Daf Ditty Shekalim 12: Divine vs Human Ownership

1
2
3
[12a]
Halakha 4 · MISHNA One who consecrates all his possessions without specifying for what
purpose, his possessions are consecrated for Temple maintenance. And if among them there are
items that are suitable for use as communal offerings, which may not be used for the maintenance
of the Temple but only for sacrificial purposes, what is done with those items to remove their
consecration for Temple maintenance, in order that they may be reconsecrated for sacrificial use?

They are given to Temple artisans as their wages, and thereby they are desacralized; this is the
statement of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai said to him: This is not the method to be used. Rather,
the same method that is used to desacralize the leftover incense, as is described in the previous
mishna, should also be used here, i.e., they set aside from the consecrated items the equivalent of
the value owed to the artisans for their wages, and they desacralize them by transferring their
sanctity onto the money allocated for the artisans’ wages, and then they give those items, which
are no longer consecrated, to the artisans as their wages. According to both opinions, once the
desacralized items are in the possession of the artisans, one of Temple treasurers should
repurchase those items using money from that year’s new collection of half-shekels,
consecrating them for sacrificial use during the coming year.

4
In the case of one who consecrates all his possessions without specifying for what purpose, and
among them there is an animal that is suitable to be sacrificed on the altar, male or female,
what should be done with it?

5
Rabbi Eliezer says: Since he did not specify otherwise, everything is consecrated for Temple
maintenance. Therefore, any males should be sold for the needs of burnt-offerings, i.e., to
individuals who will sacrifice them as such. And any females, since they cannot be brought as
burnt-offerings, should be sold for the needs of peace-offerings, i.e., to individuals who will
sacrifice them as such. And their monetary value that is received from their sale is allocated
with the rest of his property for Temple maintenance.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: Although he did not specify for what purpose he consecrated his
possessions, it may be assumed that he intended the animals to be consecrated as burnt-offerings.

Therefore, any males should themselves be sacrificed as burnt-offerings, and any females, since
they cannot be brought as burnt-offerings, should be sold for the needs of peace-offerings, i.e.,
to individuals who will sacrifice them as such, and their monetary value that is received from
their sale should be used to purchase and bring burnt-offerings.

According to both opinions, the rest of the possessions, which are not suitable for sacrificial use,
are allocated for Temple maintenance.

6
Rabbi Akiva said: I see the statement of Rabbi Eliezer as more correct than the statement of
Rabbi Yehoshua, since Rabbi Eliezer applied his method equally to both animals and other
possessions in treating both as consecrated for Temple maintenance, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua
made a distinction between them.

Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

The distribution of one's possessions after he donated them

The Mishna discusses at length what to do in a case where someone consecrated all his possessions,
and amongst those possessions were some items that were fit for specific purposes in the Beis
Hamikdosh.

Ketores

If one consecrated all his possessions, and amongst those possessions were some items that were
fit for communal offerings, they shall be given to the Temple craftsmen as wages; these are the
words of Rabbi Akiva. [If those items included the Ketores (this is Rabbi Yochanan's interpretation
in the Gemora), Rabbi Akiva holds that the money should be used to pay the craftsmen who
produce the Ketores. (Rabbi Akiva's opinion is that Hekdesh can be redeemed onto labor.)] Ben

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Shekalim_12.pdf

7
Azzai disagrees and says that since Hekdesh cannot be redeemed onto labor, it has to be first
redeemed onto the coins that will go to the craftsmen, and only then can they receive it.

Animals

A person dedicated all of his possessions to hekdesh, and among them were male and female
animals that were fitting to be used as sacrifices. Rabbi Eliezer says: The males should be sold to
be brought as olah offerings, and the females should be sold to be offered as shelamim, and the
money from the sale goes to the Temple repairs along with the rest of his possessions. [R’ Eliezer
maintains that dedications are usually for Temple repairs, even of things that are fit for the altar.

Nevertheless, the law is that whatever is suitable for the altar must be offered to the altar.] Rabbi
Yehoshua says: The males themselves should be brought as olah offerings, and the females should
be sold to people who will offer them as shelamim. The money from the sale should be used to
buy olah offerings. The other possessions are hekdesh. [R’ Yehoshua holds that one does not
ignore animals fit for the altar and dedicate them for Temple repairs. Consequently, we assume
that they were dedicated for the altar and they themselves are offered up.]

Rabbi Akiva preferred Rabbi Eliezer's opinion, since according to him both males and females are
sold, unlike Rabbi Yehoshua whose opinion is “split” as to what to do with the male and female
animals. Rabbi Papayis said that both opinions are valid. Rabbi Eliezer's opinion is true when the
individual consecrated his possessions while specifying a cause, then we can say that he meant
that everything should go to Hekdesh, but Rabbi Yehoshua was referring to a case where the person
didn't specify at all the cause of the donation, so we can assume that he meant that each animal
should be brought as its appropriate korban.

Consecrating all his Possessions

The Gemora cites a Mishna (in Temurah) which contrasts consecrated items designated as a
sacrifice and those designated for the maintenance fund of the Temple. Consecrating for the
maintenance fund:

1. Is the default type assumed for unspecified consecration

2. Can take effect on all items
3. Makes one is liable for me’ilah – misuse on items that grow from it
4. Doesn’t give the ones who consecrated any benefit

Rabbi Chanina said: The author of that Mishna is Rabbi Liezer, for it was taught in our Mishna: A
person dedicated all of his possessions to hekdesh, and among them were male and female animals
that were fitting to be used as sacrifices. Rabbi Eliezer says: The males should be sold to be brought
as olah offerings, and the females should be sold to be offered as shelamim, and the money from
the sale goes to the Temple repairs along with the rest of his possessions. [Evidently, R’ Eliezer
maintains that dedications are usually for Temple repairs, even of things that are fit for the altar.]

Rabbi Yochanan cites a verse which supports Rabbi Eliezer’s position that unspecified
consecration goes to the upkeep of the Temple. The Gemora explains the argument between Rabbi

8
Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua further. Rabbi Zeira feels that they're only arguing if one consecrated
his (regular) possessions. However, if he consecrated his herd of animals, surely Rabbi Eliezer
would agree that they should be brought as actual offerings. However, Rabbi Ba says that the
argument is about the herd, but if he consecrated general possessions, all agree that they should go
to the upkeep of the Temple.

The Gemora asks: How can this be? Aren't all animals (of Hekdesh) fit for the Altar? How can
there be an argument, and Rabbi Eliezer holds that one who consecrated his animals, they should
go to the upkeep of the Temple, instead of being offered as a korban?

The Gemora interprets the donor's “silence” (the fact that he did not specify his intent) to mean
that they should indeed go to the upkeep of the Temple. Otherwise, he would have verbally
specified where they should go to.

The third opinion is that of Rabbi Yochanan, who holds that the dispute is regarding both types
of consecrations.

The Rambam (Hilchos Temurah 1:21) rules like the Chachomim in the three-way dispute we
brought above. But the Sfas Emes has a difficult time understanding this, since the Rambam should
rule like Rebbi, who agreed with Rabbi Shimon.

He explains that our dispute depends on a dispute in a Mishna in Maseches Teruma (19b) where
the Tannaim differ about what to do if a female animal was consecrated towards an Asham. The
Chachomim say that this animal should graze until it receives a blemish (rendering it improper for
a korban), and then it can be sold as chulin.

Those funds will now be used to purchase a new male animal for that Asham. Rabbi Shimon
disagrees, and says that the animal can be sold immediately, even without a blemish. It is this
Rabbi Shimon that the Rambam rules like.

Since the same animal can be sold it must be that it is subject to Temurah as well.

"MAKDISH B'FERUSH" AND "MAKDISH STAM"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Mishnah discusses a case in which a person consecrated all of his possessions to Hekdesh.
Included among his possessions were both male and female animals. Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi
Yehoshua argue about what is done with the animals. Rebbi Eliezer says that both the male and
female animals must be sold. The males are sold to be used as Olos, and the females are sold to be
used as Shelamim, and the money received for them goes to Bedek ha'Bayis. Rebbi Yehoshua says
that the males themselves are offered as Olos, and the females (which cannot be used for Olos) are

2
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/shekalim/insites/sk-dt-012.htm

9
sold to be used as Shelamim and the money is used to buy Olos, and the rest of his possessions go
to Bedek ha'Bayis (see Chart).

WHAT ONE MUST DO WITH HIS ANIMALS WHEN

HE IS "MAKDISH" ALL OF HIS POSSESSIONS

(1) According to the RAMBAM (Perush ha'Mishnayos), RABEINU MESHULAM and the RIVEVAN, the opinion of Rebbi
Papyas is the same as that of Rebbi Yehoshua, that the animals (their value) do not go to Bedek ha'Bayis unless the person
explicitly specified so when he was Makdish them. However, according to the BARTENURA and the TIKLIN CHADETIN, Rebbi
Papyas is not siding with Rebbi Yehoshua except in a case when the person did not mention "animals" explicitly when he was
Makdish all of his possessions. If, though, he mentioned animals when he was Makdish his possessions, then all of his possessions,
including the value of the animals, go to Bedek ha'Bayis, like Rebbi Eliezer says.
(2) The BARTENURA, TIKLIN CHADETIN (end of 12b), and others have the Girsa "Rebbi Elazar." It cannot be that Rebbi
Eliezer said that the wines, oils, etc., are sold and the money used for Korbanos, because Rebbi Eliezer earlier in the Mishnah states
that all of the money is used for Bedek ha'Bayis.

Rebbi Papyas says that he heard that the Halachah follows both opinions, in two different cases.
In a case in which a person consecrates his property "b'Ferush" ("explicitly"), the Halachah follows
Rebbi Eliezer; all of the animals are sold and the money is used for Bedek ha'Bayis. In a case in
which a person consecrates his property "Stam" (ambiguously, without specifying), the Halachah
follows Rebbi Yehoshua; the animals (or their value) are used for Olos and the rest of his
possessions go to Bedek ha'Bayis.

What does the Mishnah mean when it refers to a case of "Makdish b'Ferush" and a case of
"Makdish Stam"?

10
BARTENURA and the TIKLIN CHADTIN explain that "Makdish b'Ferush" means that one
mentions explicitly "my possessions and my animals" when he consecrates his possessions to
Hekdesh. He makes special mention of his animals in the same declaration in which he consecrates
the rest of his possessions. Since he does not differentiate between the type of Hekdesh that he
intends his animals to be and the type that he intends his other possessions to be, they all become
the same type of Hekdesh and are given to Bedek ha'Bayis.
In contrast, when one is "Makdish Stam," he does not mention his animals but merely says that he
consecrates "all of my possessions." In such a case it is assumed that his intention is to earmark
each type of object for the particular part of Hekdesh for which it is most suitable.

RAMBAM (Perush ha'Mishnayos), RABEINU MESHULAM, and the RIVEVAN explain that
"Makdish b'Ferush" means that one says specifically that he wants all of his possessions to go "to
Bedek ha'Bayis." In such a case, even Rebbi Yehoshua agrees that his animals (i.e. their value) go
to Bedek ha'Bayis, as Rebbi Eliezer says.

In contrast, when one is "Makdish Stam," he says only that he consecrates all of his possessions
and he does not specify for what purpose they are Hekdesh. In this case, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi
Yehoshua argue. The Halachah follows Rebbi Yehoshua, and the animals are used for Korbanos
and the other possessions go to Bedek ha'Bayis.

Accordingly, Rebbi Papyas rules like Rebbi Yehoshua, and he argues with Rebbi Akiva who rules
like Rebbi Eliezer.

Using Donations to the Temple

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

The Mishna on our daf discusses a case where someone announces that he is donating all of his
possessions to the Mikdash. In such a case, the property is usually given to the Temple treasurer
for general upkeep – bedek ha-bayit. But what if some of his possessions can be brought as
sacrifices?

If some of the possessions are animals that can be brought as sacrifices, there is general agreement
that such an animal should be sacrificed, as that was most probably the intent of the donor.

Furthermore, the korban (sacrifice) should be brought in such a way that it is entirely donated to
the Temple, with no part of it going to the owner. Therefore, all agree that the animals that can be
brought as olot – burnt offerings – should be sacrificed. There is a difference of opinion, however,
with regard to those animals that can be brought as shelamim – korbanot that are divided between
the altar, the kohen and the owner. According to Rabbi Eliezer, such an animal should be sold to
someone who will use it as a shelamim, and the proceeds should be given to the Temple treasurer
together with all the rest of the possessions. Rabbi Yehoshua agrees that such animals should be

3
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/shekalim12/

11
sold to someone who will sacrifice them as a shelamim, but, he says, the proceeds of the sale must
be used to purchase olot.

If some of the possessions are not sacrificial animals, but they can be brought on the altar – for
example, wine, oil, or fowl – Rabbi Eliezer rules that they should be sold to someone who will use
them on the mizbe’ah for its appropriate purpose, and the proceeds should be used to
purchase olot that will be burned on the altar. In this case the Mishna does not record any argument.

The Rambam records this in his Mishneh Torah (Hilkhot Erkhin 5:8-9) and rules like Rabbi
Eliezer in the first case, so that the money received from the sale of the animals that cannot be
brought as olot will be given to the Temple treasurer for general use. This creates an odd situation
that the Rambam feels obligated to explain. In the first case in the Mishna, animals that could be
brought as shelamim are sold and the proceeds are used for bedek ha-bayit. In the second case,
other items brought on the mizbe’ah are sold, but the proceeds from that sale are used to buy
sacrifices!

He explains (based on the passage in Vayikra 27:11-12) that only animals can be evaluated for the
purpose of redemption. As such, the animals in the first case can truly be redeemed, and their value
can be used for the relatively mundane purposes of bedek ha-bayit. The wine, oil, etc. in the second
case cannot be redeemed, so the money retains the original holiness and must be used for actual
sacrifices.

Rabbi Jeremy Rosen writes:4

A long mishnah on today’s page talks about dedicating one's goods or possessions to the Temple.
This is over and above the compulsory annual half shekel for regular Temple maintenance that is
the subject of this tractate — it is a voluntary, personal gift to God’s house. The nature of this
commitment is dealt with in greater detail in Tractate Nedarim — “Vows” — which we will reach
in about a year and half in the Daf Yomi cycle. Here’s what we learn at the end of the mishnah
from today:

One who dedicated his possessions to the Temple and there were amongst them things of the
same kind as those that are used on the altar, for example, wines, oils and birds, Rabbi
Eliezer says: they should be sold to those who need that kind of item (oto ha-min) and he
should use the proceeds of the sale to fund burnt offerings, and the other possessions should
go to the repair of the Temple.

In other words, if someone is offering extra items to the Temple, they don’t just sacrifice whatever
he happens to have on hand, be it wine, oil or birds. Instead, he sells the wine to someone who
needs to make a wine offering and the birds to someone who needs a bird for an offering — to
someone who needs that particular kind of item. He uses the proceeds of the sale to purchase burnt
offerings for the Temple.

4
Myjewishlearning.com

12
Today I’d like to focus on a specific word in this mishnah. The word min, meaning “kind” or
“sort,” today refers to a comparable animal — same species and gender. Or, in the case of produce,
the same kind of plant.

The Gemara introduces an important legal concept here, that recurs throughout the Talmud in
different contexts. The phrases most commonly used are min b’mino (“from its own kind”)
and min b’sh’eino mino (“not from its own kind”). It often shows up in matters of accidental food
mixtures. When forbidden food is accidentally mixed with permitted food, the rabbis allowed one
to annul the forbidden within the permitted and eat the mixture if there was a majority of the
permitted — under certain circumstances (lots of fine print here!).

But the word min is also used in a very different context in the Gemara, to describe a sectarian —
a person whose general religious orientation does not align with the rabbis. This usage probably
dates to the late Second Temple period — roughly the first century of the Common Era (the
Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E.). At that time, Judaism was famously fractured into a number of
competing sects with starkly different ideologies. In this case, the word min (think of an expression
like: “he’s a bad sort”) probably originally reflected the enmity between the Sadducees and the
Pharisees and other Second Temple sects. After the destruction of the Temple, it was directed
against those Jews who supported Rome and later to differentiate Jews from Christians.

In fact, a special prayer was inserted into the daily Amidah asking for such people to have no
authority. This tenth prayer is called “Birkat HaMinim.” It was often censored under Christianity
and, as a result, different Jewish communities use other words, such as malshinim(slanderers)
and mosrim (informers). Interestingly, the word apikoros, the more common word for a heretic, is
not used. But clearly term min, to whomever it was applied, was not meant as a compliment.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:5

The Mishna (Shekalim 4:6) found in our daf (Shekalim 12a) informs us of a dispute between
Rabbi Akiva and Ben Azzai about the use of ‫( הקדש‬items consecrated) to the ‫( בית המקדש‬Temple)
for the ‫( בדק הבית‬upkeep of the Temple).

Interestingly, we are taught elsewhere )Mishna Temurah 7:2) that ‫‘ – סתם הקדש לבדק הבית‬an
unspecified consecration to the Temple is for the upkeep of the Temple’. Based on this, if among
the items that someone consecrated to the Temple were items suitable for communal offerings,
then according to Rabbi Akiva these items can be used to pay the laborers who would build and
repair the Temple. This is because ‫‘ – הקדש מתחלל על המלאכה‬consecrated items can become
deconsecrated by using them to pay for labour’.

Ben Azzai disagrees with this method, and while he accepts that ‘an unspecified consecration to
the Temple is for the upkeep of the Temple’, he argues that a distinct act of deconsecration is
necessary, and that only having done so, the comparable amount of money of the now
deconsecrated items can be given to the labourers.

5
https://web.whatsapp.com/ +972 52-603-0962

13
Interestingly, as noted by the Maharsham (see his ‫)דעת תורה‬, we find a very similar rule to that
presented by Rabbi Akiva in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 154:8) with respect to items
donated to a synagogue, where we are taught that ‘a stipulation to use the Aron Kodesh (Ark) and
everything that we make for a Torah scroll is effective for other uses, and even for mundane uses’.
On this, the Rema then adds that other items in a shul are also often used for more varied purposes
than they were necessarily intended. And this is why ‫ – בית דין מתנה עליהם מעיקרא‬i.e. when a
synagogue receives and purchases items, the local Beit Din stipulates that these items may be used
for various different functions. By doing so, this prevents their more varied use as being expressive
of disregard or disrespect for these items.

Ultimately, what we learn from both the Mishna in Shekalim and the halacha in the Shulchan
Aruch is that while the intentions for sacred giving are important, sacred gifts can occasionally be
used for things that may seem – at least in the eyes of the giver – as being less sacred. Yet for both
a Temple and a synagogue to operate smoothly, there are times when items that have been donated
to them need to be used more flexibly by them.

Our Daf teaches that the basis for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer is from a verse which describes a
person who consecrates the contents of his house. The Torah rules that the property is ‘‫לה קדש‬
which is indicative of the property having the status of . 6‫קדשי בדק הבית‬

The Amoraim dispute the context of the ‫ מחלוקת‬between Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that
consecration is for ‫ הבית בדק‬, and Rabbi Yehoshua, who holds that the consecration of the animals
is for the Altar. Some say that the debate is only where a person consecrates all his possessions,
property as well as livestock, but if he would only consecrate his animals only, even Rabbi Eliezer
would concur that the intent of the person was to have them be used for offerings on the Altar.

Others maintain that the ‫ מחלוקת‬is specifically where the person consecrated his flock, but if he
was ‫ מקדש‬all his possessions, even Rabbi Yehoshua would agree that they are for ‫ הבית בדק‬. This
second approach is based upon the Gemara in Temurah (31b) where we find that a person generally
does not divide his ‫ הקדש‬intent.

Therefore, when he consecrates all his property, which includes items which certainly cannot be
brought on the Altar, we therefore say that even the animals were meant to be for ‫ הבית בדק‬as well.
Rashi and Tosafos (Temurah 31b) explain that the fact that the male animals must be sold to be
used as offerings is based upon the Gemara (Temurah 33b) which concludes that any unblemished
animal which is consecrated for the Mikdash must be used for the Altar (for an offering), even if
the animal was donated as ‫ בדק הבית‬.

‫ הל’ ערכין וחרמים פ”ה ה”ז‬Rambam seems to understand this differently. He begins with the ruling
that unspecified donations to the Mikdash are to be used for ‫ הבית בדק‬,and he learns that this is

6
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Shekalim%20012.pdf

14
based upon the verse (Vayikra 27:9) which states that animals given for the Mikdash are to be holy
(a general term). Earlier, in Halachah 5, Rambam discusses the specific law of consecrating
unblemished animals, but he does not ascribe this law to the verse mentioned later in Halachah 7.

The Gri”z on Rambam (‫ ) א”הי ד”פ תמורה’ הל‬explains that Rambam holds that one may pledge
funds for ‫ הבית בדק‬by referring to an animal which is unblemished, or even one which is already
holy (i.e. a ‫ חטאת‬.(This is why, according to Rebbe Eliezer, the animal is sold and used for an
offering, but the money is used for ‫הבית בדק‬.

Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein writes:7

Take for me terumah…and make for Me a mikdash, so that I will dwell amongst them.[2]

What they were actually asked to do was to take mundane objects and sanctify them. We typically
call this hekdesh – making something holy. Significantly, the Torah here chooses a different
term: terumah, which means raising up a portion form a larger quantity. Thus, the portion of
produce we give to a kohen is called terumah, not hekdesh.

The difference between them carries over to halacha. You literally cannot make all of
something terumah. To be legally effective, you must leave over part of the original that remains
unchanged. There must be a shirayim, a residual. Should a person designate all of his gathered
crop as terumah, none of it becomes erumah! On the other hand, a person can choose to make all
of his possessions hekdesh.

The difference is not what you might think. We generally regard hekdesh as the more elevated
level than terumah. While this is true in some applications, it misses a subtle nuance. Hekdesh is
localized. It affects only what you designate. Terumah, however, does more than that. It elevates
the portion that you designate, of course, but – as if by contagion – elevates all that remains as
well! (The only phenomenon in hekdesh that is similar to that of terumah is limited to hekdesh of
the mishkan, where the Torah states that “whatever touches them will become kodesh.”[3])
The source of the process of terumah is in Creation itself. Hashem rests on that first Shabbos,
“from all His work which G-d created to make / la’asos.”[4] Those last words mean, in effect, that
the process of creation ex nihilo, of yesh me-ayin, left an imprint in the handiwork of Hashem.
Within Creation there is a capacity for what He created to continue creating more! By this we don’t
mean the changes that we regard as new. Those really involve new combinations of elements that
already exist. La’asos means entirely new works, as a kind of continuing creation. Klal Yisrael, in
its special relationship to HKBH, has access to this imprint upon Creation. They as well can
create kedushah that goes on to create more! That process is terumah.

In taking terumah for the mishkan, the donors created kedushah in the greater pool of money and
valuables from which the donations came. The residual gold, silver, etc. was elevated in such a
manner as to guarantee that they would remain forever in the Jewish domain.

7
https://torah.org/torah-portion/mei-marom-5779-terumah/

15
 The kedushah instilled in them was potent – so potent that in our present state we cannot grasp it,
and thus treat the residual portion as mundane, just as we do to the grain or dough from which we
take terumah and challah. The residual that is not given to the kohen is treated as mundane, not as
something holy, because we cannot relate to its kedushah. Assuredly, however, a profound
holiness attaches itself to the residual through the designating of the terumah portion.

Analogous to this is a talis. We think of only the tzitzis is possessing some kind of kedushah, not
the garment. In fact the tzitzis draw their kedushah from the garment! Because we cannot
appreciate or process the kedushah of the garment, we treat it as non-sacred.

Tzadikim can sense this kedushah a bit. Because they are meticulous in their business dealings,
their property is not contaminated in the slightest by theft and impropriety. Only complete legal
owners are capable of uncovering the kedushah of the shirayim / residual. The tzadik values his
property because of this kedushah. Thus, Chazal tell us[5] that his property is dearer to him than
his body. For the same reason, Yaakov went back for the “small vessels,” not willing to abandon
sacred objects.

Because of the enormous power of terumah to create the kedushah of the shirayim, the Torah
emphasizes “take for Me,” i.e. take it entirely lishmah! Any disconnect between the taking and
HKBH will diminish its potency.

Disconnect, separation, is the cause of so much that is evil or tragic. The disconnect between
people – the essence of sinas chinam – destroyed our beis hamikdosh. Separating between ness
and teva, between the miraculous and the ordinary, means opening a space between the Four Letter
Name and the Name Elokim. In truth, there is no separation between them.

Amalek creates separation where there should be nothing but unity. With our triumph over Amalek
at the time of Purim, “For the Jews there was light and gladness and joy and
honor.”[6] The gemara[7] identifies each of these with another mitzvah.

Light is Torah; gladness is Yom Tov; joy is bris milah; honor is tefillin. We sometimes think that
they mean only that the two members of the matched pairs are related to each other. We think that
there is no real light without Torah, and that Torah inexorably leads to more light. It is incorrect,
however, to regard these pairs as different concepts that are simply linked. Chazal are teaching us
that they form identities. When Amalek’s power ceases, separation and division disappear. With
that, Jews realize that Torah is light. They experience Yom Tov as the ultimate simchah. They
know of no joy that parallels bris milah. And they find no greater honor than wearing
the tefillin that announces to the world that “the Name of Hashem is called upon you.”[8]

This, then, is part of what the Torah declares with the instructions to prepare for
the mishkan’s construction. Take the sundry materials you need to create an abode for
the Shechinah on earth. Take them for Me. Take them as if I were taking them Myself! Yisrael
v’orayso v’Kudsha Brich Hu are one, without any distance between them.

NOTES
1. Based on Mei Marom, Terumah, Maamar 65 ↑

16
2. Shemos 25:1,8 ↑

3. Vayikra 6:11 ↑

4. Bereishis 2:3 ↑

5. Chullin 91A ↑

6. Esther 8:16 ↑

7. Megillah 16B ↑

8. Devarim 28:10 ↑

17
In this remarkable study of the ethics of organ donation Professor Kochen8
has a chapter that discusses the delicate balance between the divine and human interaction in
the realm of hekdesh which has bearing on our understanding of “shulchan gavoa” and the need
we project on the mizbeach and Temple in general vs the attribution of hekdesh or release
thereof.9

8
9
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/organ-donation-and-the-divine-lien-in-talmudic-law/from-the-table-of-the-most-high-
divine-ownership-and-private-property-in-talmudic-law/EE23AE189BB564951682EDEB778D8E1D

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26