Adapted from Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XXIX, Ki Savo

The Extent of Damage Necessary to Disqualify the Stones of the Altar and the Beis HaMikdash

In Hilchos Beis HaBechirah 1:14, the Rambam states:

Whenever a stone has become damaged to the extent that one's fingernail would become caught in it [when passing over], it is disqualified for [use in] the altar and the ramp, as is the case regarding a slaughtering knife. For it is written,[1] "You shall build the altar of G-d with whole stones."

In halachah 15, the Rambam mentions a similar law: "Stones from the Sanctuary or the courtyards[2] which were damaged or split are disqualified for use." One might assume that the same measure, a nick large enough for one's fingernail to be caught in it, applies in this instance as well. Although the Rambam does not mention this explicitly, it can be explained that his purpose is to avoid redundancy, for the concept was stated in the previous halachah.

There are, however, commentaries[3] which differ and maintain that in the latter context, the Rambam's intent is that a leniency is granted, and a greater blemish is necessary to disqualify the stone. As support, they cite our Sages' statement,[4] that the stones of the First[5] Beis HaMikdash were hewn out by the shamir, a wormlike creature that was miraculously able to chew through stone. The Rabbis[6] explain that stones hewn by the shamir would never be utterly smooth. Nicks large enough for a fingernail to be caught on them would always remain.[7]

In halachah 16, the Rambam continues and mentions related subjects, stating, "When a stone was damaged... after it was built into the altar or the ramp, that stone alone is invalidated. The others are still fit for use."

It is possible to explain that, in this halachah as well, the Rambam was relying on the measure he mentioned in halachah 14. Indeed, Rashi and other commentaries[8] do not differentiate between the size of a nick which would disqualify a stone before it is used for the altar (halachah 14) and after it is included in the altar (halachah 16). Nevertheless, according to the opinion that the Rambam is speaking of a different measure in halachah 15, it would appear necessary for him to specify his intent in halachah 16.

The necessity for such clarification is further emphasized by the prooftext cited by the Rambam in halachah 14: "You shall build the altar of G-d with whole stones." For one might suppose that different laws apply before "you shall build the altar," and once that altar has already been built.[9]

An Abstract Conception

These difficulties can be resolved by analyzing the intent of the Rambam in the phrase, "to the extent that one's fingernail would become caught in it." There are opinions[10] which explain that this refers to the smallest possible measure. Even the slightest nick is sufficient to disqualify a knife from being used for ritual slaughter or a stone from being used for the altar.

According to this view, the question arises: Why doesn't the Rambam use the expression Kol She'hu, the term which is usually employed to refer to a measure of the smallest possible size?

The answer is that abstractly, there is a difference between the two concepts. Even the opinions which explain that the phrase "to the extent that one's fingernail would become caught in it" refers to the smallest possible measure, it is still referring to a blemish that can be measured and calibrated in a physical sense. Such a blemish is significant, for, to refer to the point under discussion, any blemish, however small, prevents a stone for the altar from being "whole."

Kol She'hu, by contrast, is a totally abstract point, referring to the essence of the existence of a substance. To cite an example:[11] "It is forbidden to benefit from wine which was offered as a libation to a false deity. A person who drinks Kol She'hu of such [wine] is [punished by] lashing." The intent is not that the person becomes liable when he drinks a significant measure, and that in this case even the slightest amount is significant. Rather, it is the very fact that he drinks from the wine at all which makes him liable.[12] The quantity is not important, merely the fact that he drinks.

The Difference between a Stone to be used for the Altar and One which is already Part of the Altar

To apply this concept to the stones of the altar: Before a stone is used for the altar, it must be whole. The smallest possible blemish, "to the extent that one's fingernail would become caught in it," is sufficient to disqualify it. The reason for the disqualification is, however, because a significant blemish has been made.

Once a stone has been used for the altar, a different conception applies. If the stone is blemished - and what is important here is the fact that it has been blemished and not the size of the blemish - it is disqualified, and indeed, the entire altar is unfit until the stone is replaced.

What is the reason for this distinction? As the Rambam indicates in halachah 17, there is a prohibition against damaging the stones of the altar, those of the Sanctuary, and those within the courtyard of the Beis HaMikdash.[13] That prohibition is derived from the verses:[14] "Do away with all the places where the nations... worship their gods.... Destroy their altars.... Do not do so to G-d, your L-rd."

The derivation of the prohibition against destroying the portions of the Beis HaMikdash from a verse concerning the worship of false divinities, establishes a connection between them. The worship of false divinities contaminates every dimension of the entities associated with them. Therefore, it is written:[15] "Let nothing which has been condemned cling to your hand." Kol She'hu, any and all traces of connection to the false deities, is forbidden. Similarly, in regard to the Beis HaMikdash, making even the slightest blemish in its structure is forbidden.[16]

On this basis, we can differentiate between the Rambam's ruling in halachah 14 and his rulings in halachos 15 and 16. In halachah 14, the Rambam is speaking of a stone with which one intends to build the altar. This stone must be whole and if it is damaged "to the extent that one's fingernail would become caught in it," it may no longer be used.

In halachos 15 and 16, the Rambam is not relying on the measure he stated previously, or granting a more lenient measure as had been suggested originally. Instead, because he is speaking about stones that have already been used for the Beis HaMikdash, he is referring to a more stringent measure. Because of the parallel to the worship of false divinities, Kol She'hu, even the slightest blemish, disqualifies the stone.[17]

The Lasting Effects of an Act of Destruction

There is, however, a slight difficulty with the above conception. The prohibition mentioned in halachah 17 refers to an act committed by a person with a willful, destructive intent. In contrast, the disqualification of the stones mentioned in halachos 15 and 16 refers even to circumstances where the damage to the stones come about through forces beyond man's control.

This difficulty can, however, be resolved as follows: Damaging a stone of the altar or the Beis HaMikdash is not merely a forbidden activity, it affects the sanctity of these entities as well. This is reflected in the Rambam's ruling[18] that when a person damages a stone in the altar, the holiness of the altar is temporarily nullified and does not return until the damaged stone is replaced. Thus we see that the emphasis of the above-mentioned prohibition is not only on the act of destruction performed by the person,[19] but on the destructive effect produced within the altar and the Beis HaMikdash.[20] It follows that even if a similar effect is produced by forces beyond man's control, the sanctity of the altar and the Beis HaMikdash is, nevertheless, impaired.

To be part of G-d's Chosen House

The requirement that the stones of the altar remain "whole" reflects the unique nature of the Beis HaMikdash - that it is the Beis HaBechirah, "[G-d's] Chosen House." As explained in chassidic thought,[21] G-d's choice is free and unconditioned, coming as a result of His will, without being influenced at all by the virtues of the entity He chooses. For were the virtues of the entity able to influence G-d's choice, that would imply that they have power over Him, heaven forbid.

As a corollary, it follows that G-d's choice is not at all dependent on an the size or measure of an entity. And this leads to a further point. When the importance of an entity is dependent on its positive virtues, if there is an impairment in the virtues, the effect is quantitative, dependent on the extent of the damage done. When, by contrast, the importance of an entity is dependent on G-d's choice, the effect of damage to a portion of that entity is not quantitative.

To relate these points to the above discussion: As explained above, if even the slightest amount of damage is done to the stones of the altar or the Beis HaMikdash, they are disqualified. Their importance comes because they are part of "[G-d's] Chosen House," and He has stated that a stone which is damaged cannot be part of this structure. Accordingly, what is significant is the fact that they have been damaged, even if the damage is Kol She'hu, and not the extent of the damage.

---

May we merit the day when all the damage to G-d's Chosen House will be repaired with the building of the Third Beis HaMikdash, the structure where His choice will be manifest in a complete sense. And may this take place in the immediate future.

   

Notes:

1. (Back to text) Deuteronomy 27:6. Although this verse refers to the altar to be built by the Jews immediately after crossing the Jordan, our Sages (Rashi, Chulin 18a) draw several comparisons from this altar to the altar in the Beis HaMikdash.

2. (Back to text) I.e., the Courtyard of the Israelites and the Courtyard of the Priests.

3. (Back to text) The Pri Chadash in his gloss Mayim Chayim.

4. (Back to text) Gittin 68a-b.

5. (Back to text) And according to some views, the Second Beis HaMikdash.

6. (Back to text) Tosafot, Chulin 18a, Kessef Mishnah commenting on this halachah.

7. (Back to text) Significantly, however, it appears that, in conclusion, Tosafos does not accept this view, for they disqualify a stone for use in the Beis HaMikdash if it contains a nick large enough for one's fingernail to be caught. The conception of the Pri Chadash is, however, echoed by the Mahari Korcus and other commentaries on the Mishneh Torah.

8. (Back to text) Chulin 17b.

9. (Back to text) Note the Ramban (in his gloss to Chulin, loc. cit.) who indeed cites a source for this concept, quoting Zevachim 59a.

10. (Back to text) Derishah and Pri Chadash to Yoreh De'ah 18b.

11. (Back to text) Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Maachalos Asuros 11:1.

12. (Back to text) More specifically, examples of both of these conceptions are found with regard to the measure of Kol She'hu itself. In Hilchos Shabbos, Ch. 18, when discussing the minimum measures for which one is liable for transferring different objects on Shabbos, the Rambam mentions several substances for which the measure is Kol She'hu. There is, however, a difference between these substances and the concept of Kol She'hu as employed in regard to idol worship.

    In regard to the substances forbidden to transfer on Shabbos: Most of the substances the Rambam mentions are fragrances and even the smallest amount of a fragrance produces an aroma. Therefore, they are significant. When, however, the Rambam mentions Kol She'hu in regard to substances associated with the worship of false divinities, a different concept applies. As will be explained, the source for these prohibitions is the verse (Devarim 13:18), "Let nothing which has been condemned cling to your hand," forbidding the acquisition of any and all traces of the prohibited substances. See Tzophnas Paneach, Hilchos Maachalos Asuros, loc. cit.

13. (Back to text) See the Kesef Mishneh who questions why, in halachah 17, the Rambam mentions particularly the portion of the courtyard "between the Ulam and the altar," noting that in Hilchos Yesodai HaTorah 6:7, he mentions the courtyards of the Beis HaMikdash without being restrictive.

14. (Back to text) Devarim 12:2-4.

15. (Back to text) Devarim 13:18.

16. (Back to text) See the commentary of the Or HaChayim to Devarim 12:2-4 where this concept is expressed.

17. (Back to text) Thus, contrary to the hypothesis mentioned at the outset, the failure to mention an exact measure in halachah 15 is not intended to teach a leniency, but rather to make the distinction explained above.

    This leads to a further point. As mentioned, the shamir which hewed out the stones of the Beis HaMikdash left imperfections in the stones. According to Tosafos, these blemishes did not disqualify the stones, because they were made before the stone became part of the Beis HaMikdash. Were these imperfections to have been made after the Beis HaMikdash was completed, by contrast, they would have disqualified the stones.

18. (Back to text) Hilchos Pesulei HaMukdashim 3:22; see also the comments of Tzophnas Paneach to Hilchos Yesodai HaTorah, loc. cit.

19. (Back to text) In Yeshivah terminology, an activity performed by a gavra (person).

20. (Back to text) In Yeshivah terminology, the cheftza (the article itself).

21. (Back to text) See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XVII, p. 89ff.