kedushas hamikdash and mora mikdash

The Toras Cohanim darshens (see also Meg 28) on the pasuk in the tochacha "V'hashimosi es mikdisheichem" that even when the mikdash is shomeim = in ruins, it still has kedusha.  The Rambam uses this din as the basis for his view that kedushas Yerushalayim and kedushas haMikdash is eternal, kedusha rishona kidsha l'asid lavo:  

למה אני אומר במקדש וירושלים קדושה ראשונה קדשה לעתיד לבוא. ובקדושת שאר א"י לענין שביעית ומעשרות וכיוצא בהן לא קדשה לעתיד לבוא. לפי שקדושת המקדש וירושלים מפני השכינה ושכינה אינה בטלה. והרי הוא אומר והשמותי את מקדשיכם ואמרו חכמים אע"פ ששמומין בקדושתן הן עומדים

The gemara in Yevamos 6 learns from the juxtoposition of mora mikdash to shabbos, "Es shabsosai tishmoru u'mikdashi tira'u," that just as the mitzvah of Shabbos is eternally binding, so too, there is an ongoing mitzvah of mora mikdash even if the mikdash is in ruins.  The Rambam writes in Beis HaBechira 7:7

אע"פ שהמקדש היום חרב בעונותינו חייב אדם במוראו כמו שהיה נוהג בו בבניינו. לא יכנס אלא למקום שמותר להכנס לשם ולא ישב בעזרה ולא יקל ראשו כנגד שער המזרח שנאמר את שבתותי תשמורו ומקדשי תיראו. מה שמירת שבת לעולם אף מורא מקדש לעולם שאע"פ שחרב בקדושתו עומד:

The Aruch laNer asks the obvious question: once we have a din that the kedushas hamikdash is eternal -- that Yerushalayim and the makom Mikdash retain the same sanctity whether the Mikdash is standing or not -- then doesn't it go without saying that the din of mora Mikdash still applies?  Why does the gemara and the Rambam need a new source for such a din?

(Rav Zolti in Mishnas Yaavetz (#47) points out that the Rambam includes in mora mikdash the prohibition of entering the area while tamei even though there is already a separate a issur lav of "v'lo yitamu es machaneihem" and a mitzvas aseh to send out temei'im.  R' Zolti  suggests a nafka minah between the two dinim: if we have a safeik whether a certain area was included in the original kidush, then from the perspective of lo yitamu es machaneihem, m'doraysa there would be no requirement to avoid the area, as according to the Rambam safeik d'oraysa l'kula.  However, one still would not be allowed to go there because of mora mikdash -- if you are in fear, then even in doubt you stay away.)

The overlapping dinim perhaps point to the fact that the Mikdash and Yerushalayim have overlapping kedushos.  The Rambam in Hil Beis haBechira quotes the pasuk of "V'asu li mikdash" as the source for the chiyuv to build a Mikdash, yet in Hil Melachim 1:1 the Rambam quotes "l'Shichno tidrishu" as the source.  Rav Soloveitchik explained (see Koveitz Chidushei Torah p135 and also Ch haGR"M vhaGRI"D) that there are two seperate dinim: 1) a din of the geographical makom Mikdash being the "beis habechira," the place chosen by G-d for hashra'as haShechina; 2) a din of kedushas mikdash that is tied to the building, be it the mikdash or the mishkan.  

The Rambam in Hil Beis HaBechira writes that the eternal kedusha of the Mikdash was established by Shlomo haMelech when it was built.  Yet, the gemara (Zevachim 24) writes that it was David, not Shlomo, who consecrated the ground upon which the Mikdash was built.  According to RYBS, there is no contradiction.  The Rambam is speaking about the kedushas ha'mikdash of the building; the gemara is speaking about the consecration of the geographical location as G-d's chosen place, beis ha'bechira.  

Perhaps when the Rambam speaks about kidsha l'asid la'vo, he is talking about the kidush of the mikdash building itself, the kidush established by Shlomo.  The din of mora mikdash, however, relates to the place of the Mikdash as beis habechira.  In Parshas VaYeitzei, when Yaakov realizes that he has slept in the future makom Mikdash, he cries out "Mah nora ha'makom ha'zeh..."   Nora=mora mikdash.  The building of the mikdash would take place long in the future, but the din of mora of Hashem's makom nivchar was already in place (Brisker Rav). 

We see the same theme of overlapping kedushos echoed in the Raavad.  Raavad holds 180 degrees the opposite of the Rambam: he famously writes that even those opinions which hold kedushas ha'aretz is still intact would agree that kedushas haMikdash has been dissolved; therefore, anyone who enters the makom Mikdash is not chayav kareis.  The implication is that there is no kareis punishment, but there is still an issur.  M'mah nafshach: if there is no kedusha, then why is there still an issur?  If there is kedusha, then why no kareis?

Again the same theme (see R' Zolti): overlapping kedushos.  The Raavad's contention is that the kedushas mikdash which Rambam holds is eternal is bateil, but there is some other kedusha (be it kedusha of a makom nivchar, be it kidush of machanah Shechina, as R' Zolti suggests) that is still latent and which prohibits entry.

It's almost Yom Yerushalayim.  This is the time to take a moment to reflect on the kedushas hamakom, on the fact that Hashem has once again given us access to his beis ha'bechira.  Hopefully those of us not there yet will merit to be there soon!