Active or Passive?
From the beginning of modern
Zionism (and possibly before, depending on what you call ‘modern’) there was
debate in the Jewish world as to whether we must wait for redemption from
exile, or whether we should play an active role. After the establishment of the
State of Israel this debate seems less relevant, as very few would advocate for
disbanding it.
However, with regard to the Beis
Hamikdash this debate remains extremely relevant. Should we be doing whatever
is necessary physically to facilitate its rebuilding, or is it enough to rely
on our constant davening together with teshuva for the sins which caused its
destruction in the first place?
Although the question is
definitely similar to the one debated years ago in regard to the State of
Israel, there is one major facet to that debate that is not relevant here. The
main objection that some had to establishing the State, and still have to
celebrating its establishment today, is the issue of collaboration with
irreligious and anti-religious Jews. As there certainly are very few
irreligious Jews interested in this, we naturally may have expected the
proactive camp to be much larger here.
The reality is not like this, and
we need to try to come to an informed decision as to whether this is correct
from a Torah perspective. To do this we need to look at some of the reasons
that have been given for this passive stance.
Is there a mitzvah?
One reason some have given is
Rashi’s comment that the future Beis Hamikdash will descend from Heaven in
fire.[1] What
then is the point of us trying to build it ourselves?
This argument is flawed on two
counts. Firstly, Rashi’s explanation is disputed by the Meiri,[2] and
the Rambam says explicitly that the Mashiach will build the Beis Hamikdash.[3]
Secondly, even from Rashi there is no proof that we are exempt from the mitzvah
of building the Beis Hamikdash.[4]
According to all those who list
the 613 mitzvos (Behag, R’ Saadiah Gaon[5],
Rambam[6],
Ra’avad[7],
Ramban[8], Smag[9] and
Sefer Hachinuch[10]) building
the Beis Hamikdash is one of them. It is also undisputed that only mitzvos that
apply for all generations are counted.[11] It
seems improbable that Rashi would differ on this, and it certainly seems
extremely problematic to exempt ourselves from something that so many consider
to be a mitzvah without stronger proof.
Does the mitzvah apply now?
Some claim that there is a
prerequisite to the mitzvah of building the Beis Hamikdash. The gemara tells us
that the correct order is first to fulfil the mitzvah of appointing a king.[12]
Here too, they are wrong for two
reasons. Firstly, although ideally we should indeed be appointing a king first,
when this is not possible the mitzvah of building the Beish Hamikdash certainly
applies. Not only is there no source that says that the order is an imperative,
there are clear indications that this is not the case.
The second Beis Hamikdash was
built approximately three-hundred years before the Chashmonaim set up their
kingdom.[13] It is also
explicit in the Yerushalmi that the future Beis Hamikdash will be built before
the Davidic kingdom is re-established.[14] The
suggestion that this was and will be based on an extraordinary ruling meant for
the time only, is extremely difficult.
Chazal tell us that three nevi’im
came out of the Babylonian exile, and their prophecies were needed to tell us
about the altar and its place, that sacrifices could be brought before the Beis
Hamikdash was rebuilt, and according to one view that the Torah should be
written in Assyrian script.[15]
There was no need for prophecy to allow the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash
itself.
Secondly, even if the mitzvah of
building the Beis Hamikdash does not apply yet, it is certainly meritorious to
make all possible preparations for the time when it will apply. David Hamelech
was told that he could not build the Beis Hamikdash,[16] but
nevertheless dug the foundations.[17]
Physical danger
Another argument I have heard is
that anything we do to upset our neighbours endangers human life, and this is
sufficient reason to do nothing until the situation improves (presumably
miraculously). As the question here is predominantly one of judgement and not
of halacha I will be brief.
This issue extends further than
to the Beis Hamikdash alone, but also to our control of the whole country.
Simply put, in my mind it is clear that whenever we have been soft with those
who are out to destroy us we have lost more lives, and the nature of these
enemies is to run away when they are shown power. One example of this is M’aras
Hamachpela, where we now have partial control thanks to the defiant efforts of
R’ Levinger zt”l.[18] The
security situation there is definitely far superior to what it once was.
What about tumah?
Practically, even if all were to
accept my arguments so far, and even if the whole world supported rebuilding
the Beis Hamkidash, the obstacle of tumah (ritual impurity) would not be easy
to overcome entirely. Without the ashes of the parah adumah we have no way of
escaping the tumah caused by contact with the dead.[19]
However, there is much that can be done in the meantime.
The area which we may not enter
due to this impurity is a total of 342 by 155 amos,[20]
about 164 by 74 metres.[21] The
sanctified area of Har Habayis (Temple Mount) which may be entered after
immersing in a mikveh is 500 by 500 amos,[22] 240
by 240 metres. The dimensions of Har Habayis as we know it today are
approximately (it is not perfectly rectangular)
Do we know exactly where all of
these sections are? Not with absolute certainty. Although the Radbaz writes that
the Kodesh Hakodashim is in the Dome of the Rock,[23] it
is unclear where exactly this came from and to what extent it can be relied
upon.[24]
However, from a combination of
the description Chazal give of the area, and the geography we know, the
tradition of the Radbaz is certainly not very far off. It is clear in Chazal
that the Kodesh Hakodashim was at the highest part of the mountain,[25] and
this corresponds nowadays to the Dome of the Rock area. Other archaeological
evidence of the location of other parts of Har Habayis and surrounding
landmarks also supports this.[26]
Those who would like to forbid
all entry to Har Habayis place much stress on the fear that people will end up
entering the forbidden areas. This concern is non-halachic as no such decree is
found in Chazal,[27] but
nevertheless should not be taken lightly. As with any public issue, the costs
and benefits must be weighed up regularly. Most importantly, whether or not the
decision made then was correct or not is irrelevant.
I purposely started this post by
discussing the mitzvah to build the Beis Hamikdash because I believe this is
the root of the issue here. If it is important enough to us to do all that is
necessary to facilitate the rebuilding, we can find ways of avoiding this
problem. Clear demarcation of the forbidden areas, together with clear
information, would help a lot. We must also bear in mind that those who don’t
care about halacha have done and will continue to go wherever they want,
irrespective of whether we encourage or discourage entry to Har Habayis.
The most important thing
One thing all Torah-true Jews
should agree to is that we must never lose our will to have the Beis Hamikdash
rebuilt.
Unfortunately, during the last
period of terrorist attacks in a certain (supposedly religious) publication
appeared a letter, translated into Arabic, declaring that one sector of the
community have no desire to change anything on Har Habyis. After protests over
the implication that attacks on other parts of the community were justified,
they apologised.
I fully accept this apology. I
have no doubt that there was never any intention to encourage terrorism, and
that the letter had no effect in this direction. What really worries me is the
clearer message behind this letter, that when we daven constantly for the
rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash, we don’t really mean it.
Especially at this time of year,
we need to ask ourselves if we genuinely want the Beis Hamikdash, or if at some
level we are content with what we have and slightly afraid of the unknown.
[1] Sukah 41a
[2] Ibid.
[3]
Melachim 11:1. Although he says that these matters are not fundamentals of the
religion and we won’t know for sure how they will happen until they happen, his
basic assumption is clearly that the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash will be a
natural process. In fact for followers of the Rambam’s general rationalist
approach, this should be obvious. See also Drishas Tzion (R’ Tzvi Hersh
Kalisher) in Ma’amar Kadishin, who rejects Rashi’s explanation and proves his
point from the Yerushalmi.
[4] See
Meiri there who seems to understand that Rashi meant just that there is a
possibility of the Beis Hamikdash descending from heaven.
[5] Parsha 51.
See also R’ Yerucham Fishel’s comment there, that all agree to count this as a
mitzvah.
[7] Who says
that the Rambam should have added another mitzvah of building the altar.
[8] Who always
says when he disagrees with the Rambam’s count, and here is silent.
[9] Asei 163
[10]
Mitzvah 95. Admittedly he adds a precondition of the majority of the Jewish
People living in Eretz Yisrael (which we haven’t got to yet).
[11] The
Rambam’s third rule for counting mitzvos. The Ramban there says that this is
obvious, and that although the Rambam thought that the Behag made a mistake
about this, he misunderstood the Behag.
[12] Sanhedrin 20b
[13] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple_period.
Although we may differ slightly with the academic historical record, this point
is also clear from a combination of Tanach and Chazal.
[14]
Ma’aser Sheni 5:2. This is also the implication of the Bavli in Megilah
17b-18a, in explaining why the beracha of ‘Boneh Yerushalayim’ comes before ‘Es
Tzemach David’ in Shmoneh Esreh.
[15] Zevachim
62a
[16] Shmuel II,
perek 7
[17]
Yalkut Shimoni Shmuel II, Remez 142.
[19]
There may be a possibility to invoke the principle that’ tumah is pushed of for
the tzibur’, but this is far from straightforward. As there is still a long way
to go before this becomes relevant practically, I have chosen not to discuss
this at length here.
[20] The
combined measurements of the Heichal, Azara, Ezras Nashim and Cheil. See the
mishnayos in the second perek of Midos and Kelim 1:8.
[21]
Following R’ Chaim Noe. Although the area is larger according to the Chazon
Ish, the permitted area is also larger and for the most part this would result
in a clearer leniency.
[22] See Midos
2:1 and Kelim 1:8
[23] Tshuvos,
2:691
[24]
Although those who rely on his tradition of the Jewish genealogy of the
Ethiopian Beta Israel community (against scientific evidence), certainly should
rely on this tradition (which is supported by archaeological evidence). See
Yabia Omer part 8, Even Haezer siman 11.
[25] From
the entrance at the east gate until the Kodesh Hakodashim there were several
sets of stairs up, see Midos 2:3-5
