Daf Ditty Eruvin 23

1
2
3
MISHNA: And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava said: With regard to a garden or a
karpef, an enclosed courtyard used for storage, that is not more than seventy cubits and a
remainder, a little more, as will be explained below, by seventy cubits and a remainder, and is

4
surrounded by a wall ten handbreadths high, one may carry inside it, as it constitutes a proper
private domain. This is provided that it contains a watchman’s booth or a dwelling place, or
it is near the town in which its owner lives, so that he uses it and it is treated like a dwelling.

Rabbi Yehuda says: This is not necessary, for even if it contains only a water cistern, an
elongated water ditch, or a cave, i.e., a covered pit containing water, one may carry inside it, as
the water bestows upon it the status of a dwelling. Rabbi Akiva says: Even if it has none of these
one may carry inside it, provided that it measures not more than seventy cubits and a
remainder by seventy cubits and a remainder.

Thus far the tanna’im allow carrying in an area of 2 beis seah. R. Akiva already demanded a square.
Is this qualified by the shape of a Karpaf? A Karpaf less than 2 beis seah is not affected by its
dimensions.

Rabbi Eliezer says: If its length is greater than its breadth, even by one cubit, one may not
carry inside it, even though its total area does not exceed an area of two beit se’a, because in an
area that was enclosed not for the purpose of residence, carrying is only permitted if the area is
perfectly square.

Rabbi Eliezer permits carrying in an area of two beis seah only if it is a square.
But 5000 square amos would be forbidden.

5
Rabbi Yosei says: Even if its length is double its breadth, one may carry inside it, and there
is no need to be particular about a square shape.

i.e. A Karpaf the area of 100 amos long by 50 amos wide. He allows this because this is the size
of the courtyard in the Tabernacle. However, if the length exceeds 100 amos he too forbids
carrying.

Rabbi Elai said: I heard from Rabbi Eliezer that one is permitted to carry in a garden or karpef,
even if the garden is an area of a beit kor, i.e., thirty times larger than the area of a beit se’a.

Incidentally, he adds: And I also heard from him another halakha: If one of the residents of a
courtyard forgot and did not join in an eiruv with the other residents when they established an
eiruv, and on Shabbat he ceded ownership of his part in the courtyard to the other residents, then
it is prohibited for him, the one who forgot to establish an eiruv, to bring in objects or take them
out from his house to the courtyard; however, it is permitted to them, the other residents, to
bring objects from their houses to that person’s house via the courtyard, and vice versa. We do not
say that the failure of one resident to join in the eiruv nullifies the validity of the eiruv for the entire
courtyard.

And I also heard from him another halakha, that one may fulfill his obligation to eat bitter
herbs on Passover with arkablin, a certain bitter herb. With regard to all three rulings, I circulated
among all of Rabbi Eliezer’s disciples, seeking a colleague who had also heard these matters
from him, but I could not find one.

Gemara

The Gemara asks: But the view of Rabbi Akiva is the same as that of the first tanna, i.e., Rabbi
Yehuda ben Bava, who maintains that in the case of a garden that was not enclosed for the purpose
of residence, one is only permitted to carry if the area of the enclosed area is no more than two beit
se’a. Rabbi Akiva disagrees only about whether we require a watchman’s booth or a dwelling

6
place as well, but the two agree with regard to the size of the garden. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva’s
stipulation: Provided that it measures not more than seventy cubits and a remainder by seventy
cubits and a remainder, is superfluous.

The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to a tiny amount.
And what is this tiny amount? It is as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: It is by a
tiny amount that one of the sides of a square measuring two beit se’a exceeds seventy cubits and
a remainder, but the Sages did not give its exact measurement, owing to its small size and
because it is impossible to be absolutely precise about the matter.

And what is the measure of the area of two beit se’a? It is as large as the courtyard of the
Tabernacle, which was fifty cubits by one hundred cubits. The first tanna and Rabbi Akiva dispute
this issue: The first tanna maintains that the garden may have an area as large as two beit se’a,
whereas Rabbi Akiva says that it must not exceed seventy and two-thirds cubits squared.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The matters referred to are that we
must square the courtyard of the Tabernacle in order to reach the size of garden or similar enclosure
in which one is permitted to carry on Shabbat.

The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda said: This is learned from the verse that stated:

7
 ‫יח ֹאֶר\ ֶהָחֵצר ֵמָאה ָבַאָמּה ְוֹרַחב ֲחִמִשּׁים‬ 18 The length of the court shall be a hundred cubits, and
;‫ֵשׁשׁ ָמְשָׁזר‬--‫ ְוֹקָמה ָחֵמשׁ ַאמּוֹת‬,‫ַבֲּחִמִשּׁים‬ the breadth fifty everywhere, and the height five cubits, of
.‫ ְנֹחֶשׁת‬,‫ְוַאְדֵניֶהם‬ fine twined linen, and their sockets of brass.
Ex 27:18

“The length of the courtyard shall be a hundred cubits, and the breadth fifty by fifty, and
the height, five cubits of fine twined linen, and their sockets of brass”

The Torah said: Take a square of fifty cubits by fifty cubits and surround it with the remaining
fifty cubits until they form a square, each side of which measures seventy cubits and a remainder.

The Gemara asks: But to what does the plain meaning of the verse refer? The plain sense of the
text cannot be coming to teach us the laws of carrying. Abaye said that it means as follows: The
Tabernacle was thirty cubits long and ten cubits wide. The courtyard was a hundred cubits long
and fifty cubits wide. Position the Tabernacle in the middle of the courtyard at the edge of fifty
cubits, so that there is a space of fifty cubits in front of it, and a space of twenty cubits in every
direction, on each of the two sides and behind it.

The Temple Courtyard Dimensions

8
Summary1

The Mishna discusses the rules of a Karpaf: a large, enclosed area, which was not enclosed with
intention to live in it. [Although it is Biblically a private domain, the Sages limited to some extent
how we may carry in it.]

Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava further ruled: A garden or a Karpaf whose area is seventy amos and a
fraction by seventy amos and a fraction and which are surrounded by a wall ten tefachim high,
one may carry in it, provided that there is in it a watchman’s hut or a dwelling place, or it is near
to a town (in which the owner lives; being near to his residence, he would frequently use it, and
consequently, it may be regarded as a dwelling place).

Rabbi Yehudah said: Even if it contained only a water hole, a ditch, or a cave, it is permitted to
carry objects within it. Rabbi Akiva said: Even if it contained none of these, it is permitted to carry
objects within it, provided that its area is seventy amos and a fraction by seventy amos and a
fraction (but not if it exceeds that). Rabbi Eliezer said: If its length exceeded its width - even by a
single amah, it is not permitted to carry any objects within it.

1
Daf Notes: http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Eiruvin_23.pdf

9
Rabbi Yosi said: Even if its length is twice its width, it is permitted to carry objects within it.

The Gemoro asks: Isn’t Rabbi Akiva’s opinion the same ruling as the Tanna Kamma? [The Rabbis,
who maintained that it is permissible to move objects in a Karpaf, which was not enclosed for
dwelling purposes – provided that the area is not more than two beis se’ah i.e., about seventy and
two-thirds amos square.]

The Gemoro answers: The difference between them is a small amount. [The area of two beis se’ah
– 5,000 square amos, exceeds that of seventy and two-thirds amos square – 4,994 square amos.
According to the Tanna Kamma, the area may be as large as two beis se’ah, while according to
Rabbi Akiva it must not exceed that of seventy and two-thirds amos square. The difference between
them is thus a small amount – six square amos.]

For it was taught in a braisa: Rabbi Yehudah said: There is a very small amount which exceeds
seventy amos and a fraction square (where it would still be a permitted area to carry in), but the
Sages did not indicate its exact dimensions. And how much is (the precise area of a Karpaf)? It is
the size of two beis se’ah - one like that of the courtyard of the Tabernacle (which was one hundred
by fifty amos – 5,000 square amos.

The Gemoro asks: From where is this (that the dimensions of the courtyard of the Tabernacle are
to be squared to fix the area in connection with a Karpaf) derived? Rav Yehudah said: It is from
that which the verse states: The length of the courtyard shall be one hundred amos, and the width
fifty by fifty. The Torah thus ordained: Take away fifty (the excess of the length – one hundred
amos, over the width - fifty amos), and surround (the remaining) fifty (to form a perfect square,
which equals 5,000 square amos; this will have some significance for a different Halachah, i.e., a
Karpaf on Shabbos).

10
The Gemoro asks: What, however, is the simple meaning of the verse? Abaye replied: Erect the
Tabernacle at the edge of fifty amos (from the entrance of the courtyard), so that there might be a
space of fifty amos in front of it (the Tabernacle) and one of twenty amos on each side of it. [The
Tabernacle was thirty amos long and ten amos wide. Dividing the length of the courtyard – one
hundred amos, in two sections and erect the Tabernacle in one of these, with its eastern front
touching the dividing line. It emerges that there would be twenty amos of courtyard space on its
southern, northern and western sides.]

THE SIZE OF A "KARPAF"2

The Gemara explains that both Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yosi in the Mishnah (23a) agree that one
is permitted to carry within a Karpaf that was not Hukaf l’Dirah (fenced-in for residential
purposes) as long as its length is twice its width. If the length is more than twice the width, one is
2
Rav Mordechai Kornfeld Daf Advancement Forum

11
not permitted to carry there on Shabbos. The Gemara asks what they argue about, and it answers
that they argue about “Rivu’a d’Riv’uhah Rabanan” – “the squaring which the Rabanan squared
it.” What does this mean?

RASHI

RASHI explains that according to Rebbi Eliezer, a real Karpaf is one that is twice as long as it is
wide, like the dimensions of the Chatzer of the Mishkan. If it is square, then one is permitted to
carry there only b’Di’eved. Rebbi Yosi maintains that a real Karpaf is one that is square. If its
length is greater than its width, then b’Di’eved one is permitted to carry there as long as its length
is not more than twice the width. Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yosi argue over which Karpaf is the
“prime” Karpaf mid’Oraisa in which one is permitted to carry l’Chatchilah, and which Karpaf is
the secondary Karpaf, in which one is permitted to carry only b’Di’eved.

What, though, does Rashi mean when he says that one is permitted to carry “b’Di’eved”? “Carrying
b’Di’eved” does not mean that we advise the person not to carry except under extenuating
circumstances, because Rashi would not express this allowance by saying that it is permitted
“b’Di’eved,” but rather that it is permitted “b’She’as ha’Dechak.” If, however, “carrying
b’Di’eved” means simply that one is permitted to carry there, then both opinions are saying the
same thing!

Apparently, they argue about a case in which a person wants to make a fence around his Karpaf in
order to permit one to carry in it on Shabbos. They argue about the best way to fence-in the Karpaf
l’Chatchilah.

TOSFOS (DH Ika Beinaihu) and the RIF disagree with Rashi’s explanation, because it is unlikely
that the argument involves a case of a person who wants to fence-in his Karpaf specifically for the
purpose of carrying there on Shabbos.

Tosfos explains that the argument between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yosi is the same argument
that we find later (49b) between Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos and the Rabanan. Rebbi Chanina

12
ben Antignos maintains that the 2000-Amah Techum of Shabbos is measured from the point where
the person is located when Shabbos begins to 2000 Amos in every direction around him, so that
his Techum forms a circle around him.
The Rabanan maintain that the 2000-Amah Techum is a square around him, so that he may actually
walk more than 2000 Amos, if he walks along the diagonal of the square.

In the Mishnah here, Rebbi Eliezer maintains that the diagonal of a Karpaf may be only twice as
long as its width, as Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos says (consequently, the length of the Karpaf
must be somewhat less than twice the width).

13
Rebbi Yosi maintains that the diagonal may be longer, as long as the side of the rectangular area
is not more than twice the width, as the Rabanan say.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

The Mishna (23a) introduces us to a situation of a karpef she-eino mukaf ledirah – an enclosed
area that is not used for living purposes - rather it is a garden or an enclosed courtyard used for
storage that is not connected to a house.

Although biblically such an area is a reshut ha-yahid – a private domain – the Rabbis of the Talmud
ruled that it should be considered a karmelit, where it is forbidden to carry because of a Rabbinic
decree.

This is only if the area is larger than a beit se'atayim - the area of land on which two measures
(se'ah) of grain can be grown. [Note: A beit se'ah, which can produce one se'ah of grain, is 50
amot by 50 amot. Thus, a beit se'atayim is 500 square amot.] If the area is smaller than this size,
then it will be considered a reshut ha-yahid – a private domain – if a number of conditions are met:
According to Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava it needs to have a guard shack or be near the city.

According to Rabbi Yehuda it is enough to have a water cistern of some sort. According to Rabbi
Akiva it does not need any of these things, as long as it is not larger than 70+ amot by 70+amot.
The Gemara explains that the source for the rule of 500 square amot as the maximum for a non-
living area is the size of the courtyard of the Mishkan, whose dimensions were 50 x 100 amot.

The amora Rav Yehuda explains that Rabbi Akiva understood the repetition in that passage "the
length of the courtyard – a hundred by the cubit, the width – fifty by fifty" as indicating that we
are to take the 50 x 50 square and add around it the second 50 x 50 square, giving us a square of
just over 70 x 70.

The sides of the resulting square are just under 70 and 2/3 amot. A closer approximation is 70.71
amot (accurate to within one-tenth of a square ama), but even that is only an approximation, as the
exact length is an irrational number that cannot be fully calculated. As presented by the Gemara,

Rabbi Akiva believes that the approximation of 70 and 2/3 is accurate enough to be accepted by
the Sages as the working length, and it is not necessary to attempt a more exact measurement for
something that will, in any case, never be precise.

3
https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446

14
The total area of two se’ah is 50 x 100 amah, or 5000 square amos.4

An area this size or larger was deemed by the sages to be too large to enclose with a fence in order
to make it into a private domain.

Less than this area, however, was not restricted by the sages.

The size of 50 x 100 amah is derived from the size of the courtyard of the Mishkan, the temporary
Tabernacle which was erected by the Jews during their sojourn through the desert.

Why, Tosafos ask, do we use the dimensions of the Mishkan as a frame of reference, and we do not
use the courtyard of the Beis HaMikdash instead, which was much larger (135 x 135 amos)?

Tosafos answer that all halachos of Shabbos are rooted in the Mishkan. Just as the melachos are
derived from the labors of the Mishkan, so are the measurements of a Karpaf learned from the
Mishkan.

Tosafos also point out that the courtyard of the Beis HaMikdash was actually not a classic karpef,
because the Levi ’im used to stand guard at their stations throughout the courtyard, and even
overnight (see Middos 1:1).

Therefore, it was an enclosure which was designed for residence, and not a karpeif. The Ya’avetz
and the Netzi”v note that the Levi’im also served as guards in the Mishkan.

Why, then, is the courtyard of the Mishkan used as a prototype of a karpeif?

They answer that, nevertheless, the Beis HaMikdash had many rooms and compartments which
were used for residence of the Kohanim under certain circumstances (the Kohen Gadol the week
before Yom Kippur, and for the Kohen who came to burn the Parah Adumah).

The Mishkan, however, did not serve as a residence at any time.

4
Daf Digest: https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Eruvin/Eruvin%20023.pdf

15
C H A N N A L O C K S H I N B O B writes:5

A common misconception about the eruv is that it is merely an enclosure around a space: walls,
beams, or even strings tied to poles. In fact, for the rabbis of the Talmud, the eruv’s effectiveness
for allowing objects to be carried on Shabbat depends on the space within the eruv as much as on
the eruv itself.

On today’s daf, the rabbis are discussing an outdoor space that is enclosed by a fence. Given what
we’ve learned so far in Tractate Eruvin, we would assume it is permitted to carry on Shabbat in a
space that is entirely surrounded. But according to the Mishnah on our daf, that is not the case:

Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava said: With regard to a garden or a karpef, an enclosed courtyard used
for storage, that is not more than seventy cubits and a remainder, and is surrounded by a wall ten
handbreadths high, one may carry inside it, as it constitutes a proper private domain. This is
provided that it contains a watchman’s booth or a dwelling place, or it is near the town in which
its owner lives, so that he uses it and it is treated like a dwelling.

According to Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, carrying in an enclosed area is allowed only if it contains
a watchman’s booth or a dwelling place, or it is close to a city. But another rabbi, also named
Yehuda, disagrees, saying that even having a water cistern, a ditch, or a cave inside the space
would be sufficient to allow carrying. The rabbis disagree about the specifics, but they agree on
the larger point: carrying is only permitted in an enclosed space if it resembles a living space. Their
disagreement is only about what defines a space as a living space, whether a resource like water,
or the protection of a watchman, or even just a convenient location.

Rabbi Akiva and other rabbis maintain that none of this is necessary. According to them, all that
matters in determining whether an enclosed space is suitable for carrying on Shabbat is its size.
But in determining what that size is, they too look to a standard that suggests the idea of a living
space: The courtyard surrounding the Tabernacle, which measured about 500 square cubits. So
long as the enclosed space is no larger than this, one can carry within it on Shabbat with no further
modifications.

Why did the rabbis consider the Tabernacle a model for an eruv? The Tabernacle was a portable
sanctuary that the Israelites carried with them as they wandered in the wilderness. Along with the
permanent version built later, the Temple in Jerusalem, the Tabernacle is described in the Torah
as a place where God dwells.

Even the Hebrew words we use to describe these holy sites remind us of our homes: The
Tabernacle is a mishkan, meaning dwelling place, and the Temple Mount is Har Habayit, literally
“the mount of the house.”

5
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/eruvin-23/

16
God’s dwelling place thus becomes a model for our dwellings. This parallel occurs throughout the
Talmud. We’ve already seen it multiple times already in Eruvin, in the debate about how large an
area a caravan is permitted to enclose on Shabbat and in the debate about the structural elements
that constitute an entrance.

In Tractate Sukkah, the size of a sukkah is based on the size of the Holy of Holies that lay at the
innermost point of the Tabernacle. And in Tractate Bava Batra, the height of a wall between
neighboring properties is compared to the height of the Temple’s walls.

For the rabbis, God’s presence is immanent — not just up in heaven, but also here on earth. God’s
home is just another home in the neighborhood, and its descriptions teach us what our homes and
courtyards are to look like.

We can see this as an established fact, but also as a challenge: How can we turn our homes, and
even our outdoor spaces, into sacred spaces where God dwells?

Rav Amnon Bezeq writes:6

The Temple to Come: The Outer Courtyard and the Gates

Chapters 40-48 constitute the unit that seals the Book of Ezekiel, and is concerned with the
description of the Temple, Jerusalem and the Land of Israel for the future to come.

These chapters are difficult to understand, both because of words and terms whose meaning has
not been clarified, and because of the difficulty in understanding the general structure that
All the commentators have stood up to these difficulties, and increased emerges from the detail
to do two of them, which have finished their interpretation of the book at the beginning of our
Chapter.

6
https://www.etzion.org.il/

17
.
The yard is now measured

The front of the inner court [31] in Nineteen) And there was a breadth in front of the lower gate)
:outside a hundred cubits east and north

18
It turns out that the reference is to the distance between the gates of the outer courtyard and the
gates of the inner courtyard ("[to] before [the gateway] of the inner courtyard [t]"), which also
protrude into the outer courtyard, i.e. outwards ("outside"), as will be seen later in the
Although the verse only mentions the eastern gate and the northern gate ("the Kadim .chapter
.and the north"), the same is true of the southern gate, as explained below in verse 27

The northern gate and the southern gate of the outer courtyard

19
The problem with the inner dimensions:
Rav Yitzchak Levi writes:7

THE STRUCTURE OF THE MISHKAN AND ITS INTERNAL DIVISION

It is noteworthy that the length and width of the structure are not clearly spelled out in the Torah's
description of the Mishkan. These dimensions are only learned from the width and number of the
boards, which indicate that the overall length of the structure (on the east-west axis) was thirty
cubits, while its width (on the north-south axis) was ten cubits.

The length of each component of the structure (the length of the Heikhal and the length of the Holy
of Holies) is also not stated explicitly in Scripture. These dimensions are learned from the fact that
the parokhet was situated beneath the clasps that connected the two couplings of the Mishkan, and
that it separated between the Holy and the Holy of Holies. Based on the measurement of the
couplings of the Mishkan, the length of the Holy was twenty cubits long; thus, the Holy of Holies
was ten cubits long.8

It is interesting that in contrast to the structure of the Mishkan itself, whose dimensions are not
spelled out in the Torah, the precise measurements of the courtyard – 100 cubits by 50 cubits – are
provided.

In addition, the Torah does not even note where precisely the structure of the Mishkan stood in
relation to the courtyard – in other words, in which part of the courtyard the Mishkan stood.
Similarly, the Torah does not state the direction from which one enters the Mishkan; this is only
derived from the location of the boards on the other sides.

Fundamentally, there is room to propose various divisions based on the materials used in the
building and in the embroidery, on the holy vessels and their meaning, on the open portions and
the built-up portions, and the like. Our assumption, as was mentioned at the outset, is that the
internal division between the various parts of the Mishkan has spiritual significance, and this is
what we shall try to understand in this lecture.

“WHAT WAS SHOWN YOU IN THE MOUNTAIN”

When the Torah records God's commands to Moshe to build the Mishkan, it uses on several
occasions the expression, "what was shown you in the mountain." This expression teaches us that
Moshe was commanded to build on earth an exact replica of the structure that God showed him
above.

7
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/lecture-96athe-structure-mishkan-and-its-internal-division#_ftn1
8
An interesting question is whether this fact in itself teaches that the length, width, and internal division of the structure have no
meaning based on the verses themselves, or perhaps this has some other meaning.

20
 Midrash Lekach Tov says as follows:

‫ ֵאת ַתְּב ִנית‬,•‫ ֲאֶשׁר ֲא ִני ַמ ְרֶאה אוְֹת‬,‫ט ְכֹּכל‬ 9 According to all that I show thee, the pattern of the
,‫ֵכָּליו; ְוֵכן‬-‫ ְוֵאת ַתְּב ִנית ָכּל‬,‫ַהִמְּשָׁכּן‬ tabernacle, and the pattern of all the furniture thereof, even
{‫ }ס‬.‫ַתֲּﬠשׂוּ‬ so shall ye make it.
Ex 25:9
– this teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed Moshe the entire work of the pattern of
the Mishkan; He showed it all to him in an image of fire.

And similarly, in Pesikta Rabbati:

Immediately after Moshe ascended on high, the Holy One, blessed be He, opened the seven
firmaments, and showed him the heavenly Temple, and showed him the four colors from
which the Mishkan was made, as it is stated: "And you shall rear up the Mishkan, according
to its fashion which was shown you in the mountain"

PESIKTA RABBATI 20:3

In Yalkut Ma'ayan Ganim9 it is stated:

This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed Moshe an image of the Mishkan and
the vessels in heaven and said: Thus do below.

In other words, the Mishkan that Moshe was commanded to build was a precise replica of
the Mishkan that God showed him above. These midrashim assert an essential point regarding the
structure of the Mishkan - in addition to the explicit guidelines in the Torah relating to the structure,
form, materials, vessels, and the like, God also showed Moshe the structure of the building and the
vessels. A structure that is supposed to represent the Shechinah’s presence in the world must match
God's will in a most precise manner, and the earthly structure must therefore exactly correspond
to the heavenly structure.

Man's involvement lies in the very building of the structure – not in its form, structure, materials,
and vessels, but in the precise realization of the Divine plan.

This point is expressed in the fact that the Torah is not satisfied with one general statement, but
rather repeats this idea several times. First, there is a general statement:

According to all that I show you, the pattern of the Mishkan, and the pattern of all its
vessels, even so shall you make it. (Ex 25:9)

Afterwards, following the command regarding the menorah, it says:

9
cited Torah Sheleima on Shemot 25:9 letter 87

21
 And look that you make them after their pattern, which was shown you in the mountain.
(25:40)

Similarly, at the end of the command regarding the building of the boards, it says:

And you shall rear up the Mishkan according to its fashion which was shown you in the
mountain.

The reiteration of this principle with respect to the various components of the Mishkan teaches us
how important and fundamental it is.

This principle arises with respect to the Mishkan, but in a more fundamental way it arises with
respect to the Mikdash in general. Thus, for example, in the description of the First Temple in I
Divrei Ha-yamim (28:11-19) I Divrei Ha-yamim (28:11-19) I Divrei Ha-yamim (28:11-19), the
term "pattern" (tavnit) repeats itself several times (vv. 11, 12, 18, 19):

And the pattern of all that he had by the spirit, of the courts of the house of the Lord, and
of all the chambers round about, of the treasuries of the house of God, and of the treasuries
of the holy things… All this, said he, is put in writing by the hand of the Lord who instructed
me, all the works of this pattern.

Rashi explains:

All this he put in writing – Shmuel the seer arranged it all for him in writing, the weight of
each and every vessel.

All the works of this pattern – He enlightened me regarding the pattern of the house, e.g.,
the length, the width, and the height. Shmuel expounded it all from the Torah by way of the
holy spirit, as we have learned: The Temple mount was five hundred cubits by five hundred
cubits. He expounded: "The length of the courts shall be a hundred cubits, and the breadth
fifty by fifty. fifty times fifty, i.e., twenty-five hundred. He cut them into strips, so that they
were five hundred by five hundred… Shmuel expounded it all by way of the holy spirit and
taught it to David.

In other words, there was an exposition of the pattern of the Temple by way of the holy spirit.
Similarly, we find in the midrash:

R. Yirmiya [said] in the name of R. Shmuel his son: The Holy One, blessed be He,
transmitted the scroll of the Temple while standing. This is what it says: "But as for you,
stand here by Me" (Devarim 5:28). Moshe transmitted it to Yehoshua while standing, as it
is stated: "Call Yehoshua and stand" (Devarim 31:14). Yehoshua stood and transmitted it
to the elders while standing, as it is stated: "And Yehoshua gathered all the elders of Israel
and they stood before God" (Yehoshua 24:1). The elders stood and transmitted it to the
prophets while standing. The prophets stood and transmitted it to David while standing,
but we don't have a verse. David stood and transmitted it to his son Shlomo while standing,
as it is stated: "But You, O Lord, be gracious to me, and raise me up, that I may pay them

22
 back" (Tehillim 41:11). And it says: "All in writing," which teaches that the Torah was
given for exposition; "by the hand of the Lord," which teaches that it was given by way of
tradition; "who instructed me," which teaches that it was given by way of the holy spirit."
(Yalkut Shimoni, I Divrei Ha-yamim, no. 1081)

It follows from this midrash that the scroll of the Temple was transmitted from one generation to
the next by way of the holy spirit, and it was given for exposition.

It is interesting that it is not only with respect to the physical structure of the Mishkan and
the Mikdash and their vessels that the Torah emphasizes that they must conform to what God
showed Moshe at Sinai. With respect to the precise location of the Temple as well, the Torah
strongly emphasizes God's choosing of the place. This point is expressed in various places:

• Chazal interpret the name Moriya: "R. Yudan said: To the place that will be shown (mur'eh) to
you" (Bereishit Rabba 25:7).
• The entire length of the book of Devarim, the Torah speaks about "the place that the Lord shall
choose," the place chosen by God and not by man.
• When the angel tells the prophet to instruct David to build an altar at the threshing floor of
Aravna the Yevusi, it says: "Then the angel of the Lord commanded Gad to say to David that
David should go up and set up an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Ornan the Yevusi" (I
Divrei Ha-Yamim 21:18(I Divrei Ha-Yamim 21:18(I Divrei Ha-Yamim 21:18). Thus, the
precise location of the Temple was determined when the prophet pointed out to David the place
where he should set up an altar in the threshing floor of Aravna the Yevusi.
• Interestingly, the gemara says about the period of the return to Zion:

Rabba bar Bar Chana said in the name of R. Yochanan: Three prophets went up with them
from the exile: one testified to them about [the dimensions of] the altar; another testified to
them about the site of the altar; and the third testified to them that they could sacrifice even
though there was no Temple (Zevachim 2b).

Rashi explains:

Another testified to them about [the dimensions] of the altar – that there is room to enlarge
it up to sixty cubits.
About the location of the altar – where it is.
That they could sacrifice even though there was no Temple – that the sanctity of the Temple
was for its own time and for the future.

During the time of the return to Zion, the prophets Chaggai, Zekharya, and Malakhi pointed to the
precise location of the altar (similar to the prophet Gad, who pointed to the precise location of the
altar that would be built by David).10

10
In this context, it is interesting to note the words of the Rambam in Hilkhot Bet Ha-Bechira (2:1): "The altar is [to be
constructed] in a very precise location, which may never be changed, as it is said (II Divrei Ha-yamim 22:1(II Divrei Ha-yamim
22:1(II Divrei Ha-yamim 22:1): 'This is the altar for the burnt offerings of Israel.' Yitzchak was prepared as a sacrifice on the
Temple's [future] site, as it is said (Bereishit 22:2): 'Go to the land of Moriya,' and in Divrei Ha-yamim (II 3:1), it is said: 'Then,
Shlomo began to build the House of the Lord in Jerusalem, on Mount Moriya, where [the Lord] appeared to David, his father, in
the place that David had prepared, in the threshing floor of Ornan, the Yebusite.'"

23
 From here we may conclude that all the details relating to the building of the Mishkan, the First
Temple, and the Second Temple were given by way of prophecy to Moshe, to David, and
afterwards to the leaders of the return to Zion – Chaggai, Zekharya and Malakhi.

H IL A R A T Z A B I writes:11

The 19th-century Russian-Jewish commentator Malbim provided a symbolic explanation for the
relevance of the tabernacle. It was not that God needed a physical sanctuary on earth, but that each
one of us is called to build a tabernacle for God in our hearts, preparing ourselves to become a
sanctuary for God.

The portability of the tabernacle foreshadows the future movements of the Jewish people in exile,
where they built synagogues and houses of study wherever they migrated. The tabernacle also
stands as a symbol of the paradox of divine presence in the world:

On the one hand, God is believed to be everywhere — or perhaps, as the Malbim argues, in human
hearts — but on the other hand, the tabernacle (and later the Temple in Jerusalem and synagogues
throughout the world) represents a physical location where humans can experience a connection
to God.

The Tabernacle vs. the Temple

The Holy Temple in Jerusalem, first built in 957 BCE by King Solomon, became the permanent
sanctuary for the Israelites to worship God (until it was destroyed and later rebuilt and destroyed
again). The tabernacle was the portable sanctuary they used while wandering in the desert.

Archaeological Evidence of the Tabernacle

In 2013, it was reported that possible evidence had been found of the tabernacle in the ancient city
of Shiloh, in the West Bank. Archaeologists discovered holes hewn into rock that may have been
used for propping up the wooden beams of the tabernacle. Previous research at the site had also
found remains of possibly sacrificed animals and evidence of bathing pools where the High Priest
may have cleansed himself in preparation to enter the tabernacle.

11
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-tabernacle/

24
The Mystical Dimension of the Mishkan12

Three Domains

The Midrash and the Biblical commentaries, and particularly the Kabbalist and the Chassidic
expounders of Torah, elaborate on this theme, describing the Mishkan as a model of man, of the
physical universe, and of creation as a whole.

The Mishkan's furnishings or "vessels," for example, are seen as representations of the various
organs and faculties of man: the Ark (containing the Torah) corresponds to the mind, intellect and
the faculty of speech; the Menorah, to the eyes and the sense of sight; the Table that held the
"showbread," to the sense of taste; the Inner Altar on which the Ketoret (incense) was burned, to
the sense of smell; and the Outer Altar on which the animal and meal offerings were brought
represent the digestive system and other "functional" organs.

In the Mishkan, these three domains are represented by:

1) the courtyard;

2) the outer chamber of the Sanctuary (the "Holy"); and

3) the "Holy of Holies" — the inner chamber behind the "Veil" or Parochet (see diagram).

12
https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/1314/jewish/Anatomy-of-a-Dwelling.htm

25
The courtyard embraced also the more earthy and "coarse" elements of the Temple service: here
the Kohanim washed their hands and feet to cleanse themselves from their contact with the
material world before beginning their service or entering the Mishkan proper; here the fat of
the Korbanot (animal sacrifices), representing the "excess" materiality in the life of man, was
burned upon the Altar; here were deposited the ashes that constituted the "waste" from the
Menorah and the Inner Altar. Here were slaughtered the Korbanot, including those whose meat
was eaten by ordinary Israelites.

The "Holy," into which only the Kohanim were permitted entry, was the scene of the more
"refined" elements of the Temple service: the lighting of the Menorah, the burning of the incense,
and the displaying on the Table of the "showbread" eaten by the Kohanim on Shabbat.

26
Finally, the "Holy of Holies," which housed only the Ark and into which only
the Kohen Gadol was permitted entry and only on Yom Kippur, represented the utter
transcendence of the material in man's service of God.

The Mishkan included these three domains because the task of "making God a dwelling in the
lower realms" embraces all these areas of life: the Jew serves God in his or her most exalted
moments; we also serve Him in our effort to elevate and refine our world; and we also strive to
make Him "at home" within the most ordinary activities of everyday life.

27