A vort from the Rebbe on this week's parsha, Parshas Pekudei. On the first pasuk where it says, אלה פקודי המשכן משכן העדת, which means this is the counting of the Mishkan, the Mishkan of testimony, so it says the word Mishkan twice. And Rashi comments, שני פעמים? Why does it say twice the same word? It could have said, אלה פקודי משכן העדת. Why does it have to say twice the word Mishkan? And Rashi answers, רמז, this is a hint, למקדש, to the בית המקדש, שנתמשכן בשני חורבנים, that was taken as collateral by the two destructions, על עונותיהם של ישראל, because of the aveirot that the Yidden did. Now we understand what the Torah wants to tell us. Since we're talking about already the end of the building of the Mishkan, the Torah wants to tell us a remez that there is going to be two more things like the Mishkan, even better, two בתי מקדש, wants to hint to the other two בית המקדש'ן, as we call them, the two בתי מקדש.

But the question the Rebbe asks, if it wants to hint to us that there will be two more בתי מקדש, why would it hint it to us by showing, saying that it'll be destroyed, they'll both be destroyed? What's the purpose? That's number one. Number two, why does Rashi use the לשון רמז למקדש שנתמשכן בשני חורבנים? It's a hint to the מקדש that it was taken as collateral in the two destructions. Since it's two destructions, there were two בתי מקדש, so Rashi should have said it not in singular, but in plural. Should have said רמז למקדשות שנתמשכנו בשני חורבנים, to the מקדשות, not to the מקדש which is one, which was taken as a mashkon, but the מקדשות that they were taken as a mashkon, as a collateral. Why would Rashi say the לשון מקדש, לשון יחיד, in singular? And another thing, why is it important here for Rashi to mention that the reason the Beis Hamikdash or both בתי מקדש'ן were destroyed was because of the aveirot of the Yidden? Legabei the peshat in the pasuk why it says the word Mishkan twice, and Mishkan comes from the word mashkon, which is collateral, is because to show us that there were two בתי מקדש'ן got destroyed. But it makes no difference why it got destroyed legabei what we're trying to say here. So why does Rashi here mention that it came because of the aveirot of the Yidden?

And the Rebbe answers that really what Rashi is trying to tell us that the רמז for the two בתי מקדש is not to their destruction. It's a רמז, it comes to hint the eternity of both בתי מקדש. How? What's the inyan of a mashkon? A mashkon is collateral. Someone borrows money, he gives the mashkon to the other person. The mashkon still exists. The object of the collateral still exists, it just he doesn't see it, he doesn't have it, but it's supposed to be given back to him. When the time comes, the mashkon is given back. That means that really a mashkon, even though it's taken away from the person who gives it, it's not really taken away. It's still there, and it's still his, he just doesn't see it till he gets it back. And that's what the pasuk is trying to tell us, Rashi says, that the two בתי מקדש are similar to a mashkon, that even when the בתי מקדש were destroyed, it doesn't mean that we don't have it. It's still there, it's still ours. We just can't see it, it's taken away from us being able to relate to it, like the mashkon that's given away, but it's still there. So the pasuk is trying to tell us not a destruction of the two בתי מקדש, trying to tell us that really there is only one בית המקדש. Just like collateral, you give it, and he gives it back, then you might give it again, and he gives it back, and it's all the same. So that's what the pasuk says that Rashi explains peshat in the pasuk. It's a רמז to the מקדש, he says it singular, because be'emet he wants to show us that the בית המקדש is always there, it's one בית המקדש from the beginning, all the way to the third בית המקדש, that it's all one. The בית המקדש was first בית המקדש was taken away as collateral, it was still there, it was given back by the second בית המקדש, so it's the same בית המקדש that was given back, then it was taken away again, and it's again collateral, and it'll be given back by the third בית המקדש, but it's really all one because it's all existing the whole time. That's why Rashi uses the לשון רמז למקדש, לשון יחיד, singular, because it wants to show us it's all one. And Rashi is telling us that it says twice the word Mishkan, because it's from the word mashkon, to teach you that the two בתי מקדש that will be taken away are similar like a mashkon, which means it's not really, really taken away. And that's the reason why Rashi also adds that it's going to be taken away על עונותיהם של ישראל, for the aveirot of the Yidden, to tell us that not that the Mishkan the Beit Hamikdash itself came to a stop. If the reason the Beit Hamikdash was destroyed was because it was only supposed to stand lechatchilah for a certain amount of years, so then when it's over, it's over. Rashi says it was never over. Because it never had a time limit how long it's going to stand. There's a side reason, because the Yidden did aveirot, it's taken away from them, but be'emet it's still existing. And that's what Rashi tries to tell us. And this is a great lesson that we have to know, that as much as we know the Beit Hamikdash was destroyed, we should know really it's still existing in another form or shape, but it's still there, and it's only taken as a mashkon, and it's up to us to get the mashkon back. And Rashi says the reason it was taken away as a mashkon is because of our aveirot. If we do teshuvah, then we'll get the mashkon back, and it'll be the same Beit Hamikdash it was before, and we will then actually, when the Beit Hamikdash hashlishi comes, see how really it was all one Beit Hamikdash, and even the time when it wasn't there, really be'etzem, essentially, it was there.