Bar-Ilan University
Parshat Hashavua Study Center
Parshat Terumah 5775/February 21, 2015
This series of faculty lectures on the weekly Parsha is made possible by the Department of Basic Jewish
Studies, the Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish Studies Center, the Office of the Campus Rabbi, BarIlan University's International Center for Jewish Identity and the Computer Center Staff at Bar-Ilan
University. For inquiries, please contact Avi Woolf at: opdycke1861@yahoo.com.
1054
The Relationship between the Temple and Sacrifice
By Michael Avraham*
In this week’s reading, the Torah commands the building of the Tabernacle:1
And let them make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them. Exactly as I show
you—the pattern of the Tabernacle and the pattern of all its furnishings—so shall
you make it. They shall make an ark of acacia wood…
Several compilations of the commandments viewed this command as a commandment for future
generations to build the Temple (and not as a commandment only for that time, to build a
Tabernacle in the wilderness). This is based on a saying of Rabbi Judah in Tractate Sanhedrin:2
*
Rabbi Dr. Michael Avraham, The Institute for Advanced Torah Studies, Bar Ilan University. A member of
the Talmudic logic group at the University, and head of the Bet Midrash for Outstanding Female Doctoral
Students.
1
Ex. 25:8.
2
20b.
And thus Rabbi Judah said: Three commandments were given to Israel when they
entered the land: [i] to appoint a king, [ii] to cut off the seed of Amalek, and [iii] to
build themselves the chosen house [=Temple].
Maimonides and those who carried on his tradition ascribed source of this commandment to the
verse at hand:3
Positive commandment 20: We are commanded to build a Sanctuary to serve [G-d].
In it we offer sacrifices, burn the eternal flame, offer our prayers, and congregate for
the festivals each year, as will be explained. The source of this commandment is the
Almighty’s statement, “Let them make Me a sanctuary.” The Sifri says, “The Jewish
people were commanded to fulfill three commandments upon entering the Land: to
appoint themselves a king, to build themselves a Sanctuary, and to wipe out Amalek.
This wording shows that building the Sanctuary is counted as a distinct
commandment. We have already explained that this general term [Sanctuary]
includes many parts. The lampstand, the table, the altar and the like are all parts of
the Sanctuary, and together are called the Sanctuary, even though the Torah details
the requirements for each individual element.
Maimonides asserts that building the various furnishings of the Temple is not to be reckoned as a
distinct and separate commandment, since these are subsumed in the commandment of building the
Temple itself. He details this further in Root 12, in which he stresses that component parts of a task
from among the tasks we are commanded - such as the stages of sacrificing each offering - should
not be count separately. He begins his remarks there by asserting, further, that one should not count
the furnishings of the Temple as separate commandments, and proves his point using verses in this
week’s reading:
The twelfth root is that one should not enumerate separately the parts of a task
belonging to a task we have been commanded, counting each part in its own right.
It is well known that at times we are commanded regarding a certain action, and
then Scripture sets about explicating the nature of that action, explaining the
appellation and the details that comprise it. This being so, it is not proper to count
each command that appears in that explication of the commandment as a distinct
commandment. For example, as it is said: Let them make Me a sanctuary, this
being one of the general list of positive commandments, namely, that we should
prepare a House to which we can come and celebrate, and where the sacrifices can
be offered, and where we can congregate on the Festivals. Then Scripture sets
about describing its parts and how they are to be made. Each “you shall make”
should not be counted as a commandment in its own right. The sacrifices listed in
Leviticus follow just the same principle: the single commandment is the general
task described for each of the various types of offerings.
Thus Maimonides interprets the verses that follow in this week’s reading as detailing the general
commandment to build a Sanctuary.4
3
Maimonides, Sefer ha-Mitzvot, positive commandment 20. Also cf. Sefer ha-Hinukh, commandment 95.
Nahmanides, in his glosses to Sefer ha-Mitzvot, took issue with Maimonides on this point. In Positive
Commandment 33 Maimonides enumerated the commandment that the priests wear priestly
vestments when ministering the sacred service, whereas Nahmanides cites the approach taken by
Halakhot Gedolot, that his not be counted as a separate commandment since, according to him,
wearing the vestments is preparation for ministering and not a commandment in its own right.
Nahmanides goes on to say:
It has already been explained (Root 12) that component parts of a commandment
are not counted. Therefore, we do not count making the table, the lampstand, and
the altar as commandments, since we were commanded to place bread before the
Lord permanently, and we were commanded how to perform this service, namely to
place it on the table as described and arranged there appropriately. Likewise, the
Lord commanded us to kindle lights before Him, arranging the lighting in a
lampstand made of a specified quantity of gold, and similarly with the sacral
vestments. In my opinion, the argument given by the Rabbi (in commandment 20),
that they are part of the Sanctuary, is not valid, since the furnishings are not part of
the House. Rather, these are two separate commandments that do not forestall one
another, insofar as sacrifices could be offered in the House even if these furnishings
were not in it.
Nahmanides ostensibly repeats Maimonides’ words here, according to which the furnishings are not
to be counted as a separate commandment. A closer look, however, reveals that he has quite
something else in mind. In his view, although making the furnishings is not to be considered a
separate commandment, the reason is not that they are subsumed by the commandment of building
the Sanctuary, rather that they are included in the commandment of the sacred service itself.
Building the table is part of the commandment of the showbread that is to be put on it. According
to his approach, making the furnishings is in preparation for fulfilling a commandment, i.e.,
preparing the necessary means for performing the commandment itself. Therefore he adds at the
end of the paragraph that he does not approve of Maimonides claim that the furnishings are an
intrinsic part of the Sanctuary. In his view, the furnishings are not part of the House, rather the
House and the furnishings comprise two separate commandments that are not interdependent on
each other.5
4
Minhat Hinukh, commandment 95.8, deals with the question whether building the Sanctuary furnishings
is part of the commandment of building the Temple or part of the commandment of the worship itself.
The conclusion there tends to follow Maimonides, asserting it is part of the commandment of the
worship. This clearly is Nahmanides’ view, but Maimonides apparently was not of like opinion (as he
spells out in Positive Commandment 20 and in Root 12). We note further that Ha-Hinukh also says that
building the furnishings is part of the commandment to build the Sanctuary.
5
Root 11 explains that according to Maimonides (and Nahmanides, as well, concurs in part) there are
pairs of commandments that do not forestall one another but nevertheless are counted as a single
commandment (as in the blue and white in the tzitzit). See my article, “Mitzvot ve-Helkei Mitzvot--`Al
Mahutam ha-Philosophit shel Musagim ba-Halakhah,” Akdamut 21, Elul (Aug.) 2008, p. 160.
This difference of opinion seems to stand on differing perceptions of the function of the Sanctuary.
Maimonides begins his remarks on Positive Commandment 20 in the following terms: “We were
commanded to build a House of Worship, in which the sacrifices are offered and a perpetual fire
burned.”6 In other words, according to his approach, the aim of the Sanctuary is to serve as a place
of worship. Given such a perception, it is patently clear that the furnishings of the Sanctuary are part
and parcel of the building itself, for the entire purpose of the building is to use its furnishings. The
beginning of the passage from Root 12, cited above, is also quite similar. Nahmanides, in his
commentary on this week’s reading, however, writes:7
…and He said further: and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation (Ex.
19:6). They are now holy, in that they are worthy that there be amongst them a
Sanctuary through which He makes His Divine Glory dwell among them.
Therefore He first commanded concerning the Tabernacle, so that He have
amongst them a house dedicated to His name, from where He would speak with
Moses and command the children of Israel. Thus the main purpose of the
Tabernacle was to contain a place in which the Divine Glory rests, this being the
ark, just as He said, And there will I meet with thee, and I will speak with thee from above the
ark-cover (Ex. 25:22). Therefore He first gave the commandment about the ark and
the ark-cover, for they are first in importance…The secret of the Tabernacle is that
the Glory which abode upon Mount Sinai [openly] should abide upon it in a
concealed manner. For just as it is said there, And the glory of the Eternal abode upon
Mount Sinai (Ex. 24:16), and it is further written, Behold, the Eternal our G-d hath shown
us His glory and His greatness (Deut. 5:21), so it is written of the Tabernacle, and the
glory of the Eternal filled the Tabernacle (Ex. 40:34). Twice is this verse, and the glory of the
Eternal filled the Tabernacle (ibid., also v.35) mentioned in connection with the
Tabernacle, to correspond with His glory and His greatness. Thus Israel always had
with them in the Tabernacle the Glory which appeared to them on Mount
Sinai…And Scripture so states: where I will meet with you, to speak there unto thee; and it
shall be sanctified by My glory (Ex. 29:42), for there [in the Tabernalce] will be the
appointed place for the Divine utterance, and it will be sanctified by My glory (Ex. 29:43).
From these remarks clearly the purpose of the Tabernacle and the Temple was to provide a place for
the Divine Presence to dwell among Israel on earth, and not, as Maimonides thought, to serve as a
“place of worship.” According to Maimonides, the essence of the Sanctuary lay in the altar, while
according to Nahmanides it was in the ark (which itself is not used for the worship or for any other
commandment). Sacrificing was just one of the functions that took place in the Sanctuary and
perhaps contributed as well to its being a place for the Divine Presence to reside.
Now it becomes perfectly clear why Nahmanides was of the opinion that the furnishings were not
part of the House. The House was intended as a place for the Divine Presence, and the furnishings
were for worship; both of these were commandments that did not depend one on the other (for
6
7
Maimonides, Sefer ha-Mitzvot, Commandment 20.
Nahmanides on Ex. 25:2, Ramban Commentary on the Torah, Exodus, trans. and annotated by Rabbi Dr.
Charles be Chavel, Shilo Publishing House, New York, 1973, pp. 434-436.
sacrifices are offered even without there being a House).8 Maimonides, on the other hand, saw the
furnishings as part of the House, since in his opinion the House in its entirety was intended for
sacrificial worship.
Of course, we could go further and ask what were the foundations of this difference of opinion; why
did Maimonides view the Sanctuary as a serving the sacrificial worship, while Nahmanides viewed it
as a means of providing for the Divine Presence? Here we can only hypothesize, without being able
to substantiate our theory. Perhaps, for Maimonides, the man of Halakhah, there was no significance
to the Divine Presence as a metaphysical being. In his eyes, the Halakhah dealt only with practical
obligations (commandments). The late Yeshayahu Leibowitz, when discussing the sanctity of the
Land of Israel, used to cite the Mishnah:9 “Wherein lies its sanctity, that the omer and first fruits and
the two loaves be brought from it, but not be brought from all the other lands of the earth?” He saw
the sanctity of the land in terms of the commandments through which that sanctity is expressed. So,
too, with the Temple, he considered that its sanctity pertained to the commandments performed
therein.10 Nahmanides, however, more of a mystic, perceived metaphysical significance in the
Temple and the land of Israel themselves, beyond their concomitant commandments. This,
however, is only a hypothesis and requires its own investigation.
Translated by Rachel Rowen
8
Babylonian Talmud, Zevahim 107b and parallel texts.
9
Kelim 1.6.
10
This was apparently why Maimonides did not include settling the land of Israel in his list of
commandments. Many associate this with Root 4 (that inclusive commandments are not counted), but
closer examination of Root 4 shows that this is a misunderstanding of Maimonides’ concept of “inclusive
commandments” (I add here that the commandments of faith are listed under the first positive
commandment, even though it is more inclusive). According to our proposal, not including settling the
land of Israel in his list of commandments actually has to do with Root 10 (that actions done in
preparation of fulfilling a commandment are not counted separately), since settling the land of Israel is a
means to fulfilling the commandments that are dependent on the land itself.