Halakha Keluaran 25:2: Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple & Shev Shmateta

It is a positive obligation to build a house for God where offerings may be brought and to make pilgrimage to it three times a year as it says "and they shall make Me a sanctuary." The tabernacle which Moses made in the desert has already been described in the Torah, but it was a temporary measure, as it says "for you have not yet reached, etc."

(Yod) “A person should engage in Torah [study] and the commandments, even if not for their own sake; as through [that which is] not for their own sake, one comes to [engage in them] for their own sake” – as it is [found] in the Talmud (Pesachim 50b). But behold on the verse (Exod. 25:2), “And they shall take an offering for Me,” Rashi explains, “‘For Me’ – for My sake.” And why this offering must be for its own sake more than the other commandments, requires elucidation. Just the opposite: let one be engaged in it, even not for its own sake, etc., as mentioned. And it appears that [it can be explained by noting that] there is a disagreement about acquisition with a handkerchief⁷⁵Such that acquisition of another item is effected by the symbolic exchange of a handkerchief or some other similar item. between Rav and Levi in the chapter [entitled] HaZahav (Bava Metzia 47a): Rav reasons [the handkerchief should be] from the [possessions] of the purchaser, whereas Levi reasons that [it should be] from those of the seller. And we establish [the law] to be like [the opinion of] Rav. And Ran⁷⁶Rabbeinu Nissim of Gerona (Spain, 14th century). in the first chapter of Kiddushin⁷⁷Kiddushin 7a. is troubled about Rav who holds that it is specifically from the items of the buyer and not of the seller, even if he is an important man. As in Kiddushin, we conclude that [a woman becomes] married if she gave something to an important man [to wed him], because of the enjoyment [she gets] from that which he accepted it from her.⁷⁸While marriage is not a commercial transaction, many of the laws of acquisition apply, such that the man is acquiring certain rights from the woman. And see there; that he wrote to resolve [this] – and these are his words, “When we say that if an important man receives a present, it is considered enjoyment [for the giver], that is when he receives a true present, but when it is on condition that [it] be returned, it is not considered so. And since an undifferentiated acquisition with a handkerchief is on condition that [the handkerchief] be returned, is has to specifically be from the items of the buyer.” See there. And see in Beit Chadash⁷⁹A commentary on the Shulchan Arukh by Rabbi Yoel Sirkis (Poland, 1560-1640). on Choshen Mishpat 190:4 who deduced from this that if one gives [such a gift] on condition to return [it] to an important man, it is not effective. [As] even though a gift given on condition that [it] be returned is considered a gift, it is not credited to the giver in this way. See there. And is it has already been written in Toldot Yitschak⁸⁰A commentary on the Torah by Rabbi Yitschak Karo (Spain, Turkey, Israel 1458-1535). and in [the commentary of R. Moshe] Alshekh [about] “And they shall take an offering for Me,” [that] it is fitting that it should [rather] say, “And they shall give.” And they wrote that the receiving of an important man is considered like giving; and [so in that case], the receiver is the giver. [Hence] all the more so [with] the Creator, may His name blessed, is that which is given to Him as if it is taken from Him. See there. And behold with all of the commandments, one who says, “I am contributing this small coin in order that my son will live,” behold he is a full-fledged righteous person;⁸¹Pesachim 8a-8b. and his present is a present – even if it is on condition that [it] be returned. And the same is the law here with offerings – even if he gives [it] for the sake of some reward, it is [still considered] giving. If so [however], we would still have the problem that it should have stated, “And they shall give” – like it is written in Toldot Yitschak and in Alshekh. And it is not relevant to answer like the commentators have answered, that giving to an important “person” is like receiving, since it is on condition that [it] be returned (in that the giver expects a reward) – and as I wrote in the name of Ran. Therefore Rashi explained, “For My sake” and not on condition to receive a reward. And then, “And they shall take an offering for Me,” fits – as mentioned above. And see there in my book, Ketzot HaChoshen on Choshen Mishpat 190:4. Nevertheless, it should appear to each person about himself that he has not yet been sufficiently righteous in his actions in front of his Creator, may He be blessed. Yet he should hope that he shall arrive above, as we will say at the beginning of the next section after this.