Stephen Gabriel Rosenberg writing in the Jerusalem Post asks an important question: All things being equal, should we build the Third Temple? His answer? After listing the long litany of disasters caused by or centered around the previous two Temples and exploding several myths in the process, Rosenberg says no, we should not:
…What happened to the glory of the First Temple? It lasted 40 years. The Second Temple never achieved glory until its rebuilding by Herod, and that lasted 10 years.
Will a Third Temple fare any better? The records of history are against it.
Rosenberg is a Fellow of the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem. He is also the great-grandson of Rabbi Samson Refael Hirsch.
But what of day-to-day control of the Temple Mount as opposed to actually building a Temple there? Nadav Shragai, writing in Ha'aretz under the headline, The Rabbis Gave Up First, explodes some myths of his own:
For the past 40 years, right-wing and religious organizations have been mourning the absence of the Temple Mount from our national and religious life in addition to the Temple's destruction. In what has become a ritual, they lament the destruction of the antiquities on the mount and complain about the impotence of the Israel Antiquities Authority, the humiliating entrance conditions and turning empty areas on the mount into Muslim prayer sites.
These groups say there is a vacuum as far as sovereignty, government, law and order on Temple Mount are concerned. They say they are frustrated again and again by the authorities' lies and broken promises.
They are usually right. The only problem is that the politicians, archaeologists or even the police were not the first to give up Temple Mount. The rabbis were the ones to do so…
Shragai notes the rabbis forbid visiting the Temple Mount as early as June 1967 and that Menachem Begin tried to change the status quo there to allow Jews to readily visit and pray, and returning the sovereignty of the Mount to Jewish hands. He was, Shragai notes, thwarted by rabbis who threatened to bring down his government if he did so, not because of any concern for Muslims but because these rabbis feared Jews would walk on the Temple Mount in a state of ritual impurity.
This, Shragai argues, has been bad for Israel:
Sovereignty cannot be exercised on Temple Mount when the sovereign is halakhically banned from entering the place where he wishes to exercise it. The sovereignty on Temple Mount either exists or it does not.
The High Court of Justice has repeatedly dismissed petitions submitted by Jews regarding the Temple Mount because it knows, among other things, that the Jewish desire to visit the Temple Mount is not widespread. Most observant Jews yearn for the Temple Mount from afar, because of the halakhic restrictions imposed by the rabbis. In contrast, millions of Muslims frequent it. The High Court will not change the status quo for a few thousand Jews wishing to visit Temple Mount.
Rabbis with a broad halakhic-historic view have already realized that religious emotion is a powerful political factor in the struggle over Israel. They know that the de facto renunciation of Temple Mount has weakened us, and that the Palestinians, who control it almost exclusively today, derive from it immense power to cause damage. The rabbis can still fix what they had a part in spoiling. They have found ways in the past to ease severe restrictions in times of emergency, such as the prohibition against eating chametz (leaven) on Pesach or fasting on Yom Kippur. They are capable of finding a way to moderate the ban on visiting Temple Mount. Anyone familiar with the issue knows that this is possible, albeit in a limited way. One has only to dare.
Instead, I fear rabbis will continue to lament previous destructions, even as their behavior brings a new destruction (God forbid) that much closer.
Should Jews build the Third Temple?
STEPHEN GABRIEL ROSENBERG, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 24, 2007Traditionally the Temple Mount Faithful attempt to set up a foundation stone for the Third Temple on Tisha Be'av, and the police routinely prevent them from doing so. The occasion for this street theater is the anniversary of the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE and that of the Second Temple in 70 CE, both said to have occurred on the same calendar date.
It is certainly right that the date be commemorated; but would rebuilding the Temple be an appropriate act for the State of Israel today?
Assuming there were no Dome of the Rock and no Muslim presence on the Temple Mount, no Wakf and no Aksa Mosque, the pressure to rebuild the Temple would be enormous - but would it, in historical terms, be sound?
The last time such an opportunity occurred was in the time of Julian the Apostate, in 362 CE. That Roman Emperor, who succeeded Constantine, reversed his predecessor's decision to turn the empire into a Christian state and returned to the former pagan religions, which were permissive of other cults, including the Jewish one. It seems that he gave permission for the Temple to be rebuilt, and then went off to fight his enemies.
In Jerusalem work commenced on reconstructing the altar, but hardly had a few stones been put one on another, when a massive earthquake hit the area and the work collapsed. Worse still, Julian was killed in Persia and his place was taken by the Emperor Jovian, who reinstalled Christianity as the official religion. Any hope of rebuilding the Temple ceased, never to return.
IN 638 CE, the hordes of Islam conquered Jerusalem and by 692 the Caliph Abd al-Malik had completed the Dome of the Rock, which stood on the mountain inviolate for the following 1,315 years.
During the Crusader years it was converted to Christian use, and most Crusaders thought it had been built originally as the Temple of Solomon, but it was not changed structurally and returned to the Muslims on expulsion of the Crusaders in 1187. However, it did not return as a mosque, as it had never been one.
As the Dome was not a mosque, why did Abd al-Malik build it? It may be that he was attempting to set up a place of pilgrimage in competition to Mecca, which was controlled by his rival, Ibn al-Zubayr, but it seems more likely that, probably advised by an ex-Jewish companion, he recognized the historic significance of the site and in particular of the rock, the foundation stone, the even shetiya, that carried so much religious baggage. It was the scene of the Mihrab of Dawood (shrine of David) and the Bayit al-Makdis of Sulayman (Temple of Solomon) so al-Malik may have selected the site as a kind of location of ultimate holiness, maybe even for the Day of the Last Judgement.
The unique design of the building, a circular dome over an octagonal base, emphasized its concentration on the central feature, the Rock. Unlike any mosque, the building had no directional focus and was entered by four doorways, one to each of the cardinal points, as if to encourage access to persons or, indeed, their souls coming from the four corners of the earth.
LATER THE Muslims observed that the Rock was the mythical arrival and departure point of Mohammed on his white steed Buraq, but Abd al-Malik had recognized the precedence of Solomon and even Abraham on the site.
This makes it clear that the sanctity of the site stems from its Jewish origins, though the Muslims, of course, claim Abraham as one of their own, and venerate Solomon as divine. Now, even if the Muslim attitude would be to allow a Jewish presence, and even a rebuilding on the site, would it be in the Jewish interest to proceed with a third Temple?
WHEN HEROD decided to rebuild the Temple in 19 BCE, 18 years after having been handed the throne by the Romans, there must have been much trepidation among the population, the priests and others, about his intentions. He managed to calm their fears by employing only priests on the Temple itself and by enabling the Korban Tamid, the daily sacrifices, to continue without interruption.
The resources that he used were vast and would have pleased the local craftsmen, who were provided with employment for many years. The end result pleased even his rabbinic critics, though well after the event: "Whoever has not seen Herod's building has never seen anything beautiful," they crowed.
This was a surprising reaction, as very few rabbis were yet around to see the Temple in its glory. Additionally, modern reconstructions show a rather high, lopsided building with an overblown classical front sitting on a vast platform that completely ignores the beautiful mountain it covered. Such an oversize terrace must have intimidated anyone venturing on to it.
The huge expanse of uncovered space would not be conducive to our weather, be it sunshine or rain. For all its glory, the structure was not completed until 60 CE, well after the death of Herod, and it only stood another six years before its service was embroiled in the revolt against the Romans.
So what did Herod's great work really achieve? Did it achieve unity among the Jewish people? Did it achieve harmony between our different factions? Did it achieve reconciliation with our governors, the Romans, who admired the structure built on classical lines by their favorite Jewish ruler? Did its presence give us protection against our enemies or absolution for our sins?
QUITE THE contrary. The daily sacrifices were used by the zealots to exclude the offering of the Roman emperor, which led to reprisals and insults by the occupying army. Different parties saw different ways of resolving the crisis, but could find no unanimity among themselves. The High Priest, who might have been a potential leader, was just another political appointment, as he had been under the Seleucids; even his sacred clothing was held hostage in the hands of the Roman governor. The priests were divided in their loyalties and unable to conduct the divine service in a dignified manner.
When it came to the actual revolt in Jerusalem, things turned perilous, and civil war reigned. The zealots, led by John of Gischala, got the upper hand and the peace party was unable to stop them. Another zealot leader, Simon bar Giora, was welcomed into the city to oppose Gischala, but the two soon joined together against the moderates. That union did not last and within a short time there were three "gangster" parties (in the words of Josephus) who burnt each other's grain supplies, not realizing that they would all suffer in the end.
Only the Romans could benefit from the chaos, and so they did, in spite of the brave efforts put up by the separate parties, one of whom used the Temple precinct for a heroic, if vain, last stand. The magnificent Herodian Temple, as finally completed, had stood for only 10 years.
THIS WAS not so different from the vicissitudes of the First Temple. Solomon completed it with forced labor shifts, directed by his chief taskmaster, Adoniram. On Solomon's death, the majority of the tribes revolted against his successor Rehoboam, put the hated Adoniram to death by stoning, and set up the Northern Kingdom, which had no use for the Temple.
In the south, the Temple was sacked by Pharaoh Shishak in about 925 BCE, and all its gold was stripped away and taken to Egypt. Rehoboam was forced to present to the people shields of polished brass to simulate the looted metal. The golden glory of Solomon's Temple had lasted for just 40 years.
Not long after, king Asa had to use the replaced Temple treasures to bribe Ben-Hadad of Aram (Syria) to help him fight against Baasa, king of Northern Israel. Worse than all that loss of treasure was the fact that the First Temple, as described in our sacred books, became the focus of idol worship in the reigns of the Judahite kings Asa, Jehoram, Amaziah and the queen Athaliah, who gave its treasures to the House of Baal.
The timely restoration under Hezekiah was undermined by his son Manasseh, and the renaissance initiated by Josiah was sabotaged by the desecration of his successors that culminated in defeat by the Babylonians in 597 BCE, followed by destruction 11 years later.
What happened to the glory of the First Temple? It lasted 40 years. The Second Temple never achieved glory until its rebuilding by Herod, and that lasted 10 years.
Will a Third Temple fare any better? The records of history are against it.
The writer is a Fellow of the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1184766045650&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/885358.html
The rabbis gave up first
By Nadav Shragai
For the past 40 years, right-wing and religious organizations have been mourning the absence of the Temple Mount from our national and religious life in addition to the Temple's destruction. In what has become a ritual, they lament the destruction of the antiquities on the mount and complain about the impotence of the Israel Antiquities Authority, the humiliating entrance conditions and turning empty areas on the mount into Muslim prayer sites.
These groups say there is a vacuum as far as sovereignty, government, law and order on Temple Mount are concerned. They say they are frustrated again and again by the authorities' lies and broken promises.
They are usually right. The only problem is that the politicians, archaeologists or even the police were not the first to give up Temple Mount. The rabbis were the ones to do so, as early as 1967. Even a decade later, when Menachem Begin wanted to change the status quo on Temple Mount to enable Jews to pray there, the rabbis would not allow it. They threatened him with boycotts and coalition crises.
When Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun complained to Begin on the goings on at Temple Mount, Begin sent him away angrily, saying "go to your rabbis."
Even figures like Colonel Motta Gur ("Temple Mount is in our hands!") and Yaakov Hazan (the late Mapam leader), who wanted to integrate the Jewish interest in the political agreements on Temple Mount, had no chance. The sweeping halakhic prohibition imposed by ultra-Orthodox rabbis and religious Zionist rabbis on entering Temple Mount prevented, and still prevents, the full exercise of Jewish or Israeli sovereignty over it.
This prohibition has been convenient for Israel's governments, all of which banned Jewish prayers on the Temple Mount (with the exception of visits) for reasons of preserving public order and preventing conflict.
Even Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, the leader of the settlers movement, denied Jews entry to Temple Mount. Only recently has a group of religious-Zionist rabbis dared to change a ruling. But this is too little and perhaps too late.
Sovereignty cannot be exercised on Temple Mount when the sovereign is halakhically banned from entering the place where he wishes to exercise it. The sovereignty on Temple Mount either exists or it does not.
The High Court of Justice has repeatedly dismissed petitions submitted by Jews regarding the Temple Mount because it knows, among other things, that the Jewish desire to visit the Temple Mount is not widespread. Most observant Jews yearn for the Temple Mount from afar, because of the halakhic restrictions imposed by the rabbis. In contrast, millions of Muslims frequent it. The High Court will not change the status quo for a few thousand Jews wishing to visit Temple Mount.
Rabbis with a broad halakhic-historic view have already realized that religious emotion is a powerful political factor in the struggle over Israel. They know that the de facto renunciation of Temple Mount has weakened us, and that the Palestinians, who control it almost exclusively today, derive from it immense power to cause damage. The rabbis can still fix what they had a part in spoiling. They have found ways in the past to ease severe restrictions in times of emergency, such as the prohibition against eating chametz (leaven) on Pesach or fasting on Yom Kippur. They are capable of finding a way to moderate the ban on visiting Temple Mount. Anyone familiar with the issue knows that this is possible, albeit in a limited way. One has only to dare.