Parashat Pekudei starts with the words, אלה פקודי המשכן, these are the accounts of the משכן, משכן העדות, the משכן of testimony, אשר פוקד על פי משה, as they were rendered according to the commandments of משה, עבודת הלווים, for the service of the לווים, ביד איתמר בן אהרן הכהן, in the hands of איתמר, the son of אהרן the priest. And Chazal say, brought down in Rashi, that why does the Torah write the word Mishkan twice? It says, אלה פקודי המשכן משכן העדות, שני פעמים, it's twice. רמז, this is a hint למקדש, to the בית המקדש שנתמשכן בשני חורבנין, that was taken away as a pledge, as a משכון, as collateral in two destructions. Since both בתי מקדש, the first and the second, were destroyed, this is the reason why the Torah writes the word Mishkan twice, to hint that there were two בתי מקדש that were taken away as a משכון, as a pledge, which means that they were both destroyed. But the question that comes up is: Why is it that when the Torah wants to tell us, wants to hint to us the destruction of both בתי מקדש, the Torah does it by using the word משכון? The Torah would use another word which would show destruction, but the word משכון is just that they took it away as collateral, as a pledge. So why does the Torah here, when it wants to hint to the destruction of both בתי מקדש, refer to it with the concept of a משכון? Another question: Why is it that here where the Torah tells us the account of the building of the Mishkan, so we are not talking here about any type of destruction, on the contrary, we're talking here about the concept of building the Mishkan, so why is it that here the Torah wants to hint to us the destruction of the בתי מקדש?

To understand that, we will first bring in what the Sforno writes in the beginning of this parshah. The Sforno writes that the reason the Torah mentions all these details in this pasuk is because the Torah wants to tell us why all parts of the Mishkan were not destroyed, all parts of the Mishkan were all eternal. As the חז\"ל say in Yoma דף ע\"ב עמוד א and in Sukkah דף מ\"ה עמוד ב, that שמא תאמר אבד, that you might think that parts of the Mishkan were lost, destroyed, תלמוד לומר, the pasuk says, עצי שטים עומדים, the walls of the Mishkan were made of עצי שטים standing, which means שעומדים לעד ולעולמי עולמים, they stood forever. And he says that לא נפל דבר להם ביד האויבים, nothing of the Mishkan fell into the hands of the enemies. As the Gemara says in Sotah דף ט' עמוד א, that לא שלטו שונאיהם במעשי ידי משה, that the hands of our enemies didn't have any control over the things that Moshe Rabbeinu made, and therefore משנבנה מקדש ראשון, for when the first Beis Hamikdash was built, נגנז אוהל מועד, קרשיו, קרסיו, בריחיו, עמודיו ואדניו, that from when the first Beis Hamikdash was built, all the parts of the אוהל מועד of the Mishkan that Moshe Rabbeinu made were all hidden, but none of them were destroyed and fell into the hands of the enemies. So the Sforno says that the pasuk here is trying to tell us the reason for this: Why is it that the parts of the Mishkan did not fall into the hands of the enemies, they were not destroyed, while the Batei Mikdash were destroyed? And that's why the Torah mentions all these details. As he explains, the Torah mentions that it was a משכן העדות, it was a Mishkan of testimony, which means that it had the לוחות העדות inside. And that's the reason why the Mishkan was special and it didn't fall into the hands of the enemies, because it had the לוחות. The second thing is the pasuk says אשר פוקד על פי משה, that means that it was made through Moshe. The third thing is that it was עבודת הלווים ביד איתמר, because everything was made through Itamar, so they were special people. The fourth thing is that בצלאל בן אורי בן חור למטה יהודה made it, and he was a great tzadik, etc., etc. So all these details of this pasuk are trying to tell us why is it that the Mishkan and its keilim did not fall into the hands of the enemies, were not destroyed, but by the בית ראשון, where it didn't have all these details, so they did fall into the hands of the enemies and they were destroyed. And certainly he says by the בית שני, לא היה בו גם אחד מכל אלה התנאים, it didn't even have one of these conditions. The בית ראשון, the first Beis Hamikdash, had some of it, but not all, that's why it was destroyed. The second Beis Hamikdash, he says, did not have any of these details, any of these conditions, and therefore לא שרתה בו שכינה, the Shechinah did not dwell there, he says, ונפל ביד אויבים, it fell into the hands of the enemies. And this is what the pasuk is is trying to tell us.

Based on this Sforno, we could explain that this is the reason why when the Torah refers to the חורבן בית המקדש in this pasuk, it refers to it in the word Mishkan. Because even though, as the Sforno says, the Torah is trying to tell us why the Mishkan was eternal and the first and second בתי מקדש were not eternal, but on the other hand, the Torah also wants to hint that there is a certain eternity, netzchiyut, also in the inyan of the Beit HaMikdash. Even though בגלוי, superficially, the Beit HaMikdash was not eternal, as we see it was destroyed and not hidden like the Mishkan, nevertheless, in a ruchniyusdike sense, in a spiritual way, the Beit HaMikdash, the first and the second, were both eternal. And that concept is hinted in the fact that the Torah refers to the churban in the form of a mashkon. What is the idea of a mashkon? When a person takes collateral when you lent money, the idea of a mashkon is not that the object which you give as a mashkon is lost to its owner, which means it goes over completely to the ownership of the malveh, of the lender. On the contrary, a mashkon means that it still belongs to the loveh, it still belongs to the borrower, and eventually when the borrower is going to pay the money, the same mashkon will go back to the loveh, will go back to the borrower. And while it's in the hands of the malveh, of the lender, it still belongs essentially to the borrower. Even though there is a concept of בעל חוב קונה משכון, to a certain degree the malveh, the lender, is koneh the mashkon, does acquire it, but essentially it still belongs to the loveh, as we see that you have to give it back. And when you give it back, it's not the pshat that you're giving him something new, you're giving him back the same thing that you took. And that's what the Torah is trying to hint here, that even though the Beit HaMikdash was destroyed, nevertheless, it's not the pshat that it was destroyed completely. And therefore, when the second Beit HaMikdash was built, it's a complete new Beit HaMikdash. And the same is when the second was destroyed and the third Beit HaMikdash will be built, it will be a complete new Beit HaMikdash. If that would be so, it wouldn't be called a mashkon. That means if the first one was destroyed, wasn't taken away as a משכון, it was destroyed, then we will get a new one. But the Torah referring to it with the word mishkan, the Torah is trying to teach us that even when it was destroyed, beruchniyut, spiritually, it wasn't taken away completely. It just changed superficial ownership, it looks as if it was taken away, but when the second beit hamikdash was rebuilt, the peshat is that the same thing as there was before, that same thing came back. Mimela, it's not that the first one was taken away completely. And when the second one was destroyed, and we will have the third beit hamikdash, it is just that we will get the משכון back. And when we say this, we understand that the beit hamikdash is eternal. Because if we say that the beit hamikdash was never completely destroyed because it was only taken away as a משכון, and the same with the second beit hamikdash, so it means essentially that the beit hamikdash spiritually is always there. So mimela, the beit hamikdash is really not destroyed, but it is always there. It is נצחי. And this is the reason why the Torah refers to it with a mishkan, because the Torah wants to tell us that even though physically, only the mishkan was נצחי, was eternal, and the batei mikdash were not, but the Torah wants to say, on the other hand, even the batei mikdash are נצחי. And this is the reason why the Torah mentions it here. We asked before, why does the Torah mention the churban beit hamikdash in the beginning of Parashat Pekudei when we're talking about the building of the mishkan, which is like the beit hamikdash? So why mix the two? Why mention the churban at the time when we're building the beit hamikdash? But the answer is, the Torah wants to tell us, at the time of the building you should know what you are building now, which is the mishkan, and this is also a remez for the building of the beit hamikdash later on, that what you will build is an eternal building. Even though physically the beit hamikdash was not eternal, only the mishkan, but the Torah wants to tell us you should know that even that is eternal. Because when Hashem destroyed it, it was only taken away as a משכון. And when He gave back the second beit hamikdash, and when He will give back the third beit hamikdash, it is that the previous beit hamikdash is given back. Mimela, it was never destroyed, Mimela it's eternal.

And the truth is, we could even go a step further. Before we said that physically the Mishkan was eternal and the Beit HaMikdash not, but spiritually the Beit HaMikdash is also eternal. But Be'emet, when we start looking into the Halachot and the dinim and the inyanim, the tenaim of the Mishkan and the Beit HaMikdash, we could see that even physically, in one way, the Beit HaMikdash is more eternal even than the Mishkan. As the Rambam says in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah in the beginning, הלכה א׳ through הלכה ג׳, he says is כבר נתפרש בתורה משכן שעשה משה משה רבינו והיה לפי שעה. And the Torah explains already the Mishkan that Moshe made, and that was only temporary. But כיון שנבנה המקדש בירושלים, as soon as the Beit HaMikdash was built in ירושלים, נאסרו כל המקומות כולן לבנות בהן בית לה' ולהקריב בהן קרבן. All other places in the world are forbidden to be to built a house to ה' on them and to be makriv a korban there. ואין שם בית לדורי הדורות אלא בירושלים בלבד ובהר המוריה. There is no other place for a house for ה' for all generations, only in Yerushalayim and on the Har HaMoriah. So we see right away that the Mishkan was only a temporary thing, as the pasuk refers to the Mishkan in שמואל ב' קפיטל ז' פסוק ו', ואהיה מתהלך באהל, I was only going in a tent, a tent is only a temporary dwelling, but the Beit HaMikdash was a permanent dwelling. And the din is even more, that by the Mikdash Rishon, when they built the first Beit HaMikdash, not only did that accomplish that from that time and on, there was a permanent place for the hashra'at haShechinah, for the dwelling of the Shechinah, but that dwelling of the Shechinah was there permanent, meaning eternal forever. As the Rambam פסקנט in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah פרק ו' הלכה י\"ד through הלכה ט\"ז, that קדושה ראשונה קידשה לעתיד לבא, the kedushah of the בית המקדש in Jerusalem that was nitkadesh, that became holy at the time when they built the first בית המקדש, is forever, לפי שקדושת המקדש וירושלים מפני השכינה, ושכינה אינה בטלה. The kedushah of the בית המקדש in Jerusalem came as a result of the Shechinah, and the Shechinah never becomes batal. And therefore, the kedushah in the מקום המקדש is forever. And this is the difference between the Mishkan and the בית המקדש: The Mishkan, the walls of the Mishkan, the building of the Mishkan, the kelim of the Mishkan were eternal. On the other hand, the מקום המשכן, the place where the Mishkan stand was not eternal. The kedushah that came to that place was not forever. When the Mishkan moved, that place is not holy anymore. On the other hand, by the בית המקדש, the building and the kelim inside were not eternal, as we see today were destroyed, taken away by our enemies, by the goyim. On the other hand, the place, the מקום המקדש is eternal. And that's why even after the בית המקדש was destroyed, that place is still holy, because the kedushah that was nimshach in that place, that was brought down to that place, is an eternal kedushah. As the Rambam says, it came because of the Shechinah, and שכינה אינה בטלה לעולם. So from here we see that even though we said before that superficially the בית המקדש is not netzchi, but on only in ruchniyut it's netzchi, but here we see that even gashmiyut, in halachah, there is a concept of netzchiyut, of eternity, that's in the בית המקדש even stronger than in the Mishkan. And the reason for this difference can be explained as follows: The whole concept of netzchiyut, of eternity, can't be accomplished, done through מעשה בני אדם, through human beings, because human beings are nivra'im, they were created, so they're mugbalim, they're limited. And a limited person cannot make something which is unlimited. This could only be done through maaseh yadav shel Hakadosh Baruch Hu, by Hashem'. And therefore, the parts of the Mikdash, the building of the Mikdash and the parts of the Mikdash were not netzchiyim, because they were built by people. As the Zohar says in חלק ג' דף רכ\"א עמוד א', that the first and second Beit Hamikdash were called בנינא דבר נש, buildings of human beings. But the מקום המקדש, the fact that that place became holy, that didn't happen through people. That came through Hashem', as the pasuk says, מקום אשר יבחר ה' אלקיך בו לשכן שמו שם, the pasuk in ראה קפיטל י\"ב פסוק י\"א, that the place was chosen by Hashem'. So it comes out like this: that not the building of the Beit Hamikdash was the one that brought about the eternal hashra'at haShechinah, dwelling of the Shechinah, in the Beit Hamikdash. This happened through Hashem'. By building the Beit Hamikdash, they just prepared the place that now Hashem' will be able to come down. But the reason the place was holy is because Hashem' chose that place. But the building itself was built by people. By the Mishkan was the opposite: The hashra'at haShechinah that came to the Mishkan didn't come because Hashem' chose that place. The building of the Mishkan itself was what brought about the hashra'at haShechinah. And therefore, when there is no building there anymore, there is no more no more hashra'at haShechinah. On the other hand, concerning the building of the Mishkan and the kelim of the Mishkan, they are eternal, because they were made by the hands of Moshe Rabbeinu. Moshe Rabbeinu is referred to as an eved Hashem', as an eved ne'eman, as the pasuk says in בהעלותך קפיטל י\"ב פסוק ז', בכל ביתי נאמן הוא. So he was an eved Hashem', a slave, a servant of Hashem'. A servant, a real servant, is an extension of his master, as the halachah is that מה שקנה עבד קנה רבו. Whatever the eved acquires is really acquired by his master, because he is only an extension of his master. Certainly according to the way the Rashba learns in Kiddushin דף כ״ג עמוד ב׳, where it's not the pshat that the eved acquires it and because he belongs to his master then it goes over to his master, but when he himself makes the kinyan, at that moment it's the master making the kinyan, it goes directly to the master. So when the eved Hashem, Moshe Rabbeinu, made the Mishkan, it's mamash like מעשה ידי הקדוש ברוך הוא, and therefore, since it was made by הקדוש ברוך הוא, therefore that is netzchi, because Hashem is bli gevul, unlimited in time, and therefore what He did is also unlimited in time. This is concerning the Beis Hamikdash and the Mishkan, but the third Beis Hamikdash, that is going to have both maalot. Not only will the place be eternal, as it is eternal till now that the Shechinah that's on that makom is eternal, but more than that, even the building itself is going to be eternal. As the pasuk says in בשלח, קאפיטל ט״ו, פסוק י״ז, מקדש השם כוננו ידיך. It's a Mikdash that Hashem's hands made, like it says in the Zohar חלק א׳, that this Mikdash is not מקדש בנינא דבר נש, a building of people, but this is על ידא דקודשא בריך הוא. This is built by the hands of Hashem, because the Beis Hamikdash hashlishi will be built by Hashem, and therefore he says יהא קיימא לדרי דרין, the Beis Hamikdash hashlishi will last forever. The building, not only the place, will be a building netzchi, and let's hope that this will take place bekarov mamash bimheirah v'yameinu.