The Extent of Damage Necessary to Disqualify the Stones of
the Altar and the Beis HaMikdash
In Hilchos Beis HaBechirah 1:14, the Rambam
states:
Whenever a stone has become damaged to the extent that one’s
fingernail would become caught in it [when passing over], it is disqualified
for [use in] the altar and the ramp, as is the case regarding a slaughtering
knife. For it is written,1 “You
shall build the altar of G‑d with whole stones.”
In halachah 15, the Rambam mentions a similar
law: “Stones from the Sanctuary or the courtyards2
which were damaged or split are disqualified for use.” One might assume that the
same measure, a nick large enough for one’s fingernail to be caught in it,
applies in this instance as well. Although the Rambam does not mention
this explicitly, it can be explained that his purpose is to avoid redundancy,
for the concept was stated in the previous halachah.
There are, however, commentaries3 which differ and
maintain that in the latter context, the Rambam’s intent is that a
leniency is granted, and a greater blemish is necessary to disqualify the
stone. As support, they cite our Sages’ statement,4 that the stones of the First5 Beis
HaMikdash were hewn out by the shamir, a wormlike creature that was
miraculously able to chew through stone. The Rabbis6
explain that stones hewn by the shamir would never be utterly smooth.
Nicks large enough for a fingernail to be caught on them would always
remain.7
In halachah 16, the Rambam continues and
mentions related subjects, stating, “When a stone was damaged... after it was
built into the altar or the ramp, that stone alone is invalidated. The others
are still fit for use.”
It is possible to explain that, in this halachah as
well, the Rambam was relying on the measure he mentioned in halachah
14. Indeed, Rashi and other commentaries8 do not differentiate between the size of a nick which would
disqualify a stone before it is used for the altar (halachah 14) and
after it is included in the altar (halachah 16). Nevertheless, according
to the opinion that the Rambam is speaking of a different measure in
halachah 15, it would appear necessary for him to specify his intent in
halachah 16.
The necessity for such clarification is further emphasized by
the prooftext cited by the Rambam in halachah 14: “You shall build
the altar of G‑d with whole stones.” For one might suppose that different laws
apply before “you shall build the altar,” and once that altar has already been
built.9
An Abstract Conception
These difficulties can be resolved by analyzing the intent
of the Rambam in the phrase, “to the extent that one’s fingernail would
become caught in it.” There are opinions10 which explain that
this refers to the smallest possible measure. Even the slightest nick is
sufficient to disqualify a knife from being used for ritual slaughter or a stone
from being used for the altar.
According to this view, the question arises: Why doesn’t the
Rambam use the expressioniKol She'hu, the term which is usually employed to
refer to a measure of the smallest possible size?
The answer is that abstractly, there is a difference between
the two concepts. Even the opinions which explain that the phrase “to the extent
that one’s fingernail would become caught in it” refers to the smallest possible
measure, it is still referring to a blemish that can be measured and calibrated
in a physical sense. Such a blemish is significant, for, to refer to the point
under discussion, any blemish, however small, prevents a stone for the altar
from being “whole.”
Kol She'hu, by contrast, is a totally abstract point, referring
to the essence of the existence of a substance. To cite an
example:11 “It is forbidden to benefit from wine which was offered as a libation to a false deity. A person who drinks Kol She'hu of such [wine] is [punished by]
lashing.” The intent is not that the person becomes liable when he drinks a
significant measure, and that in this case even the slightest amount is
significant. Rather, it is the very fact that he drinks from the wine at all
which makes him liable.12The
quantity is not important, merely the fact that he drinks.
The Difference between a Stone to be used for the Altar and
One which is already
Part of the Altar
To apply this concept to the stones of the altar: Before a
stone is used for the altar, it must be whole. The smallest possible blemish,
“to the extent that one’s fingernail would become caught in it,” is sufficient
to disqualify it. The reason for the disqualification is, however, because a
significant blemish has been made.
Once a stone has been used for the altar, a different
conception applies. If the stone is blemished — and what is important here is
the fact that it has been blemished and not the size of the blemish — it is
disqualified, and indeed, the entire altar is unfit until the stone is replaced.
What is the reason for this distinction? As the Rambam
indicates in halachah 17, there is a prohibition against damaging the
stones of the altar, those of the Sanctuary, and those within the courtyard of
the Beis HaMikdash.13 That prohibition
is derived from the verses:14
“Do away with all the places where the nations... worship their gods.... Destroy
their altars.... Do not do so to G‑d, your L‑rd.”
The derivation of the prohibition against destroying the
portions of the Beis HaMikdash from a verse concerning the worship of
false divinities, establishes a connection between them. The worship of false
divinities contaminates every dimension of the entities associated with them.
Therefore, it is written:15
“Let nothing which has been condemned cling to your hand.” tuva kf, any and all
traces of connection to the false deities, is forbidden. Similarly, in regard to
the Beis HaMikdash, making even the slightest blemish in its structure is
forbidden.16
On this basis, we can differentiate between the Rambam’s
ruling in halachah 14 and his rulings in halachos 15 and 16. In
halachah 14, the Rambam is speaking of a stone with which one intends
to build the altar. This stone must be whole and if it is damaged “to the extent
that one’s fingernail would become caught in it,” it may no longer be used.
In halachos 15 and 16, the Rambam is not
relying on the measure he stated previously, or granting a more lenient measure
as had been suggested originally. Instead, because he is speaking about stones
that have already been used for the Beis HaMikdash, he is referring to a
more stringent measure. Because of the parallel to the worship of false
divinities,Kol She'hu, even the slightest blemish, disqualifies the
stone.17
The Lasting Effects of
an Act of Destruction
There is, however, a slight difficulty with the above
conception. The prohibition mentioned in halachah 17 refers to an act
committed by a person with a willful, destructive intent. In contrast, the
disqualification of the stones mentioned in halachos 15 and 16 refers
even to circumstances where the damage to the stones come about through forces
beyond man’s control.
This difficulty can, however, be resolved as follows:
Damaging a stone of the altar or the Beis HaMikdash is not merely a
forbidden activity, it affects the sanctity of these entities as well. This is
reflected in the Rambam’s ruling18 that when a person
damages a stone in the altar, the holiness of the altar is temporarily
nullified and does not return until the damaged stone is replaced. Thus we see
that the emphasis of the above-mentioned prohibition is not only on the act of
destruction performed by the person,19
but on the destructive effect produced within the altar and the Beis
HaMikdash.20 It follows that even if a similar effect
is produced by forces beyond man’s control, the sanctity of the altar and the
Beis HaMikdash is, nevertheless, impaired.
To be part of G‑d’s Chosen House
The requirement that the stones of the altar remain “whole”
reflects the unique nature of the Beis HaMikdash — that it is the Beis
HaBechirah, “[G‑d’s] Chosen House.” As explained in chassidic
thought,21
G‑d’s choice is free and unconditioned, coming as a result of His will, without
being influenced at all by the virtues of the entity He chooses. For were the
virtues of the entity able to influence G‑d’s choice, that would imply that they
have power over Him, heaven forbid.
As a corollary, it follows that G‑d’s choice is not at all dependent on an
the size or measure of an entity. And this leads to a further point. When the
importance of an entity is dependent on its positive virtues, if there is an
impairment in the virtues, the effect is quantitative, dependent on the extent
of the damage done. When, by contrast, the importance of an entity is dependent
on G‑d’s choice, the effect of damage to a portion of that entity is not
quantitative.
To relate these points to the above discussion: As explained
above, if even the slightest amount of damage is done to the stones of the altar
or the Beis HaMikdash, they are disqualified. Their importance comes
because they are part of “[G‑d’s] Chosen House,” and He has stated that a stone
which is damaged cannot be part of this structure. Accordingly, what is
significant is the fact that they have been damaged, even if the damage is tuva
kf, and not the extent of the damage.
* * *
May we merit the day when all the damage to G‑d’s Chosen House will be
repaired with the building of the Third Beis HaMikdash,
the structure where His choice will be manifest in a complete sense. And may
this take place in the immediate future.
Adapted from Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XXIX, Ki Savo
LOGIN
ASK THE RABBI
