The Context:
Parshas Re’eh contains the command to only offer sacrifices in the place “that G-d will choose.” Throughout history, there have been numerous locations which G-d chose as a place fit for sacrifices. The Mishnah contrasts the tabernacle in Shiloh with the Temple in Jerusalem, noting a major difference between these places. At first, G-d chose Shiloh as the only place where sacrifices could be brought. When it was destroyed, however, an individual altar [Bamah] was again permitted. But once the Temple [Beis Hamikdash] was designated as the place where sacrifices were to be brought, individual altars were never permitted again, even after the destruction (See Zevachim 112b).
How can this distinction be explained?
The Explanation:
G-d’s choice in Shiloh was not in the physical space itself, but rather an obligation placed on the individual, that he or she was to only offer their sacrifices in the place of Shiloh. The location itself was not endowed with inherent sanctity.
But G-d’s choice in the Temple mount was rooted in the land itself. Once the land was endowed with G-d’s election, that naturally became the only place where sacrifices were to be offered. This is unlike Shiloh which was not uniquely chosen as a sacred place, but was just a location that the Jewish people were allowed to offer sacrifices.
Because it was the Divine choice that sanctified the place of the Temple, and set it apart from any other location, that is why Rambam titles his laws on the subject, “the Laws of the Chosen House,” and not the “Beis Hamikdash.” The source of the holiness of the Temple is the choice of G-d.
Likkutei Sichos vol. 24, p. 79.
By: ProjectLikkuteiSichos.org
Adapted from the works of the Lubavitcher Rebbe
