Pekudei. The Most Important Ingredient in Bringing the Shechina

Brief outline:   
מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו
The Rambam applies the rule of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו in three places: in one, he says "mitzvah," and in the other two, "chiyuv."
Use the Tosfos Ri'd to say that some mitzvos have an aspect of  מצוה שבגופו, although technically they are not מצוה שבגופו. 
These are the mitzvos where, more than mitzvos in general that are mekadesh us, the תוצאה is the תועלת of being mashreh the Shechina on us as individuals. 
The Rambam holds that in the case of these hybrid mitzvos, מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו generates chiyuv, not just mitzvah.
A general overview of the rules of  מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו.

Pekudei ends the series of Parshios that describe the instructions for, the funding of, and the realization of the construction of the Mishkan.  The Mitzva to build the Mishkan is synonymous with the Mitzva to build a Beis Hamikdash.  This mitzva applies to us today and forever; when we will finally have a Beis Hamikdash, this mitzvah will be to maintain it.

The Rambam frames the mitzva thus:

והכל חייבין לבנות ולסעד בעצמן ובממונם אנשים ונשים כמקדש המדבר.

All are obligated to build and to assist, with their person and with their money, men and women, just as was true for the Mishkan of the Desert.

Note that the Rambam says בעצמן, with their person.  Apparently, the Rambam is teaching us that the mitzva of building the mikdash cannot be entirely delegated: one must do it at least something personally and physically.  

Where did the Rambam get this?  There is no Chazal that says this explicitly.  So the Rambam must be based either on some diyuk, an analytical derivation specific to Binyan Beis Hamikdash, or on some general rule.  The most likely explanation is that the Rambam is based on the general rule

מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו

A Mitzvah is better done by the person rather than his agent.  Mitzva bo yoser mibishlucho.

The problem is that this is a preference, not an obligation, and if this is what the Rambam means, he shouldn't have said chayav/obligated, he should have said Mitzva, preferable.

The Rambam does use this same expression in another application. 30 Shabbos 6:

אע"פ שהיה אדם חשוב ביותר ואין דרכו ליקח דברים מן השוק ולא להתעסק במלאכות שבבית חייב לעשות דברים שהן לצורך השבת בגופו שזה הוא כבודו. חכמים הראשונים מהם מי שהיה מפצל העצים לבשל בהן. ומהן מי שהיה מבשל או מולח בשר או גודל פתילות או מדליק נרות. ומהן מי שהיה יוצא וקונה דברים שהן לצורך השבת ממאכל ומשקה אף על פי שאין דרכו בכך. וכל המרבה בדבר זה הרי זה משובח: 

Even a dignified person who does not publicly shop or do housework is obligated to physically make preparations for Shabbos for this is his honor.  (examples follow-great Talmidei Chachamim that split kindling, one that cooked or salted meat, or made wicks, or went to the store and bought food and drink for Shabbos.)  And doing ever more is ever more praiseworthy.

We know exactly from where the Rambam got this halacha: Shabbos119a and Kiddushin 41a, almost verbatim.  The Gemara in Kiddushin brings the stories about preparing for Shabbos to illustrate the rule of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו, a rule that appears only there in Kiddushin, and which is explicitly applied only to two cases- Kiddushin/betrothal and preparation for Shabbos.


So its clear that the Rambam does use the word Chayav when he is referring to מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו.  This is puzzling, because it is clear in the Gemara in Kiddushin that מצוה means preference, not obligation.  The Mishna says one can be mekadesh with a shliach, and the Gemara says that although betroth a woman via a representative, it is preferable to do it yourself because of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו.  Then, alternatively, the Gemara says that there might be an actual issur in sending a shliach, because one must see a woman before betrothal.  The Gemara says that the difference between the two explanations is that the second approach is one of Chiyuv/issur, and the first is one of mitzvah.   So the Rambam is puzzling.

The Mishna Berura (Biur Halacha in 250 D"H Yishtadel) notes that when the Mechaber quotes the Rambam, he uses the word Yishtadel (he should endeavor) instead of Chayav (he is obligated.)  The Mishna Berura says that it is possible that the Rambam himself didn't really mean Chayav, he just meant that it's very important, because if it weren't, these great Chachamim wouldn't leave their learning to do these things when they would be done by others anyway.  But he ends with a Tzarich Iyun, because we know that when the Rambam says Chayav, he probably means chayav. 

(The Aruch Hashulchan is even more interesting.  He says (250:3) that  מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו is a hiddur, and you can be yotzei this hiddur by having your spouse do it, because Ishto K'Gufo!  I'm not sure whether this is because of a high regard for the concept of Ishto K'gufo, or because of a low estimation of MBYM.)

But now that we've pointed out the same anomaly in the Rambam in Beis Habechira, it's hard to believe that he meant Chayav as "very important."  This is particularly interesting, because in the primary application, that one should be mekadesh personally, the Rambam does not say Chayav!  The Rambam in 3 Ishus 19 says

מצוה שיקדש אדם את אשתו בעצמו יותר מעל ידי שלוחו. וכן מצוה לאשה שתקדש עצמה בידה יותר מעל ידי שלוחה.

 It is a Mitzva to be mekadesh personally rather than through a shliach.

What happened to Chayav?  Of course, the answer is that  מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו is just mitzvah, not chayav.

So it has become harder to accept the Mishna Berura's suggestion.  If the Rambam uses מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו only three times, and two of those times he says chayav and once he says mitzvah, it's most likely that when he said chayav he meant chayav and when he said mitzva he meant mitzva.  So, what does the Rambam have in mind?  Why would מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו sometimes mean Mitzva and sometimes mean Chayav?

The answer:
The Ktzos in 382 brings the Tosfos Ri'd that says there are some mitzvos that you can delegate and some that you can't.  The ones that involve your body- מצוה שבגופו- cannot be delegated; wearing tefillin, sitting in the Sukkah, and so forth.  Other mitzvos are not called מצוה שבגופו, bodily mitzvos, such as Kiddushin or designating Teruma, and are effective via shliach.

As we've seen, even among those mitzvos that can be done via shliach, the general rule of  מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו applies, and tells us that it is better to do them yourself.  But I propose that there is a third category; mitzvos that although technically are not מצוה שבגופו/bodily mitzvos, do have a צד, an aspect of bodily mitzvos. 


These are the mitzvos whose purpose is the תוצאה, the effect, on the individual or the group who does the mitzva.  The effect of these mitzvos is to be mashreh the Shechina on Klal Yisrael individually and as a people.

בתוכו לא נאמר אלא בתוכם- בתוך לבו של כל אחד ואחד 

תרומה כ'ה ח' , של"ה שכ'ה ב'  ושכ'ו ובשער האותיות אות ל' , ואלשיך שם, and see מהר'ל there.

So by Binyan Habayis, the Hashra'as Hashechina is explicit in this passuk.   But how do I know that Shemiras Shabbos is mashreh the Shechina just like the Beis Hamikdash?  Because of the Gemara in Shabbos 118b.

אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי אלמלי משמרין ישראל שתי שבתות כהלכתן מיד נגאלים שנא' (ישעיהו נו) כה אמר ה' לסריסים אשר ישמרו את שבתותי וכתיב בתריה  וַהֲבִיאוֹתִים אֶל הַר קָדְשִׁי וְשִׂמַּחְתִּים בְּבֵית תְּפִלָּתִי עוֹלֹתֵיהֶם וְזִבְחֵיהֶם לְרָצוֹן עַל מִזְבְּחִי  

Reb Yochanan in the name of Reb Shimon bar Yochai:  If only Klal Yisrael would properly observe two Shabbasos they would immediately be redeemed, as it says "So says Hashem to the childless who observe my Shabbasos," and afterwards it says "and I will bring them to My holy mountain and make them glad in My house of prayer, (where) their offerings and sacrifices on my altar will please Me...."

We see that Shemiras Shabbos and the Beis Hamikdash are intimately connected, and that both bring Hashra'as Hashechina.

If you don't like the tzushtell, you can look at it from the perspective that Shabbos brings a Neshama Yeseirah.  In any case, the point is that Shabbos has an immediate and personal effect on the person who is Shomer Shabbos.

Both the Mikdash and Shabbos brings Hashra'as Hashechina to individuals.  To accomplish this, it's not enough to have it done on your behalf.  You have to do it yourself, physically; to some extent it is a מצוה שבגופו.  In these cases, the meaning of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו is that it is a chiyuv, not just a mitzvah.  By Binyan Mikdash and Shabbos, the mitzvos bring Hashra'as Hashechina.  By Kiddushin, the kiddushin might lead to Hashra'as Hashechina if the couple creates a house of shalom and kedusha (Sotah 17a), it is certainly a precursor, but it is not the proximate cause; the Kiddushin is too early in the process to say that it is Mashreh Shechina.  So Kiddushin is really not different than other mitzvos.  Where the mitzva does contribute to Hashra'as Hashechina, then there is a general hiddur mitzvah to do it yourself, but there is not a chiyuv.


So look at it this way:   When you're building the Beis Hamikdash, and when you prepare something special for Shabbos, do not make the mistake of thinking that the cheftzah shel mitzvah, the mitzvah commodity, is the object you're working on, the kli shareis, or the cholent.  You are the Cheftza shel Mitzvah.  And if it's you, it's no different than Tefillin (Tosfos Ri'd in Ha'ish Mekadeish), and you can't mail it in.

I was reminded about this recently when I remembered a man that lived in my neighborhood.  He was a dignified man, a man who achieved great financial success, and who was very involved in community education and chesed organizations.  Every once in a while, I would find him polishing the brass rails of the Bima in Shul.  This man could have flown in a Rumanian to do it every week, but he wanted to do it himself.  Yehoshua was zocheh to lead Klal Yisrael (Bamidbar Rabba 21:14) because he insisted on setting out the benches in the yeshiva himself.  In Kelm, there was an annual lottery to determine who would have the honor of emptying the trash can that stood in the Beis Medrash.  Let's all remember that chavivus mitzva means that every once in a while you roll up your sleeves and do it yourself.


General discussion of  מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו (hereinafter MBYM):

Does MBYM apply to all mitzvos?  

• Mechaber OC 260:2 and Magen Avraham SK 1- Yes.  Shaarei Teshuva OC 250 in name of Tosfos Shabbos- Yes, even to prepare the Seuda for a Bris or a wedding.  Yoreh Deah 305:10, Reb Akiva Eiger and the Gaon both say that lechatchila all mitzvos should be done by you and not a Shliach.  (By the way, a close relative of mine is married to Reb Reuven Feinstein's daughter, and when I was visiting the Yeshiva of Staten Island, I surprised Reb Reuven and his Rebbitzen as they were setting the tables for a grandchild's bris.  I asked why they were doing it, when there were literally hundreds of others that would be thrilled to take over from them, and Reb Reuven told me "מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו". ) 

• The Tshuvos Or Zarua (Siman 11), however, says that in all mitzvos where the purpose is "to bring about a condition," it doesn't matter at all who does the act.  The examples he gives are Milah on a son, teaching your son Torah, building a Sukkah, having someone else put tefillin on you, and having someone else putting a tallis on you.  (I have no idea how the Or Zarua learns the Gemara in Kiddushin.  Preparing Shabbos meals and doing Kiddushin are perfect examples of "bringing about a condition," and despite that, the Gemara applies the rule of MBYM.)  The Chochmas Shlomo in OC 260 also holds that MBYM only applies to Kiddushin and Shabbos, and argues with the Magen Avraham, and says that the Minhag to bake matza yourself is based on something completely different.

Does MBYM mean you have to do the whole thing yourself, or only start the mitzva yourself?

• The Pri Megadim on the Magen Avraham 432 SK 5 that says that מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו applies to Bedikas Chametz says that if you start by yourself, you can delegate the rest of the house, and it's not a problem.  What matters is that you started by yourself.  This is really self evident, inasmuch as the Gemara in Kiddushin and Shabbos don't say that you have to make the whole Shabbos yourself.  It just says that you should do one of the initial steps of preparation- singeing the skin, salting the fish, etc.

If you did use a Shliach, can you fix things later?

• The Bendiner Illui, in his Gilyonei Hashas in Kiddushin 41, brings that there is a minhag that if you're mekadeish with a shliach, then when the woman shows up, to be mekadeish her yourself.  Some say it's a meaningless minhag, but he explains it's like Hekdesh Illui miderabanan where your aris was mafrish teruma.  I would shtell tzu the mitzva to be makdish the bechor even though it's kadosh mei'rechem (Erchin 28b-29a) where it's clearer.

Does it apply to Hechsher mitzva?

• Magen Avraham in 453 says that because of  מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו some people go to see the grinding of their Matza, even though it's only a hechsher.  
• The Netziv in Sheiltos 169 says that for a general hechsher, there's no din of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו.  But if the Hechsher is mentioned in the Torah, then there is a din of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו.  Examples- building the sukkah, the Shimur of Matza, and making Tzitzis. 
• Pnei Yeshoshua in Brachos 18 says clearly that there's no din of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו on Hechsher mitzva, like digging a grave. 
• But a careful reading of the Ran in Kiddushin 41 and the Yam shel Shlomo there shows that they hold that MBYM does apply to Hechsher Mitzvah.

Is there any difference between  מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו and the din of זה קלי ואנוהו, that is, הידור מצוה?  

• Maybe the din of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו is based on הידור.
• Maybe not.  Maybe it's just a svara, as Rashi there indicates, about greater schar.
  
• If it is, then maybe it should be talui in the machlokes Rashi and Tosfos in the beginning of Lulav Hagazul in Sukka 29b, whether the psul gamur of yaveish is based on the general din of hiddur (Rashi), that every mitzvah that is totally lacking hiddur is 100% passul,  or on a specific requirement of hiddur by esrog and therefore by lulav (Tosfos), because ve'anveihu can't possibly result in a psul gamur.  This might also yield an explanation of the Rambam, if delegating some mitzvos results in an absolute lack of hiddur.

What is more important, מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו or הידור מצוה?

• The Chayei Adam in 68 talks about whether better to write a Sefer Torah or Mezuza or Tefillin by yourself kosher but poorly, or hire an expert Sofer who will write with Hiddur.  He paskens that מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו is more important than הידור מצוה, which is obviously not the opinion of the Aruch Hashulchan in 250:3 that I mentioned above.

******************************************

What does נישואין (Nisu'in) mean?

COMMENTS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE POST, AS NOTED BELOW.

I spoke at a Sheva Brachos yesterday, and one of the things I talked about is the word "Nisu'in."  נישואין means marriage; it is the second stage of the Eirusin and Nisu'in marriage process, and it finalizes the marriage.  I want to know the meaning of the word itself.

I mentioned this question at the table Friday night, and Someone answered that it means "to become burdened," from רחיים בצווארו, a millstone around the neck, an idiomatic expression used in the Gemara to refer to the responsibilities of marriage.  This Person meant that נישואין/marriage is like שאת וספחת  by Metzora, two types of skin growths that symptomize Leprosy.  I asked This Person which of the parties is thus burdened, and she answered "The one who was chased."  Very funny, but I don't think that's the only answer, at least I hope not, and it's certainly not something you want to hear from one of your parents.  (Full disclosure: see Yevamos 63b:  אשה רעה צרעת לבעלה מאי תקנתיה יגרשנה ויתרפא מצרעתו)

אירושין, which is spelled ארוסין in the literature, Eirusin, is easier.  It's pretty obvious that Eirusin comes from the same shoresh as ארשת  שפתיו, which means speech or words; so, eirusin means to give your word, to agree or to pledge to marry.  The agreement is made binding through the kinyan, and the woman becomes prohibited to all other men, but the essence is the promise.  The word is identical with the English 'Troth,' which means to promise or to pledge.  Eirusin=betrothal.  Simple.  But what does Nesuin mean?  If you'll look around on the web, you'll see hundreds of people that say it means 'elevation.'  If anything, that's a raya that it doesn't mean that.  One clown makes an assertion, puts it on a website, and every lazy ignoramus assumes it's correct.  For a drasha, it's ok-- כל אדם שאין לו אשה שרוי בלא שמחה בלא ברכה בלא טובה... במערבא אמרי בלא תורה"—“ (Yevamos 62b.)  Or maybe it means the elevation of simcha.  But for pshat, I highly doubt it.


In any case, the question is particularly timely, because in the three parshios, Ki Sisa, Vayakhel, and Pikudei, we find the word used remarkably often, and in many different ways--

כִּי תִשָּׂא אֶת רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

כָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר נָדְבָה רוּחוֹ אֹתוֹ, 

 וְאֶל כָּל אִישׁ חֲכַם לֵב אֲשֶׁר נָתַן ה'  חָכְמָה בְּלִבּוֹ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ לְקָרְבָה אֶל הַמְּלָאכָה לַעֲשֹׂת אֹתָהּ,
אשר נשא לבן אותנה בחכמה, 

 נֹשֵׂא עָו‍ֹן וָפֶשַׁע וְחַטָּאָה,

 אַהֲרֹן וְכָל הַנְּשִׂאִים בָּעֵדָה

and many, many, more.

Please note that in musaf of Yom Tov, we also says "והשיאנו ה' אלוקינו את ברכת מועדיך." And there's  
וַיִּשָּׂא מַשְׂאֹת מֵאֵת פָּנָיו אֲלֵהֶם וַתֵּרֶב מַשְׂאַת בִּנְיָמִן מִמַּשְׂאֹת כֻּלָּם where it means a gift,
and ישא מדברותיו,
and  הֲלוֹא אִם תֵּיטִיב שְׂאֵת
and שאת וספחת
and others.  So, please tell me what you think it means in the context of getting married.  And please, I already did the drushy thing (Marriage is a gift  (מַשְׂאַת) from the Chasan to the Kalah, and from the Kalah to the Chasan, and from Hashem to both of them; Marriage is an opportunity to elevate (כִּי תִשָּׂא) yourself by learning to love another person more than yourself; Marriage is when you take on responsibility for a family; Marriage is when you have to listen to your heart (נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ) as well as your mind;  חתן דומה למלך and the word נישואין comes from נְּשִׂאִים because the Chasan and Kallah become a king and a queen (נְּשִׂאִים), and so on).  I'm looking for something rational.

In a salute to ingenuity, and since it's still Adar, let me point out that Devora in the comments suggested that nisuin is related to  נסיון, nisayon, a test.  Every marriage is a test. Rabbi Dr. SMS suggested in a conversation that Eirusin is related to ארס, eres, poison.  Also, see great unknown's law- "The Conservation of  Golomus" based on the Gemara in Sanhedrin.  These are people who, when I ask why we learn the dinim of kidushin from the dinim of buying a plot of land for a grave, don't understand what the kashe is.

AFTER THE UPDATES, YOU WILL FIND AN CONCISE VERSION OF THE COMMENTS THAT CAME IN ON THIS TOPIC.  I ATTEMPTED TO EDIT THEM FOR LOGICAL FLOW.  THESE COMMENTS ARE HEREWITH MADE A PART OF THIS POST, AND WILL IMPROVE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE TWO UPDATES THAT PRECEDE THE EDITED COMMENTS.

UPDATE:
1.  Eli points out that the roots with the shin smalis and the shin yemanis have completely different meanings, so it's not likely that nisu'in would be pronounced with a smalis if it came from Nasha; it is more likely that the Midrash is homiletics, not etymology.

2.  More comments that came in on the topic (though I would prefer getting them in the comment section, I am happy to hear from you through any media):
a.  The Gemara in Sanhedrin 31b uses the root to mean "compel."

השיאוהו ויראה פנינו בטבריא. הכריחוהו והזקיקוהו לבוא כאן

b.  A connection to the expression "נושא בעול עם חבירו", which means to accept their burdens and duties as if they were your own.

UPDATE:
LKWD GUY sent me a little note, to look at Rashi Sotah top of 9b.  What do you know! Another Rashi I forgot!  (And thank you Eli, for twisting the knife by pointing out that Rashi says exactly the same thing on top of Shabbos 146a.  I wonder what life would be like if I had a good memory.)

נחש הקדמוני נתן עיניו בחוה ובא עליה. והיינו דכתיב (בראשית ג) הנחש השיאני- לשון תשמיש ונשואין הוא

Now that we decided that Nisuin means "taking on," here we have a Rashi that throws the entire discussion up in the air again.  I could, of course, argue that Rashi is not referring to the denotation of the word "nisu'in" but instead to its connotation, but I need a while to convince myself that this might be true.  (writing a year later, I've decided that Rashi is purely Drush, it's homiletic and not interpretive.  But it's interesting that Rashi relates the word Hishi'ani to Nisu'in, since Hishi'ani primarily means deluded me, and so I suppose Nisu'in means delusion.  But that's just drush, right?  We all go into marriage with an completely accurate knowledge of whom we're marrying, right?)

LATER UPDATE:
I learned of a Tiferes Yisrael in Yevamos 7th perek comment #7 who asks this question, and, in Drush mode, suggests many of the answers that appear here, including some that I made fun of, and additional explanations as well.  See there.

AND here are the edited comments.

Eli said...

First it should be noticed that נישואין is not symmetric (grammatically), it's the man who is נושא and the woman נשאת, so the answer to your query to That Person is self-evident.  נשא in Tanach can mean many things, but the four common meanings are (a) to carry (b) to take (or, better translated, get hold on something) and, (probably derived from (a) and (b)), (c) to suffer (d) to forgive. As much as (c) and (d) might seem relevant, I guess the meaning here is (b). Just recall that the alternative form in Tanach to לשאת אשה is לקחת אשה.

Barzilai said...

You know, Eli, I thought about nisuin as 'taking', but I thought it was odd that we distinguish between the two steps of marriage by calling one eirusin and the second nisuin, while in Chumash, ki yikach refers to eirusin. It's odd that likuchin and nisuin are different forms of the same word. Unless the "taking" of nisuin is more firm or permanent that the "taking" of likuchin. But then there's the shitta of Rabbeinu Nissim Gaon (brought in Tosfos Kiddushin 10 d'h Kol) that the word kicha (which we use for a gzeirah shavah to learn ha'ara'ah from arayos) refers to NISUIN, not EIRUSIN. That would make life easier. But, as Tosfos says there, Rabbeinu Nissim is very shver, because in all of Shas Kicha kicha from Sdei Efron means Kiddushin, not Nisuin. Still, I agree with you. It's like כאשר ישא האומן את היונק. You are taking someone to yourself, not just 'taking,' but committing yourself to follow through with full dedication. 

 

lesser unknown said...

i would argue/comment that eli left out the common meaning of the root of the word nissuin of "to elevate or to lift". and that to lift something includes the meanings of both to carry and to take. granted this is a bit of a semantical distinction, but i feel entitled considering the whole context here. In regard to the difference between kiddushin and nissuin, i was grappling with this a few months ago, as my yeshiva is currently learning kesuvos. Where I left off, is that kiddushin is not so much taking her to you as much as removing her from others, where nissuin is the actual taking of her to you as one entity/partnership.

 

Barzilai said...

I think Eli's (a), to carry, is close to your elevate. As for the difference between eirusin and nisu'in, I always explain that an arusa is an eishes ish for the whole world except for the chassan. This is like buying an option on a property; you don't own it yet, but nobody else can buy it. I will be happy to hear what you have in the Rambam.   (I like lesser unknown's approach of Likuchin being taking in the sense of taking away, and Nisu'in also being taking in the sense of taking for yourself.)

Chaim B. said...

On the Rambam's definition of nesu'in: http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2007/11/rambams-definition-of-marriage-yichud.html http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2007/11/rambams-definition-of-nesuin.html "an arusa is an eishes ish for the whole world except for the chassan" Achilas terumah? Get? But of course you will just tell me any halacha I conjure up stems from the idea of having an option, not from real ishus status.

Barzilai said...

Chaim, I like the posts from 2007, that even the Rambam will agree that chupa lipsulos shafs a greater degree of ishus than just eirusin, but it's not mattir bi'ah. I suppose that this can be true specifically according to the Rambam that even if she's meyuchedes to one man, like a pilegesh, it's still znus and an issur de'oraysa. So, having said that, you yourself are agreeing that ishus is incremental-- even ishus of nisuin. So what's wrong with saying that she's an eishes ish to the whole world but not to the husband? As far as hetter bi'ah, she's not muttar to her husband, but as far as ishus regarding other people, that degree of ishus is there. Of course it's not just an "option to buy." The kinyan of eirusin does create some madreiga of ishus. But as far as "eishes ish," she's not his eishes ish. For other people, she's an eishes ish and chayav missas beis din for znus. By the way, you know that the Rogotchover holds that every married woman is assur midin eishes ish even to her husband, except for the din hutrah for her husband. That's whats missing in an arusa- the hutra.

lesser unknown said...

First a correction from my earlier post. The Rambam, in 10:1, says that nisuin is "bringing her to your home, yichud, and yafreshena lo". I remember having trouble with what exactly those last two words meant. I was remembering incorrectly that they were a part of kiddushin, which is what I was referring to before, but clearly I was wrong. Which still leaves me with a question as to what he means by this... Now to comment on other points: I don't understand exactly what you mean by your option plan. Are you implying that there is no marital connection between them, even in regard to themselves? On a d'oraysa level they are allowed to have biah before nissuin. The Rambam (in the previously mentioned halacha) mentions that it is only an issur soferim with malkos mardus. In addition in yehuda, he couldn't claim ta'anus besulim since they regularly were misyachaid in her father's house and likely had biah already. Which is hard to hear if it was an issur d'oraysa, or even a lack of any ishus d'oraysa between them. And while I wouldn't ask from trumah or get like Chaim did, since an eved can also have trumah and needs a get, alternatively, after erusin she falls under the category of kinyan kaspo for trumah and a get is needed to matir her to others even if she isn't really an eishes ish for him. But the fact that he can be matir her n'darim or become tameh to her if he is a cohen might be better examples that show a real relationship. I don't remember seeing it, but if he is pasul as a witness after kiddushin, that would also show an intrinsic connection, more than just a bought future option... I didn't click the link that chaim posted, it is after midnight here, but from the end of 10:6 in the Rambam it seems clear he holds that chuppah with a niddah is better than nothing, and creates a level higher than erusin. I apologize if I'm just repeating what is already stated in the other link. Lastly, I would point out again that I do not think there is an intrinsic issur to be with ones erusa, but rather erusin would technically permit biah, but chazal imposed an external prohibition on them. I would appreciate (and not be surprised) if you can prove me wrong on this point.

lesser unknown said...

I forgot to mention in my last comment that the aruch ha'shulchan has a novel understanding of the Rambam, which removes the need to say that there are multiple degrees of nissuin. It is in even ha'ezer 61:4 (and also in sif 5 he further explains it)

Eli said...

Thank you, LU, elevate too. I also think my "suffer" should better be translated "burden" or something similar, as in ונשא עוונו. Yet, the relevant one for the present is "get". Re: RNG, it's actually the Tosfos that is shver. It's clear that in Tanach קיחה means the whole process of marriage, if not just Nissu'in: (a) we find Kicha before Matan-Torah, so it must be just מכניסה לביתו, the first instance I believe is ויקחו להם נשים מכל אשר בחרו, and many others follow. (b) The pasuk clearly says מי האיש אשר ארש אשה ולא לקחה. As for understanding Tosfos, I guess what he means is not that the word Kicha in Tanach cannot mean Nissuin, but just that the *גזרה שוה* of Kicha does not refer to Nissuin.

Barzilai said...

LU, let me apologize for a possible misconception. I edited the post to say that the line so often repeated on the net about nisuin meaning elevation, and characterizing it as something a clown would say before you brought it up. Of course, you also didn't mean to say that's pshat in nisuin. Chaim B. did discuss exactly what you said, that even according to the Rambam, chupas niddah creates more ishus than eirusin. When I used the 'option' comparison, it was not meant as a perfect model. It's more like an option with a letter of intent. In the context of marriage, this creates a relationship such that she is considered to be a member of his household, a wife-in-waiting. Eli, nice that you pointed out מי האיש אשר ארש אשה ולא לקחה. I'm convinced that you're right about nisuin being another form of likuchin, a stronger form, meaning more commitment. Forgive the mashal hedyot, but there's a famous line that speaks to the distinction: “The difference between involvement and commitment is like ham and eggs. The chicken is involved; the pig is committed.”

great unknown said...

עי' טעם המלך ס"ק י"ד משכ' על החופת חתנים פרק י' בשער המלך דחופה אין לה מקור מן התורה. וכמובן היו אלה שלא בדיוק הסכימו - וכלשון הברוך טעם" שקר ענה in any case the gemora sanhedrin 22b says that a woman is a golem until she gets married; the marriage corrects that. however, note that there is conservation of golemkeit. guess whom marriage converts into a golem.

Barzilai said...

That's strange. Bishlema you say that there are many alternative definitions of chupa, that's one thing. But this is something else entirely. Unless he means the canopy thingy. That I can hear. It would be nice to see someone that says that it's chukos ha'amim.

lesser unknown said...

gu: 1) I am assuming that you are kidding, but unfortunately since sarcasm/witty humor does not convey well through blog comments, in case you are being serious, I would argue that the gemara in sanhedrin you quoted is not at all referring to marriage itself, but rather the biah rishona, as evident by a) the pasuk the gemara brings down as a proof b) the maharsha on this gemara and c) the tosefos in kesuvos 4a that brings down this gemara as the reason that biah rishona is called bias mitzvah. 2) I thought it was before marriage, during courtship and engagement, that a man turns into a mindless fool. After marriage (or maybe at least after shana rishona) he begins to get some of his chochma back. although, maybe I am just in denial... The simplest translation is to take, as he is taking her to him as a wife. But at the same time, why is the root word of nasah being used instead of just the root of kicha? Because there is some form of elevation, at least potentially, going on here. Similar to a nasi, that doesn't become elevated by being a leader and doesn't elevate others by becoming a leader, there is intrinsic potential in this relationship for elevation. By fulfilling the role and responsibilities entailed the nasi becomes a better person that he could have been without the yolk of the masses upon him, etc... same as with marriage. there is great potential for growth because of the marriage that was not there when both are single. Especially considering that his Toarh isn't complete, his happiness isn't complete etc. as the gemara in yevamos (I think) says.

Barzilai said...

You know, I kind of agree that certain words become popular because of an inherent duality of meaning. It is possible that Nisuin was chosen because of its additional connotations, though I'm pretty convinced that its fundamental meaning is "taking," as Eli illustrated.

great unknown said...

the meaning of the word golem is basically unformed raw material. the wife is formed by the commitment of marriage (and hence is elevated into usefulness [i.e., kli status]), whereupon she immediately (if not sooner) proceeds to re-form the suddenly raw critter she just married. although as a great neo-platonic philosopher once said: the three most important words in a marriage are not, "I love you," but rather, "he'll never change." I think her name was broomhilda.

lesser unknown said...

GU: How would you fit that idea of her elevation due to her commitment to marriage into the pasuk the gemara quotes "ki BOALAYICH osayich"? And to the tosefos in kesuvos 4a which uses this gemara in sanhedrin to explain why biah rishona is called b'elas mitzvah and the maharsha on this gemara in sanhedrin which (if I remember correctly) clearly explains her golem/unfinished status referring to her inability to conceive while a besulah?

lesser unknown said...

I quickly scanned through both the Toras Moshe and the Chasam Sofer on Chumash in the beginning of Miketz and in Vayichi, and I cant find the point you are trying to make. Can you give me a hint?

LkwdGuy said...

See Sotah 9b first rashi.

Barzilai said...

lkwdguy, I see. This needs to be in the post gufa, and that's where I put it. See the end of the post. Yasher koach for your laconic comment.

Eli said...

My appreciation to LkwdGuy's impressive Bekiuss notwithstanding, it should be noted that הנחש השיאני is with right-Shin while נישואין is left-Shin (i.e. sin). While pronunciation of both might be similar, depending on your family tradition, they belong to completely separate roots. נשא with a right-Shin means to seduce/incite, as in זדון לבך השיאך or השא השאת לעם הזה etc. Obviously not all occurrences of this root can be related to נישואין. Thus, it seems the midrash brought in Rashi Sotah (and Shabbos 146a too, also first in Daf(!))is a midrash based on the similarity in written form of both words, but should not be taken as an interpretation of the word נישואין itself.

Barzilai said...

Metzudas Tzion on Yeshaiya 9:4 explains 'sa'on' to mean the same as 'sha'on,' and again in Yeshaiya 10:13 saying that 'shoshati' means the same as shosati'. Besides Rav Hirsch's use of this tool, I believe that many rishonim use it as well. Though it could be that davka Yeshaiya was a Litvak from Shevet Efraim.

Eli said...

actually Yeshaiya 10:13 *says* Shosati (with Sin), but 9:4 is a case in point. Yet, as we find across Tanach more than ten places where נשא with Shin means one thing, completely different than the many meanings of נשא with Sin, I think it's unlikely to merge them together.

Barzilai said...

There are times, though, when you have to be careful to use the right letter. I remember thinking about the pitfalls of being a Litvak one Rosh Hashanna. ותגער בשטן לבל ישטינני

Vayakhel, Shemos 36:28. Li'me’kutze’os Hamishkan. Love, Lions, and Corners

It has been said that cultures for whom certain things or concepts are particularly important will develop many separate words to describe relatively minor variations in these things or concepts. For example, instead of using one noun with a variety of adjectives, different nouns are created. This is known as Focal Vocabulary . The famous example, though I'm told that linguists dispute its truth, is that Eskimos have a many different words for snow. If that's your entire landscape, of course you will, over time, develop words whose meanings incorporate the various states of snow, such as hard, granular, soft, slippery, loose, slushy, etc. I assume that skiers have the same arsenal of nouns. In Hebrew, it's Sheleg, period.

In Hebrew, how many words are there for lion? Five: Ari, Kfir, Layish, Shachal, and Gur refer only to lions, which, evidently, are symbolically powerful in our culture. In English, there is only one-- Lion. How do you say you like or love? You like your neighbor? Ani oheiv oso. You love your wife? Ani oheiv osah. You like pizza? Ani oheiv pizza.

Having said this, let's look at the parsha. How many ways are there to say "Corner" in Hebrew? Pinah, or keren. But in this parsha, it appears in an unparalleled panoply of iterations.
36:28– by the krashim, Me’kutze’os.
37:3– by the Aron, Pa’amosav.  (By the way, the Ibn Ezra apparently got fed up with all these synonyms, so he translates "Pa'amosav" as feet.  According to him, the Aron Kodesh had feet, and didn't sit directly on the ground.  His raya is from "Mah yafu pa'amayich ba'ne'alim."  Tosfos in Yoma says it had not four, but eight rings, four for the badim that actually carried it, and four for the decorative badim.)
37:13– by the Shulchan, HaPei’os.
38:2– by the Mizbach ha’olah, Pinosav.
(Karnos, of course, appear on the Mizbechos, but they really look like Karnayim, so I'll leave those out.)

So, if you want to talk about fighting, use Latin (bellum, pugna, macto, litis, certo). For love, Greek (agape, eros, storge, philia, thelema). For lions in corners, Hebrew is your language of choice.  (You might be interested in looking into the field called Phonaesthetics.)
(This actually is like the Yerushalmi in Megilla 1:9. The Yerushalmi there says "four languages are proper for the world to use;

א"ר יונתן דבית גוברין ד' לשונות נאים שישתמש בהן העולם ואלו הן לעז לזמר רומי לקרב סורסיי לאילייא עברי לדיבור

Greek for song, Latin for war, Aramaic for elegy, and Hebrew for speech." The meforshim there learn לקרב means "to draw near, or convince," but I think it means "for war." There's no reason to think the list changes from nouns to verbs, and stam their pshat is tzarich iyun.)

What’s pshat? Why so many ways of referring to corners? After Parshas Teruma and Tetzaveh, where we were endlessly boxed, (Mishbetzos on the Choshen and the Eifod and the Kesones Tashbeitz), suddenly we are cornered.

Rabbi Yitzchok Resnik PhD (abd) said that these parshiyos, which describe the fabrication of the Mishkan and its contents, speak to craftsmen in their specialized language. Every craft, every profession, has its own lexicon, its own patois or jargon. For example, "A stretcher and a joint" has an entirely different meaning to a bricklayer and to a paramedic. Perhaps these are terms that are used variously by cabinetmakers, by goldsmiths, and by carpenters, and they express differences in how they are crafted or how they are used.

I said, just for homiletic aerobics, that intersections can have many different meanings. When two things that are moving in different directions meet, they might be unaffected by the meeting, they might simply end where they meet, or they might change completely, they might attain a new identity. A corner is the intersection of two sides, and maybe these different words express the various outcomes of intersection.


Previous postings on Vayakhel and Pekudei, every one of which is lots better than the above:

The Latent Holiness of Human Love

The Wisdom of Mussar and Seichel: This is not an Oxymoron.

Knitting our Brows about Why King David Couldn't Build the Beis Hamikdash

The Hidden Prophecy of the Destruction, and Rebuilding, of the Batei Mikdash

Pekudei. Why Couldn’t Dovid Hamelech Build the Beis Hamikdosh?

Moshe Rabbeinu, who sacrificed so much to lead his people to the Land of Israel, did not live to enter the land.  So too, David Hamelech, who so desired to build the Beis Hamikdash, was not able to see even the beginning of its construction. David himself notes this in his last testament to his son, Shlomo, as recorded in I Divrei Hayamim 22:7-8. He said that he very much desired to build the Beis Hamikdash, but Hashem did not allow him to do so.
ז וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִיד, לִשְׁלֹמֹה בנו (בְּנִי)--אֲנִי הָיָה עִם-לְבָבִי, לִבְנוֹת בַּיִת לְשֵׁם יְהוָה אֱלֹהָי. ח וַיְהִי עָלַי דְּבַר-יְהוָה, לֵאמֹר, דָּם לָרֹב שָׁפַכְתָּ, וּמִלְחָמוֹת גְּדֹלוֹת עָשִׂיתָ: לֹא-תִבְנֶה בַיִת, לִשְׁמִי--כִּי דָּמִים רַבִּים, שָׁפַכְתָּ אַרְצָה לְפָנָי.
David said to his son, Shlomo... I so desired to build a house for Hashem... but Hashem's words came to me, saying "You have spilled much blood, you have made great wars, you will not build a house in My Name, for much blood have you spilled to the earth before Me."

This is extremely vexing, especially when later, Hashem tells Shlomo that the hashra’as hashchina in the Mikdash he built was only in the zchus of Dovid. How can it be that the Hashra'as Hashechina is only because of David, but that David was not allowed to construct the vessel that held the Shechina? David Hamelech was the mechaber of tehillim, who didn’t touch Shaul in the cave, and whatever he did in battle he did because he was an eved Hashem; he was commanded to defend the Jewish People and conquer Eretz Yisrael, and if he didn’t, it would have brought terrible disaster; Jews would die and Eretz Yisrael would not have been conquered. How on earth can it be that this was the reason he was not zocheh to build the Beis Hamikdash?

Harav Shimon Krasner's Nachlas Shimon, Shmuel II volume I Siman 25:27 discusses this topic.
He brings:

• the Ramban in Korach 16:21 that Dovid was machzik middas hadin, and was not the right one for a Beis Rachamim; 
• the Rambam in Shmoneh Prokim that says that although it was only used against our enemies, the middah of achzorius passels in binyon hamikdosh. This is similar to the Ramban, but attributing 'achzorius' to Dovid seems harsh. Maybe this is an Ibn Tibbon artifact. 
• the Aruch Hashulchon in the beginning of Hilchos Beis Habechira that since Dovid’s time was one of war, it was not the time of “menuchah” (Ki lo basem ahd ahta ehl hamenucha) that the possuk said was a condition precedent for building the Beis Hamikdosh; 
• the Radak in Divrei Hayomim that says Uriah's killing was 'unfustified, and the expression "much blood" refers to that of the innocent and righteous goyisheh bystanders who were unintentional but inevitable victims of those wars– collateral damage. Killing a combatant is fine; but killing an unarmed bystander, even a member of the aggressor nation, is not. It may be necessary, but it is still a necessary evil.

Then, the strangest of all, he quotes R’ Dessler in the Michtov Mei’eliahu.
The Michtov Mei’eliahu brings a Yalkut that says that Nosson told Dovid that all the blood he spilled was like korbonos before Hashem, and the problem was that if Dovid built the Beis Hamikdash, it could never be destroyed. So Dovid asked, so good, adderabbeh, let it stand forever! Nosson answered that if it were to be indestructible, there would be no object upon which Hashem could pour out his wrath, and Klal Yisroel would have not safety valve of “ahl ho’eitzim v’ahl ho’avonim.”
Rav Dessler gives a moshol: if a person has a kli that is hekdesh and is not treating it properly, you can solve the problem by elimnating one of the two things. Either you can take away the kli, or you can take away the person. If Dovid had built the Bayis, taking away the Bayis would not have been an option.

This Yalkut does indeed exist.Shmuel II remez 145:

האתה תבנה לי בית וכתיב לא תבנה בית לשמי כי דמים רבים שפכת כיון ששמע דוד כך נתיירא אמר הרי נפסלתי מלבנוות בית המקדש. א"ר יהודה בר' אלעאי אמר לו הקב"ה דוד אל תירא חייך כי הם לפני כצבי וכאיל לכך נאמר שפכת ארצה ואין ארצה אלא צבי ואיל שנאמר על הארץ תשפכנו כמים. ד"א חייך הם לפני כקרבנות דכתיב כי דמים רבים שפכת לפני ואין לפני אלא קרבן שנאמר ושחט את בן הבקר לפני ה'. אמר לו ואם כן למה איני בונה אותו, אמר לו הקב"ה שאם אתה בונה אותו הוא קיים ואינו חרב, אמרו לו והרי יפה א"ל הקב"ה גלוי וצפוי לפני שהם עתידים לחטוא ואני מפיג חמתי בו ומחריבו והם נצולין שכן כתיב באהל בת ציון שפך כאש חמתו, אמר לו הקב"ה חייך הואיל וחשבת לבנותו אע"פ ששלמה בנך בונהו לשמך אני כותבו מזמור שיר חנוכת הבית לדוד. ר' הונא בשם ריב"ל אלף וחמש מאות אמה חפר דוד לעמוד על משתיתא של ארץ, דתניא ג' בתולות הם, בתולת אדם, בתולת קרקע, בתולת שקמה. בתולת אדם שלא נבעלה מימיה. בתולת שקמה כל שלא נקצצה מימיה, בתולת ארץ כל שלא נעבדה מימיה. רשב"ג אומר כל שאין בה חרס. כיון שחפר דוד אלף ות"ק אמה מצא שם חרס וכו' (כדכתיב לעיל):

I’m sorry to say that this kind of farkert-from-poshut-pshat-revisionism is very hard for me to accept. As I said, the passuk in Divrei Hayamim is hard to hear; but it does say that there was something about Dovid that made him unfit to build the Beis Hamikdash. To say that he was not unfit, but instead he was wonderfully fit, is just too much. I need to think about the reliability of the source Medrash the Yalkut brings. (There is a similar Medrash brought by the Divrei Dovid in Shemos 4:13, that Moshe Rabbeinu knew all the way back in Mitzrayim that he would most likely not be allowed into Eretz Yisroel, because if he were, there would be no pressure release valve of ahl ho’eitzim etc, and this would present an existential threat to the nation if they were to sin. This I understand. I even understand how this fits with Rashi in Devarim 33:8 that the 'sin' of Mei Meriva was a trivial and inconsequential event that was inflated into significance only as an excuse (I didn't make that up: Rashi says it was an "illah.") to keep Moshe out of Israel. But to re-read the passuk in Divrei Hayamim as if it were not a criticism, but instead a praise, does not make me happy at all.)

I said a completely speculative pshat: that if Dovid built it, it would be permanent precisely because it would have been imperfect. The imperfection would be the kiddush of charbicho heinafto, that it was built by a person who had spilled Human blood; not that doing so was a fault, just that it is an ugly and unfortunate thing. If the Bayis had been imperfect and kodosh, it would be impossible to destroy. It would have been mekadeish the gashmius to the extent that the gashmius would become indestructible. Its being subject to destruction was because it was perfect, and perfect things cannot be firmly fixed in an imperfect world. (I said this because the Luchos were destroyable, and they were kulo kodesh, so we see that kulo kodesh can be destroyed.) This advantage of this pshat is that it accepts Dovid's worthiness to build the Beis Hamikdash, while accepting as well that his military career was to some degree incompatible with building it; it fits with the Yalkut's idea that his would be indestructible, but it accepts that the words “domim rabbim shofochto” indicate a flaw.

Reb Milton Wakschlag (originally from Tulsa, Oklahoma) came to me the next day and said he had been thinking about the Yalkut, and although he agrees it’s farkert from the poshut pshat, it’s not farkert from the pashtus. In other words, the questions about the implication of unfitness on Dovid Hamelech’s part are so shver, that even though the Yalkut does not fit into the poshut pshat in the possuk in Divrei Hayomim, it is consistent with the pashtus of our perception of who and what Dovid was. (I sometimes think that his remark is an example of how an enjoyable well-turned phrase can be a trojan horse-- it makes you forget how illogical something is, like a spoonful of sugar with cod-liver oil.) He also fleshed out the idea of the Michtov Mei’eliahu: he said that if the Beis Hamikdosh were perfect, then when Klal Yisroel sinned, Hashem would say that they had a perfect source of kedusha and inspiration, and if they failed, it was without any excuse. But now that the Beis Hamikdosh lacked that degree of perfection, Hashem could say that it wasn’t 100% the fault of the Bnei Yisroel, and so He took out His anger on the imperfect tool of hashro’as hashchina and sent us into golus to start over again.

Pekudei, Shemos 38:21. Pekudei Hamishkon Mishkan Ho’eidus.

Rabbeinu Bachya here says that these three words, Hamishkon Mishkan Ho'eidus, are a remez to the time the Mishkon, the Bayis Rishon, and the Bayis Sheini stood. The gematriya of the third word, Ho’eidus (choseir) is 479; the Mishkon stood for 480 years, but the first year was only half the year. The gematria of the second word, Mishkan, is 410, which is exactly the number of years the first Beis Hamikdosh in Yerushalayim stood. And the gematria of the first word, Hamishkon, is 415; the Bayis Sheini stood 420 years, so he adds the kollel— the number of letters in the word. In sum:
Hamishkon = 415, the years the Bayis Sheini stood (w/kollel).
Mishkan = 410, the years the Bayis Rishon stood.
Ho'eidus = 479, the years the Mishkon stood.

(This gematria is amazingly on point, except for the need to resort to the kollel. Perhaps the Bayis Sheini lost its kedushah five years before it was destroyed, and was no more than a dead, soul-less edifice under the control of the various splinter cults that arose at that time. As the Gemora in Megilla regarding the parties made by Belshatzar and Achashveirosh indicates, nevu'ah calendars are not printed in advance, and numbers and dates can be interpretated in various ways.)

The Satmarer Rov in Vayo’el Moshe asks, why are they in reverse order? Why does the last word refer to the first of the three, the Mishkon, and the first word refer to the last, the Bayis Sheini? Although I bring the Satmarer Rov's teretz below, I would be happy to hear a more straightforward explanation for the order reversal. Write a comment or send me mail at ENBarzilai@aol.com

Back to the Satmarer Rov's teretz: After asking why the Botei Mikdosh are referred to in reverse order, he also asks the following questions: Why does this remez belong specifically here? Also, why is there no description of the specific use of the gold in the Mishkon, while the silver and copper’s uses are described in minute detail? He answers that the gold was a kappora on the Eigel. The Gemora says that although Beis Din is authorized to attach a person’s property to ensure that he fulfil his korbon obligations, we do not do so for korbonos that are for kapporo– ein memashk’nin al hachato’os. This is because a person that stands to gain kapporoh from a serious sin gives be’ayin yofeh, he is happy to take advantage of this opportunity, and he will give as soon and as much as he can. Here, the nation felt the same way about the gold they gave for a kapporo on the eigel, and they didn’t demand itemization. But the other nedovos were given as a favor to the mishkon, and because the people gave it not for a kappora, but as a donation, they gave it with some degree of reservation. When people give without complete love and enthusiasm, underlying character flaws assert themselves, and thus began their distrust of Moshe. This distrust is an example of sinas chinom, which ultimately caused the churbon Bayis Sheini. So it is proper that immediately after the word ‘pekudei’, which refers to the audit that was made necessary because of the spirit of distrustfulness and suspicion, the possuk alludes to the Bayis Sheini, the third of the mishkonos.


I wonder what predictive value Rabbeinu Bachya’s vort has. Can we find a remez to the third and eternal Beis Hamikdosh, sheyiboneh bimheiro b'yomeinu? Or perhaps it would be impossible to find a numerical reference to the Bayis Shlishi because it will stand forever? But maybe it will only stand until the end of the sixth millenium, so it is limited in time? But if we could find a remez to its years, we could simply subtract that number from six thousand nine hundred ninety nine to find the date it will be built.