Parshas Pekudei, or this week is Parshas Vayakhel Pekudei. So בתחילת פרשתנו, in the beginning of the parsha, where it says, אלה פקודי המשכן משכן העדות, we claim it this is the counting of the משכן, which is the משכן העדות, the משכן of testimony, etc, etc. The Torah goes on to mention the different things that they collected. So מייתי רש״י בדיבור המתחיל השני. So Rashi in the second piece of Rashi, Rashi quotes את התיבות, quotes from the pasuk the words המשכן משכן, just these two words, ומפרש, and this is what Rashi explains, שני פעמים, the word משכן is written here twice, רמז למקדש שנתמשכן בשני חורבנות. It's a remez for the מקדש, בית המקדש, which was taken as a משכון, taken as col- as collateral by the two חורבנות על עוונותיהם של ישראל, because the- and they were destroyed twice because of the aveirot of the Yidden. It seems like a simple pasuk and a simple Rashi, but we know by the Rebbe it doesn't go that way. Every word in the pasuk in Rashi is meduyak. Every word in the דיבור המתחיל, in the words that Rashi quotes from the pasuk, is noge'a. Rashi doesn't quote an extra word, doesn't quote missing a word. Whatever he quotes is noge'a to his peirush. So וצריך להבין, so the Rebbe says we have to understand here. הן אמת, it is true, שהענין כשלעצמו, the just the idea itself, מה שבראש פרשתנו יש רמז לבית המקדש, מילתא בטעמא, the fact that in the beginning of Parshas Pekudei, that the Torah would give a remez to the two בתי מקדש, makes sense. That's a- it's a- it fits. Why? היות שבפרשה זו קיין סך הכל מבנין המשכן וכליו, since this parsha is the total the the sach hakol, the end result of when they built the Mishkan and the כלים, וכדברי רש״י בדיבור המתחיל ראשון שבפסוק זה, like Rashi says in the previous piece, שבפרשה זו נמנו כל משקלי נדבת המשכן, that in this parsha it counts although it weighed the weighed the shekalim, it weighed of the nedavah of the Mishkan לכסף, for the silver, ולזהב, and the gold, ולנחשת, and the copper, ונמנו כל כליו לכל עבודתו, and all the kelim and everything that they did with the kelim are all counted. So this is the place where the Torah gives the sum total of the Mishkan. לכן כאן הוא המקום לרמוז, לעד בוס מזה בית המקדש שיבואו אחריו. So here is the place that the Torah should hint to more to batei mikdash, because this is like the first, this is the Mishkan, and there's going to be two more. And actually, in הערה א׳, the Rebbe says, why is he expressing this? Because a metaretz is al- is uh, he's there, a kushya of the Gur Aryeh. The Gur Aryeh on Rashi asks a kushya. This is his קושיא, מה ענינו לכאן? לכתוב לקמן. Why is it here is the Torah hinting to the בתי מקדש? ולמה לא כותב את זה בכל פרשה שקדמה? Why doesn't it say in the previous parsha? ומה שתירץ אינו על פי פשוטו של מקרא. Whatever he answers is not really peshat. And the same thing with the terutz of Maskil leDavid answers. So the Rebbe says, I'm telling you peshat pashut why here is the place. Because this is where the Torah is giving you the sach hakol of what's going of of the things that they made for the Mishkan. So that's understood. אולם קשה להבין,

what is not understood is, למה בא הרמז בכתוב בענין המורה על חורבנם? If the Torah wants to hint to us that there will be two בתי מקדש, why hint it in a form of churban? שהמקדש נתמשכן בשני חורבנות, that the מקדש was taken as a משכון, when it was destroyed, it was taken away as a משכון. ולא ברמז אחר המורה על המקדש בבנינו ובקיומו. Why can't we have a רמז that will show that there will be built a Beis Hamikdash, a second Beis Hamikdash, and it will be existing? Why have this hint, the two בתי מקדש, in the churban? That's one kushya. If you notice, there are seven kushyot here. ב׳, the second question, יתירה מזו, the question is even deeper. See, למה דרשו חז״ל על תיבות אלו מלשון משכון? In the Chumash, actually, it doesn't say the word משכון, חורבן. It just says the word משכן, משכן twice, and this twice represents the two בתי מקדש. It's the Chazal that decided that how does it represent the two בתי מקדש? Because the word משכן משכן is from the word משכון, and a משכון is when you take it away, when you give it away, so must be the churban. What made the

Chazal decide that's the hint? Why did they say the hint in the word משכן משכן is from משכון המורה על חורבנם, which shows on the churban? הרי בכמה מקומות ובפשוטו של מקרא הוא מפורש מלשון ושכנתי בתוכם. Why can't the word משכן be from Hashem dwelling? שזה היה גם במקדש, ובבית שני באופן אחר מבית ראשון, where there were two בתי מקדש, one different than the other, the two places where there was the שכינה. So why can't Rashi say משכון and ושכנתי are two different words. Yeah, but it doesn't say not משכון, doesn't say ושכנתי, it says the word משכן. So you could taytsh the word משכן as a רמז to the word משכון, you could taytsh to the word Mishkan as a remez to ושכנתי. They both would be a remez to the בתי מקדש, but one is a remez to the חורבן, when it was taken away as a משכון, and the other way, if you're uh say the remez of the word uh ושכנתי, it's a remez to the Mishkan and to the מקדש. Nu, if here is the place when he talks about the making of the Mishkan, so he wants to tell us, you know, they're going to make two בתי מקדש, should have been a remez, like Chazal should have darshened it not מלשון משכון, should darshen it מלשון ושכנתי. So the first kashya was, even if the Torah would say clearly that it's talking about the חורבן, I'd have a kashya. I have a kashya on the pasuk, why would the pasuk want to hint to חורבן? The second kashya is, who even says that that's the truth? Who says that the pasuk is hinting to the חורבן? Chazal decided. Maybe the What made them say that? Why couldn't they say that the pasuk is hinting to the building of the משכן, ושכנתי? ג, the third קשיא, מזה שרש״י מעתיק המשכן משכן, the fact that Rashi in the דיבור המתחיל, in the beginning quotes the two words of the פסוק, המשכן משכן, מובן מאליו, so itself understood, שדיוקו הוא מהכפלת תיבת משכן, that what he's trying to discuss here, is why it says twice the word Mishkan. Mishkan. ולמה ליה להסביר זה בפירוש, מפורש, שני פעמים?

Why does Rashi have to start off by saying, after he quotes the word המשכן משכן, he says, \"Two times,\" as if he's asking, \"Why does it say two times?\" Rashi didn't have to say it. ובפרט, especially, שברוב המקומות כולם, in most places, דרכו לפרש מבלי להקדים את הקושיא המיישבת המיישבת פירושו. In most places where Rashi explains something, there's always something that he has to explain, something not understood. Most of the time he never says what it is, you have to figure it out yourself. וכל שכן בעניננו דנן, certainly here he didn't have to say it, שהדיוק של שני פעמים בולט הוא. The fact that there's two, right away you see המשכן משכן, right away you see it's two. So Rashi has to tell you the problem? He starts off by saying, \"שני פעמים? Twice?\" He just should Rashi should have started off, \"המשכן משכן\", so he should have said right away, \"רמז למקדש שנתמשכן\", why did Rashi have to repeat it? ד, fourth kashya: למה דייק רש״י לומר רמז למקדש שנתמשכן בלשון יחיד, בשני חורבנין? He says, \"It's a רמז to the מקדש\", מקדש is לשון יחיד, singular, \"that was taken as a משכון,\"

singular, \"when? By the two חורבנים. הרי הן ב' מקדשות. There are two בתי מקדש. לכאורה היה נכון יותר לומר, it would have been better to say, רמז למקדשי שנתמשכנו, בלשון רבים, a רמז to the מקדשות that they were taken as a משכון, המתאימה גם יותר הן להתחלת דבריו, it fits to the beginning of Rashi where Rashi says, \"שני פעמים\", so it's two, והן להמשך, or it fits to the end of Rashi, \"בשני חורבנין, בלשון רבים\", the two חורבנים. The fifth kashya: I'm saying, it's a small Rashi and there's so many kashyas. Well, the Rebbe always likes to do this, he used to have kashyas upon kashyas upon kashyas. Remember one Rashi the the Rebbe spoke of the Rashi, sometimes when he used to be some especially when Zalman Yaffe was there from England, so I would ask him to count. So I remember once in a קס, the Rebbe, it was a Rashi that spoke about כ״ד מתנות כהונה. So, he counted 24 kashiyot. And the Rebbe asked, \"Nu, vu halt men? Where's the next...\" I have a house at 17, he made a mistake in the middle, and it went on and on to 24. What's the maalah of asking so many kashiyot? If you have a lot of kashiyot and you have one teirutz that answers it all, that shows the truth. If all If so many things are not understood unless you have this biur, that shows how this biur is true. Anyway, so we have four kashiyot so far. ה, the fifth kashia: לאיזה טעם הוצרך רש״י ללוות שהחורבן היה בעוונותיהן של ישראל?

Why does Rashi have to add that the churban came because of the aveirot of the אידן? Has nothing to do with here. לאחר שכל הדיוק בכפל הלשון משכן משכן שני פעמים, because the question that he asked was why it says twice, that diuk, why it says twice, הוא כבר מיושב ומוסבר, is already answered ואמרו by saying שזהו רמז למקדש שנתמשכן בשני חורבנין. Rashi only explains pshat in the pasuk. Rashi doesn't give extra inyanim, history, why it happened. The pasuk is a problem, it says twice the word mishkan, which is extra. The answer is it's a remez for two בתי מקדש, finished. Now, why there were two, why were they destroyed, it's not It's good to know when you study history, when you... but why does it need to get in this pasuk? ו, sixth kashia: על הפסוק ויפול על צוארי בנימין אחיו ויבך ובנימין בכה על צואריו. It says in פרשת מקץ, after Yosef identified himself to the brothers, it says he fell on the necks of Binyamin and he cried, and Binyamin cried on his neck. So Rashi says, what did he cry about? שבכה על שני מקדשות שעתידים להיות בחלקו של בנימין וסופן לחרב. Binyamin Yosef cried on Binyamin's neck because the neck is a remez of the Beit Hamikdash, and it says the lashon necks because he cried that the two בתי מקדש and they're both going to be in the place of Binyamin, and they're both going to be destroyed. And why did Binyamin cry on Yosef's neck? וגם על משכן שילה שעתיד להיות בחלקו של יוסף וסופו לחרב. He cried because the משכן שילה, which was also not a simple thing, it's not like something that happened by the way, משכן שילה lasted for a long, long time. 369 years. It's not like they came until they managed to build the Beit Hamikdash, 10 years, 15 years, for a long time. And that was destroyed. So Yosef, so Binyamin cried on Yosef. Harei what do we see from that Rashi? שגם משכן שילה נחרב כמו בית המקדש, that משכן שילה, which is also an important part of our history, and was also destroyed. אם כן, יש להקשות, so let's ask a kashya. מנא ליה לרש\"י שכוונת הכתוב במה שכתב המשכן ב' פעמים לחורבנם של שני בתי מקדשות? How does Rashi know, in peshat, that when the pasuk says the word hamishkan twice, it's a remez to this, two בתי מקדשות? ואי משום הא צריך עיון, למה לא נרמז חורבנה של משכן שילה? וממילא, if, since Rashi learns that, we have a problem. Why doesn't it say Shiloh too? Ulai, maybe, ואדרבה, יותר קרוב לומר, and it would have made more sense, שכוונתו, שכוונתו לכוונתה לחורבנה של משכן שילה הקודמת למשכן שני. Maybe it means that the remez is to two, for Shiloh that got destroyed, and the first Beit Hamikdash? ולא נרמז חורבנה של מקדש שני. Maybe the second Beit Hamikdash is not mentioned here. Why? שהיה חסר, because the second Beit Hamikdash was really not what it was supposed to be, like we'll say later. מה שאין כן משכן דמשה ובית שני אינם, משכן דמשה is not mentioned, the second Beit Hamikdash is not mentioned, maybe it goes on משכן שילה and Mishkan and the first Beit Hamikdash. And the whole kashya is based, because if otherwise you could say maybe משכן שילה not such a thing to take, but you see in that Rashi, the same time when he cried for the חורבן בית המקדש, he cried for the חורבן שילה, so why not here? ז'. Rashi מפרש מלשון משכון, on the word Mishkan, Rashi explains, שהמשכן נתמשכן בשני חורבנות, it's taken as a משכון at two חורבנות. Hainu, it means like this, שחורבנו של המקדש הוא באופן הדומה ללקיחת משכון. When the בית המקדש got destroyed, we use a משל, so it's like if you take a משכון. ולכאורה אינו כן, not so, שהרי המשכון הוא דבר הניטל מהלוה באופן עראי וזמני, a משכון is taken from the borrower for a temporary time, עד שיפרע חובו, till he pays his loan, שאז חוזר המשכון לבעליו, then you return the משכון to the owner. ולפי זה, according to this, בנדון דידן, in our case, as we refer to the בית המקדש, that when it was destroyed it was like a משכון, כשלוקח הקדוש ברוך הוא את מקדש ראשון למשכון, when Hashem took the first בית המקדש a משכון, היה לו להחזירו כמו שהוא, He should have given back the בית המקדש as it was. היינו, שבית המקדש השני ידמה בכל פרטיו לראשון, the second one should be exactly like the first. ובפועל, הרי מקדש השני נחסרו כמה ענינים שהיו בקדמתא, there was missing many things in the second בית המקדש. Five things, it says, were missing. Huh? Five, and one is not counted. וכמבואר בפירוש Rashi על הפסוק, even Rashi himself brings it in פרשת נח on the פסוק יפת אלקים ליפת, so he says like this: אף על פי שבנה כורש בית שני, even though כורש built the second בית המקדש, לא שרתה בו שכינה, the שכינה didn't rest there. והיכן שרתה? במקדש ראשון. It rested in the first בית המקדש. Now, in the הערה, the רבי says here, look in הערה ח', אף שאין הכוונה שבבית שני לא שרתה שכינה כלל, it doesn't mean there was no שכינה. Can't be. הרי זה עיקר כל הענין של בית המקדש, the whole purpose is שכינה, כי אם שלא שרתה בו שכינה כמו בבית ראשון, it wasn't the same level, but בפועל ממש, He didn't, a משכון, when you take a משכון for a loan and you give it back, you can't say, 'Okay, I'll give it back half.' You got to give back exactly what you took. And here we see it didn't. ובפרשת תצוה פירוש Rashi, another place where Rashi says You need it every day, you have to Huh? He needed it every day. You needed it, yeah, like every day. Here's not the question whether He gave it back, that בפועל the Eibershter gave it back, He gave back a second בית המקדש, and now He's going to give back a third, but He gave Well, a while, okay, it took a while, but the question is, He didn't give it back as it before, see, the third בית המקדש will be like before, even better, but the second was not like the first, like Rashi says there: He took that as a משכון, the two בתי מקדשות, and He returned it the third? No, He took the first and gave back the second. Gave it back when He gave the second. It's somewhat bigger and after a while. Yeah, but it's still missing, it's still a lower madregah. And another place where we see that there was something, that Rashi says that there was something missing in the second, ובמקדש, ובפרשת תצוה פירוש רש\"י, ובמקדש שני היה החושן, אבל אותיות השם לא היו בתוכו. The Urim VeTumim, that's in the, it was put into the חושן to answer the questions, wasn't there. So if the second בית המקדש was not like the first, ואם כן, איך שייך לומר שבית המקדש ראשון נתמשכן, how is the first בית המקדש taken as a משכון מאחר שבגמרו לא הוחזר לבני ישראל? It wasn't given back the same. So we have seven kashyot on this little Rashi. הביאור בזה: The answer is like this: עיקר ענין בית המקדש הוא כמו שכתוב: בית אלקים. The עיקר ענין of the בית המקדש is a house to Hashem. וזה שער השמים. This is the שער, the gate to shamayim, meaning this is a gate to the בית המקדש של מעלה, the בית המקדש of above. ואומר, there's another pasuk that says: מכון לשבתך פעלת השם, this is the place for Your dwelling, where You live, המקום אשר הכינותי, another pasuk, a place where I prepared, ולכן נאמר by לבנות את בית השם בירושלים, that's why another pasuk says that this is building the house of השם, ונקרא בית עולמים, and it's called the house forever, the house of the Eibershter was there. Now, this is what the בית המקדש is. If we're going to look at this, there is no difference between the first and the second. וכל זה הוא בשווה בשני הבתי מקדש. This idea. The details were different. The spiritual was the same. Not only the spiritual, the תוכן of what it represented. Yeah, the spirit, but the Eibershter dwelling there like that's the same. מה שאין כן המשכן, ומשכן שילה, that's totally different. שלא היו מכוונים כנגד בית המקדש של מעלה. Number one, they weren't מכוון, they weren't to the same place of the בית המקדש של מעלה, because the בית המקדש של מעלה is in Yerushalayim, over Yerushalayim, so this is not. And also נקראים אוהל, אוהל מועד, called a tent, which means דירת עראי לשכינה, it's only a temporary dwelling to the Shechinah. והרי אינה דומה מכלל דירת עראי לדירת קבע. A temporary dwelling is not the same like a permanent dwelling. In a permanent dwelling that's where you live, in a temporary dwelling you come for vacation, you come a little bit. So this is what the house was. וכל זה מובן גם בפשטותו לבן חמש למקרא. This is understood everywhere because the Rebbe is explaining a Rashi, and the shittah of the Rebbe was that Rashi doesn't say anything that the only way you could understand it is if you learned Gemara, learned Midrashim. So here, it's even for a child that just starts learning, but a smart child. So anything that the Rebbe said in pshat in Rashi has to be something, Rashi has not a sevara. If it's a sevara that only an adult with a big head could understand, then that's not what Rashi means. Rashi is written even for a בן חמש למקרא. So a בן חמש למקרא knows nothing. Just his mind is straight, whatever you tell him he understands it very straight, that's why Rashi is just יושר, straight. Also, a child remembers what he learned. So anything that Rashi says any place could be based on something that Rashi wrote before, or on simple logic that anybody would understand, or on something that Rashi said before, or something in the Chumash before. So here when the Rebbe is trying to answer a Rashi by saying that why we don't say that it included the משכן שילה, why ask the Beit haMikdash, so he's trying to answer because משכן שילה was a different category altogether. So who says that? Okay, we know from Midrashim, from Gemara, but how could you say that in pshat in Rashi? That's why he says this that we just said, that the Beit haMikdash, both of them are equal as far as the עיקר נקודה, which is the house, while the משכן is not, וכל זה מובן גם בפשטותו לבן חמש למקרא. This is understood for a בן חמש למקרא. That's why the Rebbe a lot of times the Rebbe used to speak, he used to say that Rashi is answering because there's a kushya, the Rebbe used to say, \"פרעגט דער בן חמש למקרא, בן חמש למקרא is asking, comes, אבער דער בן חמש למקרא will come back and answer this.\" So I remember there was once a guy came to farbrengen, he was the principal of the girls school in Yerres in France. So he wasn't a Lubavitcher, but they took him as a principal, he's there a principal many years. So he came once to the Rebbe's Shavuos, they brought him for the first time, and he was sitting by the farbrengen. So later on, after the farbrengen he asks somebody, \"Who is the author of this book, the חמש למקרא, that's asking all these questions?\" He didn't understand. A lot of times the Rebbe says that the חמש למקרא is asking, the חמש למקרא is answering. So this that we just said the חמש למקרא can understand: הפרטים שבהם שונה בית ראשון מבית שני, the things that one house is different than another, אינם משנים את הנקודה העיקרית שלהם. If you have different furniture, you have different things in two houses, a kid understands, it's a simple thing, that doesn't make them different. The nekudah remains the same. They're both דירת קבע, whoever lives in it lives there permanently. Mah she'ein kein an אוהל, everyone knows, even kids, if it's a tent, גם אם יהיו כמה וכמה פרטים שבהם הוא שווה לבית, could have many things similar to a house, מכל מקום שונה הוא בנקודתו העיקרית, in the main nekudah it's different. Why? שהוא אך דירת עראי ולא דירת קבע. It's only a temporary place, not a דירת קבע. Didn't they make a difference the first one was temporary in a sense, because that was destroyed, and then there was a second one? One is permanent, the other is temporary. Didn't last. So the second one, both temporary? Also. No. Saying in a sense. No, when they were

built, they were built to stay. The Yidden did aveirot, so he took them away. But in etzem it's there. And also as compared to the Mishkan, the Mishkan is like a tent, the Mishkan was mobile, it was movable. Even the משכן שילה, which was not mobile, it was a building, but it wasn't a complete building. It didn't have a ceiling, it didn't have a roof. The roof was the יריעות that they used in the regular Mishkan, that's what they used on their ceiling too. Now, what does this do? על פי זה מובן, on this we understand, דאף ששני בתי המקדש השתנו זה מזה בכמה פרטים, and even though the two בתי מקדש are not the same in many details, mikol makom, still, דכיוון שנקודתם העיקרית אחת היא, since the main nekudah is the same, בית, לשכנותו יתברך, it's the house for the שכינה, הרי השני הוא החזרת המשכון של הראשון. One of the questions we asked, the last question actually was, how do you consider the חורבן בית המקדש only as a mashkon? Because if it be a mashkon you'd have to give back the same thing. and he didn't give back the same thing, cause the second Beit HaMikdash didn't have the same. So the Rebbe says now, the main nekudah is the same, it is basically the same. So, he gave back, the Beit HaMikdash was not the same as the Mishkan. מה שאין כן המשכן שהיה אהל, אי אפשר לומר שנתמשכן והוחזר המשכון to the Beit HaMikdash. You can't say like this, the Aibershter took away the Mishkan Shiloh and took it as a mashkon, that's what the kushya was, this was this the six the sixth kushya, the seventh, the second kushya was he would he didn't give it back. That we just answered, yes, it's the same. Then the sixth kushya was that why can't he say that it he took a mashkon, when he destroyed Shiloh he took it as a mashkon, and he gave back the Beit HaMikdash, and then when he destroyed the the first, he gave back the second Beit HaMikdash. So the first Beit HaMikdash was a mashkon. So he said you can't use the word mashkon on the Mishkan Shiloh, cause a mashkon means you give back the same thing. In this case, you didn't get give back the same thing. You can't say שנתמשכן והוחזר המשכון, he gave back the mashkon of Mishkan Shiloh by the בית המקדש, דכיוון שאינם דומים בנקודתם העיקרית, they're not the same. דיראת ארעי. Yeah, that's דיראת ארעי and this is a דיראת קבע. Even though you gave back something better, a דיראת קבע, a permanent dwelling is better, but that's not what a mashkon is. A mashkon, you don't give a present, don't give back a mashkon more than you get. I give you what I got. The two בתי מקדש you could say, from Shiloh to this, you can't say it. You can't give back a mashkon, like the famous story, you know the joke, the famous joke.

One guy lent someone borrowed money, and he gave him a mashkon. He gave him a mashkon a silver spoon. He came back, and he gave him back the spoon, the mashkon, and a little, little, tiny silver spoon. He said, \"What's that?\" \"Well, your spoon gave birth to a small spoon.\" \"Okay,\" he did that, so he took it. The guy, he said Next time, he lent, borrowed money again, and he gave him as a mashkon a silver fork. He gave him back the silver fork with a small one. He said, \"What's that?\" \"Well, your silver fork had a baby, and it's\" Next time, he gave him he gave him a mashkon a big menorah. Comes to take it back, he says, \"The mashkon died. I don't have it, it died.\" \"What do you mean, 'died'? How did it die?\" \"Well, if it can have a baby, it could die.\" So, you don't give back a mashkon with a little baby. You give back the משכון what it is. So, if he took the משכון משכן שילה, he wouldn't give back the בית המקדש. It's not a משכון. The only place you can say it is by the two בתי מקדש. דיראת ארעי זה מעשה, כשר המעשה. זה ריבית? If you're giving more than you borrowed before? No, a משכון you didn't borrow he didn't borrow the משכון. What's the A משכון is taking No, a משכון is not his. The

מלוה it's the לוה The לוה, the borrower gives a משכון to the lender. And then the lender, so the לוה gives the משכון, yeah, and then he gets it back. So he received a דיראת קבע. Yeah, so He received more, it's ribit. No, it's not. He didn't borrow the משכון. A כלי does he The guy who who gave the משכון is the one who borrowed the money. And he's going to get more? The borrower, the lender gets more is ribit, not if the borrower gets more. So what did we borrow? Who, what? Who is going to give? To borrow with money, if I borrow money and I get more, I can't give to the lender, but to the borrower? But is the difference only the, meaning you're saying that it's the same because they share the נקודה העיקרית, right? It's only that Yeah, because this is called a house, and this is called Not called, this is what it is. The name is not a name. This is what it is. He took a house, he gave back a house. But what's in the house? Because That that's not עיקר. has to be a house, the כבוד השכינה, who lived here, but the purpose is to live. Hashem did not live Yeah. Yes, he Yes, he did. Not in the same way, Mr. Bernstein. Not the same way, but that's That's why he says, but in the That's what he said before, but the נקודה of living there is the same. Maybe, like here you live you come there more often than here, but it's the same. It's meant to live there, but he didn't practically Oh, yes, he did. It's just a different מדרגה. That that's why That's why he says here, a little before, he says that, so it had to be that he lived there, and look what he says right after that, וראה לקמן סעיף ב׳. He He

refers to this סעיף. So you're asking that that הערה seems to be a סתירה. And the רבי says farkert, it must be that it's the same, even though it it must be to live there, it's just a different מדרגה. וראה לקמן סעיף ב׳, like I'll explain later, that be'emet the נקודה is the same. Yes, but he didn't even live in the משכן in the in the מדבר. ושכנתי בתוכם, Hashem is dwelling Yeah, dwelt, but it Even though it was definitely temporary, yeah, but this is more, here it's in a permanent way. The second בית המקדש is in a permanent way. It's just in in בדרגות like, but it's like ציור, so to speak, but not in the עצם. So, לפועל you could say it on both. So, we have already two קושיות answered, the seven the sixth the seventh: Why it doesn't say the משכן שילה is a Mishkan? Cuz it's not a Mishkan, it's a diff- thing. Why can we say that the second, the first or the second is a Mishkan, when l'chorah he didn't give him back the same? He did give back the same, ויתר. עוד יש לומר בזה, another biur the Rebbe says you could say: הרמז למקדש שנמשכן, משכן משכן שני פעמים. We said what's the remez that the Oibershter took him twice? That the word Mishkan is written twice. היינו שתי תיבות הדומות זו לזו. Here we have two words which are the same. הרי זה גופא מלמדנו על הדברים הנרמזים עליהם. This itself hints to whatever it's hinted to, tells us שגם הם שווים זה לזה. We're we're talking about two things which are the same. ממילא זה אומר שהכוונה לבתי מקדש, ולא לאהל שילה לבית המקדש כנ״ל. The fact that it's twice the same word is a hint for the two things, that automatically a re'ayah it can't mean משכן שילה and the Beis Hamikdash. That's why it said בלשון יחיד? That That's no, that's not, the vort was the vort was that's why it can't be the Mishkan. The kashya was, the sixth kashya was, why can't it be the משכן שילה with a משכון and the Beis Hamikdash? So because and then the second, so besides the fact of the משכון that doesn't fit to the concept of a משכון, it doesn't even fit to what Rashi is trying to say. Rashi says that the same word is twice, because he gave us twice the same thing. וזהו, now this answers the other kashya. וזו כוונת רש״י בדיוק לשונו לפרש המשכן שני פעמים. We asked the she'eilah, why does Rashi add the word שני פעמים? You you see. Who can't see that there is two times there? דבזה הוא מדגיש, by doing this he stresses, שאין זה רמז מיתורא דלישנא דקרא, שאז אין הכרח שהדברים דומים זה לזה. Normally we could learn, how do we have a remez to the בית בתי מקדש? There's an extra word. That's how you could learn. An extra word, so we know there's something extra. Rashi is trying to tell us it's not an extra word. It's the same word twice. If it's an extra word, then it could be a hint to some other thing. It doesn't have to be a hint to the same thing. אלא שהלימוד הוא מזה שמשכן בלשון משכן נאמר שני פעמים. אותו ענין, אבער געמיינט, the same thing is written twice. וזהו המשמיענו, that's the re'ayah that it teaches us הרמז למקדש. When Rashi says הרמז למקדש and not Shiloh, because it's the same word twice. כלומר, הוא המקדש הראשון, הוא המקדש השני. They're both the same. מקדש אחד, it's all really the one מקדש. אלא, שנמשכן בשני חורבנות. It's as if he took it as a משכון, gave back the same thing. ופשיטא שאינו מדבר במשכן שילה ובבית המקדש. It can't be משכן שילה and the בית המקדש. So this answers the other shaila, why Rashi didn't have to write שני פעמים. He wants to tell us what I'm trying to teach you here, that the same word twice, שני פעמים, cuz if you just look at the words you see it's twice, but you think so it's an extra word. That's not what he's trying to say, he wants to you know they're both the same. But if that's so, that the whole point is that we're dealing with the בית המקדש, not with the משכן, so it's a פלא the Rebbe is going to say, that Rashi uses the word, it's a הרמז for the מקדש שנמשכן. He should have said הרמז לבית המקדש, cuz the word מקדש could refer to a משכן also! There's the best ראיה, ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם, it goes on the משכן! So the Rebbe says, ואף על פי כן כותב רש״י רמז למקדש ולא לבית המקדש, וכנ״ל. Why doesn't he write the word בית המקדש like he did before? כדרכו, cuz the derech of Rashi is שאפילו אגדה שבפירושו, even an aggadah that's not the simple טייטש, צריך להיות מיושבת דברי המקרא, ובלשון דברי המקרא. See, Rashi in Chumash in the beginning says, that what's his purpose of this peirush? To say explain פשוטו של מקרא, like what he says, ולאגדה המיישבת את המקרא, and also to a Chazal, aggadata that fits to the pasuk. So Rashi wherever he writes tries to fit it to the lashon of the pasuk. ובלשון המקרא מצינו משכן ומקדש, היינו אך, מה שאין כן בית המקדש. We don't find in the Torah anywhere the word בית המקדש. So therefore Rashi doesn't write the word בית המקדש, but what he means is it's a remez to the בית המקדש. And why the בית המקדש, not משכן שילה, because we have to have a remez for the two things which are one. Which right away, before we even go further, we see the answer to the other kashya, why it's בלשון יחיד. Cuz the whole purpose of Rashi, a proof of it, of what Rashi, but sometimes you hear a sicha you see how everything fits so good, that he wants to say it's one. That's the whole purpose here. ועל פי זה, אי כוונת הרמז הוא ענין המשכון, since we're saying now that the main purpose is to tell us that it's a mashkon, meaning that you're getting the same thing back, that's the whole purpose here, יובן הטעם למה רמז הכתוב בית המקדש בלשון משכון שהוא ענין החורבן. This will explain, the kashya was, the first kashya was, if you want a hint to the two בתי מקדש, why does he hint to them in the churban? Where do we see the churban? The fact that it was taken as a mashkon. So he says, lichora that's bad, it should have been given to the building. Says, אדרבה, משכון מדגיש ומחדש הדבר נמצא בשלמותו תמה אף כשבא מרשות לרשות. What's the idea of a mashkon? A mashkon means I give it to you, and even though I don't have it, it's still there. It just changed places. That teaches us, דחורבן בית המקדש לא היה באופן שהקדוש ברוך הוא ביטל המציאות, חס ושלום. עולם. He wants to tell us the whole idea is that the Oibershter made the בית המקדש and it never became אויס, כי אם רק שלקח את המקדש בתור משכון. ואחר כך חזר ועתיד להחזירו לבניו. So he

took it and he gave it back, and he took it again and he'll give it back again, it's the same thing. So this is even a much stronger point in the greatness of the בית המקדש than saying a remez to the building of the בית המקדש. When you build the בית המקדש, you don't know, maybe you build it for a time, will it last for 10 years, 100 years, 500 years? By saying that it's a mashkon shows that the בית המקדש is forever, it's never destroyed. So that's the answer to the she'ela. Now this will also explain מה שרש\"י מסיים בפירושו why Rashi adds על עוונותיהם של ישראל that the reason it was destroyed because of aveirot. Why? Because Rashi, what he's trying to say, as we said, he wants to say that the בית המקדש is a mashkon. It means it was taken away, but that wasn't really destroyed, it was there. How do you, it's a mashkon, okay, but that's the I would rather be in Yerushalayim. But he knows it, because what he's trying to show is how נצחי, how eternal the בית המקדש is, even the first, because it's only a משכון. How do you show it? We'll see it inside, but we want to say first outside. It's the same. Yeah, right. To us we say the first, there is no first no second, right, exactly trying to say. But how do we show it? Had the בית המקדש been built לכתחילה, לכתחילה he would say, \"Build it for 410 years.\" When the 410 years are over, then there is no more בית המקדש, because it was built. If the בית המקדש on its own should have lasted forever, the fact that it was taken away for a side reason, that shows even more how בעצם, מצד הבית המקדש, it's not taken away. That's what he says. You know why it was taken away? Because we sinned. כי על ידי זה מביא למה אין זה אלא משכון. This explains why is it only a משכון. שאילו היו סבורים שהחורבן מצד המקדש עצמו, had the חורבן been because of the בית המקדש itself, שהגיע סוף זמן קיומו שהוקבע לו מתחילה if the time passed since it was built, it was לכתחילה built for a time, we get finished, הרי זה ביטול, that means when it's over, it's over. אבל מאחר דהסיבה היא עוונותיהם של ישראל, since the reason is the יידן'ס עבירות, היינו שהנהגת בני ישראל גרמה, the Yidden's behavior caused it, הרי רק פגעה בשייכות דבית המקדש לבני ישראל. So what's the pshat? If the Yidden's behavior caused it, so the Yidden don't have the בית המקדש, but that doesn't mean the בית המקדש is destroyed. מה שאין כן if it's לכתחילה destroyed because of the בית המקדש, it means it's over. And this is saying, no, the Yidden can't have it anymore, but the בית המקדש on its own, there's nothing in it that should stop it. Mimela that's right, takeh a משכון, and it's to exist forever. Because that would keep it as a משכון, it has to come back, so something has to change. Okay, but if it's one, why didn't it say משכן one time? Why didn't it say משכן one time, and Rashi could explain? How would you know? דאס איז די זאך. How does Rashi know? Rashi won't know. Only if it says twice and the same words shows that the two is one. By writing one, you don't know that the two is one, it's one, it's one, there's only one. בן חמש למקרא. הרי בן חמש למקרא is a smart kid, smarter than we are. Not because he won't understand, we won't understand either, it's not understood. It won't be a remez. If you have one, so it doesn't mean anything. The word is written, nothing different, that's normal. But when it says, it has to do something different in order to make a remez. Yeah, but if it says one time, somebody will ask, \"One minute, it says זכר לחורבן...\" Yeah, but no. Which one? Both. Where is there זכר לחורבן here? No, it's talking about the משכן. The only reason that makes us say that that's a remez for something else is because there is a second word. That's why we say it's for something, and what's the something else? As a mashkon, and the two are not the same. אי תא באוסף זה, \"עוונותיהם של ישראל\" בפירוש Rashi, then there's another reason the Rabbi says why Rashi adds the words that it was destroyed because of aveirot. נתרץ רש\"י comes to answer a she'eilah. הן אמת שלשון הכתוב מוכרח דאיירי בבית המקדש ולא בשילה, it's true, as we said before, from the word of the pasuk we see, since it's the same word twice, that it's not talking about Shiloh, it's talking about the two בתי מקדש, כמבואר לעיל, מכל מקום זה עצמו צריך ביאור, למה לא ירמז הכתוב גם חורבן משילה? But that itself, why takeh not? Okay, we know the pasuk doesn't mean it, and we know how it makes sense, but why takeh didn't the Torah in addition to that, also mention Shiloh? Shiloh was also something so chashuv. מביא Rashi, Rashi says, \"על עוונותיהם של ישראל\", that he only כאן מרמזת התורה למקדש שנתמשכן מבני ישראל, והיינו בעוונותיהם של ישראל, של כלל ישראל. He wants to hint only to those things that are taken away, talking to the Yidden, you should know it's taken away from the Yidden something of their fault. מה שאין כן משכן שילה שנחרב בחטאם של חפני ופינחס בני עלי, כמפורש בנביא, it weren't because the Yidden sinned, just because the two sons of Eli sinned. So it's a personal thing, it's not כלל ישראל. מה שאין כן what he's talking about is an inyan of כלל ישראל, and the mashkon that they is taken away klal is only about the Beit HaMikdash, and that's why the Torah doesn't talk about it. I mean, why would Shiloh had to be destroyed? Why, why can't it be that the time to to to build the Beit HaMikdash? Ah, that I can't answer. A kashya oyf a ma'aseh. That's the fact. The fact of it is like that. Maybe, not maybe, for sure, even if it wouldn't have been destroyed, when they would build the thing they would they would put it away. Like the mishkan! What did they do with the mishkan of of the midbar? They they had it in the midbar for 39 years. They crossed the Yarden, they took it to Eretz Yisrael, and they used it in Eretz Yisrael. They put it up. For 14 years it was in in Gilgal. And then, what did they do with it? When they built משכן שילה, they put it away, it was hidden. So this could also have been hidden. The fact is of it, it got destroyed because of their aveirot. If they wouldn't do aveirot, probably it would be hidden. Because actually, after this, they built two more בתי, two more משכנות, after Shiloh, in Nov and Givon, till the בית המקדש. In Nov and Givon, 57 years stood Nov and Givon. But that wasn't destroyed, that was it just What did they do with these children? What did they do? He took שוחד, and from the women, and the pasuk talks about it in Shmuel. In the other one, I think so. All of it, until the בית המקדש. Till the בית המקדש. Why would the pasuk, what's the הכרח that the pasuk specifically doesn't want to reference it? No, the הכרח is, but why, you're asking. The הכרח is because he's talking about something that's about Klal Yisrael. Klal Yisrael, if he's, למעלה is talking about the churban. Why about the churban, to teach us there's a משכון. But the פועל and that churban is only a כלל ישראל חורבן. And the חורבן משכן שילה is not really a churban. It's a churban, but we, how come we don't have a Tisha B'Av like for of the משכן שילה in Yisrael? Because it's not a it's not a כלל ישראל חורבן. It's like they moved. Was taken away, though, from Klal Yisrael. Yeah, it was taken away, but they moved to Nov and it's like not like a destruction of a חורבן בית המקדש. And the reason is because it takeh didn't come because of the Yidden's aveirot. And this is not what the Torah is talking. The Torah is talking כלל ישראל ענינים. אי, יש לומר רמז בהוספת רש\"י בעונותיהם של ישראל, another remez we could say why Rashi adds the words that it's destroyed because of the aveirot of the יידן, להורות תוקף קיומו של המקדש מצד הקדוש ברוך הוא, to show how strong the existence of the בית המקדש is from Hashem's perspective. היינו גודל חפצו ורצונו יתברך שיתקיים המקדש בקרב בני ישראל, how much Hashem wanted that the בית המקדש should exist. Where do we see it? כי אף על פי שעוונות בני ישראל הם הגורם לחורבן בית המקדש, even though we're saying what caused the חורבן בית המקדש, the aveirot of the Yidden What were the aveirot? שנאת חנם? What were they? The second was שנאת חנם. The first was עבודה זרה, גילוי עריות, שפיכות דמים. But the question is: הרי שנים רבות לפני החורבן כבר היו עוונותיהם של ישראל, the Yidden sinned many years before the churban. כבר עברו עבירות, כמה וכמה עבירות ועבירות. וכן הוא גם בבית שני,

the second בית המקדש, before the churban, many years. בכל זה, still, חיכה הקדוש ברוך הוא זמן רב, השם waited a long time. ולא נחרב המקדש, the בית המקדש wasn't destroyed, עד שעברו רבות בשנים, many years passed. האריך הקדוש ברוך הוא קיום בית המקדש שנים רבות, השם kept the בית המקדש alive, existing, for many years, בכדי שישובו בני ישראל מעונותיהם, they should do תשובה, וישאר, וישאר בית המקדש במכונו, and the בית המקדש should should should should exist. So Rashi wants to show us, by these words, how much the Eibershter wanted. Why is that noge'a here for Rashi to tell us? וגם ענין זה בא בהמשך למה שנתבאר לעיל, that comes in the hemshech of what we said before, peshat in רש\"י, כוונת הכתוב כאן לרמז על בית המקדש העתיד לבוא לבני ישראל, the pasuk here by the mishkan is trying to give us a remez for the future בית המקדש, ולכן מרמז כל הפרטים המורים על חוזק ותוקף קיומו, so the pasuk is trying to tell us everything that shows the greatness and the the the the strength of the בית המקדש. So what did he tell us? Many pratim. Number one, שגם בעת חורבנו אינו אלא בבחינת משכון, that even when it's destroyed, it's only like a mashkon which is there. Vegam zot, and even that, לא מחמת המקדש כמבואר בטעמו של דבר, so the second point, that even when it did get destroyed, it wasn't the בית המקדש stopped working. It's the Yidden who caused it, an outside thing. Velo od, now we tell a third thing, שכל זה בא באופן שלא רצה הקדוש ברוך הוא להחריבו, and this, and even that, the Eibershter didn't want, he kept it of that he kept it long. So that shows all how much the Eibershter, how strong the קיום בית המקדש is that even when it had to get destroyed from outside purpose, outside reasons, and even that the Eibershter kept. Because there's another shichah, I wouldn't chazar the shichah yet, the Rebbe על פי נגלה explains very interesting how even during the חורבן בית המקדש it still exists. The

famous Rambam, the Rambam says that that Shlomo Hamelech, when he built the בית המקדש, built tunnels under crooked, winding tunnels, so knowing that when the time of חורבן will come, they'll be able to hide the aron. And every, all kinds of קשיות on the words of Rambam, and the נקודה the Rebbe says there is the בית המקדש has to have an aron. So if the aron couldn't be there, so who says it has to be up there? As long as it was in the same place under. But it had to be נתקדש that place through Shlomo Hamelech. And mimela, the Rebbe said, it comes out that even when the בית המקדש is destroyed, it's still there because the aron is the עיקר and it's still there. So, really, all the time, from the first בית המקדש till the third and on, even during the חורבן, it's all one בית המקדש. It's all really one, because the נקודה is the same. Here he doesn't say that נקודה, but it all goes along the same lines. Not in a sense, therefore we still have it. Finally, the Eibershter, you mean I don't know exactly what that I'm ready to give it back. Now, let's see how this answers all the kashyos. How is borrowing like doing aveiros? Well, borrowing is not doing aveiros. Taking away the Beit HaMikdash like a משכון. But the Beit HaMikdash, it's not borrowing. It's basically taking away What's borrowing? Taking someone's money. You're taking things away from the Eibershter. Do an aveirah, you're taking away from the Eibershter. So the Eibershter says, \"Okay, you'll have to pay me. You owe me for it. Give me the משכון. And when you'll pay me, we'll give it back.\" So, what were all the shaalos?

Number one and number two she'eilah was, why does he talk about the churban? Why does Rashi taytsh it that way? We know why, because that's even a stronger point than the building, because it shows that it's a משכון. The question is why does Rashi say שני פעמים? Because Rashi's point is to say it's not extra word. It's twice the same word. The third kushya, why is it לשון יחיד? Because his whole point he's trying to make is it's all one. Then the fifth kushya is, why does he mention עונותיהם של ישראל? So that's why three reasons why he says. Then why doesn't he talk about Shiloh? We said, because Shiloh not a משכון, because it's something else. Then the seventh kushya was why, what's a משכון that it's a different one? He gave back a second with a different one. So he says, \"No, the second one is the same, because the ikar is the same.\" That's a that's another point, עונותיהם של ישראל. But the first answer, the first point why Shiloh not, because he wants to say it's a משכון. Shiloh is not a משכון. וההוראה מזה בעבודת האדם, the hora'ah in avodah from mainly from the last point, די לעבד להיות כרבו. We know it's good a person a servant should be like at least like his master. You shouldn't be more than your master. So we have to behave like the Eibershter.

כמו שהקדוש ברוך הוא נמנע מלהחריב את בית המקדש זמן רב, just like the Eibershter held himself back from destroying the בית המקדש for a long time, אף שהסיבה לחורבן (עונותיהם של ישראל) כבר הייתה קיימת מספר רב של שנים, even though the reason to destroy was there many years. ובאריכות קיומו של המקדש, and by holding this בית המקדש longer, בזה גופא נתן לבני ישראל כוח וסיוע נוסף לשוב בתשובה, it gave him extra koach to do teshuvah. כמו כן היא חובתו של כל אחד ואחד, that's the obligation, so too, of every Yid, להתנהג כך עם זולתו, he should also behave like that with a Yid. What? לעולם לא ימנע חס ושלום מלהיות לו לעזר ומסייע בענייני תורה ומצוות, don't hold yourself back from helping him תורה ומצוות, לעזור לו בעשיית וקיום ״ושכנתי בתוכם״, don't hold yourself back from making his בית המקדש, keeping his בית המקדש which is the משכן the kedushah the השראת השכינה בתוך כל אחד ואחד מישראל, the שכינה בתוך every Yid. אף על פי שהנהגתו של אותו פלוני אינה כשורה, even though the guy is not behaving properly. He's what the Satmar He's a poshe'a, he's from the poshe'im. He's a poshe'a, he's a poshe'a, so you can't help him. So he says, look what the Eibershter did. The Yidden were poshe'im and he kept the בית המקדש! אדרבה, אינו רשאי להיפטר מזה, we are not allowed to be free of it, מאחר שנצטווה במצות עשה, since the Eibershter gave us a מצוה, ״הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך״, it's a מצות עשה to to to rebuke to others, and also ״ואהבת לרעך כמוך״. נוסף על זה, another point the Rebbe says, בנוגע להשפעה על חברו בענייני תורה ומצוות, concerning this idea that you have to be mashpia on another Yid for תורה ומצוות, ראיה נוספת, כביכול, מהנהגת הקדוש ברוך הוא בעצמו, we have a re'ayah from what the Eibershter behaved, ראיה שאין להתחשב בזה שמצבו הרוחני של חברו אינו כראוי, that you should not take in consideration that the guy is not behaving properly, so I don't want to have anything to do with him. We have a re'ayah from the Eibershter. Besides what we said before with the בית המקדש, there's another re'ayah, interesting re'ayah that the Rebbe brings. I remember when the Rebbe said it, it was it was a geshmack to hear. This this this next parashah. בפרשת כי תשא מסופר, it says in פרשת כי תשא, וידבר אל משה ככלותו ל... לדבר אתו וגו' ויתן אל משה שני לוחות העדות. הא? ויתן אל משה. What did you say? ויתן, what did I say? וידבר. Oh. ויתן אל משה, he gave to Moshe when he finished speaking, he gave him the luchos. So Moshe went up to הר סיני for 40 days, the Eibershter spoke to him and he taught him the Torah. היינו, כשגמר הקדוש ברוך הוא לדבר אתו החוקים והמשפטים, when the Eibershter stopped, finished telling him all the מצוות, מיד נתן לו את הלוחות, he gave him the luchos. In other words, the Eibershter finished talking to him, there's no reason for him to stay there. What why what would you do there, vacation? So, obviously, as

soon as he finished, the Eibershter gave him. The Eibershter gave him the luchos when? On the 40th day. זאת אומרת, שבארבעים יום לעלייתו להר סיני, the 40th day of when he went up to הר סיני, סיים הקדוש ברוך הוא את לימודו עם משה, the Eibershter finished learning with him, ובעת ההיא נתן לו את הלוחות למסרם לבני ישראל. when he finished, he gave him the luchos, \"Go give them to the Yidden.\" That's one point. וגם מבואר, שבני ישראל עשו את העגל ביום הל״ט לעליית משה להר סיני. When did they make the egel? Day before! נמצא, so it comes out, שגם לאחר שעשו את העגל, after they made the עגל, עדיין למד הקדוש ברוך הוא די תורה מיט משה, the Eibershter continued teaching Moshe the תורה על מנת ללמדה להלאה כדי למסור לכל ישראל, וגם נתן לו את הלוחות, so he gave him the luchos to give to the אידן, אף שבאותה שעה עשו את העגל, they made the egel. Mamash mamash. Yeah. And the Eibershter, the Eibershter told him they made the egel, and there's, and here, go take them to them. But when I was teaching the sicha, someone asked me, so then why'd he break it? If the Eibershter gave them, obviously the Eibershter wants even though they're bad they should get it. So I told him: And he's the Eibershter. No, that he's, the Eibershter gave it to him. This breaking is not he didn't want to give it, the breaking is a process. Just like when you say somebody that even if he's bad you gotta help him. Does that mean that, how do you help him? Sometimes you gotta help him by telling him, you know, give him a patsh, whatever it is. So the way the Eibershter said, here is the luchos, the Yidden sinned, they still have to get it, go. And figure out, how are you gonna work it out to them? So he came, he figured out you gotta break it, whatever they say it is, but with the Aibershter it's all part of the giving. There's a churban and the breaking of the luchos is aliyah? Aliyah, yeah. Im kein, if the Aibershter did that, על אחת כמה וכמה שכן צריך להיות הנהגת האדם. Certainly a person have to be that way, שלעולם לא ימנע את עצמו מלהשפיע על חבירו בעניני תורה ומצות. Don't hold yourself back from mashpia on a איד תורה ומצות, מבלי הבט על מצבו ברוחניות שאינו כדבעי, even though his matzav is not good. Ve'ad rabba, not only even is not good, if you don't hold yourself back because he needs help no matter what his matzav is, it'll help you, על ידי זה יפעל שיפור ועליה ברוחניות בחבירו וגם בעצמו הוא. It'll help him and it'll help you too, כי הרי הובטחנו, because we were promised, מאיר עיני שניהם הוי', that if a Yid helps another Yid the Aibershter shines the eyes of both, ועל ידי כל זה נזכה לעשיית המקדש בתוך כל אחד ואחד מישראל, we'll be zoche to have the mikdash in every Yid, ועל ידי זה ובנו את המשכן על ידי משיח צדקנו במהרה בימינו אמן. Amen. Yasher koach. That's all figure of speech. Yeah, yeah, this is helping.