Between the Holy and the Holy of Holies

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

In loving memory of Channa Schreiber (Channa Rivka bat Yosef v' Yocheved) z"l,
with wishes for consolation and comfort to her dear children
Yossi and Mona, Yitzchak and Carmit, and their families,
along with all who mourn for Tzion and Yerushalayim.

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

The Relationship Between the Holy and the Holy of Holies 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

            In this lecture, we will examine the relationship between the two parts of the structure of the Mishkan: the Holy/ Heikhal and the Holy of Holies.

 

THE PAROKHET THAT SEPARATES BETWEEN THE HOLY AND THE HOLY OF HOLIES

 

            The only boundary noted by Scripture between these two chambers is the parokhet (Shemot 26:33). On the simple level, the parokhet separates between the Holy, which is twenty cubits long, and the Holy of Holies, which is ten cubits in length.[1]

 

            Is this the only division between these two areas or are there also other divisions with other meanings?

 

THE TWO CUBIT GAP BETWEEN THE CURTAINS

 

            In previous lectures, we noted the two-cubit difference between the curtains of the Mishkan and the curtains of goats' hair. We saw that the difference between these two covers creates an area that is, on the one hand, in the Holy of Holies, under the Mishkan, while on the other hand, in the Holy, under the Ohel. This area creates, of course, a different relationship between the Heikhal and the Holy of Holies.

 

            According to this understanding, we can divide the Mishkan in a slightly different manner: The area that is only Holy of Holies is 8 cubits long; the two easternmost cubits belong both to the Holy of Holies and to the Ohel Mo'ed. The Heikhal and the Holy is only Ohel Mo'ed, and it is twenty cubits long from east to west.[2]

 

THE POLES THAT JUT OUT TO THE EAST OF THE PAROKHET

 

            The gemara states:

 

Thus was it also taught: "So that the ends of the poles were seen." One might have assumed that they did not protrude from their place. To teach us [the fact that they did], Scripture says: "And they drew out the poles." One might assume that they tore the parokhet and showed forth; to teach us [the fact they did not], Scripture says: "They were not seen outside." How then? They pressed forth and protruded as the two breasts of a woman, as it is said: "My beloved is unto me as a bag of myrrh that lies between my breasts." (Yoma 54a)

 

The gemara is dealing with two contradictory verses relating to the poles of the ark. On the one hand, the Torah states: "The poles shall be in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it" (Shemot 25:15), while on the other hand, we read regarding the First Temple: "And they drew out the poles, so that the ends of the poles were seen from the holy place, before the sanctuary, though they were not seen outside; and there they are to this day" (I Melakhim 8:8). In other words, it seems that it was possible to move the poles and draw them outwards. The gemara resolves this contradiction by explaining that the poles would press against and protrude from the parokhet, appearing like the two breasts of a woman.

 

            Although the verse that is brought as a proof-text is found in I Melakhim describes the period of the First Temple, several commentators understood that the phenomenon of the poles pressing against the parokhet was found already in the Mishkan.

 

            Thus, for example, the Tosafot write:

 

I heard the objection being raised that regarding the time that the camps would set forth, it is written: "And they shall put in its poles" (Bamidbar 4:6). This implies that [only] when the camps would set forth would they put in the poles. But this is difficult, for surely it is written: "They shall not be taken from it"… "They shall put in its poles" means that they would draw the poles outwards so that they appear protruding against the parokhet. (Yoma 72a, s.v. ketiv)

 

Similarly, the Malbim writes:

 

Regarding Shlomo's Temple it is written: "And they drew out the poles," and Chazal explained that they protruded against the parokhet… And the length of the poles made by Moshe were not more than ten cubits, for the Mishkan was ten cubits, and when they camped, they drew them outwards toward the parokhet, so that they should protrude against the parokhet… for presumably this was also the case in the Mishkan. (Shemot 25:14)[3]

 

            This assertion has several implications. The Netziv infer that the area against which the poles would protrude has special significance:

 

"And the veil shall be for you as a division between the Holy and the Holy of Holies" (Shemot 26:33). The words "for you" are superfluous, for what would the verse be lacking were it written: "And the veil shall be as a division between etc." Similarly, the wording "[between the Holy] and between (u-vein) the Holy of Holies" is difficult. It should have said "[between the Holy] and the (le-) Holy of Holies," for wherever the word "bein" is written twice, it implies that there is a middle ground between the two things divided from each other, as I wrote in the book of Bereishit (1:4), and above (8:19; 9:4), and in several [other] places. And here, apparently, the parokhet only divided and set apart. Also the word "ve-hivdila" is accented on the last syllable, according to the Mesora, and this is unusual, as the Ibn Ezra writes, and not an empty matter. Only that Moshe our master learned new laws from all this.

 

Now in the execution it first says (Shemot 40:20): "And he set the poles on the ark," and afterwards: "And he brought the ark into the Mishkan," and we have already explained (Shemot 25:12) that the poles were made so that they should be like the two breasts of a woman. It would seem that he should have first brought the ark, and afterwards drawn the poles outwards. And furthermore, the idea of drawing the poles outwards so that they should be like the two breasts of a woman is not mentioned anywhere in Scripture. And while from the verses above (ibid.) it is clear that the poles should rest differently when the ark stood than when it moved forth, but there is no hint whatsoever as to how it should be different. Perhaps, just the opposite - the poles should be drawn to the back of the ark so that the High Priest should stand there with ample room during the Yom Kippur service.

 

But first one should know that it says in Vayikra Rabba (1:15) that Moshe would enter the innermost chamber at all times. Now this seems to be difficult. While Moshe was not forbidden to enter there, as it was taught in Torat Kohanim, Parashat Acharei (Vayikra 15:2): "'Speak to Aharon your brother' – Aharon is subject to 'You shall not enter,' but Moshe is not subject to 'You shall not enter'" – nevertheless, surely it is written regarding the day on which the Mishkan was erected (Shemot 40:35): "And Moshe was not able to enter the Ohel Mo'ed because the cloud rested on it." How, then, did he enter the Holy of Holies; surely the cloud and the Shekhina were always there in the days of Moshe! Rather, this is the idea, that the glory of God and the cloud was only the length of the ten cubits of the Holy of Holies, and the parokhet was pushed outside the ten cubits by the poles that projected like the two breasts of a woman. And in this area of protrusion there was no glory of God, and Moshe our master would stand there, and thus it was not the parokhet that separated with respect to the Shekhina, but ten cubits was the boundary, and the Devir inside. But Aharon was forbidden to enter "within the veil," even in the area of the protrusion. And this is what the verse says: "And the veil shall be for you as a division."

 

If so, that place of protrusion was midway between two sanctities, more severe than the sanctity of the Heikhal and less severe than the sanctity of the ten cubits of the Holy of Holies, and therefore Moshe could stand there, and this is what is written: "and between the Holy of Holies." And this is the cubit wide partition wall mentioned in Yoma (51b), which had the law of inside and outside, as Rashi writes there in the name of the Yerushalmi. And from this Moshe knew to draw the poles outwards. (commentary to Shemot 26:33)[4]

 

            The Netziv proposes a very interesting idea. According to his explanation, the space where the parokhet protruded into the Holy was the place where Moshe would stand and where there was no glory of God; Aharon was not permitted to enter there. The Netziv concludes that the space where the poles of the ark protruded into the Holy was midway between the two sanctities – more severe than the sanctity of the Heikhal, and less severe than the sanctity of the Holy of Holies.

 

            The Netziv draws a parallel between this situation and that of the First Temple period, when the ama traksin stood between the Holy/ Heikhal and the Holy of Holies. The gemara in Yoma (51b) is in doubt whether the ama traksin had the sanctity of the area inside or that of the area outside, and in the Second Temple they actually made two parokhets.

 

            According to this understanding, there is a place with independent significance between the Holy and the Holy of Holies, an area with special standing because its sanctity is greater than that of the Heikhal but less than that of the Holy of Holies.

 

            According to our original understanding, owing to the two cubit difference between the clasps of the Mishkan that join the inner curtains and the clasps of the curtains of goats' hair that are located to their west, the possibility exists of entering an area found within the Holy of Holies that nevertheless belongs to the Ohel Mo'ed. According to the second understanding, there is, as it were, a spreading of the Holy of Holies eastward in the direction of the entrance, into the Heikhal, and in it there is an area with independent sanctity that is greater than the Holy but less than the Holy of Holies.

 

THE MEANING OF THE PROJECTION OF THE POLES IN THE PAROKHET

 

            What is the meaning of this phenomenon?[5] Several answers have been given to this question.

 

1.     R. S.R. Hirsch writes as follows:

 

To anyone in the Sanctuary, they were the sole visible evidence of the existence of the Ark of the Covenant behind the curtain. The poles, the means of carrying the Ark, symbolically represent the command and the mission to carry the Ark and its contents, if it becomes necessary, away from the precincts of its present position. The command that these means of transport may never be lacking emphasizes in our minds the fact that from the very beginning it must be made clear that this Torah and its mission is in no way bound or confined to any place or existence at any time of the Temple and Sanctuary. The meaning of the constant presence of the poles, as proof of the independence of the Torah of any place, receives further emphasis when it is contrasted to the other appurtenances of the Sanctuary, especially to the shulchan and menora, both of which had to be supplied with poles, but the poles did not have to be permanently in place, but only inserted when actually to be used. The thought immediately jumps to one's mind: Israel's Table and Israel's menora – its material life in its full completeness and its spiritual and intellectual life in complete clarity and brightness – are bound to the soil of the Holy Land. Israel's Torah is not. (Commentary to Shemot 25:12-15)

 

            Based on the understanding that the essence of the ark is connected to the Torah and the tablets of law found therein, R. Hirsch explains that the main idea underlying the law that the poles must not be removed from the ark is that the Torah reaches all places and that it is not confined to any one place. The fact that the poles push against the parokhet can similarly be explained as reflecting the Torah's influence beyond the Holy of Holies.

 

2. Another understanding of the projection of the poles is brought by the Admor of Izbica in his commentary, Bet Yaakov:

 

Each of the vessels of the Mikdash had a unique influence. The primary influence of the ark was through the poles, for through the poles it would introduce love into the hearts of Israel. In the Mikdash, this love was clearly evident, as we find (Yoma 54a): "Whenever Israel came up to the Festival, the curtain would be removed for them … and they would be thus addressed: Look! You are beloved before God… And the poles looked like the two breasts of a woman." That is to say, He very much wanted to bestow bounty upon them, and through the poles the light of the tablets entered into Israel, for through the poles they saw the love, for more than the calf wants to drink, the mother wants to nurse. For the tablets very much want to enter into Israel, only that they [Israel] must create an opening the size of a pin point, and then an opening will be made the size of the door to a great hall. Now the poles were never entirely removed from the ark, thus teaching that which is written, "And you shall meditate upon it day and night," that a person must always yearn and crave for Torah. (Teruma, 45)

 

3. The Rambam writes in Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira 4:2:

 

The First Temple had a one-cubit thick wall which separated the Holy and the Holy of Holies. When the Second Temple was constructed, they were unsure whether the width of that wall was included in the measure of the Holy or the Holy of Holies. Therefore, the Holy of Holies was made a full twenty cubits long, and the Sanctuary a full forty cubits long, and one additional cubit was left between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies.

 

They did not build a wall in the Second Temple. Rather, they hung two curtains, one from the side of the Holy and one from the side of the Holy of Holies, with a cubit between them in place of the width of the wall of the First [Temple]. However, in the First Temple, there was only one curtain, as [Shemot 26:33] states: "The veil will divide for you [between the Holy and the Holy of Holies.]"

 

            The Lubavitcher Rebbe discussed the Rambam’s comment, explaining that according to the Rambam, the ama traksin was a separate area serving both as a separation and as a screen. The Netziv argued that the poles' protrusion into the parokhet created a middle ground with separate sanctity, but the Lubavitcher Rebbe maintains that this was only in the First Temple in the ama traksin, which was a separate construction, and not in the Mishkan, with the parokhet. The Lubavitcher Rebbe wrote as follows:

 

Here in our halakha the Rambam follows (according to the Kesef Mishneh) the Yerushalmi regarding the ama traksin, that "they were in doubt whether the thickness of the wall was part of the Holy or part of the Holy of Holies. And therefore they made… an additional cubit between the Holy and the Holy of Holies." On the face of it, we must inquire as to how they were permitted to add to the dimensions of the structure. But surely, "All this is put in writing by the hand of the Lord who instructed me"! In the First Temple, the Heikhal and the Holy of Holies were together sixty cubits, and the ama traksin was either at the beginning of the Holy of Holies (the first cubit) or at the end of the Heikhal (the fortieth cubit), and therefore there was no space whatsoever between the Holy and the Holy of Holies. This was not the case in the Second Temple: a) The Holy of Holies was twenty full cubits and the Holy was forty full cubits, and between them was a space of an extra cubit. b) There was a difference in the area of the Heikhal (or the Holy of Holies), as opposed to what was in the First Temple.

 

In order to understand this, we must first understand the ama traksin according to the Rambam: In the Torah we find several formulations regarding the parokhet. In the first command it says: "And the veil shall be for you a division between the holy place and the most holy" (Shemot 26:33), but in the command regarding the erection of the Mishkan, it says: "And you shall put in it the ark of the Testimony, and hang the veil before the ark" (Shemot 40:3). That is, there are two aspects to the parokhet: 1) A barrier that divides between the Holy and the Holy of Holies; 2) A screen before the ark. On the simple level, since the place of this cubit was in place of the parokhet in the Mishkan, the only difference being that in that case it was a solid wall, we must say that it included these two aspects: a barrier between the Holy and the Holy of Holies and a screen before the ark.

 

We must, however, say that the Rambam had a different opinion on this matter: The Rambam maintains that the ama traksin in the Mishkan was not the same as the parokhet in the Mishkan. For the parokhet, as its name implies, served only as a dividing barrier or as a screen before the ark. But the ama traksin was a separate place, a separate entity, and it too served these two functions (as a barrier and as a screen), but this was only its effect, but not by its very definition. This is also implied by the fact that this place has its own name, "Devir" (I Melakhim 6:16). This is further proven by the words of the Zohar (II, 4:1) that counted the Devir (i.e., the ama traksin) as one of the parts of the Temple.[6]

 

As for the reason, it may be suggested that the Mishkan was only temporary, while the Mikdash was a building and a permanent structure. In the Mishkan, that which divided between the Holy and the Holy of Holies (and protected the ark) was not part of the structure itself, but only a "veil," the term applying to something that is not a permanent fixture in the structure, but merely a barrier erected as a divider. But in the Temple, which was a permanent structure, there was "a one-cubit thick wall which separated the Holy and the Holy of Holies." A wall is not something temporary, but rather part of the structure of the building. And this place has a name of its own – Devir. Put differently, since the Holy of Holies was set off from the other parts of the Temple, it having the highest sanctity among all the sanctified places, it would not have sufficed that it be divided from the other parts merely by a wall, but rather it needed a place that stands on its own, sort of midway between the Holy and the Holy of Holies, and it was this place that divided between them. According to this, we can say that the Rambam thinks that even in the Second Temple, in which they did not build a wall, they had to leave this cubit of the "Devir," for this is one of the parameters of the Mikdash - there must be a separate place, a cubit wide, between the Holy and the Holy of Holies. (Likkutei Sichot 36, sikha 3, Parashat Teruma)

 

            It is interesting to note that in Yechezkel's prophecy, the prophet says that in the future this partition will be 2 cubits wide (Yechezkel 41:3).[7]

 

THE WESTERN SECTION OF THE HEIKHAL BELONGS TO THE HOLY OF HOLIES

 

            To complete the picture, we wish to bring the words of R. Chayyim Brisker in his novellae to Hilkhot Avodat Yom ha-Kippurim (5:1). R. Chayyim explains that according to the Rambam, the Heikhal itself is divided into three sections: the sprinklings of blood on the parokhet are considered as inside the Holy of Holies, and the sprinklings of blood on the altar are considered as outside the Holy.

 

            R. Shlomo Fisher explains the matter:

 

The candlestick, the table and the incense altar:

 

The Chazon Ish in his Gilyanot asks how is it possible to suggest such a novel idea without a source. But we do find a source according to which the section of the Heikhal in which the candlestick and the table stood belonged to the Holy of Holies. For these three vessels – the ark, the candlestick and the table - constitute one system. This does not contradict what it says, "The veil will divide for you between the Holy and the Holy of Holies," for this is only when we look from the outside inwards, that one is permitted to enter until the parokhet. But this is not the case when we look from inside outwards, when the Holy of Holies extends beyond the parokhet until past the candlestick and the table. Thus, the wording is precise: "The veil will divide for you between the Holy and the Holy of Holies" - for you, but not for Him.

 

We explained in our essay, "The Mind and the Heart," that the Torah wishes to allude that the ark, the table, and the candlestick constitute a single system, they being, as it were, the personal furnishings of the Holy One, blessed be He, in His residence in the Holy of Holies. An allusion to this is found in the words of the Shunamite woman: "Let us set for him there a bed, and a table, and a chair, and a lamp" (II Melakhim 4:10). From this perspective, the Holy of Holies extends beyond the parokhet until past the table and the candlestick…. Now this perspective applies to Yom Kippur, when we look from the inside outwards. This is not the case when we look from the outside inwards; then the Holy of Holies ends at the parokhet of the Holy. As it is written: "Only he shall not go in unto the veil" (Vayikra 21:23). And this fits in well with that which is written: "The veil will divide for you between the Holy and the Holy of Holies." The Meshekh Chokhma asked: What does it mean: "The veil will divide for you"? According to what we have written, it is well, for it comes to say "for you," but not for Him, blessed be He. For it is only when we look from the outside inwards that the parokhet divides between the Holy and the Holy of Holies. But this is not true from His perspective, from the inside outwards; then the Holy of Holies extends beyond the parokhet until past the table and the candlestick.

 

This also explains what is emphasized at the beginning of Parashat Tetzaveh: "In the Tent of Meeting outside the veil, which is before the Testimony, Aharon and his sons shall order it" (Shemot 27:21). And so too in Parashat Emor: "Outside the veil of the Testimony, in the Tent of Meeting, shall Aharon order it" (Vayikra 24:3). Why might one have thought that he should order it inside so that the verse had to say that he should not do that, but rather he should order it outside the parokhet? But according to what we have written, it is fine, for we might have thought that the candlestick and the table must be inside like the ark, for it is one system. (And this itself is the reason why from the outside inwards, the Holy of Holies begins only from the parokhet and inward, so that they could approach and perform the services involving the lamps and the showbread). (Derashot Bet Yishai, no. 47, p. 323)

 

            R. Fisher understands that fundamentally, the ark, the candlestick and the table constitute one system, and that when looking from the inside outwards on Yom Kippur, the Holy of Holies extends, as it were, beyond the parokhet until past the candlestick and the table.[8]

 

The bolts of the Mishkan

 

R. Fisher brings another proof from the bolts of the Mishkan:

 

And you shall make bolts of shittim wood; five for the boards of the one side of the Mishkan, and five bolts for the boards of the other side of the Mishkan, for the side westward. And the middle bolt in the midst of the boards shall reach from end to end. (Shemot 26:26)

 

Rashi in his commentary writes as follows:

 

The five were really only three, but the upper and the lower bolts were each composed of two poles, the one reaching to the middle of the wall from one side and the other reaching to the middle of the wall from the other side, the one passing though the outermost ring from one side and the other passing through the outermost ring from the other side, until they met one against each other… The upper two and the lower two bolts on the north and south side were each fifteen cubits long, while the middle bolt was thirty cubits long… This is how it is explained in the baraita relating to the construction of the Mishkan. (Shemot 26:26, s.v. chamisha)

 

R. Fisher writes as follows:

 

… From one perspective, the Heikhal is all one unit, and corresponding to this the middle bolt runs the length of the Heikhal. But from a second perspective, the Heikhal is divided into two, and the inner half belongs to the Holy of Holies, as R. Chayyim argued, and corresponding to this one bolt would serve one half of the wall, and a second bolt would serve the second half of the wall… And the three of them (the table, the candlestick, and the incense altar) were situated from a third of the Heikhal inwards (Rambam, Hilkhot Beit ha-Bechira 3:17). Nevertheless, there is an allusion here. (Beit Yishai, no. 327, note 9)

 

Here too the western part of the Heikhal, containing the candlestick, the table, and the incense altar, is seen as belonging to the Holy of Holies. This is alluded to by the bolt that extends along half of the wall of the Heikhal (when in addition there is one bolt that extends from one end of the Heikhal to the other, representing the perspective from which the entire structure constitutes a single unit).

 

Accordingly, with respect to the bolts as well there are two dimensions: a simpler dimension according to which one bolt runs the entire length of the structure, and essentially turns it into one unit, as well as two bolts, each being fifteen cubits long, dividing the Heikhal into two parts. The western section is five cubits long and adjacent to the parokhet and the Holy of Holies; in it are found the table, the candlestick, and the incense altar, and it relates in its essence to the Holy of Holies. The eastern section is fifteen cubits long and is comprised of the rest of the expanse of the Heikhal/Holy.

 

SUMMARY

 

            In this lecture, we presented several different understandings of the division between the Holy and the Holy of Holies.

 

            We saw that on the simplest level, the Torah defines the boundary line with the parokhet. On the other hand, we saw three understandings that move the border between the Holy and the Holy of Holies elsewhere:

 

1) The two cubits west of the parokhet in the Holy of Holies belong both to the Mishkan and to the Ohel Mo'ed. This, therefore, is the place where the High Priest can stand when he enters the eastern section of the Holy of Holies, still remaining in the Ohel Mo'ed.

 

2) The area adjacent to the Holy on the eastern side of the parokhet where the poles protrude is an intermediate area, the sanctity of which is greater than that of the Holy, but less than that of the Holy of Holies.

 

            We saw that according to the Netziv, this is the area where Moshe could stand. In the First Temple, this area was the ama traksin, and in the Second Temple, it was comprised of two veils that divided between the Holy and the Holy of Holies.

 

            The protrusion of the poles of the ark can have different symbolic meanings: the influence of the Torah that is not limited in space (as argued by R. Hirsch); the introduction of the love and the light of the tablets into the hearts of Israel (as understood by the Admor of Izbeca); or as it was understood by the Lubavitcher Rebbe – in the days of the First Temple, the ama traksin served both to divide between the Holy and the Holy of Holies and to protect the ark, and was also a separate area between the Holy and the Holy of Holies.

 

3) Finally, we brought the view of R. Shlomo Fisher and his understanding of the words of R. Chayyim Brisker, according to which there is room to view the vessels located in the western part of the Heikhal – the candlestick, the table, and the incense altar – as comprising a single unit together with the ark, the kaporet, and the keruvim in the Holy of Holies. Another proof to support this understanding can be brought from the bolts that divide the Heikhal into a five-cubit western section, adjacent and connected to the Holy of Holies, and a fifteen-cubit eastern section adjacent to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed.

 

            We must emphasize that in great measure, this division depends on our understanding of the role of these vessels in the Heikhal. Do they primarily represent the resting of the Shekhina, which is connected to the vessels found in the Holy of Holies, or are they part of man's service of God, most of which takes place at the altar in the courtyard of the Mishkan?

 

(Translated by David Strauss)

, full_html