Teruma: A Year That Is Just Getting Adar and Adar

(please note: the title and the post contain a little pun that only makes sense if you read  this in English, and not if you translate it, and only if you read Hebrew with indifference to mi'le'el and mi'le'ra.)


Here is a poignant vignette from the Saskatchewan Leader-Post.  It brought me a smile, just in time for Adar.

A "Black Widow" suicide bomber planned a terrorist attack in central Moscow on New Year's Eve but was killed when an unexpected text message set off her bomb too early, according to Russian security sources.

The unnamed woman, who is thought to be part of the same group that struck Moscow's Domodedovo airport on Monday, intended to detonate a suicide belt near Red Square on New Year's Eve in an attack that could have killed hundreds.

Security sources believe a message from her mobile phone operator wishing her a happy new year received just hours before the planned attack triggered her suicide belt, killing her at a safe house.

Islamist terrorists in Russia often use mobile phones as detonators. The bomber's handler, who is usually watching their charge, sends the bomber a text message in order to set off his or her explosive belt at the moment when it is thought they can inflict maximum casualties.

The Mishkan brings Hashra'as Hashechina, and this requires simcha  Learning Torah also brings Hashra'as Hashechina, and also requires simcha.  Which requires more simcha?  Hashem decreed that Nadav and Avihu had to die for what they did at Har Sinai, and that their death would inaugurate some new connection between Hashem and mankind.  Instead of this happening at Mattan Torah, it was delayed until the Mishkan was built.  Rashi explains that Hashem did not want to interfere with the joy of Mattan Torah.  So you see that Simcha is more essential to the Hashra'a that comes with Torah than that comes with the Mishkan.

In what month did Klal Yisrael finally and without any ambivalence accept the Torah?  In Adar.  Kimu Ve'Kiblu.  Is Adar the month of Kabalas Hatorah because of the simcha, or is the simcha inherent in the month the reason it is the time of the final Kabalas Hatorah?  The answer is, Yes.  The two factors work together.  The Gemara (Pesachim 68b, Rebbi Eliezer) says that on most holidays, one may choose to draw close to Hashem through ascetic contemplation, but there are two and only two holidays (besides Shabbos) that require joyous physical involvement in the day, and those are Purim and Shavuos.  The two days of Kabalas Hatorah!

This year is getting Adar and Adar.  The weather is odd, the news is odd, the Middle East is turning upside down and inside out, Australia is beginning to remind us of Atlantis, the United States is just waiting for the Mastodons to show up, everything is just odder than ever and getting odder every day.  All we need now is for Meretz to declare that they are changing the party charter to focus exclusively on the advancement of Breslev Chasidus.  If that's too much to hope for, maybe Ariel Sharon (אריאל בן דבורה לרפואה שלימה) will wake up and, well rested, return with new vigor to his Prime Ministership.

And here is another candidate for Oddness Supreme:  The New York Times, the bastion of enlightened secular patronizing snootiness, the mother of anti-religious social engineering, the haven for self-hating Jews, published the following on January 11 of 2011, and I was amazed at the deference and respect it showed, considering the source:

Q.

After two years of endless nagging, my kosher boyfriend has finally decided to come over to dark side and, at least for one night, temporarily abandon his dietary restraint. Can you recommend a moderately priced place that serves such good pork and shellfish dishes, he’ll convert permanently?

A.

Great food can change minds and alter people’s lives for the better, it’s true. But so can faith, for those who have it. Helping you use food to convince someone to abandon his religious principles cannot end well for me. (Nor for him, if his mother finds out.) The laws of kashrut are clear: No pork. No shellfish.
And so I cannot possibly recommend to you a visit to Momofuku Ssam Bar, where the two banned proteins often combine into Korean-inflected Continental deliciousness, and where a fellow might be introduced to the pleasures of cured hog’s jowl, served with honeycrisp apple kimchi and a Lebanese yogurt cut with maple syrup.
Nor could I nod to the Spanish-style Casa Mono, where you can find a delicious chilled lobster with ham (a combination the great Calvin Trillin would call a double-trayf special). For you there can be no suckling pig at the Italian gem Maialino or pig’s trotter at the British pub the Breslin or barbecued oysters at Tribeca’s American bistro Forgione or clams in black bean sauce at Chinatown’s terrific Oriental Garden.
That said, if you want to skate close to the edge, where the ice is thin and crackly, Chinese is probably your best bet. As my great hero Arthur Schwartz, formerly the restaurant critic for The Daily News of New York, put it in his most recent book, “Jewish Home Cooking,” “the Chinese cut their food into small pieces before it is cooked, disguising the nonkosher foods. This last aspect seems silly, but it is a serious point. My late cousin Daniel, who kept kosher, along with many other otherwise observant people I have known, happily ate roast pork fried rice and egg foo yung. ‘What I can’t see won’t hurt me,’ was Danny’s attitude.”
But proceed with caution. The Torah calls Jews a holy people and prescribes for them a holy diet. If they choose to abandon it, so be it. But you ever argue with a rabbi? I’m not meshuga. Take this boy to the Prime Grill for a kosher steak and tell him you love him.

Sam Sifton is the restaurant critic of The Times.

Yes, this is a year so odd that odd is starting to look normal.  But it is also a year that gives us two months of Mishenichnas Adar Marbim BeSimcha.  Let us use that double dose of Simcha to enhance our limud hatorah and learn with diligence and joy and love, and this will bring the Geula to Klal Yisrael quickly and finally.

Here are illustrations for the upcoming months and their mazal, in keeping with the spirit of

this post.

Parshas Terumah: Shvilei Pinches, from Reb Baruch Fox

"ויקחו לי תרומה" – תורה מ'

Every Jew Is Responsible for Revealing His Portion of the Torah that Was Given to Moshe Rabeinu and then Forgotten

In this week’s parsha, parshas Terumah, it is written: "וידבר ה' אל משה לאמר, דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו לי תרומה מאת כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו תקחו את תרומתי" Our blessed sages expound in the Midrash (S.R. 33,1):

"הדא הוא דכתיב (משלי ד ב) כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם תורתי אל תעזובו, אל תעזובו את המקח שנתתי לכם". “. . . Do not forsake this commodity that I have given you.”



We need to explain: (a) what is the connection between "לקח טוב נתתי לכם", which refers to the holy Torah that the Almighty gave us and the possuk "ויקחו לי תרומה", which is not referring to the Torah? (b) why does Hashem request from us: "כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם תורתי אל תעזובו, אל תעזובו את המקח שנתתי לכם"? It is quite clear that from the moment we received the Torah on Har Sinai, we were obligated to learn, teach, observe and perform.



The Letters תרומה Rearrange to Form מ' תורה

Let us begin our journey, by introducing the words of the Baal HaTurim here: "תרומה אותיות מ' תורה". His source is the Zohar hokadosh (Korach 179.): "אית תרומה מדאורייתא תורה מ', והאי איהו תרומה, תורה דאתייהיבת בארבעים יום". The point is being made that the word תרומ"ה alludes to the fact that the Torah was given over a period of forty days, "תורה מ'". In this light, the Midrash’s exposition on this possuk fits nicely; however, how will we explain the continuation of the possuk: "ויקחו לי תרומה" – תורה מ' - "מאת כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו תקחו את תרומתי"? What lesson are we supposed to learn from the fact that Hashem gave Moshe Rabeinu the Torah over a period of forty days?



Let us introduce a cryptic teaching in the gemorah (Nedarim 38.):

"אמר רבי יוחנן, בתחילה היה משה למד תורה ומשכחה, עד שניתנה לו במתנה, שנאמר (שמות לא יח) ויתן אל משה ככלותו לדבר אתו". The Midrash teaches that Moshe Rabeinu learned directly from the Almighty for forty whole days and kept forgetting what he had learnt, until Hashem gave him the Torah as a gift at the end of the forty days—as it is written: "ככלותו לדבר אתו".



The Alshich hokadosh, in Toras Moshe (Ki Tisa, ibid.) poses the question: Since Hokadosh Boruch Hu knew from the start that Moshe Rabeinu would not be able to remember the Torah unless he received it as a gift, what was the purpose of the entire forty day process—teaching him the Torah, Moshe forgetting the Torah and, finally, bestowing it upon him as a gift?



He explains at length, in his holy words, that the purpose of the Almighty learning Torah with Moshe for forty days, was to purify and refine his nature. It is analogous to the formation of a human embryo, which is a forty day process, as we find in the gemorah (Bechoros 21:): "יצירת הוולד באשה ארבעים יום". Similarly, a forty day purification process was necessary, before he was prepared to receive the Torah as a gift that he would not forget.



For Forty Days Moshe Learned Everything that Future Generations of Scholars Were Destined to Innovate



As is the way of Torah, to be elucidated in seventy aspects, we wish to suggest a novel interpretation for why this forty day process was necessary. We will base our interpretation on the Drashos HaChasam Sofer (part 2,page 406,column 3) explaining a verse in this week’s parsha:

"ויקחו לי תרומה מאת כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו תקחו את תרומתי. פה נרמז מה שאמרו חכמינו ז"ל (ויק"ר כב א), שבאותן מ' יום ניתן למשה רבינו ע"ה כל מה שתלמיד ותיק עתיד לחדש, והיינו בעוסק בתורה לשמה זוכה לכוון חלקו שניתן לנשמתו בסיני... והיינו ויקחו לי תרומה - תורה מ', מאת כל איש, כי כל העוסק בתורה מצליח, (מגילה ו:) ויגעתי ולא מצאתי אל תאמין, ואת אשר ידבנו לבו, ומחדש ומוציא סברא מלבו חידושי תורה, תקחו את תרומתי, כי שלי הוא וכולם ניתנו מרועה אחד".

We are taught a very important principle by the Chasam Sofer. During Moshe’s forty day stay in the heavens, Hokadosh Boruch Hu taught him everything that future generations of scholars were destined to innovate. In addition, we are supposed to understand from this: "מאת כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו תקחו את תרומתי" –it is incumbent upon every individual Jew to reveal his own portion of the Torah that was revealed to Moshe during those forty days.



We can embellish his words based on the Midrash (V.R. 22,1):

"אפילו מה שתלמיד ותיק עתיד לומר לפני רבו כולן נאמרו למשה בסיני, שנאמר (קהלת א י) יש דבר שיאמר ראה זה חדש הוא, חבירו משיב עליו, כבר היה לעולמים" There are no novel interpretations in the Torah, since everything has already been taught to Moshe on Sinai.



This still conflicts somewhat with a teaching of the gaon Chida’s in Dvash L’fee (8,3):

"האחרונים יכולים לחדש מה שלא יכלו הראשונים, כי עדיין לא הגיע זמן החידוש ההוא" Here we are taught that novel interpretations of the Torah are revealed in every generation. So was it instituted from Above that certain interpretations only be revealed by the scholars of that specific generation. Furthermore, these interpretations could not have been revealed even by earlier generations of more heavenly scholars.



We find a similar conflict with the parsha describing the “mahn” (Shemos 16,4). The “mahn” is described as bread from heaven. The possuk continues: "ולקטו העם דבר יום ביומו"—every day, they were to gather and clarify the novel Torah teachings specific to that particular day. How, too, does this coincide with the Midrash quoted above: "אפילו מה שתלמיד ותיק עתיד לומר לפני רבו כולן נאמרו למשה בסיני"?



Forty Days in the Heavens Correspond to the Forty Days of an Embryo’s Formation

We can resolve these conflicts based on a concept found in our holy seforim. Moshe Rabeinu remained in the heavens forty days to receive the Torah, because forty days are necessary to form a new creature. These forty days represented the creation and transformation of the people of Yisroel into the nation of the Torah. We find this idea presented by the Siftei Kohen (Ekev): "ואשב בהר ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה, מה שהיו ארבעים יום כנגד יצירת הולד, כמו שיצירת הגוף בארבעים יום כן היה צריך ארבעים יום לתורה".



It is well- known that all six hundred thousand neshomes of Yisroel were incorporated within Moshe Rabeinu. This is taught in the Midrash Tanchuma (Beshalach): "משה ובני ישראל, משה שקול כנגד כל ישראל". It is now clear why, during those forty days, Moshe was taught the entire Torah, including the novel interpretations of all future generations—since he embodied all the neshomes of Yisroel, he had to receive all of their portions in the Torah.



However, since the time for many of those chidushim to be revealed had not yet arrived—i.e. they would be revealed by various scholars, each in his own time—it was necessary for Moshe to forget them and not present them before their appropriate times. Nonetheless, every Jew’s ability to perceive and comprehend his own portion of the Torah, is only in the merit of Moshe Rabeinu, the root of all Jewish neshomes, who accepted that portion of the Torah on Har Sinai.



We find support for this concept in the gemorah (Nidah 30:) concerning an unborn fetus:

"ומלמדין אותו כל התורה כולה... וכיון שבא לאויר העולם בא מלאך וסטרו על פיו ומשכחו כל התורה כולה". The fetus is taught the entire Torah; yet, as he is born, an angel slaps him on his mouth and he forgets it all. Once again, we might wonder, what purpose does it serve to teach the unborn child the entire Torah, if he is destined to forget it all at birth?



The answer is provided by the Noam Elimelech in Likutei Shoshanah:

"אם לא היו מלמדין אותה, לא היה באפשרי לקבל וללמוד אחר כך את התורה, לכן מלמדין אותה מתחילה כדי שאחר כך בנקל תוכל לקבל וללמוד התורה".

If the neshome would not be taught the Torah initially, prior to birth, it would be impossible for it to achieve and comprehend the Torah by natural means, after birth, from within the confines of its physical, material body.

This also applied in a general sense to Moshe Rabeinu, the embodiment of all Jewish neshomes, during those forty days. Had he not forgotten those portions belonging to future generations, he would have been obligated to reveal them before their time. Had he not learned them at all, we would never have been able to comprehend them and, ultimately, reveal them on our own.



How beautifully this explains the words of Hashem (Malachi 3,22): "זכרו תורת משה עבדי אשר צויתי אותו בחורב על כל ישראל חוקים ומשפטים" Hashem beseeches us to remember the Torah that Moshe spent forty days learning on Har Sinai and then forgot. He did so for the benefit of all future generations. By toiling and endeavoring to study Torah, we successfully return to Moshe Rabeinu those portions which he forgot while on Har Sinai.

This illuminates for us the Chasam Sofer’s elucidation of the possuk: "וידבר ה' אל משה לאמר"—Hashem spoke specifically to Moshe, who accepted all of Yisroel’s portions of the Torah on Har Sinai; "דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו לי תרומה"—the word תרומ"הis the same letters as "תורה מ'", an allusion to the fact that Moshe was only given the Torah as a gift after he had struggled for forty days in the heavens to learn it and, still, forgot it all. The lesson we are supposed to learn: "מאת כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו תקחו את תרומתי"—every Jew must devote his heart and soul to Torah study, in order to return his portion to Moshe Rabeinu, who forgot it.



We can now appreciate the meaning of the Midrash:

"ויקחו לי תרומה, הדא הוא דכתיב כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם תורתי אל תעזובו, אל תעזובו את המקח שנתתי לכם" Based on what we have learned in the gemorah (Menachos 65:): "וספרתם לכם, שתהא ספירה לכל אחד ואחד". Whenever the verse uses the term "לכם", it refers to each individual as a separate entity.



So, when the Almighty says to us: "כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם"—He is telling each and every one of us, individually, that we were each given a special portion of His Torah during those forty days on Har Sinai (when He taught Moshe and Moshe forgot). Therefore, I (Hashem) request from all of you: "תורתי אל תעזובו, אל תעזובו את המקח שנתתי לכם"—it is up to you to reveal the portions of the Torah that Moshe forgot.

Terumah: The Mishkan in the Synagogue; Hidden in Plain Sight

I've been told that this post (and my writing in general) would be easier to follow if I avoided tangents, used footnotes, and wrote in standard English.  With all due respect, I'm not here to entertain you, and I'm not changing my style of writing.  If you want to learn something worth knowing, make the effort.


In the forthcoming sections of the Torah, the architecture and layout of the Tabernacle/Mishkan and various types of sacrifices are described at great length. This information seems, to many of us, to be arcane and completely irrelevant to modern life. The fact is, though, that the laws of the Sacrificial Service that was done in the Tabernacle and the Temple pervade the everyday life of the Orthodox Jew. The Torah explicitly links the mortal prohibitions against consuming tallow and blood to the sacrificial service; our daily prayers derive from and correspond to the daily communal sacrificial services in the Mishkan (Berachos 26b); the requirement that we have salt on the table when we eat bread (table is like the altar and salt accompanied all offerings); the prohibition of shatnez/clothing that mixes wool and linen (Chizkuni in Ki Seitzei- made exclusive to bigdei kehuna); the double meal on Shavu'os/Pentecost (OC 494:3 Rama); Birkas Hagomel/the thanksgiving blessing (equivalent of Korban Todah/the Thanksgiving Offering); Kisui Hadam/covering the shechita blood of non-korban species (Ramban and Kli Yakar Vayikra 17:3), we read the section of the Torah that describes the Red Heifer before Passover, just as we used to use it in olden times to prepare for eating the Pesach offering; and-- the architecture of the synagogue, the layout of the Beis HaKnesses.

The Noda B'yehuda (II OC 18) says that there is no 'blueprint' for Synagogues, and one may build an eight-cornered or silo-shaped synagogue. Still, he encourages us to follow our traditions in building Shuls, unless some exigency or compelling logic dictates innovation. Indeed, we find very little direction; the Shulchan Aruch (OC 90) says that a synagogue should, if possible, have twelve windows, for various symbolic reasons, and (OC 150) that the shul should be higher than any residences in the city. (In a slightly different universe, we would be the ones with the steeples.) The Rambam (2 Tefilla 3) says that the Bimah, from which the Torah is read, should be placed in middle so that everyone should be able to hear the Torah reading; the Kesef Mishna (there) says that on that basis, if it is a small Shul, one may place the Bimah anywhere one wants. As we will see, however, it is a mistake to think that traditional synagogue architecture is merely utilitarian with a vague gloss of accreted traditions. It is crystal clear that traditional synagogue architecture reflects, in minute detail, the layout of the Mishkan. The correspondence is specific, exclusive, and indisputable. The entrance, the Bimah upon which the Torah is read, the Amud where the leader of the prayers stands, the Rabbi's seat, the President's seat, the Ner Tamid/eternal light, the Aron Kodesh which contains the Torah, the Paroches/curtain that hangs in front of the Aron Kodesh, and the Ezras Nashim/ladies' section, all are placed precisely to replicate the environment of the Mishkan and the Beis Hamikdash. Our racial memory of the Mikdash Me'aht, the Mishkan in miniature, manipulates our unsuspecting hands.


(Please note: some elements and variations of the description below have been said by others, notably the Chasam Sofer (OC 28) and the Netziv (Meishiv Davar OC 15, where he argues with the Kesef Mishna in 3 Tefilla 11.). The global description, however, is unique to this website, both in scope and in specificity. After reading this, you might feel that what I am saying is self evident. That may be true. Great truths, once uncovered, often seem obvious. The fact remains, though, that to the best of my knowledge, nobody has said this before.
There is a Medrash Rabba (Breishis 53:14) that says Amar Rebbi Binyamin, Hakol bechezkas Sumin ahd sheHakadosh Baruch Hu mei'ir es eineihem," All men are in a state of blindness until Hashem enlightens their eyes. This is an excellent example. Just as Hagar didn't see the well that was right in front of her until Hashem let her see it, once you see it, you wonder why it wasn't obvious before. The answer is that you need siyata dishmaya for ha'aras einaiyim.
The Author, Eliezer Eisenberg, requests proper attribution. At least in the month of Adar, let's try to fulfill the rule we learn {Megilla 15a} from Megillas Esther-- Ha'omer davar be'shem omro meivi ge'ula le'olam- Proper attribution brings redemption to the world.   A word to the wise: our sage's words are intended to be understood Michlal Hein Atta Shomei'a Lahv, negation of the rule does not merely result in no effect, but instead generates the opposite effect.  The failure to properly attribute brings the opposite of redemption.)

Let us visualize what is in front of us when we walk into the Mishkan. Here are simple line drawings of the Mishkan.  I have three here, because readers might prefer one over the other.  The first, which can be enlarged, has two errors:  It places the Golden Altar west of the Menora and Shulchan, when in fact the Menora and Shulchan were west of the Altar, and it is lacking the ramp to the top of the Altar.  The first image is "oriented" in the modern style, with North on top.  The second image is correct, and is drawn in the Traditional style of placing the more relevant direction on top, here being the West, which would be the perspective of a person entering on the East side and proceeding Westward toward the Kodesh Kadashim.  The third image is the best of all, (despite leaving out an entrance) in that it is labeled and correct and enlarge-able.  Note, however, that there are various opinions as to the placement of the copper/brazen/outer altar.  Some place it in middle, some toward the north.
 . 

The length of the Mishkan lies on a East-West axis, and the entrance, whose equivalent in the Temple in Yerushalayim, the Beis Hamikdash, was called the Gate of Nikanor, is on the east side. So we walk in facing west.

We enter the Chatzer, the courtyard.  Directly in front of us, in middle of the Chatzeir, is the Mizbach Hanechoshes, the Copper/Brazen Altar, also called the Mizbach Ha'olah, the Altar used for the burning of most sacrifices, Korbanos. (There are three opinions as to exactly where the Mizbei'ach was; it began on the left and ended at the midline, or it straddled the midline, as in the illustration, or it began at the midline and was itself all on the right/north.) This Mizbei'ach was quite tall; in the Mikdash, it was nine amos high to the walking and working surface; in the Mishkan, there is a difference of opinions among the Tanaim how high it was, but in any case, it was high enough that a ramp was necessary to provide access to the working surface. To the left/south of the Mizbei'ach you see the ramp.

Proceeding westward, we come to the Mishkan itself, the smaller rectangle within the drawing.

Entering the Mishkan, we see directly in front of us, centered on a north/south line, the Golden Altar/Mizbei'ach Hazahav, also referred to as the Altar of Incense/Mizbach Haketores, used (almost exclusively) for burning the Incense/Ketores.

Farther in, closer to the Paroches, there are two more utensils/keilim. On the right side is the Table, the Shulchan, used for the Show Bread/Lechem Hapanim, and on the left is the Candelabrum/Menorah.

On the opposite side of the room, farthest west, is the Curtain/Paroches, covering the entrance to the Holy of Holies/Kodesh Kadashim. Behind the Paroches, in the Kodesh Hakadashim, is the Ark/Aron, which contained, most importantly, the Tablets/Luchos. In the drawing, the Aron is centered between two horizontal lines.  These lines are the Badim, the "carrying poles" on its sides, which never were removed from the Aron, even when it was at rest.

Every single one of these elements is present in our shuls. From the simplest architectural perspective, one can see that the objects in the shul are laid out exactly as are the objects in the Mishkan. But the correspondence is more than merely superficial. Not only is the layout the same, but the function of the objects is the same- the rear entryway, the elevated Mizbach Ha'olah, the Mizbach Haketores, the Shulchan, the Menorah, the Paroches, and the Aron Hakodesh. Let's look at them one by one.

The entryway is the simplest. The Tur in OC 90 says that the entrance of a shul should be opposite the Aron Kodesh, just as it was in the Mikdash.

The Bimah is the Mizbach Ha'olah. This has been pointed out by the Chasam Sofer (Teshuvos OC 28) and the Netziv (Meishiv Davar OC 15). (The Chasam Sofer calls it the Mizbei'ach Hapnimi, which sounds like the Mizbach Haketores, but he can't possibly mean that, as Reb Moshe points out in Igros OC II 41.) The reason for the correspondence is the Gemara in Menachos 110a; אמר ריש לקיש מאי דכתיב זאת התורה לעולה למנחה ולחטאת ולאשם כל העוסק בתורה כאילו הקריב עולה מנחה חטאת ואשם-- It is at the Bimah that we read the Torah; Reading the Torah is our equivalent of sacrificial service, our Avodas Hakorbanos. (In OC 660, the Gaon and the Pri Megadim in Mishbetzos Zahav sk1 bring that on Sukkos we are makif the Bimah that has a Sefer Torah on it as a zecher le'mikdash based on Megilla 31b, that reading the Parshios of Korbanos is mechaper like physically bringing korbanos. Why, you may ask, don't they bring the Reish Lakish memra from Menachos which seems to be on eisek Torah in general and not just parshos hakorbanos? I suppose that they are mechalek between 'kor'in' in Megilla and "oseik' in Menachos. Now, the Gaon/PM are mashma that the ikkar thing to be makif around is the sefer Torah, that the Sefer Torah, not the Bimah, is like the Mizbei'ach. But the Taz in sk 1 says that the Bimah is like the Mizbei'ach "when it has a sefer Torah on it," and there is no reason to say that the Gaon or the PM are saying different than him.)

Just as the Mizbeiach was elevated, our Bimah, too, is elevated. The elevation is not just for better acoustics or line of sight, it is minhag Yisrael, to the extent that one is prohibited from taking a shortcut from one side of the shul to the other by way of the Bimah platform, because the platform is considered a different, and more holy, reshus (Mekor Chaim OC 151:5).

The next element is the Amud of the Chazan. The Amud is the Mizbei'ach Hazahav, the Altar of Incense/Mizbach Haketores. Tehillim 141:2, "תיכון תפילתי קטורת לפניך...." My prayer shall be established like incense before You.  The Amud, where the Chazan/leader of the prayers stands, is the Golden Altar of Incense.  (see Baal HaTurim Shemos 30:34-זכה. ג' במס' ולבונה זכה ונתת על המערכת לבונה זכה ותפלתי זכה. זש''ה תכון תפלת. קטורת לפניך שהתפלה דומה לקטורת כשם שזה זכה כך התפלה צריכה שתהיה זכה)

The Rabbi and the President of the shul are the Menora/Candelabrum and the Shulchan/Showbread Table. The Rav, obviously, is the source of the light of Torah and Kedusha. The president of the shul is the Parnas Hatzibur, the man of means and influence, the political voice and financial mainstay of the community. The Rav and the Parnas are to the left and the right of the amud, closer to the Paroches.

There happens to be a difference of opinion whether the Rav should be on the left or the right (see Mishbetzos Zahav 94:2); most shuls and yeshivos have the Rav/Rosh Yeshiva on the right side, which is the south side, not the left. This is actually a very old question, and there are minhagim both ways. But please realize: both minhagim are attempting to replicate the layout of the Mishkan.  The only question is whether the directions should be subjective or geographic, that is, determined by their relation to the Kodesh Kodashim or cardinal directions. In other words: in the Mishkan, the Menora was on the left. But that left side was the south, since the Paroches was west. In our shuls, the Aron Hakodesh is East. So, the issue is, do we put the Rav on the south side, like the Menora was on the south, and, in our shuls, that would be on the right, or do we put him to the left of the Aron Kodesh, as the Menora was on the left side from the perspective of one who walks into the Kodesh and vis a vis the Kodesh Kodashim. But both minhagim are centered on creating a correspondence with the Mishkan/Mikdash.

Many shuls have a Ner Tamid/Eternal Light, which also refers to the lamp on the Menora that miraculously continued burning (until the end of the tenure of the Kohen Gadol Shimon Hatzadik-- Yoma 39a) after the other lamps had burned out (Shabbas 22b). This was the Ner Ma'aravis, which was closest to the Kodesh Kadashim. (There are, of course, many opinions as to what, exactly, 'ma'aravis' means. The Menora may have been lined up north/south, in which case ma'aravis wouldn't mean what it means if the Menora was lined up east/west. This doesn't matter. Pashut pshat remains that the Ner Ma'aravis was the Ner Tamid, and so we put it next to the Aron Kodesh.)

And, of course, the Aron Hakodesh. The Paroches/Curtain in shul and the niche containing the Sifrei Torah is the Paroches of the Mishkan, behind which reposed the Aron Hakodesh, which contained the Luchos and the Sefer Torah written by Moshe Rabbeinu.  Sometimes people are confused by the fact that in a synagogue, the closet is called the Aron Kodesh, whereas in the Mikdash/Mishkan, the Aron Kodesh refers to the box that contains the tablets/Torah, and the area is called the Kodesh Kadashim.  So in the synagogue, we are conflating the Kodesh Kadashim and the Aron container of the Torah and calling it the Aron Kodesh.

The Ezras Nashim/Women's Section, too, recreates the balconies that were constructed in the Mikdash, as Reb Moshe explains in OC 39. These, however, were present only in the Mikdash, because they were only necessary when groups of men and women were present for particular events, as Reb Moshe explains there; there were no such gatherings in the Mishkan, so no provisions for an Ezras Nashim were made. Indeed, if a woman needed to enter a shul for some personal reason, such as to say kaddish for Yahrtzeit during the week when the men daven in a side room which has no mechitza, Reb Moshe proves from the fact that women often entered the Mikdash to do semicha or mattan behonos for ziva or tzara'as, that now, too, a woman may occasionally enter the men's shul to say kaddish. (Igros OC 1 end of 39 and more clearly in OC 5 20:2. I didn't believe it was true, but I asked Reb David Feinstein, and he said it was legitimate.  Note on February 17, 2013:  Last night I dreamed about this Teshuva.  I dreamt I was at a local modern-ish shul, and the women's section was overcrowded, so the women took over the rear two rows of the shul.  When I realized what had happened, I had to decide whether to walk out in protest, or to stay and do nothing, out of respect for Reb Moshe's teshuva.  I woke up before I made the decision.)

The only one of the major Klei Shareis that is not represented in the Beis Knesses is the Kiyor/Laver, and it should be obvious why it's not in the room. It's a machshir and only Kohanim need it in order to do the avodah.  I say this because the Gevuras Yitztchak (107) suggests that according to the Rambam the Kiyor is not considered a Kli of the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Torah does not list the Kiyor in the Parshah of the Kelim of the Beis ha'Mikdash (but rather in Parshas Ki Sisa). When the Rambam lists the Kelim in the Beis ha'Mikdash, he does not include the Kiyor, which implies that he holds that the Kiyor is not considered a Kli.  Similarly, the Seforno (Shemos 30:18) says that the purpose of the other Kelim was to make the Shechina rest on the Jewish people, while the purpose of the Kiyor was to ready the Kohanim for their Avodah. 

And this is how it looks, superimposed:

and here's one I did freehand.  It's not to scale, and it's not beautiful.  But it's more clear.  The regular type is the Mishkan.  The bold is the Synagogue.  (I want to point out that one important difference between Jewish and Gentile drawings of the Mishkan is that we leave the carrying-staves only in the Aron.  The staves that were used to carry the table and the altars are not drawn.  This is because the Torah states, regarding the Aron, that the carrying staves shall never be removed, even when it is at rest.  For the other items, the staves were only there when they were necessary for transportation.)

Several more points.
The halacha is that the door of the sanctuary should be opposite the Aron Kodesh (OC 150:5, based on Tosefta Megilla 3:14).  This is because in the Beis Hamikdash, which had the holiest place in the west, we entered on the east side, facing west.

Additionally, the Bach (OC 90) states that one should provide an anteroom for the synagogue, and not construct it so that one walks directly into the sanctuary.  One should have two doors to open before entering the sanctuary.  This opinion is cited in the Magen Avraham (sk 35) and the Mishnah Berurah (sk 61).  The Chasam Sofer (Tshuvos, OC 27) adds that the entrance to the anteroom or hallway should not be directly opposite the entrance to the sanctuary; Since the door to the shul should be on the west side, the door to the anteroom should be on the north or south.  He bases this, again, on the layout of the Beis Hamikdash: "שהרי כן מצינו בבית המקדש, אע"ג שהיה שער ניקנור במזרחה של עזרה, מ"מ עיקר הכניסה והיציאה היה לצפון ולדרום… והכי נמי יש לבנות פתחי האכסדרה שלפני בית הכנסת לדרום או לצפון".  There, too, the main entrances used to the area prior to the Beis Hamikdash proper was on the north and south.

Also involving doors- The Mishna Berura (151:SK21) says that it is a mitzva to leave the synagogue from a different door than the one through which he entered, because this shows love for the kedusha of the Beis HaKnesses, that one desires to spend as much time there as possible.  (This is based on the Gemara in Megilla 29, one version of which says it is allowed, and the other that it is a mitzva.)  A Maaseh Rav- someone built a ramp and second floor on the Lederman shul so that Reb Chaim Kanievsky could daven there without climbing stairs.  When he came in, he realized that there was only one entrance, and he mentioned that he always had a minhag of walking out from a different door than he walked in.  The patron immediately made the change, and now there are separate doors for entrance and exit.


Another issue: there are prominent poskim that say that if the floor above the synagogue is designated and used for a purpose that contradicts the holiness of the synagogue, the prayers will not be effective.  Therefore, while technically the prayers are kosher, they will not be effective- the prayers in a part of a synagogue above which there is a bathroom will not rise up to Heaven.  This has been quoted from Rav Eliashiv by Rav Menachem Tzvi Berlin, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva Rabbeinu Chaim Ozer, as follows:

כשבנו פה את הישיבה הקד' עשו כאן שתי תקרות כדי שיוכלו לישון למעלה, הבדל של טפח, היתה מחשבה שבמקום שני חדרים לעשות מקלחת ועוד משהו, עליתי לירושלים לשאול, אמר לי רבי, "תשמע מנחם צבי, מותר לעשות ואין איסור, אבל התפילות ישארו תקועות בדרך"

On the other hand, the Divrei Malkiel 5:10 says that it is not a problem, and it doesn't matter at all what is above the shul.  The Zohar that says that צלותא סלקא לעילא, that tefillos rise upwards, is not talking about physical direction.  (and Abaye and Rava in Brachos 48a were just children.)  (The Divrei Malkiel is a sefer chashuv me'od, written by the Rov of Lomzhe, one of the great talmidim of Volozhin.)

(Several more technical matters on this topic are discussed here.)

So what do we learn from the fact that the shul recreates, as much as possible, the environment of the Beis Hamikdash?
1. Our minhagim, even those that we consider relatively unimportant, have profound meaning and deep and ancient foundations. As I write elsewhere, even the Minhag to wear masks on Purim re-enacts our people's foundation story of Yakov and Eisav, and kal vachomer the layout of our shuls. Kapparos and Gebrokts, less so.
2. If you talk in shul, you are not just transgressing kevod beis haknesses. You are deconsecrating the Beis Hamikdash that others are trying to create. There comes a point when the talking is as loud as or louder than the shliach tzibur. At that point, the sin is not zilzul Beis Haknesses. The sin is making a Mikdash Me'aht into a tavern. Sometimes, the bar imagery is reinforced by the people who go out for a lechaim. These people should get the Hell out of shul and go to a real bar or a country club where that kind of behavior is appropriate.
3. What if your friends don't respond to verbal requests to either be quiet or to go outside to talk? It is likely that according to the Nesivos at the end of Siman 4, and even the Ketzos in the Meshoveiv there, you're allowed to physically dissuade them. One might argue that they are not doing an "issur de'oraysa." To that I say that the Chayei Adam brings the Yerei'im that Kvod Beis Hakneses is De'orayasa. And even though we most likely go with the Ran and the Ramban that it is Derabanan, whether because of tashmishei mitzva or tashmishei kedusha, some things are not "de'oraysa" but have the same severity.
4. Rabbis who claim adherence to "Tradition" but approve of the absence of a mechitza in their shuls may be venal and they may be stupid and they may be both, but they are not neither. The congregants know nothing. The Rabbi has no such excuse.
5. For those of you that still think that the similarities between shul and Mikdash are coincidental, and that the traditional shul floor plan is just the most efficient way to accommodate the service and the worshipers,  I suggest you do some image searches for layout or "floor plan" for church, mosque, and hindu temple. You will find that they have nothing in common with our shuls.
6.  This analysis applies only to European shuls, and not to the Eidot Hamizrach.  Not my problem.  Either they follow some other idea that remains to be discovered, or they hold there's a Lo Sa'asun Itti issue.

Speaking of Bimahs being elevated-- in Europe, especially in Lithuania, the Bimos were really high. This is a picture, taken in the nineteen twenties, of the Bima in the Summer Shul in Shavlan (Shiaulenai), where my grandfather, Harav Akiva Tzvi Berlin, HY'D, was the Rov. My mother shetichyeh says it was a shul of great antiquity, and I have read that it dated from the sixteen hundreds..  The shul is not there anymore: my grandparents and the other Jews of the town were burned alive on that Altar in Tof Shin Alef/1941.

Photograph by Balys Buracas

Update:  I found a sefer by Harav Shimon Sofer, the Chasam Sofer's grandson, that mirrors many of the points I discuss: link

Terumah, Shemos 25:15, The Physics of Metaphysics: The Aron Hakodesh and Its Badim

(As always, other divrei Torah on this Parsha can be accessed by clicking "Terumah" in the Label Column.)

Several utensils of the Mishkan had carrying-poles, 'Badim,' used when the Mishkan was taken apart and transported to the next encampment. These were the Shulchan, the Mizbeichos, and the Aron. The badim of the Aron, were, however, unique. The Torah says lo yasuru, they shall never be removed. Unlike the other badim, which were removed when the Mishkan was at rest, the badim of the Aron remained in place permanently both in the Mishkan and the Beis Hamikdash.

Reb Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains that the poles of the other utensils were purely utilitarian.  Their purpose was their functionality; they served to enable carrying the utensils, and they had no intrinsic or symbolic significance beyond that. The badim of the Aron, on the other hand, were absolutely not utilitarian. Chazal, and several pesukim in Tanach, tell us that the Aron was miraculously not only weightless, but it actually carried those that carried it– “nosei es nos’av.” Therefore, there was no need for the badim to enable carrying the Aron, since it could have been carried by one person who would simply point it in the desired direction. If they were not utilitarian, they must have been essential to the form and identity of the Aron, and this is why they were permanently affixed to it.

Many meforshim speculate as to the symbolic logic of this unique trait, but that is not the focus of this discussion. (Some approaches: the Badim represent the supporters of Torah, the Zevuluns. Torah can not exist without both the lomdim and the supporters. While it may appear that they are the ones who carry the Lomdei Torah, in truth it is the Lomdei Torah that carry them. It says "Semach Zevulun," it doesn't say "Smach Yissochor"-- the primary beneficiary is Zevulun. Another-- this teaches that Torah has no geographic or temporal limitations. Another-- A Torah that is static, that is not shared, is not Torah at all. Another-- The purpose of Limud Hatorah is Ahl Menas La'asos.)

The Gemara in Yoma, Kiddushin, and Bova Basra, says that“Aron she’asa Moshe lo haya min hamidah.” “The Ark made by Moshe was not part of the measure.” This means that the chamber, the Adytum Sanctum Sanctorum (of the Beis Hamikdash, not the Mishkan), which contained the Aron, was twenty Amos square; the Aron, placed in middle toward the front, was two and one half Amos wide, and one and a half high and deep. But when you measured the room from the left side to the Aron, you would have ten Amos; from the right side to the Aron was also ten Amos. The Aron itself was two and one half wide. But when you measured the room from the far left to the far right, it was only twenty Amos. The strange thing is that the floor had Amah-square tiles, and the Aron sat on two and one half tiles, and you should have been able to count the number of tiles in the room. Nonetheless, it was not min haminyan, just as Moshe Rabbeinu’s grave appeared next to the people down below when you were looking from above, and above when you were looking from below.

It seems to me that the idea that it didn’t have a determinable position is related to the fact that it was “nosei es nosav,” because they both stem from the fact that the Aron was not tied to a specific position, and it had no physical mass that would occupy a fixed position.

This lack of position and mass did not indicate unstableness or impermanence. On the contrary— because it was superior to physical matter, it could not be tied to a particular place, it could not be defined by any relationship to physical things, including spatial position, which is a matter of its relativity to physical things. It was not insubstantial, it was trans-substantial. Its holiness, when containing the luchos, elevated it to a state in which it was free from the material characteristic of being tied to a specific place. So we can understand why when one measured from the right there were ten amos to the Oron, and when one measured from the left there were ten amos to the Oron, and when one measured from the right to the left wall there were twenty amos; because the metaphysical kedusha of the Oron contradicted its being in a determinable place, so the very attempt to measure and and determine the position of the Oron resulted in its not being in the area you are measuring. This might be similar to the idea of “Hu m’komo shel olom.” You may refer to this concept as the Kant/(H)eisenberg Uncertainty Principle.”

Now, let us think about “Aron nosei es nos’ov.” Gravity is a function of spatial relation. The Aron had no spatial relation to its surroundings; in the Kodesh Kadashim, it was on the right side just as much as it was on the left side, meaning it could not be defined as being 'located' on either side.  If the Aron was not physically proximate even to its immediate position, it could not be affected gravitationally. This is why gravity did not act on the Aron. Even the people who carried it, apparently, were unaffected by gravity, since while they were carrying it they were serving it and were, at that moment, accessories appurtenant to the Oron.

Additionally, the Rogatchover says, the Aron was not subject to the passage of time. He says this in three places: Shemos 16:33, Teshuvos II 28, and Teshuvos Dvinsk II 43:4.

Several years ago, I sent an email to Dr. Barry Simon, the eminent IBM Professor of Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Caltech and a frum and learned man, asking what he thought about this concept.

He answered (drumroll please) that it was "wrong on many levels." If the Aron had no mass, then it would have to move at the speed of light. So it was not behaving in a manner consistent with the rules of physical matter that have been observed; it was a neis, and that’s all.  His field of expertise, he said, was the laws of physics, not nissim.

So did you just waste five minutes reading this? I hope not. Even nissim conform, to some extent, to teva. The great nissim were emplaced at the time of Bri'as Ha'olam, during the eve of Shabbat. It stands to reason that the nissim of the Aron have some physical logic. Exactly what that logic is, however, remains unclear for the moment. But I believe that this approach, while speculative and not mathematically provable, might have some small element of validity, if not as a maskana, at least as an interesting hava amina.

Trumah, Shemos 25:18. A Socratic Dvar Torah about the Kruvim

Here are four questions. These are not questions that misdirect or require knowledge of obscure facts. Any student of the Chumash will, with a little thought, find the answers to these questions. This process will help you realize something fundamental about the character and nature of the Kruvim.

1. Everyone is familiar with the Kruvim that stood atop the Aron Kodesh in the Mishkan. People who are ma’avir sedra also know of the Kruvim that were woven into the inside layer of the cover of the Mishkan. But where else in the Torah are Kruvim mentioned?

2. In what sense are the other Kruvim diametrically opposed to the Kruvim mentioned here?

3. In what sense is the purpose of the other Kruvim identical with that of the Kruvim mentioned here?

4. How do you understand the striking differences and similarities of the character and task of the Kruvim of the Mishkon and the other Kruvim?

UPDATE:
When I posted this, I posted only the questions and left the thinking to the reader. As it happened, one reader, an anonymous baal machshava, nailed the answers. Please see the comments for his answers to these questions. I still don't get why he/she would not use their name. Bishlema me, I need to latitude to post whatever I want without consequence. But I still don't get why a commenter would do that, and I am still consumed with curiosity as to who that anonymous was.

Terumah, Shemos 25:31. Miksha tei’aseh hamenorah. Lending Force to Energy

Rashi here brings the Tanchuma that says that Moshe had a very hard time understanding how to make the Menorah (as Rashi also says in passuk 40). So Hashem told him to throw the gold he had been working on into the fire, and a perfect menorah came out. The Maharal asks, why then did Hashem have to show him the tavnis hamenorah shel eish, as Rashi says in 40, and command him to make it? It was obviously impossible for Moshe to fulfill that commandment! The Maharal (Gur Aryeh) answers that Moshe did attempt to make it, and as part of the crafting process put it into the fire, and only then did it come out perfected. But Moshe did make it, at least the initial imperfect stages.

The mussar haskeil is that we cannot be expected to do everything that Hashem requires from us. We are expected to have bitachon in Hashem, and trust that if He presents us with what seems to be an insurmountable challenge, we do have the potential to overcome it, and we must plan and work to the limits of our ability. When we reach the limit of our ability, having given all our kochos, we will have Siyata Dishmaya to reach our goal.
This is the pshat in the Mishnah in Pirkei Avos (2:16) that says “Lo alecha hamelacha ligmor, ve’ein atta ben chorin libateil heimenu.” And it is similar to the idea that Moshe set aside the arei miklot in the eiver hayarden even though he knew they would not be effectuated until after his death.

And now to the most important point. It is crucial to realize the similarity and the stark contrast between what happened here and what happened to Aharon at the maiseh ha’egel. (See Sfas Emes here.) There, too, Aharon threw the gold into the fire, and there, too, something came out. The point is, (and this also answers the Maharal’s kashe,) that preparation, kavana, having a goal in mind, transforms the maiseh, the act, completely. Moshe’s act, while physically identical with Aharon’s maiseh, was completely different in ruchnius. Moshe threw the gold into the fire after giving all his strength in the attempt to understand what the menorah was, and realizing that after giving all he had, he needed siyata dishmaya to achieve his goal. Aharon threw it in with no kavana at all, expecting that nothing would come of it. So when when Micha threw in the plate with the Shem Hashem on it (Shemos 32:4), the result was something Aharon never could have anticipated.

Gold is inert, neutral, and unchanging. But it conducts energy very well, and when combined with power and energy, the combination creates a potent, living force. Throwing gold into a fire creates a conduit for inchoate energy, and this can have more than one result— what comes out might be an avodah zarah that spreads death and darkness through the world, or it might be a menorah that channels the kedusha of the Shechina and brings life and light to the whole world.