Return To TorahWeb.org Homepage
While the Beis HaMikdash served multiple roles, the Rambam (Sefer HaMitzvos, mitvas aseh 20) seems to identify the ritualistic role as paradigmatic of the very essence of the Mikdash. He describes the Mikdash as a Beis Avodah - a House of Service. We find that the Rambam echoes this characterization in the beginning of Hilchos Avodas Beis HaBechirah, where he states that Bnei Yisrael are commanded, "Laasos bayis l'Hashem muchan lihiyosm makrivim bo korbanos v'chogugin eilav shalosh p'amim bashanah shene'emar v'asu Li mikdash - to build a house for Hashem, equipped to offer sacrifices and celebrate festivals three times annually, as it is stated, 'make for Me a Mikdash.'" By mentioning the sacrificial obligations in the very opening line, the Rambam suggests that these ritual services encapsulate the characteristic essence of the Mikdash.
The Ramban (beginning of Parshas Terumah), however, appears to present a somewhat different characterization of the Mikdash. Rather than emphasizing the particularistic rituals, the Ramban underscores the Mikdash's more general role as a resting place for the Divine Presence. In this respect, the Ramban suggests a relationship between the Mishkan and Har Sinai, as the Mishkan served to perpetuate the unparalleled level of closeness to the Divine Presence achieved at Har Sinai.
This divergence of opinions between the Rambam and the Ramban may also be reflected elsewhere. In the Sefer HaMitzvos (ibid), the Rambam reckons both the construction of the actual Mikdash as well as the construction of its keilim (vessels used to perform the services) as a single positive commandment. The Ramban (mitvas aseh 33) argues that the construction of the Keilim should be counted independently of the construction of the actual edifice. Therefore, he prefers to count it as a "hechsher mitzvah" subsumed under the general Mitzvah of the avodah. The Ramban adduces support for his argument from the halachic permissibility to offer sacrifices in the Beis HaMikdash, even in the absence of keilim. This dispensation suggests an independent status for the Mikdash, irrespective of the Mitzvah to build keilim.
Rav Asher Weiss suggests that the Rambam and Ramban's dispute regarding the counting of the mitzvos mirrors their general dispute about the nature of the Mikdash. Because the Rambam perceives the avodah as central to the very definition of the Mikdash, he views the construction of the keilim (which are necessary to perform the avodah) as intrinsic to the commandment to build a Mikdash itself. According to the Ramban, however, the Mikdash maintains an independent purpose of housing the Divine Presence, regardless of the requirement to build keilim for the avodah. Hence, the Mitzvah to build the keilim deserves independent recognition from the Mitzvah to construct the Mikdash.
Rav Weiss suggests a further consistency in the opinions of the Rambam and Ramban. The Ramban (Mitzvos SheShachach HaRav, 3) counts an independent mitzvah of "u'vechol asher amarti aleichem tishameiru" (Shemos 23:13), not to deviate from the prescribed order when first placing the keilim in the Mikdash. The Rambam, however, does not reckon this commandment independently among the 613. Because the Ramban understands the construction of the keilim as a distinct Mitzvah from construction of the Mikdash, he must count an additional Mitzvah to teach the order of placement of the keilim. The Rambam, however, considers the construction of the Mikdash and its keilim to be a unified Mitzvah. Hence, the order in which the keilim must be placed in the Mikdash would likely be included within this Mitzvah as well, and not need to be reckoned independently.
It is noteworthy that, somewhat ironically, the Ramban's reckoning of "u'vechol asher amarti aleichem tishameiru" as an independent mitzvah may actually support the Rambam's understanding of the construction of the keilim. If construction of the keilim constitutes part of the biblical mitzvah of v'asu Li mikdash, it is understandable that the Torah should insist on a specific order in which the Mitzvah should be performed. According to the Ramban, as we have stated, construction of the keilim is not a true Mitzvah, but merely a hechsher mitzvah, a technical preparation necessary for the fulfillment of a Mitzvah. If constructing the keilim simply serves as a means to an end, perhaps the Torah would not be quite as insistent on the order in which it is performed.
A similar model can be gleaned from the mitzvah of donning the priestly vestments. The Rambam (Sefer HaMitzvos ibid) reckons the act of donning the vestments as an independent mitzvah. In analyzing the Rambam's opinion, the Minchas Chinuch (n.99) posits that although there is a mitzvah to dress in the garments, there is perhaps no mitzvah to don the garments in any particular order (aside from the pants, which the Torah stipulates must be donned first). However, perhaps one could question the conclusion of the Minchas Chinuch. If donning the garments served merely as a preparatory step to facilitate the mitzvah of avodah, then one could certainly envision that the order could be insignificant. As long as all of the garments are eventually donned, the stated purpose has been achieved, regardless of their order. If, however, the act of donning constitutes an independent mitzvah, perhaps one would be required to follow a specific protocol of halachos regarding the order of the garments, as is the case with all mitzvos.