3

Ezekiel 37:27-28 reads something like: My dwelling-place also shall be over them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And the nations shall know that I am the LORD that sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for ever.

And although the Sefaria website reads it as:

My Presence shall rest over them; I will be their God and they shall be My people. And when My Sanctuary abides among them forever, the nations shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel.

I wondered why the shift is being made from Mishkan, to Mikdash. I noticed again in Bamidbar 19:13 and 20 these words also shift from one to another; there are probably many more examples, but I wondered what the reason was to use the one or the other, when they seem to refer to the same thing; G-ds Sanctuary.

1
  • There is a Meshech Chachmah who discusses the difference between mishkan and mikdash. Apparently it would seem that mishkan is informal (koh amar Hashem zacharti vechulei) and mikdash is formal and institutional. So you need the mishkan in the mikdash for the chavivus to be real, and you need the mikdash for the kedushah to be enduring and a focal point for am yisrael.
    – pcoz
    Jul 6, 2021 at 22:58

1 Answer 1

1

It would seem that at least in regards to Bamidbar 19:13 and 20 the Gemara in Shavuos 16b addresses this very question.

וקראי מיתרי הא מיצרך צריכי דתניא ר' אלעזר אומר אם נאמר משכן למה נאמר מקדש ואם נאמר מקדש למה נאמר משכן אילו נאמר משכן ולא נאמר מקדש הייתי אומר על משכן יהא חייב שהרי משוח בשמן המשחה ועל מקדש לא יהא חייב ואם נאמר מקדש ולא נאמר משכן הייתי אומר על מקדש יהא חייב שהרי קדושתו קדושת עולם ועל משכן לא יהא חייב לכך נאמר משכן לכך נאמר מקדש רבי אלעזר הכי קא קשיא ליה מכדי משכן איקרי מקדש ומקדש איקרי משכן נכתוב או אידי ואידי מקדש או אידי ואידי משכן משכן ומקדש למה לי שמע מינה תרתי

The Gemara asks: But is it really superfluous to have both of these verses, one having been sufficient? Aren’t they each necessary to teach a novel ruling? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar says: If it is stated: “Tabernacle,” why does it state: “Temple”? And if it is stated: “Temple,” why does it state: “Tabernacle”? He explains: Had the verse stated only: “Tabernacle,” and not stated: “Temple,” I would have said that one is liable for entering the Tabernacle in a state of impurity, since it was anointed with the anointing oil, and therefore it carries greater sanctity, but he is not liable for entering the Temple, which was not anointed with the anointing oil. And had the verse stated only: “Temple,” and not stated: “Tabernacle,” I would have said that one is liable for entering the Temple in a state of impurity, since its sanctity is an eternal sanctity, but he is not liable for entering the Tabernacle, whose sanctity was only for its time. For this reason, it is stated: “Tabernacle,” and for this reason, it is stated: “Temple.”

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar did not base his derivation on a superfluous verse, but on the change in wording between the two verses. This is what is difficult for him: Since the Tabernacle is also called Temple and the Temple is also called Tabernacle, then let the verse write either in both verses: Temple, or in both verses: Tabernacle; why do I need both “Tabernacle” and “Temple”? Conclude two conclusions from it, i.e., that one is liable even for impurity contracted inside the grounds, and that the halakha applies both in the Tabernacle and in the Temple.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .