[Avodah] Moshe Lichenstein on Kedushas Har haBayis (and going there today)

[Micha Berger]

I thought this topic was "hot" enough that we may want to discuss.

Happy Adar I!
-micha

Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 11:56:08 +0200
From: Torat Har Etzion <torat at haretzion.org.il>
Subject: Weekly lesson in Sichot Rashei HaYeshiva 5782 (en) #19

The Source of the Temple's Sanctity

At the center of our parasha is the command to build the
Mishkan. According to Ramban, the Mishkan is a fundamental, essential
element in the service of God. As he writes (Shemot 25:1):

"When God spoke with Israel face to face, conveying the Ten Commandments,
and commanded them -- via Moshe -- some of the laws which are like main
headings of the laws of the Torah, as our rabbis would teach proselytes
seeking to convert to Judaism; and when Israel agreed to do all that
they would be commanded via Moshe, and God forged a covenant with them
over all of this, from that point onwards they would be His people and
He would be their God, as He had stipulated from the outset -- 'And now,
if you will diligently obey Me and observe My covenant, then you will be
special for Me' (19:5), and He said, 'And you will be for Me a kingdom of
priests and a holy nation' (19:6) -- thus they were holy and worthy of
having a Sanctuary in their midst, that His Presence might reside among
them. Therefore God commanded the matter of the Mishkan at the outset, so
that He would have a house in their midst that was sanctified to His Name,
and there He would speak with Moshe and command Bnei Yisrael. And the
crux of the purpose of the Mishkan is the place where the Divine Presence
rests; this is the Ark, as it is written (25:22), 'And I shall meet with
you there, and I shall speak with you from above the covering..'"

Ramban seeks to place the Mishkan -- or, later on, the Temple -- at the
center of Jewish consciousness. Following the destruction of the Temple,
there are two main ways of inculcating this concept. The first way, to
which all authorities agree, is through national memory. This comprises
both positive elements -- such as reciting the order of the Kohen Gadol's
service in the Temple on Yom Kippur, and negative elements -- for example,
the section of the Yom Kippur prayers that follows, with its mourning over
the fact that the glorious and holy service can no longer be performed,
or the lamentations on Tish'a be-Av, etc. Three times each day we plead,
"Let our eyes behold Your return to Zion in mercy", and the Temple is
mentioned very often on different occasions in Jewish life.

The second way is more complex, and this is the subject of our present
discussion. Technically speaking, since the time of the Destruction, Am
Yisrael follows an alternative path of Divine service -- that of prayer:
"We will offer [the words of] our mouths instead of calves" (Hoshea
14:3). Am Yisrael moves to the "miniature Temple" -- the synagogue with
its set prayer service -- as an alternative "direct route" to God, instead
of the idea of "They shall pray to God towards the city which You have
chosen, and the house that I have built for Your Name" (Melakhim I 8:44).

During my studies at the Hebrew University, I used to pray mincha at
the synagogue on campus. The architect, seeking to make the most of
the university's location, had placed a panoramic window looking out
onto the Temple Mount. It took some time before I realized what it was
that disturbed me when I prayed there: in order to accommodate this
impressive view, the Aron Kodesh had been located unobtrusively on the
side, leaving the Temple Mount as the center of attention.

It is important that we keep in mind that in the absence of the Temple,
there is little point in looking out over the "Mount." Other than the
Rambam, most authorities attach no intrinsic holiness to the Temple
Mount itself, where "foxes roam" (Eikha 5:18) and trees grow, despite
the Torah prohibition (Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira, chapter 1).

The Tosafot on Kiddushin 31b question the opening words of chapter
79 of Tehillim: "A psalm (or 'song' -- mizmor) of Asaf: God, heathen
nations have entered Your inheritance.." How can this be introduced
as a "song"? Should it not rather be called a "dirge of Asaf"? The
answer that the Tosafot offer is that the "song" is indeed appropriate,
"for He exhausted His fury on wood and stones" (such that the Temple
was destroyed, but Am Yisrael was not annihilated). The Temple retains
no holiness without the Divine Presence, which was exiled together with
the nation.

Commenting on the verse, "Draw out and take for yourselves lambs"
(Shemot 12:21), the Meshekh Chokhma comments:

"The foundation of the sanctity of the holy places does not stem
from religion, but rather from the nation and from their historical
roots. For example, Mount Moriah['s significance stems from the fact that]
man was created there (Sanhedrin 38b), and it was there that Avraham
bound Yitzchak as a sacrifice (Bereishit 22), and it was chosen by a
prophet. Religious sources [do not single out Mt. Moriah, but rather]
say merely, "the place which God shall choose." Similarly, Mount Sinai
is the place where the Torah itself was given -- but once the Divine
Presence left, even animals could ascend (Shemot 19). For our religious
feeling should not be misled into association with any image. Jerusalem,
and all of Eretz Yisrael, and Mount Moriah, are built upon their relation
to our forefathers, the roots of our faith, and the unification of our
faith with its source, such that all religious emotion should be solely
for the unity of the nation. This is a profound idea, beyond the scope
of the present discussion."

Nevertheless, the Meshekh Chokhma does go on to elaborate, in his
commentary on parashat Ki Tisa (32:19), where Moshe casts down the
Tablets:

"Do not imagine that the Temple and the Mishkan are holy in and of
themselves, heaven forefend. God dwells among His children, and if
'they, like men, have violated the covenant' (Hoshea 6), then all
holiness is removed from them, and they are like any profane objects --
'Robbers have entered and profaned it' (Nedarim 62a). Titus entered
the Holy of Holies with a prostitute, and he emerged unharmed (Gittin
56b), for its holiness had been removed. Moreover, even the Tablets,
'inscribed by God,' are not holy in and of themselves, but rather only
for you. Thus, when the bride prostituted herself under the very wedding
canopy (a metaphor for Bnei Yisrael's sin with the golden calf), they [the
Tablets] became nothing more than clay shards, with no holiness of their
own; they are holy only for you, that you may observe what is written
on them. Ultimately, there is nothing in the world that is intrinsically
holy, worthy of service and submission; only God Himself, and only He is
worthy of praise and worship. Everything else that is holy is so because
of God's command to build a Mishkan, to offer sacrifices to God."

Objects have no holiness in their own right; even the Tablets themselves
are holy only "for you, that you may observe what is written on them."

A similar idea is expressed by Rabbi Mordekhai Ilan zt"l, who writes in
the introduction to his book, Torat ha-Kodesh (part II):

"There are two fundamental concepts that are mentioned in relation to the
Mikdash, and they are choice and holiness. [and] they are also mentioned
in relation to Am Yisrael and its inner core of sanctity, which together
represent the power behind the nation's eternal existence. And whereas
concerning the sanctity of the Temple we read, 'Robbers have entered and
profaned it' -- concerning which the Rishonim are divided as to whether
it refers to hostile forces from without or from within Am Yisrael., no
invasion of the spiritual life of Am Yisrael will violate the nation's
inner sanctuary. The resilience of its purity is revealed specifically
when there are attempts to undermine its essence. Then there is a
shedding of the outer shell, which casts a shadow on its true identity,
and the true, genuine essence of Israel is revealed as a holy nation,
precious beyond gold."

In siman 1:1 we find:

"It is clear from the words of the Ridbaz that the Levite camp is not
considered part of the Temple. for the name 'Mikdash' applies only to the
Camp of the Shekhina. So too in Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira 7:4 with regard to
awe of the Temple, it is clear that the law does not apply to the Temple
Mount (which is equivalent to the Levite camp, as I explained). The
Meiri (Yevamot 6b) said that 'awe of the Temple' applies to the Temple
Mount only by a rabbinic ruling, for essentially the Levite camp is not
included of the mitzva of 'You shall have reverence for My Temple.'"

The synagogue is the vessel through which a Jew is meant, in our times,
to build his spiritual world and his relationship with God. The importance
of the Western Wall (Kotel) arises not from its architectural role as
a supporting wall of the Temple structure, as some Jews who visit the
Temple Mount scoff, but rather as the largest and most active synagogue
in the world -- a place where millions of people, over the generations,
have poured out their hearts to God.

As to visiting the Temple Mount itself: aside from the halakhic problems
involved, which are not in any way insignificant, I wish to mention two
additional objections.

The first is the transformation of the Temple Mount into a sectorial
matter. I have mentioned this problem in the past, but no one seems
to be addressing the issue. As in the case of the ideal of settling
Eretz Yisrael, the National-Religious public is in danger of turning
"the Temple Mount" into a term almost synonymous with "settlement." The
Temple Mount may, heaven forefend, come to be viewed as a messianic,
lunatic, unreal place. The National-Religious public must understand
that if "the Temple Mount is in our hands," the rest of the nation will
stop feeling that "the Temple Mount is in our hearts," and that is a
far more serious situation. The moment that the secular public in Israel
feels that the Temple Mount has become something alien and threatening,
the political results will not be long in coming.

There are those who argue that the secular public is alienated in any
case; others will claim that the importance of maintaining the Temple
Mount overrides these considerations. Nevertheless, I believe that most
secular Israelis still maintain some sort of connection with their Jewish
faith. The connection that they feel towards Eretz Yisrael has long
dissipated, owing to the appropriation of the ideology of the "Greater
Eretz Yisrael" by a small, well-delineated sector. It is therefore
preferable, with all the real pain that this entails, that the Temple
Mount remain in the category of those concepts pertaining to the Messianic
era, rather than erasing it in the present from the hearts of Am Yisrael.

The National-Religious public must also understand the geo-political
implications of any action pertaining to the Temple Mount, and re-examine
its policy. Rabbi Akiva Eiger wrote to the Chatam Sofer, asking that
he reinstitute the Pesach sacrifice on the Temple Mount when he visited
there. The Chatam Sofer responded (Responsa Chatam Sofer, Yoreh De'a 136),
that the "Ishmaelites" would not permit this.

Secondly, there are currently problems inherent in the experience of
visiting the Temple Mount. A religious Jew who stands on the Temple Mount
and, seeking to recite a chapter of Tehillim, is forced to mumble under
his breath without moving his lips, experiences a blow to all that
is dear to him. When visiting the Temple Mount demands such a heavy
psychological price, "the affliction is not worth the king's damage."

In addition, and as mentioned above, the Temple Mount is not the proper
path for Divine service in our time. God has chosen the alternative of
prayer in our synagogues, and this is the proper way to serve Him.

(This sicha was delivered on Shabbat parashat Teruma 5769 [2009].