 |
|
|
Mikdash
**********************************************************************
In loving
memory of Channa Schreiber (Channa Rivka bat Yosef v' Yocheved) z"l,
**********************************************************************
LECTURE 95: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOLY AND THE HOLY OF HOLIESS
Rav Yitzchak Levi
INTRODUCTION
In this lecture, we will examine the relationship between the two
parts of the structure of the Mishkan: the Holy/ Heikhal and the
Holy of Holies.
THE PAROKHET THAT SEPARATES BETWEEN THE HOLY AND THE HOLY OF HOLIES
The only boundary noted by Scripture between these two chambers is the
parokhet (Shemot 26:33). On the simple level, the parokhet
separates between the Holy, which is twenty cubits long, and the Holy of Holies,
which is ten cubits in length.[1]
Is this the only division between these two areas or are there also other
divisions with other meanings?
THE TWO CUBIT GAP BETWEEN THE CURTAINS
In previous lectures, we noted the two-cubit difference between the
curtains of the Mishkan and the curtains of goats' hair. We saw that the
difference between these two covers creates an area that is, on the one hand, in
the Holy of Holies, under the Mishkan, while on the other hand, in the
Holy, under the Ohel. This area creates, of course, a different
relationship between the Heikhal and the Holy of Holies.
According to this understanding, we can divide the Mishkan in a
slightly different manner: The area that is only Holy of Holies is 8 cubits
long; the two easternmost cubits belong both to the Holy of Holies and to the
Ohel Mo'ed. The Heikhal and the Holy is only Ohel Mo'ed, and
it is twenty cubits long from east to west.[2]
THE POLES THAT JUT OUT TO THE EAST OF THE PAROKHET
The gemara states:
Thus was it also taught: "So that the ends of the poles
were seen." One might have assumed that they did not protrude from their place. To
teach us [the fact that they did], Scripture says: "And they drew out the
poles." One might assume that they tore the parokhet and showed forth; to
teach us [the fact they did not], Scripture says: "They
were not seen outside." How then? They pressed forth and protruded as the two
breasts of a woman, as it is said: "My beloved is unto me as a bag of myrrh that
lies between my breasts." (Yoma 54a)
The gemara is dealing
with two contradictory verses relating to the poles of the ark. On the one hand,
the Torah states: "The poles shall be in the rings of the ark; they shall not be
taken from it" (Shemot 25:15), while on the other hand, we read regarding
the First Temple: "And they drew out the poles, so that the ends of the poles
were seen from the holy place, before the sanctuary, though they were not seen
outside; and there they are to this day" (I Melakhim 8:8). In other
words, it seems that it was possible to move the poles and draw them outwards.
The gemara resolves this contradiction by explaining that the poles would
press against and protrude from the parokhet, appearing like the two
breasts of a woman.
Although the verse that is brought as a proof-text is found in I
Melakhim describes the period of the
Thus, for example, the Tosafot write:
I heard the objection being raised that regarding the time that the camps would
set forth, it is written: "And they shall put in its poles" (Bamidbar
4:6). This implies that [only] when the camps would set forth would they put in
the poles. But this is difficult, for surely it is written: "They shall not be
taken from it"… "They shall put in its poles" means that they would draw the
poles outwards so that they appear protruding against the parokhet. (Yoma
72a, s.v. ketiv)
Similarly, the Malbim
writes:
Regarding Shlomo's Temple it is written: "And they drew out the poles," and
Chazal explained that they protruded against the parokhet… And the
length of the poles made by Moshe were not more than ten cubits, for the
Mishkan was ten cubits, and when they camped, they drew them outwards toward
the parokhet, so that they should protrude against the parokhet…
for presumably this was also the case in the Mishkan. (Shemot
25:14)[3]
This assertion has several implications. The Netziv infer that the area
against which the poles would protrude has special significance:
"And the veil shall be for you as a division between the Holy and the Holy of
Holies" (Shemot 26:33). The words "for you" are superfluous, for what
would the verse be lacking were it written: "And the veil shall be as a division
between etc." Similarly, the wording "[between the Holy] and between (u-vein)
the Holy of Holies" is difficult. It should have said "[between the Holy] and
the (le-) Holy of Holies," for wherever the word "bein" is written
twice, it implies that there is a middle ground between the two things divided
from each other, as I wrote in the book of Bereishit (1:4), and above
(8:19; 9:4), and in several [other] places. And here, apparently, the
parokhet only divided and set apart. Also the word "ve-hivdila" is
accented on the last syllable, according to the Mesora, and this is unusual, as
the Ibn Ezra writes, and not an empty matter. Only that Moshe our master learned
new laws from all this.
Now in the execution it first says (Shemot 40:20): "And he set the poles
on the ark," and afterwards: "And he brought the ark into the Mishkan,"
and we have already explained (Shemot 25:12) that the poles were made so
that they should be like the two breasts of a woman. It would seem that he
should have first brought the ark, and afterwards drawn the poles outwards. And
furthermore, the idea of drawing the poles outwards so that they should be like
the two breasts of a woman is not mentioned anywhere in Scripture. And while
from the verses above (ibid.) it is clear that the poles should rest differently
when the ark stood than when it moved forth, but there is no hint whatsoever as
to how it should be different. Perhaps, just the opposite - the poles should be
drawn to the back of the ark so that the High Priest should stand there with
ample room during the Yom Kippur service.
But first one should know that it says in Vayikra Rabba (1:15) that Moshe
would enter the innermost chamber at all times. Now this seems to be difficult.
While Moshe was not forbidden to enter there, as it was taught in Torat
Kohanim, Parashat Acharei (Vayikra 15:2): "'Speak to Aharon
your brother' – Aharon is subject to 'You shall not enter,' but Moshe is not
subject to 'You shall not enter'" – nevertheless, surely it is written regarding
the day on which the Mishkan was erected (Shemot 40:35): "And
Moshe was not able to enter the Ohel Mo'ed because the cloud rested on
it." How, then, did he enter the Holy of Holies; surely the cloud and the
Shekhina were always there in the days of Moshe! Rather, this is the idea,
that the glory of God and the cloud was only the length of the ten cubits of the
Holy of Holies, and the parokhet was pushed outside the ten cubits by the
poles that projected like the two breasts of a woman. And in this area of
protrusion there was no glory of God, and Moshe our master would stand
there, and thus it was not the parokhet that separated with respect to
the Shekhina, but ten cubits was the boundary, and the Devir
inside. But Aharon was forbidden to enter "within the veil," even in the area of
the protrusion. And this is what the verse says: "And the veil shall be for you
as a division."
If so, that place of protrusion was midway between two sanctities, more severe
than the sanctity of the Heikhal and less severe than the sanctity of the
ten cubits of the Holy of Holies, and therefore Moshe could stand there, and
this is what is written: "and between the Holy of Holies." And this is the cubit
wide partition wall mentioned in Yoma (51b), which had the law of inside
and outside, as Rashi writes there in the name of the Yerushalmi. And
from this Moshe knew to draw the poles outwards. (commentary to Shemot
26:33)[4]
The Netziv proposes a very interesting idea. According to his
explanation, the space where the parokhet protruded into the Holy was the
place where Moshe would stand and where there was no glory of God; Aharon was
not permitted to enter there. The Netziv concludes that the space where
the poles of the ark protruded into the Holy was midway between the two
sanctities – more severe than the sanctity of the Heikhal, and less
severe than the sanctity of the Holy of Holies.
The Netziv draws a parallel between this situation and that of the
According to this understanding, there is a place with independent
significance between the Holy and the Holy of Holies, an area with special
standing because its sanctity is greater than that of the Heikhal but
less than that of the Holy of Holies.
According to our original understanding, owing to the two cubit
difference between the clasps of the Mishkan that join the inner curtains
and the clasps of the curtains of goats' hair that are located to their west,
the possibility exists of entering an area found within the Holy of Holies that
nevertheless belongs to the Ohel Mo'ed. According to the second
understanding, there is, as it were, a spreading of the Holy of Holies eastward
in the direction of the entrance, into the Heikhal, and in it there is an
area with independent sanctity that is greater than the Holy but less than the
Holy of Holies.
THE MEANING OF THE PROJECTION OF THE POLES IN THE PAROKHET
What is the meaning of this phenomenon?[5] Several answers have been given
to this question.
1.
R. S.R. Hirsch writes
as follows:
To anyone in the Sanctuary, they were the sole visible evidence of the existence
of the Ark of the Covenant behind the curtain. The poles, the means of carrying
the Ark, symbolically represent the command and the mission to carry the Ark and
its contents, if it becomes necessary, away from the precincts of its present
position. The command that these means of transport may never be lacking
emphasizes in our minds the fact that from the very beginning it must be made
clear that this Torah and its mission is in no way bound or confined to any
place or existence at any time of the Temple and Sanctuary. The meaning of the
constant presence of the poles, as proof of the independence of the Torah of any
place, receives further emphasis when it is contrasted to the other
appurtenances of the Sanctuary, especially to the shulchan and menora,
both of which had to be supplied with poles, but the poles did not have to be
permanently in place, but only inserted when actually to be used. The thought
immediately jumps to one's mind:
Based on the understanding that the essence of the ark is connected to
the Torah and the tablets of law found therein, R. Hirsch explains that the main
idea underlying the law that the poles must not be removed from the ark is that
the Torah reaches all places and that it is not confined to any one place. The
fact that the poles push against the parokhet can similarly be explained
as reflecting the Torah's influence beyond the Holy of Holies.
2. Another
understanding of the projection of the poles is brought by the Admor of Izbica
in his commentary, Bet Yaakov:
Each of the vessels of the Mikdash had a unique influence. The primary
influence of the ark was through the poles, for through the poles it would
introduce love into the hearts of Israel. In the Mikdash, this
love was clearly evident, as we find (Yoma 54a): "Whenever
3. The Rambam writes in
Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira 4:2:
The
They did not build a wall in the
The Lubavitcher Rebbe discussed the Rambam’s comment, explaining that
according to the Rambam, the ama traksin was a separate area serving both
as a separation and as a screen. The Netziv argued that the poles' protrusion
into the parokhet created a middle ground with separate sanctity, but the
Lubavitcher Rebbe maintains that this was only in the
Here in our halakha the Rambam follows (according to the Kesef Mishneh)
the Yerushalmi regarding the ama traksin, that "they were in doubt
whether the thickness of the wall was part of the Holy or part of the Holy of
Holies. And therefore they made… an additional cubit between the Holy and the
Holy of Holies." On the face of it, we must inquire as to how they were
permitted to add to the dimensions of the structure. But surely, "All this is
put in writing by the hand of the Lord who instructed me"! In the First
Temple, the Heikhal and the Holy of Holies were together sixty cubits,
and the ama traksin was either at the beginning of the Holy of Holies
(the first cubit) or at the end of the Heikhal (the fortieth cubit), and
therefore there was no space whatsoever between the Holy and the Holy of Holies.
This was not the case in the
In order to understand this, we must first understand the ama traksin
according to the Rambam: In the Torah we find several formulations regarding the
parokhet. In the first command it says: "And the veil shall be for you a
division between the holy place and the most holy" (Shemot 26:33), but in
the command regarding the erection of the Mishkan, it says: "And you
shall put in it the ark of the Testimony, and hang the veil before the ark" (Shemot
40:3). That is, there are two aspects to the parokhet: 1) A barrier
that divides between the Holy and the Holy of Holies; 2) A screen before
the ark. On the simple level, since the place of this cubit was in place of
the parokhet in the Mishkan, the only difference being that in
that case it was a solid wall, we must say that it included these two aspects: a
barrier between the Holy and the Holy of Holies and a screen before the ark.
We must, however, say that the Rambam had a different opinion on this matter:
The Rambam maintains that the ama traksin in the Mishkan was not
the same as the parokhet in the Mishkan. For the parokhet,
as its name implies, served only as a dividing barrier or as a screen before the
ark. But the ama traksin was a separate place, a separate entity, and it
too served these two functions (as a barrier and as a screen), but this was only
its effect, but not by its very definition. This is also implied by the fact
that this place has its own name, "Devir" (I Melakhim 6:16). This
is further proven by the words of the Zohar (II, 4:1) that counted the
Devir (i.e., the ama traksin) as one of the parts of the
As for the reason, it may be suggested that the Mishkan was only
temporary, while the Mikdash was a building and a permanent structure.
In the Mishkan,
that which divided between the Holy and the Holy of Holies (and protected the
ark) was not part of the structure itself, but only a "veil," the term applying
to something that is not a permanent fixture in the structure, but merely a
barrier erected as a divider. But in the Temple, which was a permanent
structure, there was "a one-cubit thick
wall which separated the Holy and the Holy of Holies." A wall is not something
temporary, but rather part of the structure of the building. And this place has
a name of its own – Devir. Put differently, since the Holy of Holies was
set off from the other parts of the Temple, it having the highest sanctity among
all the sanctified places, it would not have sufficed that it be divided from
the other parts merely by a wall, but rather it needed a place that stands on
its own, sort of midway between the Holy and the Holy of Holies, and it was this
place that divided between them. According to this, we can say that the Rambam
thinks that even in the Second Temple, in which they did not build a wall, they
had to leave this cubit of the "Devir," for this is one of the parameters
of the Mikdash - there must be a separate place, a cubit wide, between
the Holy and the Holy of Holies. (Likkutei Sichot 36, sikha 3,
Parashat Teruma)
It is interesting to note that in Yechezkel's prophecy, the prophet says
that in the future this partition will be 2 cubits wide (Yechezkel 41:3).[7]
THE WESTERN SECTION OF THE HEIKHAL BELONGS TO THE HOLY OF HOLIES
To complete the picture, we wish to bring the words of R. Chayyim Brisker
in his novellae to Hilkhot Avodat Yom ha-Kippurim (5:1). R. Chayyim
explains that according to the Rambam, the Heikhal itself is divided into
three sections: the sprinklings of blood on the parokhet are considered
as inside the Holy of Holies, and the sprinklings of blood on the altar are
considered as outside the Holy.
R. Shlomo Fisher explains the matter:
The candlestick, the table and the incense altar:
The Chazon Ish in his Gilyanot asks how is it possible to
suggest such a novel idea without a source. But we do find a source according to
which the section of the Heikhal in which the candlestick and the table
stood belonged to the Holy of Holies. For these three vessels – the ark, the
candlestick and the table - constitute one system. This does not contradict what
it says, "The veil will divide for you between the Holy and the Holy of Holies,"
for this is only when we look from the outside inwards, that one is permitted to
enter until the parokhet. But this is not the case when we look from
inside outwards, when the Holy of Holies extends beyond the parokhet
until past the candlestick and the table. Thus, the wording is precise: "The
veil will divide for you between the Holy and the Holy of Holies" - for
you, but not for Him.
We explained in our essay, "The Mind and the Heart," that the Torah wishes to
allude that the ark, the table, and the candlestick constitute a single system,
they being, as it were, the personal furnishings of the Holy One, blessed be He,
in His residence in the Holy of Holies. An allusion to this is found in the
words of the Shunamite woman: "Let us set for him there a bed, and a table, and
a chair, and a lamp" (II Melakhim 4:10). From this perspective, the Holy
of Holies extends beyond the parokhet until past the table and the
candlestick…. Now this perspective applies to Yom Kippur, when we look from the
inside outwards. This is not the case when we look from the outside inwards;
then the Holy of Holies ends at the parokhet of the Holy. As it is
written: "Only he shall not go in unto the veil" (Vayikra 21:23). And
this fits in well with that which is written: "The veil will divide for you
between the Holy and the Holy of Holies." The Meshekh Chokhma asked: What
does it mean: "The veil will divide for you"? According to what we have
written, it is well, for it comes to say "for you," but not for Him, blessed be
He. For it is only when we look from the outside inwards that the parokhet
divides between the Holy and the Holy of Holies. But this is not true from His
perspective, from the inside outwards; then the Holy of Holies extends beyond
the parokhet until past the table and the candlestick.
This also explains what is emphasized at the beginning of Parashat
Tetzaveh: "In the Tent of Meeting outside the veil, which is before the
Testimony, Aharon and his sons shall order it" (Shemot 27:21). And so too
in Parashat Emor: "Outside the veil of the Testimony, in the Tent of
Meeting, shall Aharon order it" (Vayikra 24:3). Why might one have
thought that he should order it inside so that the verse had to say that he
should not do that, but rather he should order it outside the parokhet?
But according to what we have written, it is fine, for we might have thought
that the candlestick and the table must be inside like the ark, for it is one
system. (And this itself is the reason why from the outside inwards, the Holy of
Holies begins only from the parokhet and inward, so that they could
approach and perform the services involving the lamps and the showbread). (Derashot
Bet Yishai, no. 47, p. 323)
R. Fisher understands that fundamentally, the ark, the candlestick and
the table constitute one system, and that when looking from the inside outwards
on Yom Kippur, the Holy of Holies extends, as it were, beyond the parokhet
until past the candlestick and the table.[8]
The bolts of the Mishkan
R. Fisher brings another proof from the bolts of the Mishkan:
And you shall make bolts of shittim wood; five for the boards of the one side
of the Mishkan, and five bolts for the boards of the other side of the
Mishkan, for the side westward. And the middle bolt in the midst of the
boards shall reach from end to end. (Shemot 26:26)
Rashi in his commentary writes as follows:
The five were really only three, but the upper and the lower bolts were each
composed of two poles, the one reaching to the middle of the wall from one side
and the other reaching to the middle of the wall from the other side, the one
passing though the outermost ring from one side and the other passing through
the outermost ring from the other side, until they met one against each other…
The upper two and the lower two bolts on the north and south side were each
fifteen cubits long, while the middle bolt was thirty cubits long… This is how
it is explained in the baraita relating to the construction of the Mishkan.
(Shemot 26:26, s.v. chamisha)
R. Fisher writes as follows:
… From one perspective, the Heikhal is all one unit, and corresponding to
this the middle bolt runs the length of the Heikhal. But from a second
perspective, the Heikhal is divided into two, and the inner half belongs
to the Holy of Holies, as R. Chayyim argued, and corresponding to this one bolt
would serve one half of the wall, and a second bolt would serve the second half
of the wall… And the three of them (the table, the candlestick, and the incense
altar) were situated from a third of the Heikhal inwards (Rambam,
Hilkhot Beit ha-Bechira 3:17). Nevertheless, there is an allusion here. (Beit
Yishai, no. 327, note 9)
Here too the western part of the Heikhal, containing the candlestick, the
table, and the incense altar, is seen as belonging to the Holy of Holies. This
is alluded to by the bolt that extends along half of the wall of the Heikhal
(when in addition there is one bolt that extends from one end of the
Heikhal to the other, representing the perspective from which the entire
structure constitutes a single unit).
Accordingly, with respect to the bolts as well there are two dimensions: a
simpler dimension according to which one bolt runs the entire length of the
structure, and essentially turns it into one unit, as well as two bolts, each
being fifteen cubits long, dividing the Heikhal into two parts. The
western section is five cubits long and adjacent to the parokhet and the
Holy of Holies; in it are found the table, the candlestick, and the incense
altar, and it relates in its essence to the Holy of Holies. The eastern section
is fifteen cubits long and is comprised of the rest of the expanse of the
Heikhal/Holy.
SUMMARY
In this lecture, we presented several different understandings of the
division between the Holy and the Holy of Holies.
We saw that on the simplest level, the Torah defines the boundary line
with the parokhet. On the other hand, we saw three understandings that
move the border between the Holy and the Holy of Holies elsewhere:
1) The two cubits west
of the parokhet in the Holy of Holies belong both to the Mishkan
and to the Ohel Mo'ed. This, therefore, is the place where the High
Priest can stand when he enters the eastern section of the Holy of Holies, still
remaining in the Ohel Mo'ed.
2) The area adjacent to
the Holy on the eastern side of the parokhet where the poles protrude is
an intermediate area, the sanctity of which is greater than that of the Holy,
but less than that of the Holy of Holies.
We saw that according to the Netziv, this is the area where Moshe could
stand. In the
The protrusion of the poles of the ark can have different symbolic
meanings: the influence of the Torah that is not limited in space (as argued by
R. Hirsch); the introduction of the love and the light of the tablets into the
hearts of Israel (as understood by the Admor of Izbeca); or as it was understood
by the Lubavitcher Rebbe – in the days of the First Temple, the ama traksin
served both to divide between the Holy and the Holy of Holies and to protect the
ark, and was also a separate area between the Holy and the Holy of Holies.
3) Finally, we brought
the view of R. Shlomo Fisher and his understanding of the words of R. Chayyim
Brisker, according to which there is room to view the vessels located in the
western part of the Heikhal – the candlestick, the table, and the incense
altar – as comprising a single unit together with the ark, the kaporet,
and the keruvim in the Holy of Holies. Another proof to support this
understanding can be brought from the bolts that divide the Heikhal into
a five-cubit western section, adjacent and connected to the Holy of Holies, and
a fifteen-cubit eastern section adjacent to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed.
We must emphasize that
in great measure, this division depends on our understanding of the role of
these vessels in the Heikhal. Do they primarily represent the resting of
the Shekhina, which is connected to the vessels found in the Holy
of Holies, or are they part of man's service of God, most of which takes place
at the altar in the courtyard of the Mishkan?
(Translated by David
Strauss)
[1] The precise
calculations regarding how the curtains rested on the boards were explained in
Lecture 92.
[2] The
significance of these two cubits was discussed in Lecture 93.
[3] See also the
Netziv’s Ha-Amek She'ela, Shemot 37:5 and Rashi on Shabbat
88b.
[4] A similar
explanation is offered by the Netziv in his commentary to Shemot 40:35,
and he relates to the issue again in Vayikra 16:2.
[5] The poles of
the ark require a broad discussion of its own. We do not relate here to the
structure of the
[6] According to
this understanding, the term "Devir" is not only the name of the Holy of
Holies in the
[7] It is
interesting that over time, the partition dividing between the Holy and the Holy
of Holies became clearer and sharper. In the Mishkan, the parokhet;
in the
[8] It is clear
that R. Fisher's understanding is not in keeping with the plain sense of
Scripture, and that it is connected to the fundamental issue regarding the
standing of the Heikhal and its vessels - whether they are more connected
to the presence of the Shekhina as in the Holy of Holies, or whether they
belong to the service of man and are connected to the outer altar in the
courtyard. We shall elaborate on this issue in a future lecture. |
LinksCourses 5772 16 courses S.A.L.T. - 5 minutes of Torah
KMTT - Daily audio shiur Keshet - Hebrew audio
Donations
Yeshivat Har Etzion
|