English translation — תרומה ב

1.

At the conclusion of the parshah,

Rashi explains about the pegs ¹

(a)

How the pegs look — "like copper bars",

(b)

What they were used for — "they are made for the curtains of the tent and for the hangings of the courtyard, tied with ropes all around at their hems so that the wind should not lift them."

Afterwards Rashi continues: ,

"And I do not know*¹

whether they are driven into the ground or tied and hanging, and their weight weighs down the hems of the curtains so that they should not move in the wind.

And I say that their name proves about them that they are fixed in the ground, therefore they are called pegs.

And this verse²

supports me: 'The tent shall not be moved, its pegs shall not be pulled up forever.'"

Is in this not understood:

a)

What Rashi says "that the oil proves about them that they are fixed in the ground"; what is the proof from the name "pegs" that they are "fixed in the ground"³?

And if Rashi assumes,

that from the name "pegs" one does have a clear proof that they are "fixed in the ground",

how does he himself say earlier "<b>and I do not know</b> if they are inserted in the ground",

saying explicitly that this is <b>not</b> known?

According to some versions, this entire continuation — beginning from "ואומר אני" until the end — is not the language of Rashi himself,

but an addition that was added by one of his students⁴.

But also according to those versions one cannot answer,

that by Rashi it is indeed not known *⁴

whether the pegs were driven into the ground,

and by his student it was clear with simplicity that the peg is stuck in the ground — because since with the added words "ואומר אני ששמן מוכיח עליהם כו׳" the student intended to bring out a clarification in what Rashi says "ואיני יודע כו׳",

it is then required that he explain how it is proven from "שמן" and not merely say simply in simplicity that there is such a proof.

b)

After Rashi

(or his student)

says "ששמן מוכיח עליהם שהם תקועין בארץ",

he adds further: "ומקרא זה מסייעני כו׳".

And at first glance,

if he already has the proof

(from "שמן")

that a peg is something that is inserted into the ground,

then there is no need for there to be a support ⁵

from the verse ⁶?

3)

Why specifically should there be a doubt by Rashi initially whether the pegs were "thrust into the ground"

(and particularly according to the version that these words "and I say etc." do not originate from Rashi himself — by him it remained in the category of doubt)

— when there is on this an explicit proof from the brought verse "a tent that cannot be moved etc."?

That pegs represent the matter of "fixed"

(inserted,

fastened in),

one sees explicitly in many verses "and she drove the peg"⁷

; "and I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place"⁸

— then apparently Rashi

(or his student)

should have brought the proof from these verses,

firstly,

because they stand

(in Tanakh)

earlier than the brought verse "a tent that cannot be moved etc."; and,

and secondly,

because in them it says explicitly "and she drove"; "and I will fasten him" in connection with "peg" — while from the verse "a tent etc. its pegs cannot be removed forever" the proof is brought

(that the pegs are "fixed")

not from an explicit expression,

but from the implication of the content of the verse

(since it is said "its pegs cannot be removed",

that the pegs are not moved from place,

it is proven that they are "fixed")?

B.

From that which Rashi

(a)

says <b>simply </b>"that the oil proves about them" and

(b)

he does not bring a proof from "and she drove the peg" or "and I will fasten it as a peg",

is a proof,

that regarding the property of pegs in general — there is no doubt for Rashi.

4)

D.

E.

One knows that a peg in general is a thing that is inserted somewhere

(even for digging),

or hooked in and fastened in⁹

And therefore,

also regarding the pegs of the Mishkan,

he says <b>simply </b>

(also according to the explanation that <b>the </b>pegs were <b>not </b>thrust into the ground),

that they were "like <b>copper nails</b>" and nails — in the Holy Tongue — are such things which one drives somewhere¹⁰

— because this is the meaning of pegs,

The doubt is only,

whether they — in the Mishkan — were also <b>in actuality</b> driven into the ground or not.

And his reasoning to say that they were not driven in — although by him it is simple that also the pegs of the Mishkan were like "nails",

i.

e.

they have such a form

(form)

that one can drive them in:

Since the Mishkan was

(in the desert)

not standing permanently in one place¹¹

and they had to dismantle it ¹²,

it is more probable that in order to avoid excessive exertion,

one should hold the curtains and screens by the weight of hanging pegs — rather than by a manner where the pegs are "driven into the ground",

and one would need,

at every dismantling,

to pull out the pegs from the ground and insert them again the next time of reassembling.

But according to this it is not understandable:

a)

If one assumes,

that holding the curtains of the Mishkan,

the <b>weight</b> of the pegs,

then because of this purpose, overall one would not have needed to use any "pegs" whose purpose is to do this action by being stuck in the ground — rather through heavy things — what kind of form would they not have?

b)

Since the doubt is

(<b>not</b> regarding the form of the pegs,

but)

whether <b>in actuality</b> they were inserted,

then what does the proof from

("shemen",

and all the more so from)

the verse "Ahel bal yitsa bal yisa yedotav lanetsach" where it speaks not at all about the Mishkan?

c.

It will become understood by prefacing what Rashi says before this

(in the previous discourse beginning in our verse)

*¹²

: "Makavot <b>litkoa yedot</b> veamudim".

And at first glance,

by Rashi it is yet

(still)

not determined whether the pegs were inserted or hanging — how does he say <b>earlier</b> with certainty "<b>litkoa</b> yedot"?

One must nevertheless say,

that there were in the Mishkan¹³

two kinds of "pegs" — and as Rashi himself says it explicitly in Parshat Nasso *¹³.

"And pegs and cords were for the curtains and for the hangings below etc.

(Regarding which there is the doubt in Rashi's commentary here)

And pegs and cords were for the pillars around to hang upon them the hangings at their upper edge" — and regarding these <b>latter</b> pegs,

there is no doubt by Rashi that they were "driven in" — and it is to these pegs that Rashi is referring in the <b>previous</b> statement.

Because it is simple that the pegs of the pillars — upon which they

(by means of "the poles and hooks"¹⁴)

hung the <b>upper</b> edge of the hangings — they were "<b>driven in</b>" into the pillars and in such a manner held up the hanging curtains.

And it is simple that this has absolutely nothing to do with the weight of the pegs.

And as Rashi himself depicts it in our parshah¹⁵

and explains that the "hooks"

(which according to the context one must say that thereby is meant the <b>pegs</b>¹⁶)

upon which was suspended the "hook through its ring",

were <b>driven</b> into the pillar.

And accordingly one can say,

that the

(lower)

pegs of the curtains and hangings

(in our parshah)

were indeed <b>not</b> thrust into the ground,

but they held the curtains and hangings by their weight

(according to what is more plausible to say,

as above section b)

; and,

why something did one use for this <b>pegs</b> and not other heavy things — it is because since for the same hangings at their upper edge one used pegs

(and there one indeed had to have pegs,

as above),

therefore one also used pegs for the hangings at their lower parts and consequently also for the curtains at their lower parts¹⁷

although one could have used also other things.

4.

And after Rashi explains,

that from the aspect of the matter it is not clear,

Rashi himself brings: "And I say",

that they were inserted in the ground,

and brings on this two proofs:

a)

"That the oil proves about them that they are stuck in the ground therefore they are called pegs": Since the verse calls them here still by the name <b>pegs</b>,

it is from this itself implied,

that this is not only because of their shape of pegs and thereby their shape had <b>no</b> role — rather the <b>weight</b> alone,

but that they were indeed used in accordance with their name¹⁸.

However, since this is not a strong proof

(for after all, there is no clear evidence that the verse calls them pegs because of their functional use as pegs)

— and especially since according to the matter of the Mishkan,

there is against this a reasoning to the contrary,

as mentioned above,

that they were not driven in,

since one could manage without them — therefore Rashi brings another proof:

b)

"And this verse supports me: 'A tent that cannot be moved, whose pegs shall never be pulled out' — from <b>this</b> verse one sees that the way to hold up a <b>tent</b>

(which is, after all, a relocation from place to place¹⁹)

is through pegs that cannot be moved from their place,

meaning that they are thrust into the ground.

And consequently

(not only does the aforementioned reasoning fall away, that one sufficed with hanging pegs,

but <b>on the contrary</b>)

— "And this verse <b>supports me</b>": from that which the verse teaches us,

that a significant tent

(a tent that cannot be moved)

the proper way is to secure it with pegs thrust into the ground²⁰,

there is support for Rashi's assumption regarding the <b>tent</b> of the Mishkan,

the most important tent,

that there they were driven into the ground.

Yet it is however understood,

that after all this it is not a complete proof,

and in any case it is not excluded,

that regarding the Mishkan in particular

(according to its essence and its special conditions*²⁰)

it was different — therefore Rashi says at the approach to the subject

(a priori)

: "<b>And I do not know</b>"; and also his later clarification he says in a language of "And I say",

that so it appears to him,

meaning thereby that a complete clarification it is not.

5.

It has already been spoken many times,

that in Rashi's commentary on the Torah — even there where he is out to explain only the <b>simple meaning</b> and not any halachos — there are also matters of halacha and

(all the more so²¹)

matters of the inner dimension of the Torah,

and in the language of our Sages²²

— "the wine of the Torah".

The law regarding Shabbat is,

that that which the work of building is forbidden from the Torah on Shabbat is it only the work of a permanent building,

but the work of a temporary building,

is forbidden only rabbinically²³.

What is the definition of a permanent building?

— this is also related and dependent on the distinction between these two possible manners in the interpretation of "יתדות" that Rashi lets us hear in his commentary on our parshah:

If one would assume,

that the pegs held the curtains and screens fast through their weight,

one understands from this — since all the labors of Shabbat are derived from the labor of the Mishkan²⁴

— that even when one builds a tent that is <b>not</b> fastened in a manner of "fixed"

(by pegs and the like),

if only it is sufficiently firm not to be "moved and swayed by a common wind"²⁴,

it is already considered a permanent structure and is prohibited by Torah law; but if one will assume like the interpretation that the pegs were inserted,

it must turn out,

that the prohibition of building on Shabbat by Torah law — is specifically when building a tent in a manner of "fixed".

6.

As mentioned above,

in Rashi's commentary there is "the wine of Torah".

From the matters of the inner dimension of the Torah that are hinted at in our Rashi:

It is explained in Chassidus²⁶,

that the Beis HaMikdash was built mainly from domem,

and the Mishkan — from tzomeach and chai.

And although it is simple,

that the hashraas haShechinah — the matter of "v'shachanti b'socham"²⁷

— was revealed also in the earth

(domem)

that was in the ground of the Mishkan²⁸,

nevertheless, the holiness of the ground of the Mishkan is not equal to the holiness of the curtains and the beams: the curtains and beams were holy in their own right,

but the earth of the ground of the Mishkan — its holiness came only from the Mishkan

(the curtains and beams)

that stood upon it.

And after they removed the Mishkan from that place — in the ground,

where the Mishkan had stood,

nothing remained of the former holiness²⁹.

And this is the superiority of the Beis HaMikdash over the Mishkan.

In the Beis HaMikdash, the holiness that is in the domem — even in the domem of the <b>ground</b> of the Beis HaMikdash — is a holiness in its own right.

And also after the churban — after the destruction of the First Beis HaMikdash³⁰,

or after the destruction of the Second Beis HaMikdash,

which was in the manner of "aru aru ad hayesod bah"³¹

— they destroyed <b>down to</b> the foundations³²

or — also³³

the foundations³⁴

— nevertheless, according to several opinions, holiness remained in the place of the Mikdash³⁵.

7.

The question is however: how strong and how deep was the holiness of the ground of the Mishkan at the time that the Mishkan stood there — and this depends on the two interpretations of "pegs" that Rashi brings out here:

According to the interpretation that the pegs held up the Mishkan only through their weight,

it must follow that this holiness that is influenced from the Mishkan into the ground of the Mishkan is only a consequence,

it affected the earth only externally,

it is not connected with that area of ground as a <b>specific</b> [place],

but only as ground in general,

since even when it stood, the Mishkan was not fastened through <b>connection</b> and insertion into the ground,

but held itself <b>upon</b> the ground through another thing — the weight of the pegs³⁶.

But not according to the explanation that the pegs were "thrust into the ground",

the holiness of the Mishkan penetrated into that area of land in an inward manner.

Moreover — that the Mishkan was fixed in its place,

the tent not moving — this came from the ground of the Mishkan; that specific area,

the ground of the Mishkan is the cause of the permanence of the Mishkan

(so that its holiness is greater — than when the Mishkan is dismantled.

And it is relevant to several laws)³⁷.

8.

It is known,

that the holiness of

(the Mishkan and)

the Holy Temple shone also throughout the entire world³⁸.

From this it is understood,

that through the building of the Holy Temple, every Jew was given a power

(in their "And they shall make Me a Sanctuary" in the soul³⁹)

to bring down holiness throughout the entire world and in an inward and permanent manner — similar to the holiness of the Holy Temple.

And from this comes forth a lesson,

that every Jew,

wherever he may be — even when he finds himself in a land of the nations that the Torah rules that its air and its earth are impure

— he has the power to refine his portion in the world and to draw down holiness there in an internal and permanent manner,

in the likeness of the holiness of the Holy Temple.

And this is the explanation of the statement of our Sages, of blessed memory,

that the synagogues and study halls in the Diaspora are a "miniature Sanctuary" and they will in the future be taken to the Land of Israel — because through their prayer and Torah, Jews draw down holiness also into the houses themselves that are of stones and wood and earth

and which are located outside the Land — and the holiness remains in them,

until that eventually they are taken to the Land of Israel.

And so,

On the other hand: through the fact that every Jew now draws down holiness in his portion in the world,

the preparation is brought about for "In the future, Jerusalem will spread throughout all the Land of Israel ⁴³

and in the future, the Land of Israel will spread throughout all the lands"⁴⁴

— and everywhere,

in the entire world,

a wellspring of the holiness of the Holy Temple will be spread^45;

its meaning is indeed "a house of habitation for You"⁴⁶

— then one will see how the entire world is a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He,

and moreover, the primary dwelling place — in the lower realms⁴⁷.

And just as in the Holy Temple they would pronounce the Name as it is written⁴³

— that the Name Havayah was in a manner of <b>pronunciation</b>

(in revelation)

— so too will it be throughout the entire world "Havayah is One and His Name is One — pronounced with yud hei

(as it is)

and written with yud hei"⁴⁹

— in the true and complete redemption,

through our righteous Mashiach,

may he come and redeem us speedily, literally.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Terumah 5725)