Kedoshim: Where Awe Is Called For

At the beginning of ch. 7 of his Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, Rambam writes, “It is a positive commandment to revere the [Beis Ha]Mikdash, as it is written,6 ‘[You shall observe My Shabbasos and] revere My Sanctuary.’ [Nevertheless,] it is not the [Beis Ha]Mikdash itself that you are to revere, but rather the One Who commanded its reverence.”

The source for this commandment is a beraisa7 which comments on this verse, “You shall observe My Shabbasos and revere My Sanctuary,” stating:

Regarding Shabbos, [the verse] speaks of “observance,” and regarding the [Beis Ha]Mikdash, it speaks of “reverence.” Just as regarding the observance of Shabbos, you do not revere Shabbos itself, but rather the One Who gave directives concerning Shabbos, so too, regarding the reverence of the [Beis Ha]Mikdash, it is not the [Beis Ha]Mikdash itself that you are to revere, but rather the One Who gave directives concerning the [Beis Ha]Mikdash.”

Clarification is necessary. Rambam generally does not cite the rationales and sources on which his conclusions are based, only the laws themselves. What law results from the concept that one’s reverence is “not for the [Beis Ha]Mikdash… but rather for the One Who commanded its reverence”? In particular, this question is pertinent because the practical application of the command to revere the Beis HaMikdash is that “a person should not enter [the enclosed area of] the Mountain of the Beis [HaMikdash carrying] his staff…” as the beraisa quoted by Rambam states.8 What other practical lesson does the introductory charge teach?

The Talmud² introduces the above beraisa passage with a rhetorical question, “Would a person revere the Beis9 HaMikdash [itself]?” Tosafos10 comments, “Regarding [the mitzvah to revere] one’s father, there is no need to make such a statement, for it is obvious that one will not bow to him, considering him a god. However, regarding the [Beis Ha]Mikdash, [words of caution] are necessary because it is a sanctified entity.” According to that interpretation, the words of caution, “it is not the [Beis Ha]Mikdash that you should revere,” are halachically relevant inasmuch as they teach that one should not bow down to the Beis HaMikdash itself ascribing divinity to it, as Tosafos states.

However, it is very difficult to say that this explanation11 resolves Rambam’s words, because to negate the hypothesis that one should bow down to the Beis HaMikdash as a divinity, seemingly it would have been sufficient to simply state, “It is a positive commandment to revere the [Beis Ha]Mikdash, as it is written, ‘You shall revere My Sanctuary’” and to continue directly thereafter, “What is [meant by] reverence of it? A person should not enter….” Were Rambam to have stated the mitzvah in this manner, there would be no place for the concern that one might bow down to the Beis HaMikdash as a divinity.12

There are commentaries13 which explain that the practical application resulting from this teaching is relevant regarding the reverence of the site of the Beis HaMikdash after it was destroyed. If the command “revere My Sanctuary” is to be interpreted in a straightforward sense – to revere the Beis HaMikdash itself – that commandment applies only during the time when the Beis HaMikdash is standing. However, when the Beis HaMikdash is not standing, the obligation to revere the Beis HaMikdash does not apply. However, if one postulates that the reverence is for “the One Who commanded its reverence,” the mitzvah applies whether the Beis HaMikdash is standing or not.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to employ this explanation to resolve Rambam’s wording,14 because Rambam specifically states later on, in explaining a separate halachah:15

Even though, the [Beis Ha]Mikdash is now in ruin because of our sins, a person must hold its site in awe, as one would regard it when it was standing…, as implied by the verse, “You shall observe My Shabbosos and you shall revere My Sanctuary.” Just as the observance of the Shabbos applies for eternity, so too, the reverence for the [Beis Ha]Mikdash must be eternal. Even though it is in ruin, it remains holy.

This teaching is not quoted as a continuation of halachah 1. Moreover, there are several halachos between them, and he derives it from a different source.16

Clarification is also necessary regarding the precise wording used in the different sources. The beraisa uses the wording, “the One Who gave directives concerning the [Beis Ha]Mikdash.” Toras Kohanim also states,17 “for the One Who instructed concerning the [Beis Ha]Mikdash.”18 However, Rambam deviates from that wording, writing, “for the One Who commanded that it be revered.” It is necessary to understand what was the Rambam’s intent in this change – that the reverence is for “for the One Who commanded that it be revered”?

Furthermore, in the Mishneh Torah, Rambam also altered the wording that he used in his Sefer HaMitzvos,19 where he wrote, “It is not the [Beis Ha-]Mikdash that you should revere, but rather the One Who rested His Presence in this place.”20 The wording in Sefer HaMitzvos clarifies the reason for the reverence – that it results from G‑d resting His Presence in the Beis HaMikdash. Why then did Rambam change the wording in the Mishneh Torah?

There is a further advantage to the wording in Sefer HaMitzvos. According to it, it is also understood why there is an obligation to revere the site of the Beis HaMikdash even after its destruction, since the Divine Presence resting upon the site of the Beis HaMikdash will never be nullified. As Rambam states in the previous chapter,21 the sanctity of the site of the Beis HaMikdash is ongoing because “the sanctity of the site of the Beis HaMikdash… comes about as a result of the Divine Presence resting there, and the Divine Presence is not subject to nullification.”

It is possible to elucidate the above points by first explaining the differences between the manner in which the teaching “it is not the [Beis Ha]Mikdash that you should revere, but…,” is transmitted in the two sources cited above.22

In connection with that teaching, both Yevamos and Toras Kohanim quote the verse, “You shall observe My Shabbasos and revere My Sanctuary,” and comment, “Just as the observance of the Shabbos [applies] for eternity, so too, the reverence for the [Beis Ha]Mikdash must be eternal.” However, the two sources communicate these teachings in a different order.

Toras Kohanim quotes the two teachings, one directly after the other. Afterwards, that text continues and outlines the laws applying to reverence for the Beis HaMikdash:

What is [meant by] reverence [for it]? A person should not enter [the enclosed area of] the Mountain of the Beis [HaMikdash holding] a staff, with his pack, [wearing] shoes, [or wearing only] undergarments, with dust on his feet, or taking a shortcut through it. [Obviously, one can conclude via] a fortiori reasoning that he should not spit.

By contrast, the Talmud quotes the particular laws, “What is meant by reverence for the [Beis Ha]Mikdash? A person should not enter…,” as a continuation of the first teaching, “It is not the [Beis Ha]Mikdash that you should revere, but rather the One Who instructed that it be revered.” After outlining the laws in detail, it continues, “It has only been [derived] that this applies in the era when the Beis HaMikdash is standing. What is the source [that teaches that it applies even] when the Beis HaMikdash is not standing? The Torah teaches, “You shall observe My Shabbasos….”

Similarly, in his texts, Rambam mentions these teachings in two different ways: In his Sefer HaMitzvos,¹⁴ he writes, “The definition of this reverence is as mentioned in Sifra,23 ‘What is meant by reverence…,’ ” and, at the conclusion of his words, he quotes both teachings together, “To quote Sifri [(Sifra)],24 ‘It has only been [derived] that this applies in the era when the Beis HaMikdash is standing. What is the source that teaches that it applies even when the Beis HaMikdash is not standing? The Torah teaches…, so too, the reverence for the [Beis Ha]Mikdash must be eternal.’ ”

That text also states, “It is not the [Beis Ha]Mikdash that you should revere, but rather the One Who rested His Presence in this place.”

In his Mishneh Torah, however, Rambam quotes the particular laws, “What is meant by reverence [for the Beis HaMikdash]? A person should not enter [the enclosed area of] the mountain of the Beis [HaMikdash]…” directly after the first halachah in the relevant chapter, which states, “It is not the [Beis Ha-]Mikdash that you should revere, but rather the One Who commanded its reverence.” It is only after teaching several laws that, in halachah 7, he writes, “Even though the [Beis Ha]Mikdash is now in ruin because of our sins, a person must hold its site in awe, as one would regard it when it was standing.” In support for this concept, he cites the teaching, “Just as the observance of the Shabbos applies for eternity, so too, the reverence for the [Beis Ha]Mikdash must be eternal.”

There is also another point that requires clarification: In halachos 2, 3, and 4, Rambam details several particular laws that result from the obligation to revere the Beis HaMikdash, and summarizes these laws at the end of halachah 4, writing, “All of these [laws] are [observed] to revere the [Beis Ha]Mikdash.”

Afterwards, in the following halachah (halachah 5), he writes:

A person should not behave frivolously before the Gate of Nicanor, the eastern gate of the courtyard [of the Beis HaMikdash], for it is positioned opposite the chamber of the Holy of Holies.

Everyone who enters the courtyard [of the Beis HaMikdash] should walk in a dignified manner, in the region where he is permitted to enter. He should conceive of himself as standing before G‑d, as it is written,25 “My eyes and My heart will be there forever.” One should walk with awe, fear, and trembling, as it is written,26 “We would walk in the House of G‑d [motivated by] awe.”

The flow and sequence of Rambam’s words require analysis. Why does he conclude in halachah 4 that “all of these [laws] are [observed] to revere the [Beis Ha-]Mikdash,” when it appears that the laws mentioned in halachah 5 are also motivated by the obligation to revere the Beis HaMikdash?

It is possible to offer the following explanation of all the above: There are two ways to define the obligation to revere the Beis HaMikdash:a) as it is simply understood, an obligation to actually feel awe, experiencing reverence and fear in one’s heart, or b) as an obligation to perform specific acts that communicate reverence or to refrain from acts that show the opposite of reverence.27

According to that distinction, it is possible to say that the beraisa in the Talmud that states, “It is not the [Beis Ha]Mikdash that you should revere, but rather the One Who instructed that it be revered,” and continues directly afterwards, stating, “What is meant by reverence for the [Beis Ha]Mikdash? One should not enter…” implies that these very actions constitute fulfillment of the commandment to revere the Beis HaMikdash.

By contrast, Toras Kohanim does not mention the particular laws immediately, implying that the definition of reverence for the Beis HaMikdash should be understood simply – feelings of fear in one’s heart. However, these feelings lead to several particular laws, i.e., actions that are dictated by the fear in one’s heart.

The distinction between the approaches of the Talmud and Toras Kohanim is emphasized by Rambam in the difference between the wording he uses in Sefer HaMitzvos and in the Mishneh Torah. In Sefer Ha­Mitzos, he writes, “We were commanded to revere this [Beis Ha]Mikdash exceedingly to the extent that we place a burden of fear and awe upon our souls as a result of reverence for the [Beis Ha]Mikdash.” Thus, he explicitly states that the definition of reverence for the Beis HaMikdash is fear and awe felt within one’s soul.28 For this reason, he specifically quotes the wording of Sifra,¹² which follows this approach.

On this basis, it is possible to explain the manner in which Rambam – referring to Sifra – concludes, “In that source, it is also stated, ‘It is not the [Beis Ha-]Mikdash that you should revere, but rather the One Who rested His Presence in this place.’ ” With these words, Rambam explains how it is possible to arouse feelings of fear and awe in one’s soul concerning the Beis HaMikdash – the fear and awe stem from the Divine Presence that rests in this structure.

By contrast, in the Mishneh Torah, Rambam follows the approach of the beraisa in the Talmud – the definition of reverence for the Beis HaMikdash is not fear and awe within one’s heart, but rather actions that express reverence for the Beis HaMikdash. For this reason, he begins the relevant chapter, “[Nevertheless,] it is not the [Beis Ha]Mikdash that you should revere, but rather the One Who commanded its reverence,” altering the wording of the Talmud – “the One Who gave directives concerning the [Beis Ha-]Mikdash.” With these words, Rambam is not teaching that one should not be in awe of the site of the Beis HaMikdash, i.e., that one should not bow down to it as a divinity. Instead he is emphasizing that the reverence referred to is not a feeling of fear, as indicated by the phrase, “it is not the [Beis Ha]Mikdash that you should revere,” but rather the fulfillment of the commandment to revere it by performing actions that reflect reverence.²² This is evident from the law stated immediately afterwards – following the pattern of the beraisa in the Talmud – “What is meant by reverence for it? A person should not enter….”29

On this basis, the sequence of laws that Rambam follows is like strung jewels, one linked to the other. In halachos 3 and 4, Rambam lists the laws that are part of the mitzvah to revere the Beis HaMikdash, “All who enter [the enclosed area of] the Mountain of the Beis [HaMikdash] should enter [and face] the right, then walk around [in that direction], and leave on the left side.” He then describes the manner in which a Kohen should depart after his service is completed:

Anyone who has completed [his] service and [desires to] leave, should not [turn around and] leave with his back to the Heichal. Rather, he should walk backwards slightly, walking in a dignified manner, [while turned] to his side until he has left the courtyard.

Similarly, the members of the priestly watch… should leave the [Beis Ha]Mikdash in this manner, similar to one who steps backwards after his prayers.”

Rambam then concludes, “All these [are expressions of] reverence for the [Beis Ha]Mikdash.” This emphasizes that although they are actions and not feelings of awe and fear in one’s heart, nevertheless, performing all these actions is included in the mitzvah of reverence for the Beis HaMikdash, because they are performed with that intent – to fulfill the mitzvah of reverence, which involves action.

Afterwards, in halachah 5, Rambam begins to describe a new law and dimension of the mitzvah of reverence for the Beis HaMikdash:

Everyone who enters the courtyard should walk in a dignified manner… He should see himself as standing before G‑d. He should walk with awe, fear, and trembling, as it is written, “We would walk in the House of G‑d motivated by awe.”

This halachah does not merely emphasize acts of reverence, but also feelings of awe in one’s heart and soul.30 Thus, it constitutes a separate law. As support for this, Rambam cites other verses, “My eyes and My heart will be there forever,” and “We would walk in the House of G‑d motivated by awe.” The foundation of this halachah is that when walking in the courtyard, one must “see himself as standing before G‑d.” As a matter of course, this will motivate feelings of awe and fear in his heart, not merely acts of reverence.

This also constitutes the difference between this halachah and the initial halachos of this chapter. The initial halachos speak about “the Mountain of the Beis [HaMikdash]” because the obligation31 to be vigilant and perform acts of reverence for the Beis HaMikdash begins there. By contrast, the obligation of awe and fear in one’s heart does not begin until one enters the courtyard, because only then is one “standing before G‑d.”

It is possible to offer an inner, mystical explanation of the approach of Rambam and the Talmud that the fundamental dimension of reverence for the Beis HaMikdash – “It is not the [Beis Ha]Mikdash that you should revere, but rather the One Who commanded its reverence” – is manifest in the performance of actions in observance of G‑d’s commands, as explained above at length.

Awe leads to submission and self-nullification (bittul). This constitutes the difference between love and fear.32 Love is connected with the identity of the one who loves – in a love relationship, one is self-aware; he feels his “I”. By contrast, fear involves being absorbed in the awareness of the one who is feared. For this reason, a servant’s service is specifically one of fear because a servant’s identity is defined by his self-nullification to his master.

There are many levels of bittul. When fear and awe are motivated by a person’s understanding of the greatness of the one whom he fears, this cannot be considered as absolute bittul because it results from the person’s own understanding. Since he comprehends that he must nullify himself, his selfhood is not effaced entirely.

It is only when his bittul involves the performance of an action that stems from the command of the one he fears – without his selfhood being involved – that his bittul is experienced in a more inward and genuine manner.33

This quality is a fundamental dimension of Divine service – as the Alter Rebbe writes,34 awe and bittul constitute “the first stage of Divine service, its core and root .” Therefore, the mitzvah of revering the Beis HaMikdash is ongoing, applicable at all times, as Rambam states, “Even though, the [Beis Ha]Mikdash is now in ruin because of our sins, a person must hold its site in awe, as one would regard it when it was standing…. the reverence for the [Beis Ha]Mikdash [must be] eternal.”

A further point can be added. As mentioned, the fundamental dimension of fear explained here is the fear manifest in the performance of actions in observance of G‑d’s commands and not – to the same degree – the feelings of fear in one’s heart. Such bittul is primarily expressed in the era of exile. As explained in other sources,35 it is in the era of exile that the fundamental dimensions of kabbalas ol (“acceptance of G‑d’s yoke”), awe, and bittul are exhibited, for, in that era, the Jews study Torah and perform mitzvos despite the concealment of the Divine Presence. Their study and observance is not motivated by their perception and awareness of G‑dliness – that is not possible because G‑dliness is concealed. Instead, it is motivated by a commitment to G‑d that transcends their conscious powers. As such, the nature and the quality of this bittul is greater in the era of exile than in the era when the Beis HaMikdash was standing.36

Our involvement in the study of the laws of the Beis HaMikdash – which G‑d considers as equivalent to involvement in the building of the Beis HaMikdash37 – further strengthens our faith in the coming of Mashiach and our expectation “every day that he come.”38 All this will hasten and speed Mashiach’s actual coming and the rebuilding of the Third Beis HaMikdash; may this take place in the immediate future.

Adapted from a sichah delivered on Shabbos Parshas Devarim, 5747 [1987]
Likkutei Sichos, Volume 37, P. 55ff.