I
But only to the place which Hashem, your G-d, shall choose from all your tribes to rest His Name there; you shall inquire after His dwelling and come there (Devarim 12:5).
And the place that Hashem, your G-d, will choose to rest His Name in, there you shall bring all that I am commanding you: your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the separation of your hand, and the choicest of vows which you will vow to Hashem (ibid. v. 11).
These verses appearing at the beginning of parshas Re'eh refer to the eventual choosing of a permanent Mikdash in which to offer korbanos. The selection of a central Mikdash would ban the offering of sacrifices on private bamos or altars (ibid. v. 13-14) [1]. The fact that the location of the Mikdash was not immediately revealed coupled with the Torah's commandment "l'shichno sidreshu - inquire after His dwelling" conveys the need to anxiously long for the Temple before it is built and to eagerly seek out opportunities to visit it when it does exist - ultimately encountering Hashem's Presence resting there. (See Chagiga (2a).)
Several additional sections in our parsha also present mitzvos directly or indirectly related to the Mikdash. These include the bringing of the first fruits to the sanctuary and ma'aser sheini to Jerusalem (v. 6 & 17), offering the first-born animal to the kohein to bring as a korban (ibid.), redeeming a sacrifice with a defect before consuming its meat (12:15 and Rashi), offering the korban Pesach (16:1-2, 5-7), and rejoicing before Hashem three times a year while being oleh regel for the festivals (16:1 ff.).
Perhaps we can suggest that whereas last week's Torah reading, parshas Eikev, places a major emphasis on the spiritual and physical aspects of Eretz Yisrael,[2] our parsha focuses on the even more intensely sanctified areas of Yerushalayim and the Mikdash. (See Keilim 1:6 ff.) Much has been written about the interrelationship of kedushas Eretz Yisrael and kedushas haMikdash. Here, we focus on several aspects of the uniqueness of the Mikdash[3].
At first glance, Rambam and Ramban dispute the central purpose of the Mikdash. Ramban (beginning of Teruma) explains that the Mishkan and later the Mikdash was a continuation of the Divine revelation of Sinai. Specifically, the luchos and the sefer Torah housed in the aron were of course the content of the revelation of Sinai; the gold of the keruvim represented the great fire of the Sinai experience[4]. The revelation of the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu continued at the Mishkan (see Vayikra 1:1 and Rashi there). True, a major aspect of the avodas haMishkan consisted of the offering of korbanos, but, for Ramban, this seemingly was secondary not primary.
By contrast, Rambam (Hilchos Beis Habechira 1:1) seemingly highlights the bringing of korbanos as the raison d'etre of the sanctuary. In his words:
It is a positive commandment to construct a House for G-d, prepared for sacrifices to be offered within. We [must] celebrate there three times a year...[5]
This debate seems to be further underscored by the fact that Rambam includes the construction of all of the klei haMikdash in the one general commandment of building the Mikdash (see Sefer Hamitzvos, Asei 20). By contrast, Ramban (gloss to Asei 33) maintains that the mitzvah of forming each kli is included in the commandment to perform the particular avoda unique to that vessel. For example, the mitzvah to build the shulchan is included in the mitzvah to place the lechem hapanim on it. Since the aron kodesh does not have a particular service associated with it, its construction, in his view, is indeed counted as a separate mitzvah. By highlighting the unique, separate commandment to build the Holy Ark, Ramban further underscores his thesis that the main thrust of the Mikdash was the continuation of the Sinai experience. Rambam who does not count the building of the aron as a separate commandment seems to have a different understanding of the purpose of the Mikdash.
However, a careful reading of Rambam leads to the conclusion that he also views the aron's role as absolutely fundamental. Rambam carefully outlines the construction of each kli of the Mikdash (Beis Habechira 1:18-3:18) but says nothing about the construction of the aron although he describes its placement (ibid. 4:1). The simple explanation for this distinction might be based on the fact that the aron of Moshe's time traditionally will never permanently be lost; consequently, there is no need to describe its construction. By contrast, the other keilim might indeed be lost or otherwise defiled and might need to be replaced.[6] But another Rambam would remain cryptic even if we accept this explanation. The Talmud (Yoma 53b) quotes a debate as to what happened to the aron at the end of the first Temple period. One opinion is that it was exiled to Babylon; another states that it was hidden directly underneath the Kodesh Kadashim. The Rambam rules in accordance with the latter view (ibid.). Why does the Rambam deem it necessary to rule concerning this matter which is seemingly only a matter of Jewish history? Rav Y. D. Soloveitchik zt"l explains that the Rambam views the aron bimkomo (in its place) as a crucial component of the very definition of Mikdash. However, the halachic tradition states, according to the aforementioned latter opinion, that there are two places for the aron: above and below the ground. Whereas in normal times its proper place is above ground in the kodesh kadashim, in dangerous times, where there was fear of enemy forces seizing the aron, its proper place was geographically in the same location but vertically under it. This approach also helps explain more fundamentally why the Rambam omits the construction of the aron even though he describes that of all the rest of the keilim. The other vessels are spiritual furniture in the Mikdash; the aron is part and parcel of the very definition of Mikdash. When the Torah commands "v'asu li Mikdash," it, in effect, is charging bnei Yisrael to create a place for the aron on which Hashem's Shechina will rest, continuing ma'amad har Sinai as Ramban states. In that Mikdash, defined by the aron, various keilim have to be constructed, all described in turn by Rambam. Thus, when Rambam writes "It is a positive commandment to construct a House for G-d, prepared for sacrifices...," by the phrase, "House of G-d," he means that house containing the aron which defines its purpose - to house the Torah and, because of that, the Shechina. It is at that location that we serve Hashem with the various korban offerings. Thus, Rambam's and Ramban's respective positions can be viewed as essentially similar.
II
The additional prayer of nacheim is recited traditionally only at mincha of Tisha B'av, the day designated to mourn the destruction of the Mikdash specifically and, more generally, all of Jewish tragedy which is viewed as an extension of the former destruction. The Rosh challenges this custom to recite nacheim only at mincha rather than at all the prayers (see Beis Yosef 557). Ritva (ibid.) explains why, even though, in his view, the "nacheim" prayer should be recited in all the tefilos of Tisha B'Av, the prayer should be introduced with the word racheim (have mercy) at ma'ariv and shacharis; only at mincha should it begin with nacheim (console). The reason he offers, somewhat cryptically, is that the morning of Tisha B'av is similar to the period of mi shemeiso mutal lefanav, or the time after death but before burial. Only toward evening, at mincha time, when the Mikdash was set aflame by our enemies, does the period similar to burial begin. Nechama, comfort, is only offered after burial; similarly, the word nacheim is only relevant after the "burial" of the Mikdash[7]. Rav Chanoch Sanhedrai shlit"a [8] shared a deeper understanding of the words of Ritva. Before the physical destruction of the Mikdash, Hashem's Shechina, the "soul" of the Mikdash, had already left it. This is directly parallel to the process of death defined as the exit of the soul from the body, yetzias haneshama. Only the "body" of the Mikdash was still there. Its physical destruction toward evening was parallel to burial; hence, that is the time for nechama.
Many sources indicate that the eventual rebuilding of the Mikdash and, indeed, of all of Eretz Yisrael will follow a reverse order from that of their destruction. First, the physical edifice, the body, will be reconstructed. Only then will the neshama, the Shechina or, in the case of Eretz Yisrael, all spiritual matters, return in their fullest capacity. See the footnote for some sources on these concepts.[9]
Elsewhere, we have elaborated on the crucial avoda of longing for the building of the Mikdash and how Hashem sometimes will bring about massive unrest among the Jewish people until we do so.[10] May the seven weeks of comfort we are currently in leading up the High Holiday season together with our realization of how much is missing when Hashem's Or Panim (radiating countenance) does not fully shine upon us as it did in the days of the Temple lead to ever increasing longing for this most-central feature of our Divine service!
[1] See Rashi on the first passuk who explains that of the two verses the former refers to Mishkan Shilo - which, although lasting several hundred years, was destined to be replaced - whereas the latter pertains to the permanent sanctuary in Jerusalem.
[2] See The Fruits of Eretz Yisrael: Outer and Inner Dimensions for further elaboration on this theme.
[3] Most of what is presented here is based on shiurim I was privileged to hear from mori v'Rabi Rav Hershel Schachter shlit"a. Any errors in presentation are my own.
[4] See also The Mishkan, Har Sinai, Torah and Eretz Yisrael for further elaboration upon this theme.
[5] Translation courtesy of Chabad.org from the Rabbi Eliyahu Touger edition of Mishne Torah.
[6] See Ramban (gloss to Asei 33) as to why this explanation is unsatisfying.
[7] This would also explain the common Ashkenazic custom mentioned by Rosh to say the nacheim prayer only at mincha.
[8] A dayan in Ramat Beit Shemesh.
[9] Concerning the Mikdash see Aruch Laneir (Sukka 41a); concerning Eretz Yisrael see Megila (17b-18a) and Rav Kook's "Hamispeid BiYerushalayim" on the need for mashiach ben Yosef and mashiach ben David.
[10] See Thoughts on Shavuos, Corona and Coronation.