Igrot Kodesh · Letter 8527 — Tzedakah

5722

At the beginning (note 1: This letter is a series of remarks formulated by the Rebbe* regarding the work Beis HaMikdash*, by Rav Scheffer, which was published in Yerushalayim*, in 5722): One finds therein the form of the Temple, according to the conception of the Tiferes Yisrael*. At paragraph 16: The fifteen steps formed a curve, according to tractate Middos*, chapter 2, Mishnah* 5, which does not correspond (note 2: The Rebbe* underlines the words: "not" and "logical") to the drawing of the Tiferes Yisrael*, which is reproduced in this book.

At page 13: It is said that the Temple Mount was entirely enclosed and that its length was five hundred cubits (note 3: Approximately two hundred and twenty meters). Now, a note and a commentary are indispensable regarding the Temple. Indeed, the Temple was also included in this enclosed area of five hundred cubits. Furthermore, the commentators who advance that the Temple was not within the enclosed section have a more logical position, for it is certain that some places, in the Temple, could not be enclosed. You will consult, on this subject, the commentators of tractate Middos*, at the beginning of the second chapter. In any event, in all the drawings of the Temple Mount found in this work, there is no trace of this enclosure, according to the customary ways of representing it.

At the same reference: It is said that the porticos of the Temple have a height of twenty cubits (note 4: Approximately nine meters). In fact, this is solely the height of the hollow section and of the gate that was found therein.

At page 44: Regarding the height of the ascent, one must say sixty-one cubits instead of sixty (note 5: Twenty-seven and a half meters instead of twenty-seven).

At the end, at page 51: Regarding the place of the guard, the Kohanim* were found inside the Temple and the Leviim*, on the outside. The explanation, on this subject, is lacking. You will therefore consult the Ravad*, at the beginning of tractate Tamid* and the Minchas Chinuch*, at Mitzvah* no. 388.

At page 52: Here it is a question of "the man of the Temple Mount," of a single man. It seems evident that he was a Kohen*, for this was part of the guard and, furthermore, this man was responsible for the Kohanim*, in their service (note 6: A function he could assume only by being himself a Kohen*). This cannot however be compared to the case of Pesachya, a name that was given to Mordechai, who was responsible for the offerings related to bird nests (note 7: Although he himself was not a Kohen*). Now, for the moment, I have not seen works posing this question (note 8: Why an act of the service in the Temple had been entrusted to a member of the Sanhedrin* who, himself, was not a Kohen*?).

ח'תקכז

[הערות לס' בית המקדש [שפר]. ירושלים, תשכ"ב]

בתחלתו : צורת ביהמ"ק לשיטת התפא"י. טז ט"ו מעלות. - היו כחצי גורן עגולה (מדות ב, ה). ולא כמצויר בפי' תפא"י והועתק בס' זה.

ע' 13. הר הבית ומקורה הי' כולו. ארכו 500 אמה כו'.

מוכרח הערה וביאור בנוגע לביהמ"ק (שגם הוא נכלל בהשטח דהת"ק אמה). ובפרט שנראים דברי המפרשים שביהמ"ק כולו לא נכלל בקירוי הנ"ל. ופשיטא שכמה מקומות בו לא היו מקורים. עיין מפרשים למדות רפ"ב.

בכל תרשימי הר הבית שבספר - אין זכר וסימן (כרגיל בתרשימים) לקירוי!

שם . שערים...גבהם 20 אמה - זהו גובה חלל ופתח השער.

ע' 44. עלי' ארכה - צ"ל 61 אמה, ולא 60.

בסופו ע' 51. מקום השמירה. הכהנים - מבפנים, הלוים - מבחוץ.

חסר הביאור. וראה ראב"ד תמיד בתחלתה. מנחת חינוך מצוה שפח.

ע' 52. איש הר הבית. אדם אחד כו' - לכאורה פשוט שהי' כהן - כיון שג"ז בכלל השמירה ועוד שהוא ממונה על הכהנים בענין עבודתם. ולא דמי לפתחי' זה מרדכי דעל הקנין (שקלים רפ"ה). ולע"ע לא מצאתי בס' שידברו בזה.

ח'תקכז
נדפסה בלקו"ש חכ"א ע' 481, והוגהה עפ"י גוכי"ק.