English translation — תרומה ג

Sicha 3<pg>149</pg>

A.

In the laws of the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael, Jerusalem and the Temple etc., we learned<sup>1</sup>,

that ten sanctities are: cities surrounded by a wall,

within the wall

(Jerusalem),

the Temple Mount,

the rampart,

the Women's Courtyard,

the Courtyard of Israel,

the Courtyard of the Priests,

between the Entrance Hall and the Altar,

the Sanctuary,

the Holy of Holies.

And so ruled the Rambam in the Laws of the Chosen House<sup>2</sup>.

However, in the Zohar we find a different division regarding the light,

And his language is as follows³

:

(Settlement of the world..

surrounds

[encompassing]

Jerusalem and)

Jerusalem..

surrounds the Temple Mount and the Temple Mount surrounds the courtyards of Israel and those courtyards surround the Chamber of Hewn Stone where the Great Sanhedrin sits etc. and the Chamber of Hewn Stone surrounds the altar and the altar surrounds the Entrance Hall and the Entrance Hall surrounds the Sanctuary and the Sanctuary surrounds the Holy of Holies where the Shechinah dwells and the Ark Cover and the Cherubim and the Ark.

And we see here several differences in the Zohar regarding the Mishnah,

And among them:

a)

In the Zohar were not counted

("Cities surrounded by a wall"),

"the rampart",

"the Women's Courtyard⁴

Women"⁵,

"the Priests' Courtyard" and "between the Entrance Hall and the Altar".

b)

On the other hand, there were counted "the Chamber of Hewn Stone",

"the Altar" and "the Entrance Hall" which were not counted in the Mishnah.

[Regarding "the Courtyard of the Priests" and "between the Entrance Hall and the Altar" ostensibly one can say the distinction,

for according to the Mishnah the Entrance Hall is included in the sanctity of the Sanctuary⁶

that the sanctity of the Entrance Hall and the Sanctuary is one sanctity⁷,

therefore it is counted separately "the Courtyard of the Priests" and "between the Entrance Hall and the Altar"; and in the Zohar it stands according to the opinion that the Entrance Hall and the Sanctuary are two sanctities⁷,

and the sanctity of the Entrance Hall and between the Entrance Hall and the Altar is one sanctity⁸,

and in the place of the Courtyard of the Priests it counted the Altar which stood in the Courtyard of the Priests.

But this explanation is forced,

since the wording "Altar" does not settle well according to this — for if the intention of the Zohar is the Courtyard of the Priests why did it mention

(only)

"Altar" which stands there⁹].

<pg>150</pg>

Also, one must be precise in the order that the Zohar adopts: a)

that it counts "Lishkat HaGazit" after "Azarot^*9

of Israel",

even though also in the half

(of Lishkat HaGazit)

that is in the Holy¹⁰

its holiness is only like the holiness of the Azarah¹¹

and not more than that¹².

b)

There is a version in the Zohar¹³

"And the Ulam surrounded the Mizbe'ach and the Mizbe'ach surrounded the Heichal",

that it counts Mizbe'ach after the Ulam.

And they already raised a difficulty about this¹⁴

— to which Mizbe'ach is the intention "if this Mizbe'ach is the outer Mizbe'ach, what does it say 'and the Ulam to the Mizbe'ach' and behold the outer Mizbe'ach

[is before and]

far from the Ulam as we learned¹⁵

twenty-two cubits between the Mizbe'ach and the Ulam, and if we say that it is the inner Mizbe'ach, what does it say 'and the Mizbe'ach surrounded the Heichal' behold the Mizbe'ach is inside the Heichal".

2.

And this will be understood with an introduction of an explanation of fundamental differences between the language of the Zohar and the language of the Mishnah:

a)

In the Mishnah the language regarding each of the sanctities is "more holy than it"

(the Temple Mount is more holy than it,

the rampart is more holy than it,

the Women's Courtyard is more holy than it, etc.)

; whereas in the Zohar the language is "surrounds the...

"

(Jerusalem...

surrounds...

and the Temple Mount surrounds the courtyards of Israel and those courtyards surround, etc.).

That is: in the Mishnah is explained the superiority in "holiness" that is superior regarding that which is below it,

whereas in the Zohar it emphasizes the opposite — how the level

(holiness)

the lower encompasses and is "external" to that which is above it¹⁶.

b)

In the explicit Mishnah, the sanctity of every place regarding the obligations of the person¹⁷

— The Temple Mount is more sanctified than it, that zavim and zavot etc. do not enter there,

The rampart is more sanctified than it, that no non-Jew and one impure from a corpse enter there etc.,

And likewise regarding the other sanctities — unlike in the Zohar, which speaks about the sanctity of the places as they are in themselves.

c.

And one can say the explanation of this:

Regarding the matter of the ten holinesses and their relationship to each other, there are two matters:&lt;pg&gt;151&lt;/pg&gt;

א)

Each one of them is a holiness in itself,

with specific laws

(which depend on the addition of holiness etc.).

b)

The sanctities are dependent on each other

(That is,

the lower sanctity is a "result" of the sanctity above it; and conversely — the lower sanctity is like a preparation for the sanctity above it¹⁸)

;

And for example: The sanctity of Jerusalem depends on the sanctity of¹⁹

the Temple Mount and the sanctity of the Temple Mount

(is secondary and)

depends on the sanctity of the Courtyards of Israel,

and likewise the sanctity of the Hall depends on the sanctity of the Sanctuary above it and the Sanctuary on the Holy of Holies²⁰.

And the practical difference:

when the higher sanctity is nullified

(the sanctity of the Sanctuary for example)

— then automatically the sanctity²¹ is nullified

that is below it

(the Hall)

and so forth.

And it seems that this is the foundation of the difference between the Mishnah and the Zohar:

In the Mishnah it speaks about each of the sanctities as a matter in itself,

and therefore it emphasizes mainly the practical difference regarding the person,

that each of the sanctities is different from the one before it regarding certain laws; but in the Zohar its intention is to emphasize the connection and dependence of the sanctities one upon the other,

and therefore it emphasizes mainly how one encompasses the one after it and is encompassed by the one before it.

And according to this, it is well explained that which the Zohar counts "Jerusalem...

surrounds the Temple Mount, and the Temple Mount surrounds the courtyards of Israel",

and it does not count the sanctity of the Rampart and the Women's Courtyard — because the sanctity of the Rampart and the Women's Courtyard do not change the sanctity of that which is below them — and they do not "add" to the sanctity of that which is above them;

But not so Jerusalem,

the Temple Mount and the courtyards of Israel etc. which are in the category of the sanctity of the three camps "from the opening of Jerusalem until the Temple Mount is like the Camp of Israel, and from the opening of the Temple Mount until the opening of the Courtyard etc. is like the Camp of Levi, and from the opening of the Courtyard inward is the Camp of the Shechinah"²²,

for the sanctity of the Camp of Israel depends on the sanctity of the Camp of Levi, and the sanctity of the Camp of Levi depends on the sanctity of the Camp of the Shechinah.

And similarly depends

(according to the opinion of the Zohar)

the sanctity of the Ulam

(which is within the Camp of the Shechinah itself)²³

on the sanctity of the Heichal, and the sanctity of the Heichal on the sanctity of the Holy of Holies²⁴.

4.

However, if it is because of this,

that the Zohar refers to the divisions of holiness,

it is still not resolved why it counts "Chamber of Hewn Stone" and "Altar" which are not divisions in themselves in the

(ten)

holinesses.

And also it is somewhat difficult to explain that the intention of the Zohar is that all the enumerated holinesses are dependent on each other,

because at first glance it is not a simple matter

(and certainly regarding all the holinesses)²⁵.

<pg>152</pg>

And therefore it seems to say,

that in the Zohar it does not descend at all to the

(ten)

holinesses",

and not to the category of holiness that is in these places

(therefore there is not mentioned there at all the expression holiness&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;)

but rather to the essence of the object of these places,

that Jerusalem and the Temple Mount and the courtyards are a halachic status and name in themselves

(apart from the matter of holiness in them),

and about this it is said in the Zohar that "Jerusalem..

surrounds the Temple Mount and the Temple Mount surrounds the courtyards of Israel etc.'",

that is to say,

that the connection and dependence of these places is not

(only)

in the matter of holiness in them,

but rather in their name and their unique definition&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;.

And it is found,

that the halachic status of the name "Temple Mount" depends on the object of "the courtyards of Israel",

and likewise in the rest of the places that it enumerates.

And now it is well explained that which it enumerates the Chamber of Hewn Stone and the Altar,

for according to the method of the Zohar, behold the halachic status of the name "courtyards" depends on the definition of the Chamber of Hewn Stone "where the Great Sanhedrin sits"

(which implies that this is not giving a sign of its place of the Chamber of Hewn Stone,

and a sign for what do I need it,

but rather that this is a giving of a reason,

relevant to its halachic status in its definition as a place of the Chamber of Hewn Stone,

that the courtyards surround and are dependent on it),

and the halachic status of the name "Chamber of Hewn Stone" depends on the object of the Altar

(and in this law the place of "the Courtyard of the Priests" is not relevant, only the definition of the Altar,

and as our Rabbis of blessed memory said&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

that the place of the Sanhedrin is "near the Altar"&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;).

And based on this, the continuation in the words of the Zohar is well understood: the beginning of the matter is "When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, He surrounded the sea of the ocean which surrounds all the inhabited land of the world and the inhabited land of all the seventy nations, all surrounds Jerusalem, and Jerusalem sits in the middle of all the inhabited land",

And behold, the ocean and the inhabited land of the seventy nations have no category of "holiness",

But rather, it is not speaking about the application of holiness,

But only about the essential application of the matter of these places in the creation of the Holy One, blessed be He,

And likewise is it in the continuation "and it

(Jerusalem)

surrounds the Temple Mount" and likewise in all the parts of the Temple, that each one "surrounds" the second part and the like,

That it is not speaking about the law of the additional holiness in it, but only about the essential object itself&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

As above.

5.

Based on what was explained above, it is understood,

That there are two manners of division of places in the Land of Israel etc.: the division of holinesses — the ten holinesses in the Mishnah; and the division of separate places as an object in itself and their dependence and connection to each other — the places enumerated in the Zohar.

And superficially, this very thing requires explanation in

(the inner dimension)

of the matter: Why their particular aspect

(and its connection to the rest)

discussed in the Zohar — no&lt;pg&gt;153&lt;/pg&gt;

are they the same ten holy ones that were enumerated in the Mishnah?

And one can say the explanation in this:

The general distinction between the definition of the places in the Mishnah and in the Zohar is,

that in the Mishnah it deals with laws and halachot in the revealed part of Torah,

and in the Zohar it deals with their content and essence according to the inner dimension of Torah.

And according to this, one can say,

that the Mishnah deals with the laws and definition of the Holy Temple

(and Jerusalem)

below,

whereas in the Zohar it deals

(mainly)

with the Holy Temple above³¹.

And behold,

One of the distinctions between the category of "below" and the category of "above" is,

that below everything is connected and measured by the limitation of place,

for the category of the world is time and place³²,

and one of the most essential categories of a physical thing is that it occupies place; but not so a matter that is "above" — and generally a spiritual category — is not defined by place³³,

but rather it is a spiritual content and level

(and as the Rambam wrote³⁴

in the explanation of place in spirituality).

And according to this, one can say,

that one of the essential distinctions between the Holy Temple above and the Holy Temple below is,

that in the Holy Temple above all the levels and gradations in it are in the category of "general" that includes the particulars

(and the difference between the particulars is not so noticeable),

and in the Holy Temple below each gradation in it is in the category of "particular" that is particularized and separated and distinct from other particulars³⁵.

[Example of the matter — the difference between the language of the Mishnah and the language of the Gemara: the language of the Mishnah is "a brief thing encompassing many subjects"³⁶,

and when this brief thing is detailed and explained in the Gemara, it is elucidated at length and with many details.

And it is understood that "the explanation of the words of the Mishnahs and the elucidation of their depth"³⁷

that is in the Gemara is not only "explanation" and "elucidation",

but rather many rationales and novel laws are also innovated,

except that just as all these were included in the "general principle",

"the brief thing encompassing [many subjects]" of the Mishnah, they were all in inclusion and in unity, and the divisions of the details were not discernible

(and perhaps in some of them — they also did not exist).

And in a more general manner: In the Torah there are many levels: as it is "a treasured delight"³⁸

in the treasury of the Holy One, blessed be He, which is one Torah and there is no division in it,

for the Torah and the Holy One, blessed be He, are entirely one; afterwards, as it is written³⁹

"and I was by Him a nursling etc. delights etc."; as it was given from the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He⁴⁰,

that even then the entire Torah is one matter,

for although there are the Ten Commandments,

<pg>154</pg>

Behold, in the utterance of G‑d were said all the commandments of the Torah in one utterance⁴¹

; and on a lower level there is the division of the Ten Commandments

(each one in a separate utterance⁴¹),

but it is in a manner that they include all 613 commandments etc.⁴².

And further.

However, all this is as it is from the aspect of Above — the Holy One, blessed be He,

the Giver of the Torah — but when it reaches the recipients of the Torah — the Children of Israel,

it is drawn forth in a multiplicity of actual division,

both in the Torah itself,

the Five Books of Moses,

the twenty-four books of the Written Torah etc.⁴³,

and in the commandments of the Torah,

distinct from one another — positive commandments and negative commandments,

down to the 613 commandments of the Torah and the seven commandments of the Rabbis,

each one being a commandment in itself etc.

And further]⁴⁴.

6.

And based on this will also be understood the difference between the divisions of the levels in the Beis HaMikdash below to the divisions of the levels in the Beis HaMikdash above: the levels of holiness of the Beis HaMikdash above are spiritual levels that the divisions of the levels are not so much in emphasis and in a manner of separation one from the other so much; but not so in the Beis HaMikdash below,

that the definition of "below" is connected with a limited and specific place,

behold all the levels are connected and dependent on the divisions of the holiness of the place,

that each place is separated and divided in a different holiness

(more elevated than that which is below it and likewise the opposite).

And since the drawing down of the matters and levels of the Beis HaMikdash above is not dependent

(so much)

on the holiness of a limited and specific place but rather on the content and quality of the thing,

therefore it is possible that there will be a change and division between the Beis HaMikdash above and that below — that what above is considered one level, behold when it is drawn down below in the holiness of place and partitions it is divided into different places in divisions of the levels of holiness⁴⁵,

and so forth.

And it can be said that this content of

(the advantages of)

the Holy Temple above,

is expressed in the Holy Temple below not in the divisions of levels of holiness,

but rather in the essence of the name and content of these places and levels.

And based on this it is understood that which even though in the law of holiness that is in them, behold in the Holy Temple below they are divided into divisions,

the Women's Courtyard and the Courtyard of Israel etc. — nevertheless, as they are in the Holy Temple above, so they are all included in the Temple Mount and the courtyards of Israel,

and therefore each one of them is an object in itself regarding this matter.

And so it is in the levels of holiness,

that in the Holy Temple below, the Courtyard of the Priests is counted separately,

between the Entrance Hall and the Altar.

Whereas in the Holy Temple above, only "Altar" is considered

(and in this itself, it does not specify the outer Altar),

for in the Holy Temple below, the boundary of their division is the holiness of place, and therefore it is divided by divisions of places,

the Courtyard of the Priests and between the Entrance Hall and the Altar,

but not so in the Holy Temple above, everything is one aspect,

the matter and content of the Altar,

[And so it is according to the version "And the Entrance Hall was alongside the Altar and the Altar etc." — and it does not specify whether it refers to the outer Altar or the inner — for in the Holy Temple above, the content and definition of the Altar is one,

for the two Altars

(the inner and the outer)

are inwardness and outwardness⁴⁶

of one aspect,

<pg>155</pg>

But as it was in the Holy Temple below, it was divided into two altars and places because of the different sanctities.

7.

However, this explanation — that in the Holy Temple above

(and consequently — in the Zohar)

the matters are in a more general manner — does not resolve the difference between the Mishnah and the Zohar regarding the Ulam and the Heichal,

for in the Mishnah they were considered one sanctity

(as above in section 1)

but in the Zohar the Ulam is considered by itself.

And it can be said in this — based on the known,

that in several matters we find that above they are in greater multiplicity and below in lesser multiplicity.

And what was stated above,

that below is multiplicity and detail and above is fewness and inclusion,

the discussion is regarding quantity,

that below the quantity is in multiplicity — multiplicity of division into many parts; however regarding quality,

the multiplicity is specifically above,

and this is not multiplicity

(details)

of division,

but multiplicity of quality,

the greatness of the superiority of these levels⁴⁷.

[And it is also understood from the above analogy,

that when the "brief thing" of the Mishnah comes in the elaboration and discussion of the Gemara,

and afterwards in the words of the early authorities until the books of the later authorities,

behold, all that "descends" the depth of the intellect of the Mishnah, the discussions and explanations are in greater multiplicity,

but the light of the intellect is in contraction and lesser [quantity].

And likewise in our matter,

when it is discussed regarding the Holy Temple above, it is in a most elevated level

(in holiness)

— Sanctuary — there is greater multiplicity,

and consequently the level of revelation of the aspect of Sanctuary is in a more elevated level than the Entrance Hall; but in the Holy Temple below it is not noticeable

(openly)

the difference between these holinesses.

And according to this, it will be sweetened that which in the conclusion of the words of the Zohar it was precise to bring "for there the Shechinah dwells, and the covering, and the cherubim, and the ark"&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;,

and it was not satisfied with this that "the House of the Holy of Holies" is the most holy place from the essence of its being "the House of the Holy of Holies" — to emphasize that the greatness of the virtue of the Holy of Holies is

(not so much from the aspect of its being "the House of the Holy of Holies",

but rather)

from the aspect of the greatness of its virtue in the abundance of the quality of holiness and the indwelling of the Shechinah within it.

8.

And through the occupation,

the speech about the Torah of the House — the Holy Temple below,

and the occupation,

the speech about the Holy Temple above,

and the occupation,

the speech about both of them together — the Holy One, blessed be He, says that

(through the occupation in His Torah)

the building of My House is not nullified&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;,

and this hastens even more the revelation of the Holy Temple above within the Holy Temple below&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;,

that the Messiah will build the Temple in its place&lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;

And then will be revealed also the Mishkan that Moshe made in the desert⁵²,

that all are included in one command⁵³

: And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary —

Speedily in our days, literally.

(From the talk of Motzaei Shabbat Kodesh Parshat Shlach 5739)