7153 —החילוק בין משכן ובית המקדש בחסידות

Shalom u'Vrachah! [14 Teves 5720] ... As explained in Chassidus (Sefer HaMaamarim 5629 by the Rebbe Maharash, beginning with "Vayigash," page 18) regarding the distinction between the Mishkan and the Beis HaMikdash, which parallels the difference between Yosef and Yehudah. Therefore, the Mishkan was made of shittim wood, etc. The question arises: in Shiloh, it was a house of stone (see end of Zevachim). The answer is that in Sefer HaMaamarim it is explained according to R"Z's interpretation (Yerushalmi Megillah, end of chapter 1) on that Mishnah in Zevachim, that the stone structure was only ten tefachim high, with its hooks and boards above. And if you say otherwise, there is no one who disagrees with this interpretation. (And the version in Midrash Tehillim at the end of chapter 78 and Midrash Shmuel chapter 3 otherwise requires further investigation.) And why this interpretation is not brought by Rambam at the beginning of Hilchos Beis HaBechirah—because he generally abbreviated greatly there. The reason: since what happened has already happened. Additionally, note that elsewhere a similar distinction is made between the Mishkan in the desert and that of Shiloh (see Likkutei Torah Berachah 99d; Sefer Maamarei Admor HaZaken notes by Reb Pinchas z"l p.81). There it explains specifically that in Shiloh began the concept of "rest," unlike in the desert; whereas Sefer HaMaamarim emphasizes that it was in Yosef's portion. This fits both aspects found in Shiloh—that it is called both a house and a Mishkan, as our Sages say. And this is understood.

Note: In Likkutei Torah there—see also glosses by Admor HaTzemach Tzedek (printed at end of Likkutei Torah by Kehot). Apparently there are more such points there (and also in Sefer Maamarei Admor HaZaken). For example—as written that there was nothing protruding from wood (in Shiloh), therefore Rambam counts it among Beis HaMikdash constructions—so one should not challenge what is written in Sefer HaMaamarim...

As explained in Chassidus on the second paragraph of Krias Shema, where "u'keshartem" precedes "u'limadetem," this reflects the order for the future era when action will be greater. This does not seem to fit with what is stated (Berachos 35b) that the second paragraph refers to when people do not fulfill G‑d's will. It can be explained: even then there will be various types—"from their greatest to their smallest," "and a youth who dies at age one hundred," although overall then, the order will be to unite higher unifications to draw down loftier lights from Atzilus, as explained at length by Rabbeinu HaZaken at end of Iggeres HaKodesh section 26.

Summary

This letter explores nuanced distinctions between different sanctuaries described in Torah sources and Chassidus, clarifying textual questions about their construction and spiritual meaning. It also addresses how mitzvah priorities may shift in future times according to deeper mystical teachings.