This week’s parshah continues detailing the different vessels that are needed in the Mishkan and Beis Hamikdash.
The Rambam writes in the beginning of Hilchos Melachim that when Klal Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael they were obligated to fulfill three mitzvos: appoint a king, destroy Amalek, and build a Beis Hamikdash. Acharonim derive from this passage that they were obligated to fulfill these three mitzvos even before they conquered and settled the land. They also note that the Rambam implies that only a king can build the Beis Hamikdash (and wage war against Amalek).
Rashi (on Sanhedrin 20b) and the Ramban (on Devarim 17:14) disagree and state that the mitzvos only applied after Eretz Yisrael was conquered and divided.
The Ramban also disagrees with the notion that only a king can build the Beis Hamikdash. On Bamidbar 16:21, he writes that the reason there was a “charon af” against Klal Yisrael at one point in David Hamelech’s reign (Shmuel Beis 24:1) is because they delayed in building the Beis Hamikdash until David Hamelech said, “I am sitting in a grand palace and the Aron has no place.”
David Hamelech desired to build the Beis Hamikdash and, as a result, it was built. Says the Ramban: “If Klal Yisrael would have wanted and been nis’orer for the Beis Hamikdash earlier, it would have been built earlier by Klal Yisrael or by one of the shoftim, not David and Shlomo, and there would not have been anger against them and they would not have suffered those tzaros.”
We see from this comment that the Rambam maintains that the Beis Hamikdash need not have been built by a king. He also says that David Hamelech could have built it. Although Hashem told David that he couldn’t build the Beis Hamikdash because he shed much blood, had Klal Yisrael nis’orer for the Beis Hamikdash earlier they would have been considered the “builders” and it could have taken place in David Hamelech’s reign.
This argument is perplexing, though. Why would determination alone render the Bnei Yisrael the “builders”? Shouldn’t we attribute the title of builders on those who actually oversee and build? Why should the Bnei Yisrael’s desire to build the Beis Hamikdash have given them the title of builders, removing the title from David Hamelech who would have undoubtedly overseen the project, and permit him to “build” the Beis Hamikdash?
To understand this, we must first look at the mitzvah to build the Beis Hamikdash. In the beginning of Parshas Terumah the Torah states, “V’asu li mikdash v’shachanti besocha – And build for Me a Mikdash and I will dwell inside it.” In Sefer Devarim the Torah states, “Leshichno sidreshu u’vasa shama – And you shall seek out the Shechinah and come there.” A prerequisite for building the Beis Hamikdash is the will to do so. It is more than a mere necessary requirement; the will to build is part of the mitzvah itself. In other words, if someone had built the Mikdash without intending it to be a Beis Hamikdash he could not have consecrated it afterwards since it was lacking the bikush for it to be a Beis Hamikdash where Hashem would rest His Shechina.
It is for this reason that had Bnei Yisrael desired to build the Beis Hamikdash, they could have built it even in David Hamelech’s time, despite his being disqualified, because the building would have been defined by those who had the bikush. However, since it was David who had the bikush, it would have been defined by him, which is why it was necessary to wait for Shlomo for the Beis Hamikdash to be built.
