Vol 31.23 - Terumah 3         Spanish French Audio  Video

Page 149   Page150   Page151   Page152   Page153   Page154   Page155  

Mishnah Kelim (cache)       Zohar (cache)

Translation:

1. In the laws of the sanctity of Eretz Yisroel, Yerushalayim and the Temple, etc., we learn that there are ten degrees of holiness:

1. Cities that are walled
2. The area within the wall (of Yerushalayim)
3. The Temple Mount
4. The Cheil (A ten Amot wide area around the Azarah)
5. Ezrat Nashim (The Women’s’ court)
6. Ezrat Yisroel
7. Ezrat Kohanim
8. The area between the entrance Ulam (entrance hall) and the Altar
9. The Heichal (Sanctuary)
10. The Kodesh HaKadoshim (Holy of Holies)

 However, in the Zohar we find a different delineation, as it states:

“(Come and see, when the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, He installed

• The ocean that surrounds (אסחר) the whole inhabitable world . . and
• The settlement of all seventy nations surrounding Yerushalayim).
• Yerushalayim . . surrounds the Temple Mount.
• The Temple Mount surrounds all the Temple Azarot (courts) of Yisroel, and these
• Those Temple Azarot encircle the Lishkat HaGazit where the Great Sanhedrin sits etc.
• The Lishkat HaGazit (Chamber of Hewn Stone) surrounds the Altar, and
• the Altar area surrounds the entrance Ulam.
• The Ulam surrounds the Heichal and
• the Heichal (surrounds) the Holy of Holies, wherein the Shechinah rests, and the Ark cover and the Cherubs and the Ark.

We thus see here that there are many differences in the Zohar versus that of the Mishnah, among them being:

1. The Zohar does not list:
   1. ("towns surrounded by a wall"),
   2. "the Cheil",
   3. "Ezrat Nashim"
   4. "Ezrat Kohanim"
   5. "Between the Ulam and the Altar".

2. On the other hand, it lists the "Lishkat HaGazit", "the Altar" and "Ulam" which are not listed in the Mishnah.

(In the matter of the "Ezrat Kohanim" and "Between the Ulam and the Altar" one could seemingly say that the difference is:

• According to the Mishnah, the Ulam is included in the sanctity of Heichal. For the sanctity of the Ulam and the Heichal are one sanctity (חדא קדושא היא). Therefore, the "Ezrat Kohanim" and "Between the Ulam and the Altar" are listed independently.

• Whereas the Zohar follows the opinion that the Ulam and the Heichal are two sanctities. Moreover, that the sanctity of the Ulam and “between the Ulam and the Altar” is one sanctity. In the place of the Ezrat Kohanim he lists the Altar that stands in the Ezrat Kohanim.

However, this explanation is difficult. For, according to this, the word "Altar" does not fit well. For if the intention of the Zohar is to the Ezrat Kohanim - why does he just mention the "Altar" that stood there?)

One must also precisely note the order in the Zohar:

1. He Lists the "Lishkat HaGazit" after "Azarot of Yisroel" (עזרות דישראל), although even in the half (of the Lishkat HaGazit) that was situated in the Holy (שבקודש - half was inside the sanctuary and half outside), its sanctity is seemingly like the holiness of the Azarah, and no more than that.

2. There is a version in Zohar that states,

"and the Ulam surrounds the Altar; and the Altar surrounds the Heichal". Thus, he lists the Altar after the Ulam. This has already been questioned as to which Altar he is referring to.

"If this Altar is the outer Altar why does it state, ‘the Ulam to (surrounds) the Altar’. The Outer Altar (is before and) far from the Ulam as we learn, there are 22 Amot between the Altar and Ulam. And if we say it is the Inner Altar, why does it state that ‘the Altar surrounds the Heichal’? The Altar is inside the Heichal".

2. this can be understood by explaining the fundamental differences between the language of the Zohar to the language of the Mishnah:

1. In the Mishnah, the wording regarding each one of the sanctities is "holier than it" (מקודש ממנו)

(The Temple Mount is holier than it, the Cheil is holier than it, the Ezrat Nashim is holier than it, etc.).

Whereas in the Zohar the language is "surrounds . . " (אסחר):

(Yerushalayim . . surrounds . . the Temple Mount surrounds the Azarot of Yisroel and the Azarot surround etc.)

In other words:

The Mishnah explains the quality of the "holiness" that is loftier than the one below it. Whereas, in the Zohar, it emphasizes the opposite - how the lower level (sanctity) is surrounded, and it "outside" that which is above it.

2. The Mishnah explains the sanctity of each place regarding the obligations of the person (חיובי הגברא).

The Temple Mount is more sanctified from Yerushalayim in that Zavim and Zavot etc. (those that experience a bodily discharge) may not enter there. The Cheil is more sanctified from it in that non-Jews nor one who contacted a corpse may not enter it etc. The same applies to the other sanctities. Whereas, the Zohar speaks regarding the sanctity of places as they are on their own. (מצד עצמם)

3. One could say that the explanation is:

Regarding the Ten Sanctities and their relation to each other, there are two aspects:

1. Each of them is sacred in its own right, with special laws (that are dependent upon the additional sanctity etc.).
2. The sanctities are dependent upon each other (i.e., the lower holiness is a "result" of the sanctity above it; and vice versa - the lower holiness is a kind of preparation for the holiness above it);

For example: the sanctity of Yerushalayim depends on the sanctity of the Temple Mount; and the sanctity of the Temple Mount (is subordinate and) dependent on the sanctity of the Azarot of Yisroel. Similarly, the sanctity of the Ulam depends on the sanctity of the Heichal which is holier than it; and the Heichal is dependent on the sanctity of the Holy of Holies. The ramification is that when the sanctity of the higher level is nullified (for example, the holiness of the Heichal) - the sanctity below it (the Ulam) is thereby nullified, and so forth, etc.

This appears to be the fundamental difference between the Mishnah and the Zohar:

• The Mishnah is speaking about each of the sanctities as an independent matter. Therefore, it mainly emphasizes the difference regarding the Person (Gavra/ הגברא) - that each of the sanctities is different from that which is before it, regarding certain laws.

• Whereas the intent of the Zohar is to emphasize the connection and the interdependency (והתלות) of the sanctities. Therefore, it mainly emphasizes how one surrounds the other after it, and is surrounded by the one before it.

According to this, it comes out nicely why the Zohar lists "Yerushalayim... surrounds the Temple Mount; and the Temple Mount surrounds Azarot of Yisroel" - Yet it does not list the sanctity of the Cheil and Ezrat Nashim. For the sanctity of the Cheil and Ezrat Nashim are not different from the sanctity that is below them - and they do not "add" in holiness to that which is above them.

This is not so regarding Yerushalayim, the Temple Mount and the Azarot of Yisroel, etc., which are in the scope of the sanctity of the three camps (ג׳ מחנות – Note: Three concentric levels of sanctity existed in the encampment in the desert, which were represented in the Temple), as it states:

"From the entrance of Yerushalayim to the Temple Mount is like the encampment of Yisroel (מחנה ישראל); from the entrance of the Temple Mount to the entrance of the Azarah etc. is like the Levite encampment (כמחנה לוי׳); and from the entrance of the Azarah and inwards is like the encampment of the Shechinah (מחנה שכינה)”

The sanctity of the encampment of Yisroel (מחנה ישראל) is dependent upon the Levite encampment; and the sanctity of the Levite encampment is dependent upon the sanctity of the encampment of the Shechinah.

Similarly (according to the opinion of the Zohar) the holiness of the Ulam (of the Shechinah encampment itself) is dependent upon the holiness of the Heichal; and the holiness of the Heichal upon the holiness of the Holy of Holies.

4. However, if the explanation is because of this, namely, that the Zohar is referring to the application of the sanctity- the reason that the Zohar lists the "Lishkat HaGazit" and the "Altar", which are not separate from one another in the Ten Sanctities – is not resolved.

It is also somewhat difficult to explain that the intention of the Zohar is that all the sanctities, that are listed, are dependent upon each other. For seemingly, this is not a simple matter (לאו מילתא דפשיטא היא) (at least, regarding all the sanctities).

Therefore, it appears that, that the Zohar does not agree, at all (לא נחית כלל) to the "(Ten) Sanctities", nor to the scope of the sanctity of these places,

(which is why it does not mention regarding them, the wording “sanctity”, at all).

Rather, the Zohar is referring to the essence of the object (לעצם החפצא) of these places:

Yerushalayim, the Temple Mount and the Azarot have an independent name and application. (besides the aspect of holiness within them).

That is why the Zohar states, "Yerushalayim. . surrounds the Temple Mount and the Temple Mount surrounds the Azarot of Yisroel etc.".

In other words, the relation and dependence of these places is not (just) in the aspect of the holiness within them, but rather in their special name and scope. We thus find, that the application of the name “Temple Mount” is dependent on the object of the "Azarot of Yisroel". So too, with the other places that he lists.

With this, it comes out nicely, why he lists the Lishkat HaGazit and the Altar. For according to the Zohar’s view, the application of the name “Azarot” is dependent upon the scope of the Lishkat HaGazit, “where the Great Sanhedrin sits”.

(For it appears that this is not an indication (sign) of the place of the Lishkat HaGazit. Moreover, what need is there for a sign? Rather, this is a reason, that is related to the application of its law in the scope of the place of the Lishkat HaGazit. For the Azarot surround and are dependent upon it).

Moreover, the application of the name “Lishkat HaGazit” depends on the object of the Altar

(And in this law, the place of the "Ezrat Kohanim" has no relation – rather the scope of the Altar, as the Sages state, the place of the Sanhedrin is "next to the Altar").

According to this, the continuation of the words of the Zohar is well understood:

The beginning of the Zohar is:

“When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, He installed the ocean that surrounds the whole inhabitable world, and the settlement of all seventy nations surrounding Yerushalayim. Yerushalayim is situated in the center of all this settled area”.

The ocean and the settlement of all seventy nations do not have the definition of “holiness”. However, it is not speaking of the application of holiness, but rather of the essence of the application of the aspect of these places in the G-d’s Creation.

Similarly, in the continuation:

“it (Yerushalayim) surrounds the Temple Mount” and also in all the parts of the Temple –

each one “surrounds” the second part, and so forth. For it is not speaking of the law of the additional sanctity that pertains to it, but rather to its essential object (בעצם החפצא שלו), as aforementioned.

5. According to what is stated above, it is understood, that there are two ways of dividing the places in Eretz Yisroel etc.:

• The division of the sanctities - Ten Sanctities enumerated in the Mishnah; and
• The division of the separate places as independent objects and their relation to each other - the places listed in the Zohar.

Seemingly, this thing itself requires an explanation (in the inner aspects) of the matter:

Why are the particular aspects (and their relation to the rest) spoken about in the Zohar – not the same as the Ten Sanctities that are listed in the Mishnah?

One could say that the explanation is:

The general difference between the definition of the places in the Mishnah and in the Zohar is, that:

• The Mishnah is referring to the laws and Halachot of the revealed Torah (בנגלה דתורה), whereas
• The Zohar is referring to their context and aspect according to the Pnimiyut HaTorah.

According to this, one could say that the Mishnah deals with the laws and scope of the Beit HaMikdash (and Yerushalayim) here below. Whereas, the Zohar (mainly) refers to the Beit HaMikdash Above.

(Note: The Heavenly Temple – the Beit HaMikdash shel Ma’ala directly corresponds to the physical Beit HaMikdash).

One of the differences between the scope of "below" to the scope of "above", is that here - below - everything is connected and measured in the limitation of place. For the boundary of the world is time and place. One of the most important boundaries of a physical thing is that it occupies place (תופס מקום).

Whereas, the aspect of “above” – and, in general, the boundary of the spiritual- is that it is not bound by place, but rather it is a spiritual and lofty context (as Rambam expressly states regarding place, in spirituality).

According to this, one could say that one of the main differences between the Beit HaMikdash Above and the Beit HaMikdash Below - is that:

• In the Beit HaMikdash Above, all its virtues and levels are within the "generality" (כלל) that includes the details.

(and the difference between the details is not so obvious),

• Whereas in the Beit HaMikdash Below, each level is in the scope of a "detail" (פרט) that is detailed and separated and distinguished from other details.

(For example: the difference between the wording of the Mishnah and the wording of the Talmud:

The language of the Mishnah is "a concise thing and includes many aspects",

Whereas when this “concise thing” is detailed and explained in the Talmud, it is explained at length and in many details.

It is understood that, “the explanation of the words of the Mishnah, and the elucidation of its deeper points” in the Talmud, is not solely an "explanation" and an "elucidation". Rather, that there are many reasonings and innovations of laws, that were innovated. However, just as all these are included in the " generality" (כלל), the "short and comprehensive thing" of the Mishnah, they are all included and united, and the separation of the details were not evident (and perhaps in some of them - they also did not exist).

More generally:

In the Torah there are many degrees:

• As it is a "hidden treasure" (חמודה גנוזה) - in G-d’s treasure house, which is one Torah, that has no division. The Torah and G-d are completely one.
• After this, as it states, “I was a nursling beside Him . . playing before Him etc.”
• As it was given from the Hand of G-d. For even then the whole Torah is one aspect. For even though there are Ten Commandments, nevertheless, in G-d’s speaking, all the Ten Commandments were spoken in a single utterance.
• Further below, there is the division of the Ten Commandments (each one in a separate utterance). However, it is in a manner that, included within them, are all the 613 Mitzvot, and more.

However, all this is from the perspective of “Above” - G-d, the Giver of the Torah.

However, when it reached the recipients of the Torah - Bnei Yisroel, it is drawn down both into a myriad of actual differences,

• • Both in the Torah itself, the five Chumashim of the Torah, the twenty-four books of the Torah etc.,
  • As well as, in the commandments of the Torah, which are separate from each other – Positive and Negative Commandments. So much so, that it separates into the 613 Mitzvot of the Torah and the Seven Mitzvot d’Rabbanan. Each one is an independent Mitzvah etc., and more).

6. According to this, one can also understand the difference between the different levels in the Beit HaMikdash Below versus the differences of levels of the Beit HaMikdash Above:

The degrees of holiness in the Beit HaMikdash Above are spiritual levels where the differences of degrees are not so much emphasized and not so much in a manner of distinction from one to another.

Whereas in the Beit HaMikdash Below, where the "scope" of “Below” is associated with a limited and specific place - all the levels are related and dependent on the differences of the sanctity of the place. Each place is different and separate with a different sanctity (one higher than the one below and vice versa).

And since the drawing down of the aspects and levels of the Beit HaMikdash Above are not dependent (so much) on the sanctity of a limited and specific place, but rather in the context and virtue of the thing. Therefore, it is possible that there may be a change and difference between the Beit HaMikdash Above to that of the one below. For that, which Above is considered one level - when it is drawn below in the holiness of place and partitions is divided into different places with different degrees of holiness, and so forth.

One could say that this context (of the virtues) of the Beit HaMikdash Above, is expressed in the Beit HaMikdash Below - not in separate degrees of holiness, but rather in the very name and context (בעצם השם והתוכן) of these places and degrees.

According to this, although in the law of their sanctity, in the Beit HaMikdash Below, the Cheil, Ezrat Nashim and Azarot of Yisroel, etc. are separate. Nevertheless, as they are in the Beit HaMikdash above, they are all included in the Temple Mount and the Azarot of Yisroel. Therefore, each one of them is an independent object, for this aspect.

The same is in the levels of sanctity. In the Beit HaMikdash Below - the Ezrat Kohanim, and “between the Ulam and the Altar”, are listed separately. Whereas, in the Beit HaMikdash Above, it just lists the "Altar". (and in this itself, it does not specify the outer Altar).

For in the Beit HaMikdash Below, the scope of their differences is the sanctity of “place”. Therefore, it is divided into separate places- Ezrat Kohanim and “between the Ulam and the Altar”. Whereas, in the Beit HaMikdash Above, everything is in one level – the aspect and context of the Altar.

(This is also so with regard to the version, "and the Ulam surrounds the Altar; and the Altar, etc." – where it does not specify whether it refers to the outer or inner Altar. For in the Beit HaMikdash Above, the context and scope of the Altar is one. For the two Altars (the inner and outer) represent the internal and external (פנימיות וחיצוניות) of one level. However, as it comes into the Beit HaMikdash Below, it is divided into two Altars and places, due to the different sanctities).

7. However, this explanation - that in the Beit HaMikdash Above (and therefore, in the Zohar) the aspects are in a more general manner- does not reconcile the difference between the Mishnah and the Zohar in the matter of the Ulam and the Heichal.

• For in the Mishnah, they are considered one sanctity (as aforementioned Par. 1).
• Whereas, in the Zohar – the Ulam is considered independently.

One could say regarding this - according to what is well-known - that in some aspects we find, that Supernally, it is more numerous; and below less numerous (שלמעלה הם בריבוי יותר ולמטה במיעוט יותר).

What was explained above, that below is multitudinous and detailed; whereas, above is less and generalized is speaking of quantity. Below, the quantity is multitudinous – a myriad of separation into many parts.

However, regarding quality, multiplicity is specifically Above. In other words, it is not a multiplicity of (details) separation, but rather a multiplicity of quality, the greatness of the virtue of these levels.

(This is also understood from the aforementioned analogy – that when the "concise thing" of the Mishnah comes into an elaboration of reasoning and debate in the Talmud, and afterward in the words of the Rishonim. So much so, that it is elaborated in the books of the Acharonim - the more that the depth of the Mishnah is “brought down” - the debates and the explanations are more numerous. However, the light of the concept (אור השכל) is narrower and lesser).

The same is in our case. When it speaks of the Beit HaMikdash Above – the more extreme lofty degree (in holiness) - the Heichal – makes more of a multiplicity. Therefore, the revealed level, of the level of the Heichal is higher than the Ulam. However, in the Beit HaMikdash Below, the difference between these sanctities are not (visibly) recognizable.

According to all this, it is apt, that in the conclusion of the Zohar’s words, he precisely states:

“Wherein the Shechinah rests, and the Ark cover and the Cherubs and the Ark”.

Yet he is not satisfied with stating that the "Beit Kodesh Hakadoshim" (the Holy of Holies) is the most sacred place by its very nature of being the "Beit Kodesh HaKadoshim". This is to emphasize that the magnitude of the virtue of the Holy of Holies is,

(not so much because it is the “house of the Holy of Holies", but rather)

due to the magnitude of its virtue, in the multitude of the quality of holiness and the resting of the Shechinah in it.

8. Through engaging and discussing the laws of the Temple - the Beit HaMikdash Below; and engaging and discussing the Beit HaMikdash Above; and engaging and discussing both of them together - G-d says that (by engaging in its Torah teachings) the building of My House is not void. Moreover, this hastens, even more so, the revelation of the Beit HaMikdash Above into the Beit HaMikdash Below- that Moshiach will build the Mikdash in its place.

Then, even the Mishkan that Moshe made in the wilderness will be revealed. For all are included in one commandment: “Make for Me a Sanctuary”.

Speedily in our days, mamosh.

(M’Sichas Motzai Shabbat Kodesh, Parshat Shlach 5739)