English translation — תרומה ג

Talk 3<pg>136</pg>

A.

The Rambam wrote in the Laws of the Chosen House<sup>1</sup>

: In the First Temple there was a wall separating between the Holy and the Holy of Holies, its thickness one cubit, and when they built the Second Temple they were uncertain whether the thickness of the wall was from the measure of the Holy or from the measure of the Holy of Holies; therefore they made the Holy of Holies its thickness twenty full cubits, and they made the Holy forty full cubits, and they left one extra cubit between the Holy and the Holy of Holies, and they did not build a wall in the Second Temple, but they made two curtains, one on the side of the Holy of Holies and one on the side of the Holy, and between them one cubit corresponding to the thickness of the wall that was in the First Temple.

And in the Kesef Mishneh he writes,

that the source of the words of the Rambam "since they built the Second Temple they were uncertain etc." — is in the Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim<sup>2</sup>

"The cubit<sup>3</sup>

of the Tiraksin whether from within or from without etc. Rabbi Yosi said: from that which is written<sup>4</sup>

And forty cubits etc. this says from within etc. and it is written<sup>5</sup>

And he made the House of the Holy of Holies etc. this says from without."

And behold the discussion regarding the definition of the "cubit of the Tiraksin" exists also in the Babylonian Talmud

(in tractate Yoma<sup>6</sup>)

: "The cubit of the Tiraksin the Sages did not decide whether it is like the inside or like the outside,

Ravina raised an objection: What is the reason? If we say because it is written<sup>7</sup>

And the house..

sixty cubits its length..

and it is written<sup>4</sup>

And forty cubits was the house, that is the Heichal, before,

and it is written<sup>8</sup>

And before the Sanctuary twenty cubits length and twenty cubits width and twenty cubits its height, and we do not know whether the cubit of the Tiraksin is from these twenty or from these forty,

And perhaps it is neither from these twenty nor from these forty, and it counts the space, it does not count the walls,

Know that wherever it counts walls it counts them for themselves, as we learned: The Heichal was one hundred by one hundred with a height of one hundred..

the wall of the Heichal six, and its length forty cubits, and the cubit of the Tiraksin, and twenty cubits of the House of the Holy of Holies..

Rather its sanctity: whether like the inside or like the outside"<sup>9</sup>.

But according to the simple understanding of the sugya of the Bavli

(according to the conclusion)

they knew the place of the Amah Traksin

(which was not from the twenty nor from the forty but an amah by itself),

and they were only in doubt whether its sanctity was like the inside

(Holy of Holies)

or like the outside

(Heichal),

and since they were unable to make a wall in the Second Temple

(as will be explained below)

therefore "they made two curtains",

between them the space of an amah corresponding to the place of the Amah Traksin.

And according to this they did not add to the measure of the building,

rather they made two curtains in place of the wall,

the Amah Traksin.

But the Rambam stated

(according to the Kesef Mishneh)

like the words of the Yerushalmi that "they were in doubt whether the thickness of the wall was from the measure of the Kodesh or from the measure of the Kodesh Kodashim,

therefore they made etc. an extra amah between the Kodesh and the Kodesh Kodashim"¹⁰.

<pg>137</pg>

And superficially it requires examination*10,

since without this they did not make a wall in the Second Temple,

why did they need to leave an extra cubit opposite the thickness of the wall,

and was it not sufficient with the making of a curtain*11

between the forty of the Holy and the twenty of the Holy of Holies?

Also it requires examination,

how are they permitted to add to the measure of the building,

and behold everything is in writing from the hand of the Lord upon me He gave insight*11.

And the change in this is in two matters: In the First Temple, the Heichal and the Holy of Holies were together sixty cubits, and the cubit of the Tracksin was either at the beginning of the Holy of Holies in the first cubit or at the end of the Heichal in its fortieth cubit,

and there was no partition at all between the Holy and the Holy of Holies,

unlike in the Second Temple

(a)

the Holy of Holies was twenty complete cubits and the Holy was forty complete cubits,

and between them

(a partition)

an extra cubit.

(b)

there was a change in the place of the area of the ground of the Heichal

(or the Holy of Holies)

from what it was in the First Temple¹².

And one cannot say that according to the Rambam there is no contradiction to "All in writing from the Lord"¹³,

for according to this it is not understood,

why did they not build a wall in the Second Temple and only make two curtains.

For in the Gemara¹⁴

the reason is stated that they did not make a cubit of Tracksin "because it stands at thirty, it stands; more than that it does not stand"

(that a wall of a cubit thickness cannot stand at a height of more than thirty cubits),

and Rashi explains

(in the sugya of Yoma¹⁵)

"and to add to its thickness is impossible, for it is written 'All in writing from the hand of the Lord upon me He gave insight'",

and elsewhere¹⁶

Rashi explains "and to widen it they could not because they shorten the Heichal or the Holy of Holies"¹⁷,

but if you say that according to the Rambam, that which they add between the Holy and the Holy of Holies is not related to "All in writing from the Lord",

why did they not add the measure of "an extra cubit" to build a wall and "to add to its thickness"?

2.

Also, one must understand:

In Tosafot¹⁸

they asked: why was it necessary to make two curtains,

and they did not make one curtain whose thickness was a cubit,

and they answered "for it is understood by the Rabbis the explanation of the verse¹⁹

and the curtain shall separate for you between<pg>138</pg>

Sacred, etc., that the outer side of the curtain shall be sacred, and from the beginning of its thickness inward shall all be Holy of Holies, and therefore they could not make one curtain whose thickness was a cubit and place it in the place of the cubit of the Traksin, lest its sanctity be as the outside, and it would be found that from the beginning of its thickness inward is not all Holy of Holies.

But now that they made two curtains it is fine,

one they placed at the beginning of the place of the cubit of the Traksin, and the second at the end of the cubit of the Traksin in the Holy of Holies, at the end of the twenty-cubit space of the Holy of Holies toward the outside, attached to the place of the end of the cubit of the Traksin; for if the place of the cubit of the Traksin is as the inside, then from the thickness of the outer curtain inward is all Holy of Holies, and if the place of the cubit of the Traksin is as the outside, from the thickness of the second curtain inward is Holy of Holies.

But from the words of the Rambam, "They left an extra cubit between the Sanctuary etc., and between them a cubit corresponding to the thickness of the wall that was in the First [Temple],"

it is proven that he does not hold like the Tosafos that the separation must be in the curtain itself,

for the Rambam specifies that the two curtains were "one on the side of the Holy of Holies and one on the side of the Sanctuary, and between them a cubit etc."²⁰,

unlike according to the opinion of the Tosafos

(that the curtain itself separates)

the first curtain was "at the beginning of the place of the cubit of the Traksin" in such a way that there was not a full cubit between them.

And according to this it is not understood,

why according to the Rambam they did not make one curtain of a thickness of a cubit?²¹

3.

And behold, in the continuation of his words the Rambam writes "But in the First Temple there was only one curtain there, as it is said¹⁹

And the curtain shall divide for you etc.",

And in the Kesef Mishneh there "And what our teacher wrote 'But in the First Temple there was only one curtain etc.' it appears that he calls the Mishkan the First Temple, for in the First Temple there was no curtain but a wall."

And they already raised a difficulty&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;,

that it is an explicit verse that Scripture states in Chronicles&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;

"And he made the curtain,"

behold, that also in the First Temple there was a curtain.

And so it is stated explicitly in the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;

that there was "a curtain of the doors,"

and so the Rambam himself wrote in his Commentary on the Mishnah&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;.

And they answered&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;,

that it is obvious that also the Kesef Mishneh holds that according to the Rambam there was at the entrance of the amah traksin a curtain as is explicit in the verse and in the Gemara,

except that here the Rambam addresses the definition of the curtain from the perspective of a partition,

like the curtain in the Second Temple,

which is derived from the verse

(regarding the Tabernacle)

"And the curtain shall separate for you etc.',"

but not so in the First Temple the curtain was not from the perspective of "And the curtain shall separate etc.'" — because the separation between the Holy and the Holy of Holies was by means of a built wall and a complete partition — and the curtain

(at the entrance of the amah traksin)

was only for the sake of modesty,

as it is stated in Rashi&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;,

and therefore the Kesef Mishneh wrote that the intention of the Rambam in what he wrote

(in continuation of the two curtains in the Second Temple)

"But in the First Temple there was only one curtain alone, as it is said, 'And the curtain shall separate for you etc.,'"

his intention is to the Tabernacle.

But this is difficult,

why did the Rambam need to conclude here that "in the First Temple

(i.e., the Tabernacle)

there was only one curtain alone"?

&lt;pg&gt;139&lt;/pg&gt;

And also according to the commentators the intention of the Rambam is simple,

that it refers to the First Temple,

it requires clarification,

why did the Rambam not bring this matter of the curtain immediately at the beginning of the halacha?

Not only according to the interpretation that the intention of the Rambam in this curtain that separates is the dividing wall,

the amah traksin²⁸

— it would have been proper for the Rambam to begin the halacha: "In the First Temple there was a dividing wall..

its thickness an amah, as it is written 'and the curtain shall separate for you etc.'",

that in the Temple there was a wall of construction in place of the curtain²⁹

; but also according to the interpretation that the intention of the Rambam is simple,

that there was a curtain on the amah traksin,

from the aspect of the law of "and the curtain shall separate"

(and not only for the reason of modesty)³⁰,

it requires clarification why the Rambam did not include both matters together: "In the First Temple there was a dividing wall etc. its thickness an amah,

and also a curtain as it is written 'and the curtain shall separate for you etc.'"

(and afterwards to explain the changes in the Second Temple,

that they left an extra amah opposite the wall and made two curtains)

— and why did he mention about the curtain and the verse "and it shall separate etc." only after he explained the making of the two curtains in the Second Temple.

4.

And the explanation of this will be understood by first explaining the definition of the amah traksin according to the Rambam:

Behold, regarding this curtain we find in Scripture several expressions: In the first command it is said¹⁹

"And the curtain shall separate for you between the Holy and the Holy of Holies,"

but afterwards, in the command for the erection of the Mishkan, it is said³¹

"And you shall place there the Ark of the Testimony, and you shall screen with the curtain over the Ark of the Testimony,"

And in the execution it is said³²

"And he brought the Ark into the Mishkan, and he placed the curtain of the screen, and he screened over the Ark of the Testimony,"

and similar³³.

And this means that there are two aspects in the curtain: a)

a partition separating between the Holy and the Holy of Holies,

b)

a screen over the Ark.

And based on this, one must examine the law of the amah traksin in the First Temple:

For simply, since the place of this amah was in the place of the curtain of the Mishkan and only that this was a built wall,

it must be said that in it too there were these two matters,

a partition between the Holy and the Holy of Holies,

and also a screen over the Ark,

and this is also the explanation of the word "traksin",

as Rashi brought³⁴

from the Yerushalmi³⁵

that its meaning is "an expression of inside and outside",

and in Tosafot³⁶

"and some explain from the expression 'truku galei' that the tablets given at Sinai were closed inside it"³⁷,

for according to the explanation that this is "inside and outside" one can say simply that it is because this is a wall that separates between inside and outside³⁸,

Holy of Holies<pg>140</pg>

and holy,

and the explanation brought in Tosafos is

(primarily)

for this reason that it is a screen over the Ark

[and the distinction is only what is the main point,

this that it is a partition that separates or this that it protects the Ark,

therefore according to Rashi that primarily it is the law of a partition it is called Torkasin on account of inside and outside³⁹,

but not according to Rabeinu Tam and some explain in Tosafos]⁴⁰.

5.

And it can be said that according to the Rambam there is a different approach in this.

That the two matters mentioned above regarding the Curtain

(and the Amah Torkasin),

they are only as a detail and secondary in another part of the Mishkan and Mikdash — a partition that serves the Holy of Holies,

or protects the Ark; but the Rambam holds that the Amah Torkasin in the Mikdash is not comparable to the Curtain in the Mishkan,

that the Curtain as its name so it is,

that it serves only as a partition that separates,

or as a screen over the Ark,

but the "Amah Torkasin" has also a place of its own,

that it is an entity in itself,

except that it also served for the two matters mentioned above

(separation between the Holy and the Holy of Holies,

and also a screen over the Ark),

but this is only its function and is not from its essential definition.

And so it is implied from this that this place is called in Scripture by a name in itself "Devir"⁴¹,

And more so is it proven thus from the words of the Zohar⁴²,

that explains the verse in Kings⁴³

"And it was when Solomon finished building the House of the Lord and the house of the king",

"that is the Holy Temple such as the courtyards and chambers and the Entrance Hall and the Devir",

behold, the Zohar counted the "Devir" as one of the parts of the Holy Temple,

and however we explain the reason that the Zohar specifically enumerated these four matters,

behold, in any case it is proven from this that the "Devir" is not merely a detail and secondary in another part of the Temple,

but rather it is a matter in itself

(like the courtyards and chambers and the Entrance Hall).

[And particularly according to what is explained in the writings of my master and father on the Zohar⁴⁴,

that the four matters enumerated in the Zohar there are "corresponding to the four letters of the Name Havayah",

then<pg>141</pg>

Certainly that applies to the Sanctuary name and importance to itself].

And in the reason of the matter it can be said — based on the words of the Rambam at the beginning of the Laws of the Chosen House: "It is a positive commandment to make a house for G‑d etc. 'And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary'⁴⁵,

And it has already been explained in the Torah the Tabernacle that Moses our teacher made and it was temporary etc.",

And it is explained elsewhere⁴⁶,

that the intention of the Rambam in this emphasis

(that the Tabernacle was only "temporary",

and at first glance what does this come to teach us)

— that in this he defines the difference between the Tabernacle that Moses made and the Holy Temple,

that the Tabernacle was only "temporary" but the Holy Temple is a house and permanent building

("a house for generations of generations"⁴⁷),

and this is the foundation for the differences between the details of the building of the Tabernacle and the details of the building of the Holy Temple.

That is: several of the changes between the building of the Temple and the Tabernacle come from the difference between a temporary building

("temporary")

to a permanent building.

And likewise in our matter: In the Mishkan which was only a temporary structure,

"for the time being" — behold, the thing that separates between the Holy and the Holy of Holies

(and protects the Ark)

was not a part of the body of the structure,

but only a "Parochet" (curtain),

which this name indicates that it is not a permanent thing in the body of the structure,

but a partition for the purpose of the act of separation

(or protection of the Ark)

; but not so in the Holy Temple,

which was a permanent structure⁴⁸

"there was a dividing wall etc. its thickness one cubit",

that a "wall" is not a temporary thing,

but a part of the essence of the structure.

And there is for this place a name by itself — "Devir" (Sanctuary).

And in a different style:

the Holy of Holies is distinct in its holiness from all parts of the Temple,

which is the most elevated holiness among all holy places⁴⁹

; and its holiness is not just another level in holiness,

similar to the other holinesses each of which is sanctified from the level below it,

but rather its holiness is separated from all the holinesses⁵⁰

that are below it.

And therefore it is not<pg>142</pg>

sufficient that the separation

(the fixed⁵¹

in the Holy Temple)

be only by means of a partition of a wall

(like the other separations between two places),

but rather there must be a place in itself⁵²

that is like an "intermediary" between Holy and Holy of Holies,

and this place is what separates between them⁵³.

[And it can be said that essentially this pertains to the person: in order to enter the Holy of Holies,

the most holy place "where no one enters except the High Priest on Yom Kippur during the service"⁵⁴

(also from the Holy Place,

where all the priests enter throughout the year),

it is fitting and there must be a pause and delay before entering⁵⁵].

6.

And based on this it can be said,

that the Rambam holds,

that even in the Second Temple, where they did not make a wall,

they were obligated to leave this cubit of the place of the "Devir",

that this is one of the definitions of "the Holy Temple",

that there must be a separate place — a cubit width — between the Holy and the Holy of Holies.

And this matter is precise in the language of the Rambam in this law,

that he wrote "And they did not build a wall in the Second Temple, but they made two curtains, one on the side of the Holy of Holies and one on the side of the Holy, and between them a cubit corresponding to the thickness of the wall that was in the First [Temple]" — for at first glance the Rambam's lengthy language "corresponding to the thickness of the wall that was in the First [Temple]" is superfluous — but rather with this he comes to teach us,

that the definition of the Holy Temple obligates leaving this cubit.

And this is also the reason that they did not make one curtain of a cubit thickness, but rather

(according to the language of the Rambam)

"They made two curtains, one on the side of the Holy of Holies and one on the side of the Sanctuary, and between them a cubit corresponding to the thickness of the wall" — because the purpose of making the curtains was not

(only)

for the sake of making a partition and separation between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies,

but rather for the sake of making the place of the "Devir"⁵⁶.

And this is that they made two curtains on the two sides,

by means of which<pg>143</pg>

the place of this cubit was designated by itself

[and according to the explanation of Rashi⁵⁷

"And they made two curtains — to absorb between them the airspace of the place of the partition"].

But not so if there were only one curtain

(even if its thickness was a cubit),

behold, in addition to this that a "curtain" is a temporary matter as above,

behold, by means of one curtain of a cubit thickness, this place was not designated as a separate place by itself

(as above, section 5).

And this is also the reason for the difference between the opinion of the Rambam and the opinion of the Tosafos regarding the matter of these curtains

(as above in section 2)

— that according to the Tosafos, the curtains were "one they placed at the beginning of the place of the amah of the Tracksin, and the second at the end of the amah of the Tracksin,"

which implies from this that there was not a full amah between them,

whereas the Rambam specifies "and between them an amah"&lt;sup&gt;58&lt;/sup&gt;

— because according to the opinion of the Tosafos, their purpose of these curtains is based on the law of "and the curtain shall separate etc.,"

and the separation must be in the curtain itself

(as the Tosafos say),

therefore the outer curtain must be specifically in the place of this amah,

so that "from the outer side of the curtain it should be Holy and from the beginning of its thickness inward it should all be Holy of Holies"; unlike the opinion of the Rambam,

the main purpose of making these curtains was to designate the place of the amah of the Tracksin,

and if so, on the contrary,

it must be "between them an amah corresponding to the thickness of the wall that was in the First [Temple]."

And with this is also resolved why they did not make a wider wall in the Second Temple,

even though they left an extra amah

(more than in the First Temple),

because even the Rambam holds that they were not permitted to simply add to the width of the building; but regarding this amah,

since they were obligated to make a fixed place of an amah between the Holy and the Holy of Holies,

and they could not make it from the measure of the Holy or from the measure of the Holy of Holies

(as in the First Temple)

because "they were uncertain whether the thickness of the wall was from the measure of the Holy or from the measure of the Holy of Holies"

[and if they make it in the Holy or in the Holy of Holies,

perhaps they are diminishing from the place of the Holy or from the place of the Holy of Holies]

— they were compelled, by the law of "the amah of the Tracksin," to leave "an extra amah."

And based on this, we can also explain the conclusion of the Rambam's words: "But in the First Temple

[i.e., the Mishkan,

according to the interpretation of the Kesef Mishneh]

there was only one curtain there, as it is stated: 'And the curtain shall separate for you, etc.'"

that in this his intention is to emphasize that the making of the two curtains in the Second Temple is

(not the making of a separation between the Holy and the Holy of Holies,

but rather)

the designation of the place of the amah traksin,

therefore they needed to make in the Second Temple specifically two curtains,

unlike "in the First Temple — the Mishkan —

(that)

there was only one curtain there

[since the definition of the curtain of the Mishkan is like]

as it is stated: 'And the curtain shall separate for you, etc.'"

7.

And we can explain the conclusion of the aforementioned language of the Rambam also according to the commentators who say that the intention of the Rambam is to the actual First Temple

(and not to the Mishkan),

for even in the First Temple they made a curtain

(in addition to the wall of the amah traksin)

— for at first glance,

it would have been fitting for the Rambam to write this at the beginning of the halachah

(as above, sec. 3),

And with introduction,

that in this law that was innovated in the Holy Temple regarding the Tabernacle,

that a curtain alone is not sufficient, but rather there must be a wall of one cubit of Tracksin

(as above section 5)

— it is to be explained in two ways:

A)

that no new obligation was innovated in the Temple,

but rather the distinction between the nature of the Tabernacle and the nature of the Temple

(temporary or permanent for generations)

obligates that in the Temple there should not be a curtain

(whose existence and nature is a temporary thing)

but rather there must be a permanent place

(as above section 5).

b)

that this is a new obligation,

from the aspect of "all in writing from the hand of Hashem upon me He gave understanding",

which does not pertain to the making of the curtain and the law of "and the curtain shall separate&lt;pg&gt;144&lt;/pg&gt;

for you etc.'",

and in the manner of what is said in Tosafos&lt;sup&gt;59&lt;/sup&gt;

"that in the First Temple..

the amah thickness of the partition wall by the word of the command was done as it is written 'all in writing'"

(and for this reason there is not upon the amah thickness of the partition wall the definition of "and the curtain shall separate etc.'",

that the curtain itself needs to separate between the Holy and the Holy of Holies).

And according to the second manner, it can be said,

that this is the intention of the Rambam in this halacha,

that at the beginning of the halacha he wrote only "In the First Temple there was a wall separating between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies" and he did not bring on this the verse "And the curtain shall separate for you etc.",

and only at the conclusion of the halacha,

after the lengthy discussion regarding the making of the two curtains in the Second Temple,

he concludes "But in the First Temple there was only one curtain there, as it is said, 'And the curtain shall separate for you etc.'",

that by this he emphasizes,

that the obligation of making the amah traksin

(and likewise the placing of an extra amah opposite the thickness of the wall in the Second Temple)

is not from the law of "And the curtain shall separate for you etc.",

that this is an obligation in itself,

and this was the purpose of the making of the curtain

(that was at the opening of the wall)

in the First Temple

(from the aspect of the obligation of "And it shall separate etc.")⁶⁰.

8.

And behold, were brought above

(section 5)

the words of the Zohar,

that enumerates four parts of the Temple — "courtyards and chambers and the Hall and the Sanctuary",

and the explanation of my master, my father, my teacher,

that they correspond to the four letters of the Name Havayah.

And it can be said,

that in this note my master, my father, my teacher innovates a matter in the halacha according to the view of the Zohar.

And with the introduction that in the Zohar there it explains the wording of the verse "the house of the Lord and the house of the king" — "the house of the Lord, which is the Temple, such as the courtyards and chambers and the Hall and the Sanctuary..

the house of the king, this is the Holy of Holies",

And from the simplicity of the words of the Zohar it is proven,

at first glance,

that it holds that the sanctity of the Sanctuary is not like the sanctity of the Holy of Holies,

for the Holy of Holies is specified in the verse by itself,

"the house of the king",

from which it is understood,

that this is a matter in itself,

and if so, it is impossible to say that the Sanctuary is of the measure of the Holy of Holies and its sanctity.

[And although in the Gemara⁶¹

it says that the Sages were uncertain about the sanctity of the Sanctuary, whether it is like the inner

(sanctity of the Holy of Holies)

or like the outer

(sanctity of the Hall)

— behold we find that according to several interpretations⁶²

Rabbi Yosi holds that there was no doubt about this,

and if so, there is room to say that also the Zohar decided like the one side].

And based on this it would be possible to explain also this that the Zohar mentioned only the Ulam and did not mention at all the Heichal — because according to the Zohar the holiness of the Devir is like the holiness of

(outside,

that is)

Heichal⁶³,

and thus also the Heichal is included in the division of "Devir"⁶⁴.

And this is what my father and teacher innovates,

that "four things..

corresponding to the four letters of the Name Havayah",

and from the order of the things it is understood,

that the Devir is corresponding to the letter Yud of the Name Havayah — that based on this it is understood,

that the holiness of Devir is not like the holiness of Heichal but like the holiness of the Holy of Holies⁶⁵.

Behold, regarding the four letters of the name Havayah,

it is known,

that the letter yud

(which is opposite the aspect of chochmah⁶⁶)

is completely separate from the other letters of the name Havayah.

And like the difference between chochmah and the other sefiros,

and in avodah, chochmah is the matter of bittul<pg>145</pg>

to the utmost,

therefore "Ein Sof baruch Hu is not clothed in the aspect of chochmah"⁶⁷,

and as it is written in the Tanya⁶⁸

in the name of his teacher

(the Maggid),

"that Ein Sof baruch Hu is the true One who alone is and there is nothing besides Him,

and this is the level of chochmah".

And based on this, it is understood,

that the holiness of the Sanctuary

(which is opposite the letter Yud)

is separate relative to the holiness of all other parts of the Temple,

and consequently it is understood,

that one cannot say that its holiness is only like the holiness of the Heichal,

for the holiness of the Heichal is not entirely separate from the holiness of the Ulam,

rather one must say that the holiness of the Sanctuary is like the holiness of the Holy of Holies

(which is entirely separate from the other parts of the Temple)⁶⁹.

And there is no contradiction to this from the fact that the Zohar explains "the king's house — this is the Holy of Holies",

that the Holy of Holies is distinct even from the Sanctuary and is specified on its own — because even according to the view that the holiness of the Sanctuary is like the holiness of the Holy of Holies,

there is a difference

(essential)

between the holiness of the Holy of Holies and the holiness of the Sanctuary.

Explanation of the matter:

Just as the Debir in its simple sense is between the Holy of Holies and the Holy,

so it is in the spiritual aspects,

that the significance of the Debir indicates the holiness of the Holy of Holies as it acts outside the Holy of Holies.

And this is the difference between the holiness of the Holy of Holies itself and the holiness of the Debir,

for the holiness of the Holy of Holies is above the letters of the Name Havayah,

because "letter" is a vessel that limits the light within it,

whereas the holiness of the Holy of Holies is above the category of limit

[therefore we find that in the Holy of Holies "the place of the Ark is not from the measurement"⁷⁰,

and as explained elsewhere⁷¹

that this is a matter of "the impossible of impossibilities"⁷²,

a connection of above place and place]

: in contrast, the "Debir" alludes to the influence of the holiness of the Holy of Holies into the world

(in place),

but since this is the holiness of the Holy of Holies,

therefore it is alluded to specifically by the letter Yud,

the aspect of Chochmah,

whose essence is

(as above)

absolute nullification,

therefore it is a vessel for the holiness of the Holy of Holies,

"the Ein Sof Blessed be He" that is above the world.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Shemos 5733)