English translation — תרומה א

From the verse at the beginning of our portion¹

"And they shall make Me a sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst,"

Rashi cites the words "And they shall make Me a sanctuary" and explains: And they shall make for My name a house of holiness.

Commentators learn²,

that Rashi explains here two <b>separate</b> words,

and consequently he says here two separate matters —

A.

(a)

that the interpretation of "Me" is "for My name,"

and

(b)

that "sanctuary" means — "a house of holiness"

(and as follows section g).

must one understand: since that these are two separate matters,

why does he include both of them in one utterance?

as is his way in the majority of the largest [commentary] in his commentary on the Torah, he would have needed to say <b>two</b> utterances: „<b>Li</b> — to My name; <b>Mikdash</b> — house of holiness"³?

Also it is not understood: why does Rashi cite in this opening utterance also the word „Ve'asu"?

And moreover — he repeats this also in the body of his commentary: <b>Ve'asu</b> to My name etc.! — in this word „Ve'asu" Rashi is indeed not innovating anything⁴?

2.

In that which Rashi explains "Li — lishmi" one must understand:

The Gemara⁵

says that "And they shall make <b>Me</b> a Sanctuary" means — "<b>Mine</b>",

that "they give from them to the craftsmen as their wages" — one pays the "craftsmen" for their work from the Temple treasury "Mine" — with consecrated money

(consecrated property of the Temple treasury)⁶.

And this interpretation in "Li"

( — Proverbs)

is also found in study in the manner of the plain meaning,

as Rashi explains the verse

(in Parshat Toldot)

"And take for me from there two kid goats etc." — "And take for me,

my Proverbs they are, for so it is written etc."

According to this, one must have an explanation: What is the necessity in the plain sense of Scripture to change and interpret here "Li — for My sake"?

There is an elaboration in the commentators⁹

who explain why Rashi cannot interpret "And they shall make <b>for Me </b>a Sanctuary" like the usual interpretation everywhere of "for Me" — for Myself,

for My needs and the like; but also according to their interpretation¹⁰

it remains not understood why Rashi

(says "for Me — for My name" and)

does not adopt his interpretation in parshas Toldos

(i.e., the Gemara)

"for Me — from My own"].

At first glance one could explain this: On the words

(at the beginning of the parshah¹¹)

"They shall take for Me a portion" Rashi interprets "They shall take for Me a portion — for Me, for My name" — that there,

where it speaks about the "setting aside

(that)

they shall set aside for Me <b>from their property </b>as a donation"¹²,

there is indeed no place

(according to the plain sense¹³)

to interpret "for Me — <b>from My own</b>";

And since the “li” at the beginning of the series means “lishmi”,

it is reasonable to say,

that also the “li” that stands in that same continuation

(only a few verses further),

has the same interpretation — “lishmi”.

But upon precise examination,

on the contrary,

the explanation must be different: the intention “lishmi”

(for the sake of <b>G‑d</b>)

is connected with change

Permission,

the matter passes from private domain &lt;b&gt;their money &lt;/b&gt;to the domain of consecration &lt;b&gt;to Me&lt;/b&gt;*&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;

— it is not sufficient that one gives it

(in practice)

to consecration,

rather one must &lt;b&gt;designate &lt;/b&gt;it for the Most High &lt;b&gt;in his thought &lt;/b&gt;and the like&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;.

Thus in the verse "And they shall take for Me a portion,"

where it speaks about "&lt;b&gt;they shall set apart for Me &lt;/b&gt;from their money" — consecrating &lt;b&gt;non-sacred &lt;/b&gt;money — it is understandable why this must be with an intention "for My sake";

Not so in the verse "And they shall make Me a Sanctuary"&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;,

which speaks about the donation that has already become consecrated property and is found in the possession of the sanctuary&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

— what is lacking here in the connection to the Above&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;

that one should need to say again "for My sake"&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;?

In another style: specifically because Rashi teaches that "And they shall take for Me a donation" means "for Me — for My sake"

(that here there was already the intention "for My sake")

— it is more plausible to say&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;,

that with "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary" the Torah intends to emphasize a different point — that the making should be "from My own",

as above.

3.

Regarding this, one needs an explanation in the conclusion of Rashi's commentary — "Mikdash ..

Beis Kedushah": What does Rashi guard,

why does he change and innovate regarding the word "Mikdash"?

According to the Mizrachi¹⁹

Rashi guards,

that "Mikdash" means — not "which

(thing)

sanctified that it will be",

but — "<b>Beis </b>Mikudash",

"for the name Mikdash in every place²⁰

is not found except upon the sanctified house".

But at first glance it is difficult in this explanation: the word "Mikdash" already stands <b>earlier</b>

— "Mikdash Adonai konenu yadecha."

So if by "Mikdash" it must be inter-

preted that this means "Beis Kedusha" - should Rashi have explained it <b>there</b>

(in parshas Beshalach²¹)

(in parshas Beshalach)

! But on the contrary — not only does Rashi not guard it there,

rather from the language of Rashi there²²

it is proven that he takes it for granted as a simple matter that "Mikdash" is "Beis HaMikdash"²³.

Also: if Rashi's entire point is,

that "Mikdash" means a "house"

(and not "which

(thing)

is sanctified that it be")

— Rashi should have said "house &lt;b&gt;of the Mikdash&lt;/b&gt;"; why did Rashi deviate both from the language of the verse on the spot,

and also from the usual language everywhere — and instead of "Mikdash" he says "Kedushah"?

And likewise it is puzzling regarding the explanation of the commentators&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;,

that Rashi comes to defend: how does it fit to say "&lt;b&gt;And they shall make &lt;/b&gt;for Me &lt;b&gt; a Mikdash&lt;/b&gt;"?

— The holiness itself

(Mikdash)

is &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;made by Jews

(rather it comes from Above)

! So Rashi explains that the command is to make a "&lt;b&gt;house &lt;/b&gt;of holiness" —

Because,

as above,

from Rashi

(above)

in Parshas Beshalach it is proven that it is a matter <b>simple</b> that "Mikdash" is the "abbreviated name"²⁵

of "<b>Beis</b> HaMikdash" and it is not necessary the safeguard that "<b>V'asu</b> Li Mikdash" means the <b>Beis</b> HaMikdash

(and not

the holiness therein)

; and also,

as above: accordingly, Rashi should have said "Beis HaMikdash",

and not "Beis Kedushah"²⁶.

4.

The explanation of all this:

The main question that Rashi comes to answer in his commentary is — how does the wording "And they shall make for Me a <b>Sanctuary</b>" fit here?

The name "Sanctuary" refers, after all, to the Holy Temple in Jerusalem,

and in the language of the verse

(above)

in Parshat Beshalach — "You bring them etc. <b>to the mountain of Your inheritance</b> etc.

(and continues there)

the Sanctuary, O Lord, [which] Your hands have established"; here, however, it is speaking about the making of the Mishkan <b>in the desert</b>,

which is called in the verse by the name "Mishkan",

and as it says immediately in that verse <b>afterwards</b>²⁷

— "the pattern of the Mishkan" — should it not also have said here "And they shall make for Me a <b>Mishkan</b>"²⁸?

The Or HaChaim

answers,

that "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary" is a "commandment encompassing all times, whether in the wilderness or upon their entry into the Land"

and afterwards the verse begins with the "detail done in the wilderness ..

that he shall make the Mishkan according to the order stated"

(in the portion).

— Rashi, however, rejects this explanation: on the words

(in the verse after this)

"according to all that I show you, the pattern of the Mishkan etc." Rashi explains: "this verse is connected to the verse above it, 'And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary'

according to all that I show you."

And from this it is understood,

that "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary ..

according to all that I show you, the pattern of the Mishkan" is one — the same command.

Further: according to this Rashi,

is in this command explicitly <b>not</b> included the Sanctuary

for generations.

Because the command here is to make a "Sanctuary ..

according to all that I show you, the pattern of the <b>Tabernacle</b>" — and the Holy Temple is <b>not</b> according to the pattern of the Tabernacle

(which is why Rashi infers,

that the command at the end of the verse²⁷

"and so shall you do — for generations",

refers specifically

(only)

to the <b>vessels</b> of the Tabernacle

(that they must be made "according to the pattern of these"³²),

but not to the Tabernacle itself³³).

And in order to answer the aforementioned question — why is the Mishkan here called "Mikdash"³⁴

— Rashi explains that "Mikdash" in <b>this</b> verse means "a house of <b>holiness</b>": the word "Mikdash" is here <b>not</b> as a noun

(— abbreviated)

of "Beis HaMikdash",

but rather as a descriptive word, an adjective and attribute of a thing,

a house of <b>holiness</b>

(not "of profane")

which applies to the Mishkan <b>exactly</b> as to the Mikdash,

"Mikdash" means — a thing

(house)

that has in itself

(or — is for the sake of³⁵)

<b>holiness</b>,

therefore one uses the word

(also)

for the Mishkan.

In a different style — the novelty of Rashi is

(not in the word "house",

but)

in

the word "holiness",

that "sanctuary" here is <b>not</b> a noun

(abbreviated from "the Holy Temple").

(according to his simple interpretation)

there is no proof that it speaks about a house and not "which is sanctified" — it is because in practice the "matter" of holiness in our case is a house.

As understood from the continuation of the command "

(And they shall make Me a sanctuary ..)

according to all etc. the pattern of the Mishkan"

(which according to Rashi is all one continuation,

as above),

from which one knows that the "matter" of holiness which one needs to make — it speaks about a house³⁶].

5.

But this is still not sufficient.

For the aforementioned explanation only answers that "Mikdash" can refer to the Mishkan — but it remains unexplained: why does the verse here use the term "Mikdash",

and does not use the usual term in these sections — "And they shall make Me a Mishkan"?

Therefore Rashi <b>prefaces</b> the explanation on "And they shall make for Me — and they shall make for My name,"

that the command in this verse is not only on the making in general,

but — that the making must be with the intention "<b>for My name</b>"; and in order to explain the law of "And they shall make for Me — and they shall make for My name,"

the verse specifies "And they shall make for Me a <b>Sanctuary</b>."

The rationale in this:

In the explanation "And they shall make for Me — and they shall make for My name" is,

as mentioned above

(end of section 2),

not smooth: since the donation has already become consecrated property

( — the <b>designation </b>before this was "for My name")

— why should one, in the making of the Mishkan, need <b>yet </b>another time an intention "for My name"?

On this the verse says,

And they shall make for Me a <b>Sanctuary</b>",

which means

(according to Rashi's explanation)

— "And they shall make for My name a house of <b>holiness</b>": That which in "And they shall make" there must be a special intention "for My name" means it an additional intention "house of <b>holiness</b>" — not just "house <b>of </b>holiness" — a house <b>in which </b>there is found

(yet)

a thing,

"holiness",

but that the house itself is "holiness"

(with a cholam)³⁷

— it is a <b>holy house</b>

because one finds that "bayis" also serves in the feminine language&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;].

From this it is understood,

that the making of the Mishkan brings about a change &lt;b&gt;essential&lt;/b&gt; in the things with which one made the Mishkan — &lt;b&gt;they&lt;/b&gt; became sanctified&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;,

became a part of the "holiness of the house":

Before they were used for the building of the Mishkan,

their holiness was because they were <b>money</b> of hekdesh; but through "And they shall make Me a Sanctuary" they become sanctified

(not only do they <b>belong</b> to hekdesh,

but)

by the fact that they themselves are used and become a part of a "house of <b>holiness</b>".

And since the making causes a <b>new</b>,

<b>higher</b> holiness³⁹

in the items of the donation of the Mishkan,

therefore the making must be

(with an additional intention)

"<b>for My sake</b>".

And based on this, it can be said,

that there is a practical difference

(also)

in halacha: it is not enough that the intention be merely "for its own sake"

(for the sake of the Most High)&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;,

rather it must be for the sake of

(the holiness of)

&lt;b&gt;the Mishkan&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;,

because of the "house of holiness" — the special higher holiness that comes through the "and they shall make."

6.

Based on the above, one can explain another matter in Rashi's commentary:

In the word “Terumah” there are two interpretations:

(a)

Interpretation of the Targum — “Afrashuta”,

(b)

From the language of raising and lifting.

<b>Rashi</b> in his commentary on the Torah explains

(as the interpretation of the Targum)

— “Terumah,

separation”.

And according to the above, there is to explain the reason for this⁴²

With the introduction of the distinction between hafrashah and haramah:

Hafrashah means that the item is

(merely)

separated from other items,

i.e.

that is

in its essence it remains in the same category as the other items,

the difference between them is

(only)

a matter of change of place

(domain)

When one says however <b>haramah</b> it indicates a change <b>essence</b> — the thing is <b>lifted up</b> become,

it is in a higher place and level⁴³,

so that it has no connection with the place and level of the things among which it was previously.

And according to Rashi,

is <b>this</b> the content of the difference between the two verses "Take for Me a portion" and "Make for Me a sanctuary":

The concept of "and they shall take for Me a portion" — the giving from their possessions for the portion of the Mishkan — is only in the category of "separation"⁴⁴.

Because although this became consecrated property,

but the foundation and definition of holiness is from the aspect of the change of <b>domain</b>

(that it passed from the domain of the common to the domain of the holy),

and therefore the holiness is only in the manner of a matter of separation — it is

(only)

separated from other things;

But not so through "and they shall make for Me a Sanctuary" — that which one takes the donations of the Mishkan and makes them into <b>a part</b> of the Sanctuary,

this does in them also a <b>elevation</b> — they become <b>lifted up</b> into a

higher holiness,

which is <b>higher </b>than their previous state.

7.

The lesson from this "within them" — within and in the service of each and every one:

Every one must make from his own home — a "Mishkan" and Mikdash to Him, blessed be He.

As the language of the verse: "And they shall make Me a Sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst,

And our Sages, of blessed memory, said⁴⁵

"In it" is not said, but rather "in their midst,"

because each and every one of Israel needs to make a manifestation of Mishkan in his soul, etc."⁴⁶

There are in this two stages and services — "And they shall take for Me a portion"

(the portion)

and afterwards "And they shall make Me a Sanctuary"

(the elevation)

First of all comes the service of "separation".

A Jew must separate his "house" from the houses around him,

so that in his house it should be noticeable that he is different.

One indeed does in it physical things as in other houses — but by him at home they are done with a different purpose and intention — "all your deeds should be for the sake of Heaven"⁴⁷.

The deeds are

(still)

"your deeds",

matters of the profane,

only they are done "for the sake of Heaven" which thereby they are separated and distinguished from the profane matters of others;

The purpose is, however, that it should become a <b>elevation</b>— "And they shall make Me a Sanctuary": the house needs to be lifted up,

through that which one transforms it into a <b>Sanctuary</b>— there are no mundane matters in this house,

but it is a house of holiness,

a Sanctuary for G‑d, blessed be He.

Through that which the house and all that is in it are permeated with "a lamp is a commandment and the Torah is light"⁴⁸,

one does not feel any "mundane" in this house; in general and every detail of this house is its subject⁴⁹

The commandments that are performed through him.

And through this that every Jew makes his house a sanctuary to G‑d, blessed be He,

this is the immediate preparation for the building of the Holy Temple

(the third),

the "Sanctuary, O G‑d, Your hands have established"⁵⁰,

speedily in our days, literally.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Terumah 5744)