Parshas Vayeira
1. The Rambam writes at the beginning of chapter 2 of the Laws of the Chosen House: “The location of the altar is exceedingly precise, and it is never to be changed from its place, as it says, ‘This is the altar for burnt offerings for Israel.’ And in the Temple, our father Yitzchak was bound, as it says, ‘And go to the land of Moriah,’ and it says in Divrei HaYamim, ‘And Shlomo began to build the House of the L‑rd in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, which was shown to David his father, which he prepared in the place of David in the threshing floor of Arnan the Jebusite.’” And in the following halacha: “And it is a tradition accepted by all that the place where David and Shlomo built the altar in the threshing floor of Arnan is the place where Avraham built the altar and bound Yitzchak upon it, and it is the place where Noach built [an altar], etc.”
The Yaavetz writes that the reason why in the first halacha the Rambam says, “And in the Temple, Yitzchak was bound, etc.” and in the second halacha he writes, “that the place where… the altar… is the place where Avraham built the altar, etc.,” is because “first the Rambam explains that the verse proves that the Akeidah took place in the Temple, and afterwards he adds that this is a tradition, that in the place of the altar Avraham built an altar and bound [Yitzchak], etc.—but this is a received tradition, not something that is necessarily proven from the verses” (for from the verse it is only proven that the Akeidah took place somewhere in the Temple area in general, on Mount Moriah).
According to this, the source the Rambam brings for this matter (that “the location of the altar is exceedingly precise” because it is the place of the Akeidah) is from the general to the specific: first (in halacha 1) he brings a proof (from the verses) that the Akeidah of Yitzchak took place in the Temple area, and then he adds to prove that the place of the altar (within the Temple itself) is the very place of the Akeidah of Yitzchak (based on the “tradition accepted by all”).
We need to understand: why did the Rambam write the proof for the second detail (“a tradition accepted by all”) in a separate halacha, since this is simply the conclusion and specification of the proof (in halacha 1)?
Additionally: since the Rambam’s purpose here is only to teach us about the precise and exact location of the altar, as he writes at the beginning of the halacha, “the location of the altar is exceedingly precise and it is never to be changed from its place,” why does he bring the general matter at all (“and in the Temple, our father Yitzchak was bound, as it says… and it says, etc.”), and not write (briefly) only about the exact place, that “it is a tradition accepted by all that the place where David and Shlomo built the altar, etc., is the place where Avraham built the altar and bound Yitzchak upon it”?
2. There are also several points and changes in the Rambam’s wording here that require attention:
a) In halacha 1 he writes, “And in the Temple, Yitzchak was bound,” while in halacha 2 he elaborates—“where Avraham built the altar and bound Yitzchak upon it.” Seemingly, he could have written here as well, “it is the place where Yitzchak was bound”—why does he add in halacha 2 that Avraham built an altar there? And especially since the Rambam does not suffice with the words “where Avraham built the altar,” but adds “and bound Yitzchak upon it” (unlike the continuation of the halacha, “and it is the place where Noach built [an altar] when he left the ark,” where he does not add “and offered a sacrifice upon it”).
b) In halacha 1 he writes, “in the Temple, our father Yitzchak was bound,” while in halacha 2 he simply writes, “where Avraham… Yitzchak.” And even though regarding Yitzchak one could say there is no need to write again the word “our father,” it is still difficult to understand why he omits it regarding Avraham.
It is also difficult to understand the Rambam’s intent in the continuation of his words in halacha 2: “and it is the place where Noach built [an altar], etc., and it is the altar upon which Kayin and Hevel offered, and upon which Adam HaRishon offered, etc.”—what is the precise relevance of this to the sanctity of the Temple and its altar?
The statement that the place where David and Shlomo built the altar is the place where Avraham, etc., built [an altar] is understandable, for the place where our father Yitzchak was bound is fitting and desirable for the Divine Presence to rest and for the Jewish people (the descendants of Yitzchak) to offer sacrifices there (“an altar for burnt offerings for Israel”)—as is explicit in the verse, “And Avraham called the name of that place ‘Hashem will see,’ as it is said to this day, ‘On the mountain Hashem will be seen,’” and as Onkelos translates on the verse that Avraham prayed, “Here shall be the service of the generations,” and Rashi comments, “‘Hashem will choose… this place to cause His Presence to dwell and to offer sacrifices here.’” But as for the statement that “it is the place where Noach built [an altar], etc., and it is the altar upon which Kayin offered, etc., and upon which Adam HaRishon offered a sacrifice when he was created, and from there he was created”—what is the relevance of this to the matter of “this is the altar for burnt offerings for Israel”?
If the Rambam’s intent is to emphasize the connection of the place to the altar through the many altars that were built at this site, then he should also have mentioned that our father Yaakov built an altar at this place (on Har HaMoriah), as our Sages say: “Not like Avraham, about whom it is written ‘mountain’… and not like Yitzchak, about whom it is written ‘field’… but like Yaakov, who called it ‘house’”—from which it is evident that Yaakov too built an altar there.
3. The explanation of this may be as follows:
The Rambam’s lengthy wording regarding the place of the altar—that it is the place of the binding of Yitzchak, etc. [even though it is not the Rambam’s usual style to bring (in most places) the reasons for the halachos, and especially such a lengthy discussion about the altars that were built at the place of the altar, which would seem to be matters of Aggadah]—and his division of the subject into two halachos, is because the Rambam intends to teach us that there are two distinct aspects in the law of the precise location of the altar:
(a) That the place of the altar is (precisely) on Har HaMoriah—not (only) because the altar is part of the Beis HaMikdash, which may be built only “in Jerusalem alone and on Har HaMoriah” (as the Rambam writes earlier), but that this is a unique law regarding the altar itself: its place is specifically on Har HaMoriah.
The Rambam explains and emphasizes the altar’s connection to Har HaMoriah (in general) in halacha 1, from the verses: “In the Temple our father Yitzchak was bound, as it is said, ‘Go to the land of Moriah,’ and it is said… ‘And Shlomo began… on Har HaMoriah, etc.’”—meaning that because the binding of Yitzchak took place on Har HaMoriah, therefore this is the place of the altar (and of the ‘House of Hashem’ in general).
Furthermore, (b) that the place of the altar on Har HaMoriah itself is “precisely determined and may never be changed from its place.” This is an additional law regarding the altar that is not stated regarding the Temple as a whole; we do not find that the Temple as a whole must be precisely located on Har HaMoriah itself [rather, it is through this law regarding the altar that the location of the entire Temple is automatically fixed on Har HaMoriah—according to the measurements of the Temple in relation to the place of the altar].
The Rambam explains this law in halacha 2: “And it is a tradition accepted by all that the place where David and Shlomo built the altar, etc., is the place where Avraham built the altar, etc., and it is the place where Noach built [an altar], etc.”—that is, the precise location of the altar on Har HaMoriah itself (as above, section 1).
4. And even though both of these laws (including the first law—that the place of the altar is on Har HaMoriah) are unique laws regarding the altar, as explained above—nevertheless, the Rambam writes in the first law, “And in the Temple our father Yitzchak was bound,” and not, “And on Har HaMoriah our father Yitzchak was bound.”
This can be explained as follows: for this law regarding the altar (that its place is on Har HaMoriah) is due to its being the main element of the Beis HaMikdash, as the Rambam writes that the positive commandment of “And they shall make for Me a sanctuary” is “to make a house for Hashem, prepared for offering the sacrifices therein.”
Accordingly, it is understood why the Rambam brings, “In the Temple our father Yitzchak was bound,” in connection with the law of the place of the altar, and not earlier regarding the law of the place of the Temple, where he writes: “There is no permanent house for all generations except in Jerusalem alone and on Har HaMoriah” [where, seemingly, it would have been appropriate to continue (in the style of his wording here), “And in the Temple our father Yitzchak was bound, as it is said, ‘Go to the land of Moriah,’ and as it is said in Divrei HaYamim, ‘And Shlomo began to build the House of Hashem in Jerusalem on Har HaMoriah, which appeared to David his father, which he had prepared in the place of David, etc.’”]—
for the establishment of the place of the Temple on Har HaMoriah as being the place of the binding of Yitzchak, is primarily relevant to the law of the place of the altar: since the binding of Yitzchak took place there (which was in the category of a sacrifice), therefore this place was established as the “House of Hashem,” whose purpose is “to offer sacrifices there.” Thus, the fact that the place of the Temple in general is on Har HaMoriah is because the altar (the place of the sacrificial service, which is the main aspect of the Temple) is located on Har HaMoriah, and therefore the Rambam brings this point here specifically regarding the altar.
However, in halacha 2, the Rambam does not write “and in the Temple, etc.” but rather “the place where, etc., the altar was built”—because in this halacha he is discussing the law of the altar itself (not as the main element of the Temple).
It follows that the two halachos regarding the place of the altar (its location on Har HaMoriah, and its being the “most precisely designated” spot on Har HaMoriah itself, at the place of the binding) are essentially distinct: a) its (general) location on Har HaMoriah is because it is the main part of the Temple; b) its “most precisely designated” location on Har HaMoriah itself is because it is—the altar, without connection to the Temple as a whole.
This explains the reason for the differences and distinctions between the proofs that the Rambam brings in these halachos:
The first law regarding the place of the altar, which is due to its being the main part of the Temple, is based (exclusively) on the act of the binding, “In the Temple our father Yitzchak was bound”—for the concept of the Temple pertains specifically to the Jewish people;
Whereas in the second law, the Rambam does not suffice with “it is the place where Avraham built the altar, etc.” but adds, “and it is the place where Noach built [an altar], etc., Kayin and Hevel, etc., Adam the first man, etc., when he was created”—for here he is teaching us that the uniqueness of this place as the “most precisely designated” location for the altar (in general, not only as the altar of the Temple) is not relevant only to the Jewish people, but was so from the very beginning (even before the Patriarchs), that this place is inherently special for building an altar.
Moreover, he continues and explains the greatness of this place—“and from there he was created; the Sages said: Adam was created from the place of his atonement”—that its being the “most precisely designated” place (for the altar) is not (only) a result of the sacrifices offered there by all those mentioned above, up to Adam, but rather it is due to the designation by G‑d Himself, that this place was established for the offering of sacrifices from the beginning of creation.
5. Based on the above, it is precise why in this halacha the Rambam does not write “Avraham our father… Yitzchak our father”—because the place of the altar as an independent concept is not only relevant to the Jewish people, but pertains to all nations.
Accordingly, we can understand the Rambam’s emphasis at the beginning of this halacha, “and the tradition is in the hands of all,” for its simple meaning is that this tradition is not only in the hands of the Jewish people but (“in the hands of all”) also in the hands of the nations—for this concept of the place of the altar is relevant to them as well.
It can be said that this is the reason why offerings of non-Jews are brought upon the altar, for this is not due to the (general) Temple (which pertains only to the Jewish people), but because of the (place of the) altar itself, which is also relevant to them, as explained above.
6. Based on this, we can further explain a nuance and change in the Rambam’s wording: in halacha 1 he writes, “And in the Temple Yitzchak was bound,” emphasizing (a) the result (b) in Yitzchak, whereas in halacha 2 he writes, “It is the place where Avraham built the altar and bound Yitzchak upon it,” emphasizing (a) the action, (b) Avraham:
The fact that the place of the “Temple” was established in the time of Avraham is not only because of Avraham’s prayer, “and he called, etc., on the mountain Hashem will be seen,” but also (and perhaps primarily) because through the binding of Yitzchak, who was brought as a sacrifice and sanctified with the sanctity of an olah, the place of the binding (Har HaMoriah) was sanctified and thereby prepared to be a “House for Hashem” where “sacrifices are offered”—and this is what the Rambam writes, “And in the Temple Yitzchak was bound.”
Whereas the “most precisely designated” place of the altar, from the perspective of the altar itself, is not a result of the act of the binding, but rather because it is a place inherently fit and designated for the offering of sacrifices (from the beginning of creation), and the Rambam’s intent in writing, “It is the place where Avraham built the altar and bound Yitzchak upon it,” is only to bring a proof for the special quality of the place. Therefore, he emphasizes Avraham’s action—that the fact that he built an altar there and bound Yitzchak upon it is a proof that this place was already previously fit for an altar and a sacrifice.
Furthermore, we can add that the bringing of Yitzchak upon “one of the mountains” (meaning the general area of Har HaMoriah) was by the command of Hashem, whereas regarding the most precisely designated place of the binding, the Rambam does not write that it was by explicit command. According to this, the above distinction is further clarified: through the binding of Yitzchak, the entire mountain was sanctified (to be the site of the Temple and the altar), but not the most precisely designated place—because only that was by the explicit command of Hashem.
7. These two aspects regarding the place of the altar—the general location of the altar on Har HaMoriah, and its most precisely designated spot—and their connection to the two aspects of the act of the binding (“in the Temple Yitzchak was bound,” “Avraham built the altar there and bound Yitzchak upon it”)—can be explained more deeply, based on what the Rambam writes in his Guide for the Perplexed: that the purpose of the test of the binding was to publicize in the world two great foundational principles of the Torah:
(a) “To make known to us the extent of the love and awe of Hashem, how far it can reach,”
(b) “To make known to us how the prophets truly believe what comes to them from Hashem in prophecy… that everything a prophet sees in the prophetic vision is true and certain to the prophet, without any doubt… and the proof of this is that Avraham agreed to slaughter his only son whom he loved, as he was commanded, even though that command was in a dream or vision… and he would not have found it in himself to do such a great act out of doubt, etc.”
It can be said that from these two matters that were publicized in the world through the act of the binding, come the two aspects of the Beis HaMikdash (which was built on the site of the binding):
The aspect of love and awe of Hashem that was revealed through the binding led to the fact that the primary concept of serving Hashem (which is through the act of the sacrifices) is specifically in this place; and the publicizing and revelation of the absolute certainty of the vision of Hashem that comes through prophecy led to the prayer that this place should be a place of the revelation of the Shechinah, “Hashem will be seen… on the mountain Hashem will be seen”—“on this mountain, the Holy One, blessed be He, will be seen by His people.”
[It can be said that these are the two matters the Rambam writes at the beginning of the laws of the Beis HaBechirah: “A house for Hashem, prepared for offering sacrifices and for celebrating there three times a year”—“offering sacrifices” refers to the service; “celebrating there three times a year” refers to the vision, “Three times a year all your males shall appear before the L‑rd Hashem.”]
And since the altar is the main part of the Temple (as above)—therefore, these two aspects are also present in the altar itself: (a) Sacrifices are the concept of service (as above) from the perspective of those who bring the sacrifice; (b) through the service of the sacrifices by Aharon and his sons, the Shechinah dwells in the Beis HaMikdash and in the Holy of Holies [as explained elsewhere regarding the meaning of the Sanhedrin’s declaration, “Blessed is He who chose Aharon and his sons to stand and serve before Hashem in the Holy of Holies,” that this praise is for the special quality of the service of Aharon and his sons, which brings about the indwelling of the Shechinah in the Holy of Holies].
It can be said that this is the difference between the two aforementioned halachos regarding the location of the altar: The first halachah, about the place of the altar on Har HaMoriah as being the main part of the Temple, relates to the effect of the altar within the Temple as a whole, that is, the indwelling of the Shechinah there; whereas the second halachah, which is a law about the place of the altar from the perspective of the altar itself (as explained at length above), relates to the essential concept of the altar itself, namely, the concept of service (the act of the sacrifices).
8. According to this, we can further explain the two halachos in the Rambam here about the place of the altar, and their connection to Yitzchak and Avraham:
The two aspects that were established in the place of the altar through the act of the binding—(a) the aspect of service, (b) the indwelling of the Shechinah—are, in general, connected to the (primary) difference between the role of Avraham and the role of Yitzchak in the act of the binding:
The act of mesiras nefesh (self-sacrifice) of the binding (Akeidah) relates primarily to Avraham, for he was required to overcome his compassion for his only son and to offer him as a burnt offering upon the altar. This is not the case with Yitzchak, who said, “Where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” [And even according to Rashi, who explains that after Avraham’s answer, “he understood… that he was going to be slaughtered (and nevertheless) they both went together with an equal heart”—still, the mesiras nefesh of Yitzchak is not comparable to that of Avraham, who was to bind his only son, born to him in his old age. As the Rambam elaborates in Moreh Nevuchim there: “It cannot be compared to giving money or even to giving one’s own life.”]—and this is the aspect of avodah (service) in the act of the Akeidah.
Whereas the role of Yitzchak in the act of the Akeidah was primarily in what was enacted upon him: he was sanctified with the sanctity of an olah (burnt offering) by being bound upon the altar—and the effect of sanctity is, of course, related to the indwelling of the Shechinah.
And this is why the Rambam is precise and divides these two halachos as follows:
In the first law, which is a law about the altar due to its effect on the Temple as a whole—the matter of the indwelling of the Shechinah—the Rambam writes that this is because “in the Temple Yitzchak was bound.”
Whereas in the following halachah, the law of the altar’s place being “most precisely aligned,” which is from the perspective of the essential definition of the altar itself—the aspect of avodah (service), as explained above—in this, the Rambam is precise to connect it to the act of Avraham, that “he built there the altar and (he—Avraham) bound Yitzchak upon it.”
(From the talks of Shabbos Parshas Mattos-Masei and Shabbos Parshas Re’eh 5740, Shabbos Parshas Mattos-Masei 5743)
Key Lesson
The altar, the heart of the Beis HaMikdash, stands on the very spot where Avraham bound Yitzchak, so all service of G‑d draws its strength from the Akeidah. That act had two sides: Avraham's active self-sacrifice, overcoming his own nature to do G‑d's will, and Yitzchak's complete surrender, through which he became holy and a place for the Shechinah. A Jew's service needs both: the effort to give oneself over to G‑d, and the bittul that lets G‑d's holiness rest upon him.