difference between the verses; Rashi points it out in Chumash, the difference between the prayers. So we see that prayer is fundamental to both of these things. And interestingly, Shlomo Hamelech did not mention offerings anywhere in the entire prayer in Melachim. Apparently, bringing offerings is a mitzvah. But the holiness of the Beis Hamikdash is that prayers should be accepted. That is why he asked that even when they went into exile, they should pray toward their land. The third thing, the Gemara says, is acts of kindness: Shlomo Hamelech made two gates. Someone who was in mourning, or had some other difficulty, would enter through a different gate, and people would comfort him. That is the foundation of the Beis Hamikdash: the world stands on these three things. This can also resolve a few more questions, which I will not go into at length. I will just mention something about the mitzvah of building the Beis Hamikdash itself. The Rambam says that we are commanded to build the Beis Hamikdash, and that both men and women are obligated in its construction. That is what he says in chapter 1 of Hilchos Beis Habechirah. As with the Mishkan: “Every wise-hearted woman spun with her hands.” This shows that women are obligated in building the Beis Hamikdash. It is remarkable, because the Rambam himself says that the Beis Hamikdash may be built only by day, not by night. If so, this is puzzling. If it applies only by day and not by night, it is a time-bound positive mitzvah, and we know that women are exempt from time-bound positive mitzvos. What is remarkable is that I have not seen anyone ask this question. How do these two things fit together? Perhaps we can say the following. The Sefer Hachinuch says that women are exempt from Parshas Zachor. Why? Because women do not go to war. Parshas Zachor concerns fighting Amalek, and women are exempt from going to war. That is what the Chinuch says. But this is puzzling. On the mitzvah “You shall not leave any soul alive,” the Chinuch himself says that it applies to both men and women. So he seems to contradict himself. Regarding Amalek, he says it applies only to men because women do not go to war. Why, then, does he say that “You shall not leave any soul alive,” regarding the seven nations, applies to women too? The Minchas Chinuch gives an answer: the mitzvah to wipe out Amalek can be carried out in two ways. It can be done through war, but it can also be done outside of war. If a person encounters an Amalekite, he has a mitzvah to kill him even when there is no war. The difference is this: in war, it overrides Shabbos. As the Gemara says, “Until you bring it down—even on Shabbos.” Warfare is permitted on Shabbos. Outside of war, however, it does not override Shabbos. So, the Minchas Chinuch says, since a woman does not go to war, her obligation to wipe out Amalek applies only outside of war. That does not apply on Shabbos, so it is a time-bound mitzvah, and women are exempt. But the mitzvah of “You shall not leave any soul alive,” regarding the seven nations, is not time-bound, so women are obligated. That is why, as the Minchas Chinuch explains, the Chinuch obligates women regarding the seven nations but not regarding Amalek. Yet the Minchas Chinuch’s explanation seems difficult to understand. Does the fact that something cannot be done on Shabbos make it time-bound? It is puzzling. The Gemara in Kiddushin asks which mitzvos are not time-bound and gives the examples of a parapet and a mezuzah. So

1:19:08 Speaker 8 women are obligated. Returning a lost object and building a parapet are mitzvos that are not time-bound. But this is puzzling: neither of those overrides Shabbos. You cannot build a parapet on Shabbos! So how can the Gemara call it a mitzvah that is not time-bound? Apparently, the answer is as follows. There are two possibilities. When I say that building a parapet does not apply on Shabbos, I do not mean that a person has no obligation to have a parapet on Shabbos. Someone who has a parapet fulfills a mitzvah every moment it is there, including on Shabbos. What is prohibited on Shabbos is only the act of building it, because doing work on Shabbos is forbidden. But the mitzvah certainly applies on Shabbos. You have to build it before Shabbos so that you will have a parapet on Shabbos. That is called a mitzvah that is not time-bound. This is true of a parapet, where the mitzvah is to have a parapet. The mitzvah of mezuzah is to have a mezuzah. True, we do not affix it on Shabbos, but we fulfill the mitzvah on Shabbos too. If someone has no mezuzah on his house on Shabbos, there is a question whether he must declare the house ownerless, whether he may enter it, or whether he is considered unable to fulfill the mitzvah. The halachic authorities discuss it, but no one says the mitzvah does not apply on Shabbos. The same is true of tzitzis, according to the view that its mitzvah is not time-bound. You may not tie tzitzis on Shabbos, but you certainly fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzis on Shabbos. Wiping out Amalek, by contrast, consists solely of an action. So if the action does not apply on Shabbos, it is considered a time-bound mitzvah, and women are exempt. Based on all this, we can resolve our question about the Rambam. On the one hand, the Rambam says women are obligated in building the Mishkan, which would mean it is not a time-bound mitzvah. On the other hand, he says the mitzvah of building the Beis Hamikdash applies only by day and not

1:21:17 Speaker 8 by night. If the Beis Hamikdash is built at night, that contradicts this ruling. So how can it be a mitzvah that is not time-bound? Why are women obligated? But the answer is what we said: it does not mean that the obligation to have a Beis Hamikdash does not apply at night. Certainly, when there is a Beis Hamikdash, the mitzvah is fulfilled at night as well. The mitzvah to have a Beis Hamikdash applies at night too. When we say that it is not built at night, that is a different matter. It is not built then, but the mitzvah of having a Beis Hamikdash certainly applies then, just as we said about Shabbos. The fact that it cannot be built at that time does not mean the mitzvah does not apply. That answers the question. Still, it is difficult to understand what it means to say that the Beis Hamikdash cannot be built at night. The Mikdash David wants to say that this refers to erecting the Mishkan: when it was erected, holiness was conferred upon it, and that had to happen by day. That is what the Mikdash David says. But according to this, the rule against building at night applies only to a Beis Hamikdash that is being given its holiness—for example, when Shiloh was built, or when the First Beis Hamikdash was built. The building conferred holiness upon it. At night, the holiness could not be conferred; it had to be done by day. But today, the Rambam rules that the holiness of the Beis Hamikdash has not ceased. That is the Rambam’s ruling. He therefore says that offerings may be brought nowadays even though there is no building, because the holiness does not depend on the building; the holiness remains. The Rambam derives this from the verse, “I will make your sanctuaries desolate”: even when they are desolate, their holiness remains. So there is still holiness there. It follows, apparently, that building the Beis Hamikdash does not confer holiness upon it, since the holiness is there even without the building. If so, why should it not be built at night? If I say that the mitzvah itself applies at night, and only the act of building must be

1:23:18 Speaker 8 At night. If the Beis Hamikdash cannot be built at night, then that seems to contradict what we said. Wouldn’t building it be a time-bound mitzvah? Why, then, are women obligated? But the answer is what we said: it does not mean the mitzvah of the Beis Hamikdash does not apply at night. Certainly there is a Beis Hamikdash at night, and the mitzvah is fulfilled then too. The mitzvah that there be a Beis Hamikdash applies at night as well. When we say that it is not built at night, that is a separate matter. We do not build it at night, but the Beis Hamikdash certainly exists then, just as we said it exists on Shabbos too. The fact that it cannot be built does not mean the mitzvah does not apply. So the answer is clear. Still, it is hard to understand: what does it mean that we cannot build the Beis Hamikdash at night? The Mikdash David wants to say that this refers to establishing the Mishkan. When they erected the Mishkan, they imbued it with holiness, and that had to be done by day. That is what the Mikdash David says. But according to this, the rule against building the Beis Hamikdash at night applies only when building it imbues it with holiness—for example, when they built Shiloh or the First Beis Hamikdash. The building imbued it with holiness. At night, it is not possible to bring in that holiness; it has to be daytime. But today, the Rambam rules that the holiness of the Beis Hamikdash was never nullified. That is his ruling. He therefore says that sacrifices can be offered nowadays even though there is no building, because the holiness does not depend on the building; the holiness remains. The Rambam derives this from the verse, “I will make your sanctuaries desolate”—even when they are desolate, their holiness remains. So the holiness of the Shechinah is still there. If so, it would seem that building the Beis Hamikdash does not imbue it with holiness, since the holiness is present even without the building. Then why not build at night? If I say that the mitzvah itself applies at night, but the act of building must be

1:25:12 Speaker 8 During the day—so why is holiness conferred? It is understandable that at night it is not conferred; no, the holiness is not included. But if the meaning is that the mitzvah is not to confer holiness—the holiness is already there—then what? How can we understand why one may not build at night? We would have to say, somewhat with difficulty, that although the holiness is already there, the building itself also has holiness. Or perhaps, since part of the mitzvah of building the Beis Hamikdash is to enable pilgrimage, pilgrimage does require a building. That is not stated explicitly, but it could be so. For offering korbanos, the building is needed only for the offering of the korbanos; but to fulfill the mitzvah of pilgrimage, perhaps a building is needed, and then we could understand why it confers holiness—holiness cannot be conferred at night. That is one way to explain the basis of the Beis Hamikdash. Now let us look at what we said: the Rambam says the Third Beis Hamikdash will have a different design, as described in Yechezkel. The Rambam says Yechezkel stated it explicitly, but it is not entirely understood. We do not understand exactly what is written in Yechezkel. That is what the Rambam says. But one could ask—I have a question. What story does Tractate Nazir tell? The Mishnah says: “This was the mistake Nachum the Mede made.” Nachum the Mede made a mistake. What was his mistake? When the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed, some nazirites came to him and said, “Nachum the Mede, we took vows of nazirus. There is no Beis Hamikdash. How will we offer the korbanos? How will we complete our nazirus?” Nachum the Mede asked them: “Had you known that the Beis Hamikdash would be destroyed, would you have taken vows of nazirus?” They said no, so he released them from their vows. Just as a sage can release someone from a vow on the basis of an opening and regret, that is how he released

1:27:30 Speaker 8 those nazirites. The Mishnah says that this was a mistake. Why was that opening a mistake? Because one cannot use an unforeseen development as an opening. An opening works only when you can ask a person, “Had you known this would happen, would you have done it?” and the person says no—but only if it was something the person could have imagined. Suppose someone vowed against another man who was an am ha’aretz. You ask him, “Had you known he would become a Torah scholar, would you have made the vow?” He says no. That is not considered an unforeseen development, because it happens that someone is an am ha’aretz, yet his soul longs for Torah and he becomes a Torah scholar. That is what the sugya says. Kalba Savua barred Rabbi Akiva from his property. Later, when Rabbi Akiva became a Torah scholar, the vow was released. “Had I known he would become a Torah scholar—why, even had he learned a single Mishnah—I would not have barred him.” So the vow was released. Why is that not an unforeseen development? Because it is something that happens. Had he been asked at the time, “What if this or that happens?” he really would have said, “I would not have done it.” But with the nazirites, too, had they been asked, “What would you do if the Beis Hamikdash were destroyed?” it would have seemed so remote to them that they would not have believed it could be destroyed. So they would have said, “Could that happen? We are taking vows of nazirus.” In any event, when can one use an opening? Only when it is something people can imagine. Had they been asked, they would genuinely have said, “No, we would not do it if we knew that.” But when something does not enter a person’s mind, the person goes ahead even if you suggest something extremely unlikely. He says, “I don’t think that will happen.” That was the mistake: Nachum released them because they had not known the Beis Hamikdash would be destroyed. It was a mistake because that was an unforeseen development.

1:29:24 Speaker 8 That is what the Gemara says in Nazir. But seemingly, one can ask a question. The Raavad disagrees with the Rambam. The Rambam says the holiness of the Beis Hamikdash was never nullified, and he explains why. Why was the holiness of Eretz Yisroel nullified, while the holiness of the Beis Hamikdash was not? The Rambam says: the holiness of the Beis Hamikdash comes from the Shechinah, and the Shechinah was never nullified. The holiness of Eretz Yisroel came from conquest. Once the conquest ceased, its holiness ceased. The Raavad says otherwise. He says that the holiness of the Beis Hamikdash was nullified. Why? Because Ezra knew that there would be another, eternal sanctification—that Moshiach would sanctify it with eternal holiness. Therefore, Ezra did not sanctify it for all time. That is what the Raavad says. And the Raavad adds, “This was revealed to me from the secret of Hashem to those who fear Him.” So if that is the case, why does the Gemara call the destruction an unforeseen development? The Raavad says Ezra already knew it would happen, and for that reason did not sanctify it with eternal holiness. How can it be called an unforeseen development? It is astonishing. You yourself say Ezra already knew and, from the outset, did not sanctify the Beis Hamikdash for all time. Yet in the end you say its destruction was an unforeseen development—that they never imagined the Beis Hamikdash would be destroyed. And, as we said, Ezra knew there would be a Third Beis Hamikdash. One can ask even more: Yechezkel described the design of the Beis Hamikdash, and they did not build the Second Beis Hamikdash as Yechezkel described it. Yechezkel lived before the Second Beis Hamikdash was built. So what does it mean that they did not build according to Yechezkel? It must be that they left Yechezkel’s design for the Third Beis Hamikdash and built the Second. How, then, could they not have known? It is explicit in Yechezkel that there would be a Third Beis Hamikdash. Yechezkel described a design different from the one they used for the Second. How could they not have

1:31:25 Speaker 8 known? This is a question even for the Rambam, not only for the Raavad. But one can answer that a Third Beis Hamikdash does not necessarily mean there must be a destruction. There could be a Third Beis Hamikdash without a destruction. The time could come, Moshiach could arrive and rebuild the Beis Hamikdash, as happened in Herod’s time: they rebuilt it without a destruction. They dismantled the previous Beis Hamikdash and built a new one. The Gemara asks: Is it not forbidden to demolish a synagogue before building a new one? The Gemara answers: Herod’s case was different. So that is what it means that a Third Beis Hamikdash will be built: they will rebuild it according to Yechezkel. A destruction is not necessary, and they never imagined there would be one. Their opening, then, was not, “Had you known there would be a Third Beis Hamikdash.” What difference would a Third Beis Hamikdash make? It was, “Had you known there would be a destruction”—and that was an unforeseen development. This is why the Gemara says Nachum the Mede erred. He thought such an opening could release them from their vows, but in truth it was an unforeseen development. So the difficulty is resolved; the two matters are not connected. Now, there is also a Midrash about Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya: in his day, a king said he would grant permission to build the Beis Hamikdash. Or Bar Koziva wanted to build the Beis Hamikdash. How would they have built it? They did not actually build it, but presumably they would have built it like the Second Beis Hamikdash, not like the Third. As we said, building the Beis Hamikdash is a mitzvah. When we say the Third Beis Hamikdash will be built differently, with a different holiness, that does not require a destruction. The mitzvah to build the Beis Hamikdash applies each time. That is what one can say. Let me add just one more thing. The Rambam’s final halachah says this: “When the king Moshiach comes, he will, through ruach hakodesh,” the Rambam says, “establish the lineage of those descended from the kohanim.” Who are the kohanim? In Nechemiah,

1:33:22 Speaker 8 it says that at the time of the Second Beis Hamikdash, they sought out the kohanim. Some kohanim descended from Barzillai sought their genealogical records but could not find them, and they were excluded from the kehunah. They could not find their records of lineage. In those days, every kohen had a genealogical record. Those listed there in Nechemiah could not find theirs, so they were excluded from the kehunah. The governor told them to wait until a kohen arose with the Urim VeTumim. There were no Urim VeTumim throughout the Second Beis Hamikdash era. When a kohen comes with the Urim VeTumim, we will know whether you are kohanim. As long as there are no Urim VeTumim, the question cannot be resolved. But here is the question: how can we rely on the Urim VeTumim? We know that the Torah is not in Heaven; we do not rely on the Urim VeTumim for halachic matters. How can you rely on them here? How could Nechemiah tell them to wait “until a kohen arose with the Urim VeTumim”? The Rambam, in this halachah, actually mentions this. He says the king Moshiach will establish the lineage of the tribes through ruach hakodesh. And, as Nechemiah said, “until a kohen arose with the Urim VeTumim”—you see that lineage is established through the Urim VeTumim. So how, in fact, can that be done? Based on what we said, it is quite possible that the kohanim are part of the Beis Hamikdash. We see that the Rambam includes the laws of the kohanim in Hilchos Klei Hamikdash. Since, as we said, the Beis Hamikdash has a special rule—the Torah says, “the place that Hashem your G-d will choose,” and “so shall you do for all generations”—that includes establishing the lineage of the kohanim through prophecy. Just as the Beis Hamikdash itself is determined through prophecy, so too “the design of the Mishkan and the design of all its vessels”—everything is determined through prophecy. This is a special rule concerning the Beis Hamikdash: the Torah instructed us to do this according to prophecy. Let us pray to Hakadosh Boruch Hu that this truly come to pass, that we have the Third Beis Hamikdash, and that what the Rebbe says about its eternal holiness be fulfilled

1:35:14 Speaker 8 speedily in our days, amen.

1:35:27 Speaker 9 Yasher koach to the great Torah scholar Rabbi Zalman Nechemia Goldberg for his wonderful words. And again, yasher koach for joining us. We hope to have the privilege of hosting him again in Kfar Chabad, at Torah gatherings and on other joyous occasions. We will now watch a video of the Rebbe, with a sicha and moments from the Rebbe connected to this time.

1:36:25 Speaker 10 From the earth of this place, Hakadosh Boruch Hu formed the body of Adam, the first man. After the Flood, Noach built an altar here and offered sacrifices of thanks to the Creator. On this mountain, Avraham bound his son Yitzchak and thereby revealed his absolute devotion to Hakadosh Boruch Hu. The Temple Mount, the site of the First and Second Beis Hamikdash, plays an important role in the history of the Jewish people.

1:36:57 Speaker 11 Regarding the Beis Hamikdash, Hakadosh Boruch Hu says: This is very important to the building of the Beis Hamikdash, to the building of the Beis Hamikdash. What does the Torah say, and what is the halachah in Hilchos Beis Habechirah? In several verses, the Beis Hamikdash is called “the place that I will choose”—the place that Hakadosh Boruch Hu chose. That is what the Rambam calls the opening chapters of his section dealing with the Beis Hamikdash and the sacrifices. Unlike the later chapters, on the Sanctuary, its vessels and the like, he calls these chapters Hilchos Beis Habechirah, the laws of the Chosen House. When we consider this name and the halachah—that the Beis Hamikdash is named for the place Hashem chose—it is understood that it was not yet clear which place it would be. This implies that it could have been somewhere else. Yet the Rambam himself says that the site of the Beis Hamikdash was a special place. Later, King David came there and purchased it. It was the place where Avraham built an altar and where the binding of Yitzchak took place. Even earlier, Noach brought a sacrifice there on an altar, so that the world would continue to exist and there would be no more events like the Flood. Earlier still, Kayin and Hevel brought their sacrifices there; before them, Adam brought a sacrifice there. What is more, Adam was created from the earth of that place. Why, then, is it called Beis Habechirah—a place that

1:40:03 Speaker 11 He chose—as though it could have been somewhere else? This is no question. The Rambam himself says that many altars had stood there earlier. Adam and his children, Noach, and Avraham knew through prophecy that in time Hashem would choose that place to build the Beis Hamikdash and its altar. That is why they were moved to make their altars and their sanctuaries there. This follows from its being the Beis Habechirah. It must be so, for we see that the Mishkan stood in the desert, not at the site where the Beis Hamikdash would later stand. Yet the Divine Presence rested there, and Hashem was there, with all the miracles associated with the Beis Hamikdash and the Mishkan. From this, every Jew learns a lesson for his own service: he has been given the choice to take his portion of the world and all his actions, and make of them a holy place for Hashem—a place that Hashem calls His home, where He dwells. This is so whether a Jew finds himself in exile or in Eretz Yisroel away from the site of the Beis Hamikdash. Even if he is on the Temple Mount, the Temple Mount itself is in exile. For this reason, Hashem gives him the strength

1:42:31 Speaker 11 to make a Beis Habechirah: to choose from among all his actions and make them into a dwelling place for Hashem, by learning Torah and fulfilling mitzvos. When he does everything for the sake of Heaven, out of love for Hashem, Hashem chooses that place as a dwelling for as long as he remains in exile. This also helps bring about the time when, very soon, all these miniature sanctuaries will be taken along to Eretz Yisroel. For the true and complete Geulah will come through Moshiach, who “will build the Beis Hamikdash in its place”—specifically on the site of the Beis Hamikdash of David and his son Shlomo. May this happen speedily in our days. Jews in general, and Jewish children in particular, will make each of their actions into a miniature sanctuary, and together they will bring them all to the Beis Habechirah, speedily in our days, ממש.

1:46:17 Speaker 3 [unclear]

1:46:29 Speaker 4 …