English translation — ראה א

A.

Regarding the obligation that one must bring and offer sacrifices only in the Beis HaMikdash specifically,

and the prohibition of offering outside the Mikdash - which is discussed in our parshah¹

- are enumerated in the Mishnah²

(and likewise in the Sifri³)

the stages in this: "Once the Mishkan was erected, the bamos were forbidden ..

They came to Gilgal, the bamos were permitted ..

They came to Shiloh, the bamos were forbidden, and there was no roof there, only a stone house ..

And it was a resting place.

They came to Nov and Givon, the bamos were permitted ..

They came to Jerusalem, the bamos were forbidden, and they had no

permission, and it was an inheritance."

As is understood from the language of the Mishnah,

the matter of "They came to Shiloh, the bamos were forbidden" is connected with that which there was a "<b>stone </b>house ..

And it was a resting place"⁴

(unlike in Gilgal before this, where they had set up the Tent of Meeting⁵),

and as the language of the Rambam⁶

"Shiloh is called a house"⁷.

one must understand: it states explicitly in the verse⁸

"for I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought up Bnei Yisrael from Egypt until this day, and I have been walking in a tent and in a Mishkan",

that

is

that also the Mishkan of Shilo is not considered a "house" but only as a "<b>tent</b>"

(or Mishkan)⁹?

In simple terms, one can say,

that it depends regarding what one is speaking: regarding the Ohel Moed - the Mishkan - Shilo is considered a <b>house</b>; however, regarding the Beis HaMikdash in Yerushalayim it is only a <b>tent</b>¹⁰.

But from the fact that one connects this with a specific <b>law</b> - the prohibition of the high places - it implies¹¹,

that also in the Mishkan of Shiloh there exists a <b>boundary</b> of <b>house</b>,

because of which "it was a resting place."

B.

And one can explain the explanation in this:

One finds in the Torah the same language by Shiloh and the Beis HaMikdash in Yerushalayim: regarding "the place which Hashem will choose"

It stands in Sifri¹²

"this is Shiloh and the Eternal House".

Which one does not find regarding the Mishkan earlier

(and also not regarding the "Mikdash"¹³

of Nov and Givon¹⁴).

And it is understood simply the difference between them: when the Mishkan stood in the desert,

although also then "the high places were forbidden",

one had to offer the sacrifices only in the Mishkan - but this was not the "&lt;b&gt;place which the Lord will choose&lt;/b&gt;",

because it was not standing in one place,

rather going from journey to journey&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;.

And it is simple that one cannot say this regarding the fourteen years of conquering and dividing

(when the Mishkan was in Gilgal,

when there was not the reality of camps&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;)

But not so in Shiloh,

where there applied

The definition of "the place which God will choose",

It was a fixed place for 369 years.

And consequently, in the time of Shiloh there was the prohibition to sacrifice in another place

(outside of the Mishkan of Shiloh).

And therefore they set up there a house of stones*

(and it is called a house),

because this expresses a matter of permanence of place.

3.

According to this, we must explain the distinction in the studies regarding the permission of the high places "when they entered the land" and when "they came to Gilgal,"

and the permission of the high places after the destruction of Shiloh,

and "they came to Nov and Gibeon";

And in the language of the Rambam²⁰

: "For from the day that the camps ceased and they entered the land, etc., and it is the time that they came to Gilgal, <b>was removed</b> this negative commandment, <b>and it remained permitted</b> that anyone who wishes to offer on a high place may offer <b>as it was before the Tabernacle</b>": the permission of offering is in a manner of automatically,

Since there are no camps and it is exactly like before,

before the establishment of the Mishkan²¹.

But the permission to offer on a bamah after the time of the Mishkan of Shiloh,

one needs for this a special teaching,

as we derive it²²

from the verse²³

"For you have not yet come to the rest and to the inheritance — the rest is Shiloh, the inheritance is Jerusalem,

why did it divide them

<b>in order to give permission </b>between this and that"; one needs a special permission for this.

And as is understood from the expression "to permit between this and that",

is the assumption to prohibit private altars

(which the teaching negates)

is

but]

because one would think that "since they came to Shiloh" the <b>entire </b>matter of private altars was nullified

(and upon this the verse innovates and gives a "permission between this and that"²⁴).

And so is also understood from the language of Rashi in his commentary on the Talmud²⁵

: "From where [do we know] that there was permission for private altars after the sanctity of Shiloh when it was destroyed".

And at first glance: Why should one say that "since they came to Shiloh" the matter of private altars was entirely nullified?

But from this it is proven,

that in Shiloh there was revealed a matter of <b>fixed place</b>

(which was not before)

-"the place which the L-rd will choose"²⁶,

this

nullified the matter of the high places²⁷.

But after that came a special teaching "to grant <b>permission</b> between this and that".

4.

Based on this, however, one must understand: since also regarding Shiloh the expression "the place which the L-rd will choose" is stated,

why is specifically the Holy Temple in Jerusalem called "the House of the Chosen"?

and not the Mishkan in Shiloh?

One must say,

that although Shiloh too is called "the place which the L-rd will choose",

there is nevertheless a difference in the choosing between Shiloh and Jerusalem.

Will one understand this by prefacing the differences of language in our parshah regarding the obligation of sacrifice in the Temple.

Earlier it says in the verse²⁸

"You shall not do so to the Lord your God

(which means — according to Rashi's commentary: to burn incense to heaven in any place),

but only to the place which the Lord your God will choose from all your tribes to put His name there for His dwelling you shall seek and come there and bring there your burnt offerings etc."; afterwards it says²⁹

"And you shall cross the Jordan etc. and He will give you rest etc. and it will be the place which the Lord your God will choose to cause His name to dwell there, there you shall bring all that I command you etc."

And it is explained in the Sifri,

and Rashi brings it in his commentary on the Torah³⁰,

that the first verse is "spoken regarding Shiloh" and the second — "spoken regarding Jerusalem"³¹.

We see another difference in the verses: in the first verse is the

(beginning)

emphasis on the man,

the person,

"<b>And you shall bring </b>there your burnt offerings etc.,"

but in the second verse is the

(beginning)

emphasis on the place, "<b>there </b>you shall bring all that I command you etc."

And it can be said that this is connected with a general difference between the verses:

In the first verses the Torah begins with the prohibition "You shall not do thus to the Lord your God" — "to burn incense to the heavens in every place",

and as a continuation

(and result)

of this prohibition comes the obligation: "For only to the place etc."³²,

this means,

that in this matter of the choice of a particular place it is emphasized that thereby the prohibition of offering sacrifices "in every place" is safeguarded — only in <b>one</b> place that will be designated by His choice, may He be blessed;

However, in the second verse the beginning is with the obligation — "And it shall be the place which the Lord your God will choose to rest His name there, there you shall bring etc.",

which means,

on the contrary,

that the "there you shall bring" is a result of the fact that this is the "place which the Lord your God will choose".

ה.

From this it is understood,

that all the more so,

also by Shiloh was the matter of the choice; but in the content of the choice there is an essential difference between Shiloh and Jerusalem:

By Shiloh was the choice in the place,

only as a result of

the prohibition "to burn incense to the heavens in any place",

for which there had to be a special place for sacrifice,

i.e.

that is

a choice

(in place)

based on a reason and cause;

but in Jerusalem it is the place that the Most High chose

(not based on a reason³³,

but)

that this should be the place of the indwelling of His Shechinah, may He be blessed - <b>and consequently </b>this is also the place where the offering of the sacrifices must be

("there you shall bring them")³⁴.

In a different style: the choice in Shiloh was for the sake of Jews³⁵,

that they should have a

special place for sacrifice

(and not - in every place,

as it was before,

the permission of the high places)

; but the choice in Jerusalem was from the side of the Above One, as it were,

that He, blessed be He, chose, as it were, a place for His Shechinah - "This is My resting place forever"³⁶.

6.

Due to the distinction in the manner of the choice between Shiloh and Jerusalem—there is also a difference regarding the matter of <b>the chosen</b>:

Since the choice in Shiloh is so that there should be a place designated for sacrifice,

it is guarded,

it is sufficient when the choice is in the <b>place</b>

(the house but not in the house that was built upon it)

But not so in Jerusalem,

this is a choice from the essence

(without a limiting reason)

in this matter,

it includes both the place

(the Temple),

and the Temple.

And on the contrary, since this is a thing that the Most High,

the Shechinah chose for His resting place "forever",

it is understood,

that the actual rest comes through the Temple,

the Temple itself is a "&lt;b&gt;Chosen &lt;/b&gt;House"&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;.

Which is also emphasized in the variations of language in the above verses:

Regarding Shiloh the verse says "the place which the L-rd your G-d will choose &lt;b&gt;to place &lt;/b&gt;His name &lt;b&gt;there&lt;/b&gt;",

but in connection with Jerusalem the language of the verse is "which the L-rd your G-d will choose &lt;b&gt;in it &lt;/b&gt;to cause His name to dwell there"&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

: by Shiloh the choice is not "&lt;b&gt;in it&lt;/b&gt;"

(in the place*&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;)

but in "&lt;b&gt;to place &lt;/b&gt;His name"&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;,

but not so by Jerusalem,

is the "the L-rd your G-d will choose" -"&lt;b&gt;in it&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;,

in the place&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;.

7.

Based on this it is understandable why the Rambam calls the laws - "Laws of the &lt;b&gt;Chosen&lt;/b&gt; House" -

where the commandments that are in these laws are enumerated&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;,

the Rambam says that the first commandment is "to build the &lt;b&gt;Temple&lt;/b&gt;"

(and not "the &lt;b&gt;Chosen&lt;/b&gt; House").

And likewise in the laws themselves,

immediately in the first law,

he brings the verse&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

"And they shall make Me a &lt;b&gt;Sanctuary&lt;/b&gt;"

(and not the verse&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;

where it

says the expression of "choice"&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;)

; moreover: the subsequent laws related to the Beis HaMikdash he indeed calls by the name "Mikdash" - "Klei HaMikdash",

"Bias Mikdash"]

With this it is emphasized that the main novelty in the Beis HaMikdash in Yerushalayim, the "Beis Olamim",

is <b>the choice of </b>Hashem⁴⁴.

Which is also expressed in that

(also)

the Temple is a "<b>Beis HaBechirah</b>"⁴⁵.

8.

According to all the above, one can also explain the wording of the Rambam⁴⁶

"Since <b>was built</b> the Temple in Jerusalem, all places were forbidden to build in them a house⁴⁷

for G-d, etc." - for at first glance:

Since the main function in the Eternal House is the matter of the chosenness,

should the Rambam have said "Since <b>was chosen</b> the Eternal House"?

Moreover: in the Mechilta⁴⁸

it indeed states thus the wording "Until Jerusalem was not chosen, etc., until the Eternal House was not chosen, etc." - and the Rambam <b>changes</b> from the wording of the Mechilta and says "Since <b>was built</b> the Temple"?

And according to the above, it can be said,

that there are two details in the choice of the Temple in Jerusalem,

each one in its time:

The choice of the place of the Temple,

which is on Mount Moriah,

which was⁴⁹

from the days of the Patriarchs⁵⁰

upon it Yitzchak and it is the place where Noach built etc.",

as the Rambam explains in ch.2&lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;]

And the choice in the house itself,

which was revealed when "the Temple was built in Jerusalem"

(and then was also added the completeness of the choice also of the place),

which is why specifically then "all places were forbidden to build in them a house for God".

With this is also explained why the Rambam brings proofs for this from the verses

- "And said

David: This is the house of God the Lord and this is the altar for burnt-offering for Israel",

which expresses how the choice is

(not only in the place of the Temple but also)

in the house itself; "and He says: This is My resting place forever",

which in the second verse is explained the reason for that the choice is

(also)

in the house - because the Almighty chose the place

(not because of a reason and special function of place for sacrifice,

but)

as "This is My resting place forever" - therefore the choice is in the house itself.

9.

Based on this, the above distinction is also understood

(ibid.)

Regarding Shiloh it says "&lt;b&gt;And you shall bring &lt;/b&gt;

(there)

The Torah begins

with the obligation of the bringing of the person

(and this brings that there is a "there"),

and regarding Jerusalem the beginning is "&lt;b&gt;There &lt;/b&gt;

(you shall bring)

(and consequently the "you shall bring" must be there)

The obligation to offer sacrifices specifically in Shiloh

(at the time of the Mishkan of Shiloh)

is a “obligation upon the person”: just as Jews are commanded to offer sacrifices and afterwards there was added to this the obligation that it should be in a special place — the Almighty chose for them

(the Mishkan)

Shiloh as the place of offering⁵⁵.

(And specifically — it applies to <b>them</b> a prohibition to offer outside of Shiloh⁵⁶)

But not so in Jerusalem,

where the matter of the choice is in itself and in the object in the <b>House</b> — “the House of Choice”,

it can be said that the commandment of offering there — “to offer all the sacrifices in the House of Choice”⁵⁷

— is also from the aspect of the “object” of the sacrifice.

And based on this, the language of the Rambam in the Book of the Hand⁵⁸ will be sweetened,

regarding the commandment of the sacrifice in the Chosen House,

where he does not begin the laws with the obligation of the person "a positive commandment to sacrifice all the sacrifices in the Chosen House,"

but with the sacrifices: "All the sacrifices, all of them, etc., a positive commandment to sacrifice them in the Chosen House,"

from which it is

implied,

that the obligation to sacrifice the sacrifices specifically there is

(not only a condition in the manner of the sacrifice from the side of the one sacrificing - the person,

but)

also⁵⁹

from the side of the sacrifices,

the object.

And one can say that this is because of the aforementioned reason: since there is a &lt;b&gt;Beis&lt;/b&gt; HaBechirah,

a place of the Shechinah,

it also brings an obligation upon the object of the korbanos,

that one must offer them in this Beis.

(From sichos of Shabbos Parshas Matos-Masei and Shabbos Parshas Re’eh 5740;

<b>Shabbos Parshas Devarim 5742)</b>