English translation — תרומה א

A.

In the category of inanimate matter that was used

(among other categories)

for the making of the Mishkan and its vessels,

there were three kinds: gold,

silver and copper¹.

It is well known,

that "Mishkan is called Mikdash" and "Mikdash is called Mishkan"².

From this it is plausible to assume,

that the virtues and matters of importance that were in the Beis HaMikdash,

they were

(in a similar manner)

also in the Mishkan.

One must understand: we find indeed,

that in the Beis HaMikdash every thing was

(as much as is only possible)

in a manner of wealth<sup>3</sup>

; and this — to such an extent,

that "they gave the daily offering to drink with a cup of <b>gold"</b><b><sup>4</sup></b>

— because "there is no poverty in a place of wealth"<sup>5</sup>.

This means: even such a vessel,

that was used only to give the animal to drink before its slaughter as a sacrifice,

was also of gold —

but only a vessel for an animal that they afterwards offered as a sacrifice; and moreover: the use itself did not serve for a service,

but <b>for</b> flaying and in flaying — only as a cause for a benefit

(not an essential)

in the flaying: through the watering the flaying of the skin from the sacrifice becomes easier<sup>6</sup>]

Today, if even such a non-essential detail in the Beis HaMikdash had to be with the wealth of gold,

it would seemingly have to follow,

that the Mishkan and all its vessels certainly should have been built and crafted only from gold.

How is it,

that in this should have a part the species of silver and even copper?

Regarding "silver",

one can still answer⁷

: since in a certain detail, in silver there is an advantage over gold

(as the Midrash⁸

says at the beginning of this week's parshah),

therefore also

(the advantage of)

silver had to be in the Mishkan.

It remains, however, the question regarding copper?

One cannot explain it simply,

that then the Jews did not have enough gold

(and silver)

and therefore the Almighty commanded them to use also copper — because then there was by the Jews

(as the Gemara⁹

says)

"all the silver and gold in the world" — and such a quantity of gold and silver was certainly enough for <b>all</b> the matters of the Mishkan¹⁰.

B.

One will understand it by prefacing,

that there are three opinions when they were commanded regarding the making of the Mishkan and when was the donation of the Mishkan:

One opinion is — in the Zohar¹¹

— that not only the command,

but also the action of the donation of the Mishkan,

were

(immediately after the giving of the Torah)

<b>before </b>the sin of the Golden Calf.

And with this the Zohar there explains what is stated in the verse

(regarding the sin of the Golden Calf)

"And all the people removed the golden earrings that were in their ears^"12

why then did they need to give for the sake of the calf the golden jewelry that they were wearing on themselves — "the golden earrings that were in their ears"?]

— because they had already earlier,

at the time of the donation of the Mishkan,

given all the gold for the Mishkan,

and consequently, by them later,

at the sin of the Golden Calf,

remained only the gold of the jewelry that they wore on themselves.

A second opinion exists — on the contrary: not only the actual donation of the Mishkan in practice,

but also the command of the Most High "Make for Me a sanctuary and I will dwell among them"¹³,

was on Yom Kippur

(i.e.

after the sin of the Golden Calf),

"so that all the nations should know that they were forgiven for the deed of the Golden Calf"¹⁴.

"so that all the nations should know that they were forgiven for the deed of the Golden Calf"¹⁴.

And there is a third opinion that holds,

that from the Above,

the command "And they shall make Me a Sanctuary" was said <b>before</b> the sin of the calf,

but the Jews had

brought the donations for the Mishkan only after Yom Kippur¹⁵.

Since "These and those are words of the living God"¹⁶,

it is understandable: although regarding the physical Mishkan only one of the three opinions occurred,

nevertheless all three opinions are true

("words of the living God")

and they exist in the essence and the inwardness of the Mishkan — in the spiritual Mishkan,

in "And they shall make Me a Sanctuary and I will dwell <b>within them</b>" — and as follows.

3.

after the Giving of the Torah

(<b>before</b> the sin of the Golden Calf)

all Jews were on the level of tzaddikim.

Because despite that earlier — in Egypt — they were in a state of "These are idol worshippers and these are..."¹⁷

— but the Exodus from Egypt and the Giving of the Torah accomplished in them the matter of conversion¹⁸.

And since "a convert who converts is like a newborn child"¹⁹

— no trace remained with them from the not-good past.

the impurity that was in <b>all</b> <b>people</b> since the sin of the Tree of Knowledge,

was <b>terminated</b> in them at the time of the Giving of the Torah"²⁰].

Afterwards,

they committed a sin and yet another most severe sin — the sin of the Golden Calf which is the root²¹

of all

(later)

sins.

And so it turns out,

that after Yom Kippur

(when the Almighty said "I have forgiven according to your word"²²)

they became in the level of baalei teshuvah.

And in this consists the difference between the three opinions mentioned above:

According to this opinion,

that also the donation of the Mishkan took place before the sin of the Golden Calf,

it turns out,

that the making of the Mishkan is carried out by tzaddikim;

According to the opinion that says,

that also the command was only on Yom Kippur "so that they should know ..

that they were forgiven for them etc.",

it turns out that the entire matter of making a Mishkan — is from beginning to end connected with baalei teshuvah;

And according to the opinion that the sin of the calf occurred between the command regarding the making of the Mishkan and its actual implementation — d.

h.

that the command remained in force also throughout the entire time period between the sin and Yom Kippur

(because if the command had become nullified due to the sin,

a new command would have had to come later²³)

— it turns out that even the wicked have a connection to making a "Mikdash" and through this to effect the matter of "And I will dwell in their midst."

d.

The lesson in avodah,

that one can learn from each one of the three opinions:

When a Jew reaches the level of a tzaddik,

that "he has no evil inclination"²⁴

(like the example of the Jews at the time of the Giving of the Torah,

that "their impurity ceased"),

he can think to himself: since he stands on such a lofty level,

he will better occupy himself only with spiritual matters and separate himself from physical matters —

These Jews who are lower than his level

(the level of tzaddik),

since they have to do with matters of the world,

there must be by them the service of "And they shall make Me a Sanctuary" — making from their physical matters a dwelling place for the Most High,

through "In all²⁵

your ways know Him."

For if <b>they</b> would <b>not</b> do it,

they could, heaven forbid, become sunken in the matters of this world — first in permissible things — and from them afterwards fall into matters of prohibition, heaven forbid²⁶.

<b>He</b>, however, is different: he is after all a "tzaddik" — so why should "he" occupy himself with the service of "And they shall make Me a Sanctuary" from physical things?

— What does he have to do with physicality!

On this is the instruction of the first opinion,

that even when Jews stood at the level of "their impurity ceased",

the Almighty told them "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary" — that one should occupy oneself with matters of this world in order to create from them a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He.

And when one separates oneself from physicality,

then besides this that thereby one fails to fulfill the command of "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary"

(and one thus does not carry out the intention of "the Holy One, blessed be He, desired to have for Himself a dwelling place <b>in the lower realms"</b><b>²⁷</b>

— it can also lead to even worse:

Since his soul is still clothed in a physical body and he must against his will come to physical matters — therefore since his entire immersion is only in "spirituality" and he occupies himself entirely not with refining and purifying the physical things — then his physicality can ultimately become a thing that is also contrary G-d forbid to the desired purpose.

As we find by the gold that was given for the Mishkan,

that if they had not given it for the Mishkan — they would have used it, may G-d forbid and heaven forbid, for the [Golden] Calf.

One could think,

On the other hand,

that specifically a tzaddik must come to the service of "And they shall make Me a Sanctuary",

in order to ensure that his physical matters should not, G-d forbid, become the opposite of good and holiness;

Not so a baal teshuvah,

since he stands in a movement of teshuvah,

of distancing himself from evil,

and he says about this

(about the forbidden things)

"I do not desire"⁸⁹

— he does not need to have a guarantee —

Upon this comes the teaching of the second opinion,

that on the contrary: specifically on Yom Kippur,

in the first time of "I have forgiven according to your word" — only then came the command of the making of the Mishkan,

because in this is dependent the completeness

(of teshuvah and)

of atonement.

One can still, however, think,

that in order to begin to do the service of "And they shall make Me a Sanctuary",

one must first do a complete repentance and effect the "I have forgiven according to your word"; but until then — it is "And to the wicked²⁹

God said, What have you to do to recount My statutes".

About this is the instruction of the third opinion,

that the command "And they shall make Me a Sanctuary" was not nullified for even one moment, heaven forbid,

and also before repentance one can and must fulfill the command "And they shall make Me a Sanctuary" and through this effect ultimately the fulfillment of "And I will dwell in their midst".

And as the ruling of the Alter Rebbe³⁰,

that even a wicked person must study Torah

(and fulfill commandments),

because ultimately "the light³¹

in it returns him to the good".

5.

The inner meaning of "These and those are words of the living God" does not mean merely,

that each of the

(three)

opinions is true,

but also,

that <b>inwardly</b> they are all <b>one</b> matter — because "they were given from one Shepherd, one God gave them, etc."³²

It is therefore understood,

that these three aforementioned opinions are not merely three separate rulings for the three types of Jews — a separate ruling for tzaddikim,

etc.: but even more: all these three opinions

(and rulings)

are also present in one and the same Mishkan.

Therefore we see,

that in the Ark — which "the main object in the Mishkan is the resting place of the Shechinah, which is the Ark³³

— all these three matters mentioned above were expressed: in the Ark were the

(broken)

<b>first</b> <b>tablets</b><b>³⁴</b>

— the level of Jews as they were before the sin

(righteous)

; but,

on the other hand,

they were nevertheless <b>broken</b> tablets,

that the breaking of the tablets came because of the cause of the sin of the calf*³⁴

— therefore it shows that in the Ark there is a place also for the Jews who have broken tablets,

as Jews were after the sin; and in the Ark were also the second tablets³⁴

given on Yom Kippur,

the level

(of penitents³⁵)

as Jews were after the time of "I have forgiven according to your word."

And this is also the explanation that the Mishkan and its vessels had to be not exclusively of gold,

but also of silver and even of copper — because these three kinds allude to the three aforementioned types of Jews

(as follows p. 69),

and all of them need to be and are connected with the Mishkan,

as above.

6.

The difference between these three kinds: gold,

silver and copper — as it is explained in the inner dimensions of the matters — is reflected

(like all matters of the inner dimension of the Torah)

also in the revealed aspect of the Torah,

down to a practical halachah:

Regarding gold and silver the Gemara says³⁶,

that each of them possesses in itself an advantage relative to the other: the advantage of gold is in that it is more "valuable" than silver; and the advantage of silver is that it is "sharp" — "goes out³⁷

in expenditure and passes from merchant to merchant".

And therefore there are two opinions,

when one appraises silver and gold relative to each other.

Which of them

(outweighs and)

is "the principal [coin]",

and which "the secondary [coin]": one opinion is,

that because gold is "more valuable" it is therefore called "the principal [coin]" — relative to silver; and a second opinion holds

(and so is the halachah³⁸),

that also relative to gold, silver is the principal [coin] because it is "sharp".

that the halacha remains like the second opinion that silver is "currency" relative to gold

(because regarding "currency" the detail of "sharpness" is primarily relevant),

there is additionally an advantage in silver relative to gold that is &lt;b&gt;according to all opinions&lt;/b&gt;: because even according to the opinion that silver is "merchandise" relative to gold,

it is nevertheless &lt;b&gt;simple&lt;/b&gt; that regarding

(actual produce or regarding)

itself it is still called "currency"&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;

: but not so regarding gold,

there is an opinion&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;

that it is "merchandise" even

(regarding actual produce or)

regarding itself].

These two opinions are only regarding the relationship of gold and silver between themselves.

Regarding copper,

however,

all hold that copper is "merchandise" relative to silver&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

and

(according to several methods&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;,

and so is also the halacha&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;)

also relative to gold — copper is lower in rank than both of them&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;.

And although copper is sharper than gold,

nevertheless the "sharpness" of copper cannot outweigh the importance of gold

— because that which regarding the definition of "nature" is halachically "sharp" is more important than "significant,"

as above — this is specifically by silver,

that aside from the "sharpness" it also possesses a significance

(although not as great as by gold — but together with the advantage of sharpness it is decisive).

but not so copper,

which has altogether <b>not</b> any significance

(special),

there is only "sharpness" and that is not enough to outweigh the "significance" of gold⁴⁵.

7.

All matters in physicality derive from that which they exist,

in a spiritual manner,

in their source — and as the language of the Alter Rebbe⁴⁶

: "that they descended from them."

that the aforementioned difference

(in physicality)

between gold and silver

(that the advantage of gold is only in significance,

but it is not "current among merchants"; in contrast, silver is not as significant as gold,

but it has instead the advantage of being "current among merchants")

stems from that in spiritual matters the aspect of "gold" is <b>more significant</b>,

<b>higher</b> than the world

: the world was not worthy to use gold etc.],

and therefore it is not so "current among merchants"; and the aspect of "silver" is not so significant,

i.

e.

a lofty level but not higher than worlds — and because the advantage and significance of the aspect of silver has a connection to the world,

therefore it is "current among merchants."

From this it is understood,

From this it is understood,

that the aspect of copper,

which does not have in itself any importance,

nor the importance of "silver",

is it in the world itself a low level.

And this also corresponds with that "copper" is from the language "serpent"⁴⁸,

which brought the sin of the Tree of Knowledge

(the root of all sins)

— because the concept of "copper" indicates a lowliness in the matters of the world itself⁵⁰.

8.

One must however understand: according to the above,

that that which gold is not "sharp" is it specifically from the side of its virtue and importance

(that it is a very high level — until that,

as above,

the world was not

(including also &lt;b&gt;silver&lt;/b&gt;)

fit to use gold)

— why is it counted only as "subordinate" relative to silver which is so much &lt;b&gt;lower &lt;/b&gt;than it?

So the explanation in this is:

The difference between gold and silver in the "sefirot" above — and in the soul's attributes: "gold" is the aspect of gevurah and "silver" the aspect of chesed, and in the service of man,

it is the distinction between the service of the tzaddikim and the service of the baalei teshuvah: the service of the tzaddikim is a drawing down²⁵

from above to below — chesed and silver; and the service of the baalei teshuvah is an elevation⁵²

from below to above — gevurah and gold⁵³.

That this also corresponds with the fact that the aspect of gold is higher than the world and the aspect of silver is the ultimate elevation that is within the world itself: the service of teshuvah

(elevation from below to above)

is its matter in general — <b>going out</b> from the world⁵⁴

returning to the source; and the service of the tzaddikim is — to draw down

(through Torah and mitzvot)

G‑dliness <b>into</b> the world⁵⁵.

And since the supernal intention is fulfilled specifically in the drawing down of G‑dliness below

of &lt;b&gt;the righteous&lt;/b&gt; with whom He consulted etc.'],

therefore it is ruled in Torah that the "sharpness" of silver outweighs the "importance" of gold.

And added to this: the movement of elevation from below upward,

which is in repentance,

is not set in a fixed manner,

because

also]

&lt;b&gt;its essence&lt;/b&gt; is — to go out of limitation; unlike the service of the righteous,

the service of Torah and commandments,

is in a manner of measurement etc.⁵⁷.

And therefore the law is that "gold" is "a commodity" and "silver" is "currency",

because⁵⁸

the nature of "currency" consists in that its value is fixed⁵⁹,

determined,

unchanging⁶⁰.

9.

And this is also the explanation of the connection between the three types — gold, silver, and copper — to the three levels of the man of Jews: as they were before the sin of the calf,

after the sin and after Yom Kippur:

"Gold",

which alludes to teshuvah,

is the level as Jews were after Yom Kippur: "Silver",

the service of the righteous — this is the level as they were before the sin; and copper,

from the term "nachash" (serpent) — shows the state as they were in the time that is between the sin of the calf and Yom Kippur,

because the sin of the calf is analogous to the sin of the Tree of Knowledge⁶¹

which came through the primordial serpent.

10.

The directive from this in our service is:

There are those who hold

(or it is really so)

that they are on the level of "gold" and "silver",

and therefore they want to separate themselves from other Jews whom they consider on the level of "copper".

So if their words are correct,

that they are the "gold" and "silver",

and the others are "copper",

they must however know that in order that the matter of "And I will dwell in their midst" be actualized by them,

they must connect and unite⁶²

with the Jews who are in the category of "copper"; from gold and silver alone one cannot erect a Mishkan.

And on the other hand,

there is a lesson for the Jews who consider themselves in the category of "copper".

They might think: Who am I and what am I to approach the holy?

They must know,

that also "copper" was a part of the Mishkan,

and on the contrary: there is yet an advantage in "copper" over "silver" and "gold":

A)

The adanim which <b>held up</b> the Chatzer HaMishkan

(But not so the differences of levels of the courtyard and the interior,

up to the Kodesh HaKodashim,

are all within holiness itself)

— and the transition from chol to kodesh is indeed a very great quality "]

were of copper⁶⁵.

b)

Also the curtains of the Mishkan held themselves through "pegs" of copper,

that specifically through them was the Mishkan in a manner of "tent⁶⁷

בל יצען בל יסע <b>יתדותיו</b> <b>לנצח״</b><b>⁶⁸</b>

(From sichos of Shabbos Parshas Shemini 5722,

Shabbos Parshas Vayakhel 5730)