Sforno cites various differences that distinguished the Mishkan from its two successors, the Batei Mikdash. He posits that these differences ensured the Mishkan’s eternal viability, providing that it would never fall into the hands of enemies and be destroyed. First, the Mishkan contained the two Luchos: Second, it was initiated through Moshe Rabbeinu; Third, the avodah, service, was carried out through Isamar Hakohen and the Leviim. Fourth, the fact that Betzalel was the architect and builder of the Mishkan helped to guarantee its everlasting nature. Indeed, all those who occupied themselves with the building of the Mishkan were men of stature, integrity, and piety. In contrast, the Batei Mikdash were constructed by workmen of various nations. In many cases they did not possess the other attributes that gave the Mishkan its unique distinction.
We can learn a compelling lesson from Sforno’s words. The two Batei Mikdash together functioned for a total of eight hundred and thirty years. During this time undoubtedly millions of korbanos were offered, and the Kohanim and Leviim served under the guidance of a righteous Kohen Gadol. They still, however, did not achieve the level of sanctity that was present in the Mishkan. The Batei Mikdash could not compete with some of the traits of the Mishkan. From the very onset the Mishkan was built with kedushah and taharah, holiness and purity, by individuals invested with these same virtues. Horav Shmuel Truvitz, Shlita, emphasizes that the hachanah, preparatory stages, were performed with incredible kedushah and taharah. This reality distinguishes the Mishkan from the Batei Mikdash.
Horav Truvitz supplements this idea by citing the fact that the doors to the Bais Hamikdash were not destroyed. Rather, they sunk into the ground, because they were the work of David Ha’melech. Regardless of Klal Yisrael’s iniquities which caused the destruction of the Bais Hamikdash, the gates were not destroyed. They withstood the churban, because they were fashioned with holiness and purity. In the “end,” it was the “beginning” that made the difference.
We can learn a more profound lesson. David Hamelech yearned to build the Bais Hamikdash. He was not destined, however, to be the one to build it. As a reason, Divrei Hayamim 1:28 cites the fact that he was man of war who had spilled blood. In his commentary to Sefer Bamidbar 16:21, the Ramban questions this. Did David do anything wrong? Did he kill anybody that was not deserving of death? All he did was to execute justice according to the laws of the Torah. He responds that the Bais Hamikdash is a place where rachamim, mercy, reigns. David, however acted in accordance with din, justice, which does not necessarily coincide with mercy. Although Bnei Yisrael actually built the Bais Hamikdash, David Ha’Melech provided the inspiration. Thus, the Bais Ha’Mikdash did not eminate the trait of rachamim.
We learn from here that the first inspiration sets the tone for the structure of an endeavor. Even if the actual construction has been performed in accordance with the appropriate ideals, if its original incentive was not consistent with the lofty ideals inherent in such an edifice, it will not endure.
We may add one postscript. Raising children and educating them in the Torah way is no different than constructing a Mishkan. In both cases, one desires to permeate an edifice/person with holiness. Success or failure is determined by the purity of one’s kavanos, intentions. All too often we try to recapture our youth through the lives of our children. We attempt to guide them along the correct path of our choosing. Our concern is not for our children–but for ourselves. We should set realistic goals that are in accordance with the laws of the Torah. Regrettably, our approach may have a more secular-orientation than its Torah counterpart. We should learn from the Mishkan, which merited everlasting existence as a result of the proper intentions behind it. With the right intentions and many Tehillim, we will merit to raise a generation that will remain true to the Torah way.
