Rashi notes the Torah’s uncharacteristic repetition of the word Mishkan in this verse, and explains it based on the similarity between the word Mishkan and the word mashkon, a security or collateral. “This [repetition] alludes to the Mikdash, the Temple,” says Rashi, “which was taken as security by two destructions, due to Israel’s sins.” Meaning that near the conclusion of the Torah’s discussion regarding the Mishkan, the verse hints to the first and second Batei Mikdash, the Holy Temples that would one day replace the Mishkan.
Notably, the verse hints not to the construction of the future Batei Mikdash, but to their being “taken as security” by two destructions! Paradoxically, in doing so, the Torah highlights the permanence and endurance of the future Batei Mikdash—despite their destruction.
The purpose of a security or collateral is merely to ensure the fulfillment of a pledge or the payment of a debt, after which the security itself is returned. Though it changes hands for the duration of the loan, the security remains intact until it is returned eventually to its owner.
Thus, by referring to the Batei Mikdash as collateral, the Torah is emphasizing their endurance. The Batei Mikdash embodied G-d’s desire for a permanent presence among the Jewish people. The destruction did not mean that the existence of the Batei Mikdash no longer fulfilled this desire, but that due to outside causes—“Israel’s sins,” in Rashi’s words—the Jewish people’s access to the Batei Mikdash was temporarily taken away. From G-d’s perspective, however, He merely took the first Temple, and likewise the second, as security, intending to return them and everything they represent when the time comes. May it be soon.
—Likkutei Sichos, vol. 11, pp. 175–178
