Tag Archives: Temple Mount

Scaling the Temple Mount

parshat vayetzei – genesis 28

Why is the Temple Mount in Jerusalem so contested? We explore ancient and contemporary texts to figure it all out and suggest how we can all get along. Join Geoffrey Stern and Rabbi Adam Mintz as we explore the biblical narratives surrounding Jacob and Abraham, the sanctity of places in the Ancient Near East and Jewish tradition, and the ongoing relevance of these themes in contemporary discussions about Jerusalem. The conversation highlights the deep connections between history, identity, and spirituality, emphasizing the importance of understanding the layers of meaning associated with sacred sites.

Sefaria Source Sheet: www.sefaria.org/sheets/608262

Transcript:

Welcome to Madlik.  My name is Geoffrey Stern and at Madlik we light a spark or shed some light on a Jewish Text or Tradition.  Along with Rabbi Adam Mintz we host Madlik Disruptive Torah on your favorite podcast platform and on YouTube. This week’s parsha is Parshat Vayetzei – Jacob wakes up after dreaming of angels ascending and descending a ladder and declares the place holy. Thus begins the various claims surrounding the sanctity of the Temple Mount. We explore the Biblical, Rabbinic, Christian, Muslim and contemporary sources to understand this turf war. So join us for: Scaling the Temple Mount.

more

Well, Rabbi, another week of Madlik Disruptive Torah, and you were in Israel last week. Were you at the Temple Mount? Were you at the Kotel?

Adam Mintz (01:05.052)

at the Kotel but I was not on the temple mount but I was at the Kotel. I saw where the temple mount was.

Geoffrey Stern (01:11.713)

So, you were at the place. Now we have discussed these exact verses in a previous podcast called Ha’Makom Place No Place. And there we went in a totally different direction because once the temple was destroyed, there were those that used Makom as a name of God and it didn’t relate as much to place anymore. But today we’re gonna kind of follow up on what we started last week when we discussed the Philistinians and the ancient Israelites, and obviously we and our listeners drew the conclusion that it might have an impact on discussions today about Palestinians and Israelis. So today we’re going to discuss the ancient texts, trace them up into the present, that revolve around this spot, this place on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem.

that has attracted so much attention, discussion, and even controversy. So, we are in Genesis 28-10, and Jacob is leaving the country. I would say he’s kind of running away from his brother Eisav He’s stolen, taken, or achieved the birthright, and he’s leaving town. And in 28-10, it says, Jacob left Beersheba and set out for Haran.

Haran is where Abraham was born. So he’s going back to the roots as his father did. He’s looking for a wife from the homeland. And by that I don’t mean Canaan, I mean where they all came from. He came upon a certain place, Vayifga ba’ Makom, and stopped there for the night. For the sun had set, taking one of the stones of that.

place, Ha-ma-kom, he put it under his head and lay down in that place, Ba-ma-kom. Rabbi, in one verse it says the word ma-kom, place, three times, so I think we are talking about the place. So he had a dream, a ladder was set on the ground, its top reached up,

Adam Mintz (03:10.605)

times. That must be an important word.

Geoffrey Stern (03:19.733)

to the heavens. The messengers of God were going up and down on it and standing beside him was God who said, I am God, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. The ground on which you are lying I will assign to you and to your offspring. So now it doesn’t say place but it starts to talk about the ground. Ha’aretz asher ata Shocave aleha

Your descendants shall be as the dust of the earth you shall spread out from the west to the east to the north and to the south. Huferatza, Negra, Vakadim, Tsvfona and all the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you and your descendants. Remember I am with you. I will protect you wherever you go and will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.

So, in verse 16, Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, Surely God is present in this place and I did not know it. He is Yeish Hashem b’makom hazeh v’anokhi lo yedati. Shaken, he said, how awesome is this place. This is none other than the abode of God. And this is the gateway to heaven. Early in the morning, Jacob took

the stone that he had put under his head and set it up as a pillar and poured oil on the top of it. So in addition to Makom and Ha’aretz, now we also have this stone, a single stone, ha-evin, which he had slept on. And we also have dedication, pouring oil on top of a stone is really sanctifying a holy place. I would say almost sanctifying an altar, if you will.

So, we really have in these verses all of the ingredients for creating a very holy spot in our tradition. And then it goes on to say, he named that site Beth-El.

Geoffrey Stern (05:29.463)

which literally means house of God, but previously the name of the city had been Lutz. So harkening back to our discussion last week, we’re in the naming game again. So, Beth-El literally, if you get from the bet, this sense of a house, Har Ha’ Bayit we call the temple mount today, he is creating that edifice that and it’s a holy place. is Beth El, the house of God. And he’s also in a sense kind of renaming it. So it is a fascinating moment in our history that again has ripple effects up until today. What do you have to say, Adam?

Adam Mintz (06:14.068)

No, that’s 100 % right. So, Beth El clearly is the house of God and that’s the place. You say we’re in the naming game. It’s interesting that all these places, tell you what the original name was. You know, it’s almost like it’s written for, you know, for those days. Like if they told you New York City, its original name was New Amsterdam. Like there’s nobody who cares about.

because that’s history. But here, obviously, this was known as Luz, and it comes to show that when God, when Jacob get involved in the place, the place changes its name. It doesn’t only change its name, the name’s character changes. Luz is just a name. Beit El defines its quality.

Geoffrey Stern (07:01.985)

You know, and we saw that last week, and that’s why I call it the naming game. The Romans wanted to not only eradicate the memory of the Jews and kick the Jews out of Judea, they changed the name to Palestine, and in effect it worked.

When you change a name, you take a lot of baggage and you move it. So, we’re all involved. We’re in Genesis. We could be talking about some ancient patriarchs, but in fact, what we are witnessing is the movement of history, the reclaiming of history. And so even if we go back earlier in Genesis to Genesis 12, where we’re talking about Abram,

Abraham passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem at the terebinth of Moreh. So we’re starting to see it’s called Makom Shechem, but again a terebinth of Shechem. This was a holy site. The Canaanites were then in the land. God appeared to Abraham and said, I will assign this land to your offspring.

I will build an altar there to God who had appeared to him. From there he moved out to the hill country east of Beth-El and pitched his tent with Beth-El on the west and Ai in the east. He built there an altar to God and invoked God by his name. So, this is not the first nor the last time where number one, and I will be arguing this throughout the episode, where we take places that had before been holy sites.

had been Terebinths, had been places of worship, and we rededicate them, and we might change their names, and we make them ours. But there is nothing, nothing new here. I would argue not only amongst the Jews, but this, as you say, New Amsterdam to New York.

Geoffrey Stern (08:53.079)

It is a change. And of course, I just realized New Amsterdam was giving homage to Holland and New York was giving homage to England. So it was a changing of the guard, so to speak. So, Rashi.

Adam Mintz (09:01.868)

Of course, right.

Adam Mintz (09:08.514)

Right, I mean, just wanted one possibility. It’s possible that Beit El, know, every state has a Springfield. It’s possible that Beit El could, there could be different places that are called Beit El, because Beit El is the place of God. So that’s whatever it is, right? So, you know, it could be that there are multiple places and that the story with Avraham is not the same story as with Jacob. I’m not sure, I’m just, it’s a possibility.

Geoffrey Stern (09:35.671)

You know, I love that, and we are going to be quoting so many rabbinic sources, and there’s not one that says that. So, I think you’re really adding something to the conversation, because everybody is bending over backwards to try to move the pieces on the map to figure as… Okay, but it was done, and we’re going to follow the trail a little bit. So Rashi in Genesis 28 says,

Adam Mintz (09:50.443)

Right. But it’s not necessary.

Geoffrey Stern (10:03.153)

Scripture does not mention which place, but by writing Ba’makom, the place, it refers to the place mentioned already in another passage vis-a-vis the Mount Moriah which it is stating, and he saw the place afar. Now, wink, wink, anyone reading this who knows Rashi knows what he’s referring to. He is referring to the binding or the sacrifice of Isaac.

where Abraham is taking his son Isaac and he is looking and he sees the place from afar. And of course, it starts to make you think when you look back at that story, Rabbi, so much of what we do when we discuss that story is agonize over why or how.

or for what reason and purpose Isaac was sacrificed, here already we have a different nuance. When you look at a place from afar and you want to sanctify it, something has to be sacrificed. It turned out that it wasn’t his son, it ended up being a goat that was there. But the point was, we shouldn’t be surprised that the story ended with a sacrifice, because whether it’s pouring oil on a stone or sacrificing it was there,

But again, here we are connecting these two places that are iconic in our history. This place where Jacob sees this ladder going up to heaven and where Abraham binds his son. Now, because it both says makom, place, we are saying it is referring to the same holy place. The Ibn Ezra says he lighted upon the place.

The reason the bait of Ba Makom is vocalized with a patach, this is a grammatical sign, is that Moshe, in writing the Torah, did so in order to indicate the place that was well known in his time. We talked a little bit about this last week, that the Torah was written certainly at the time of Moses, he already was commenting on previous history.

Geoffrey Stern (12:16.431)

are but those who believe it was written even later, at the time of Ezra, or that it had the foresight to put itself into the shoes of people who would be living at the time of Ezra or at the time of Geoffrey and Adam in 2024, there already was the ability to make references to things that were assumed to be well known. Kind of fascinating.

Adam Mintz (12:38.522)

Fascinating. Well, you would say the place that was well known by Ba’ Makom with a capital MEM Right. That’s where we would say it today.

Geoffrey Stern (12:43.883)

Yep, there we go. let’s, yep. So, let’s go ahead and look at a few more of the commentaries, the Keli Yekar And again, no matter when these commentaries were written they’re not making this stuff up. They’re culling Jewish tradition.

Adam Mintz (13:02.67)

Now, do you know who the Keli Yakar was? His name was Rabbi Ephraim Luntschitz He was a rabbi in Prague around the year 1,600. He was a rabbi who gave sermons on Shabbat morning. And his commentary reads like a sermon always. So he’s great. So let’s see what he has to say today.

Geoffrey Stern (13:22.689)

So he says that he arrived at the place and our sages said in the Gemora in Chullin that this was Mount Moriah. Again, he makes reference to the same verse that we quoted a second ago of the Binding of Isaac. That place was called “the place” without any specific name. Every place has an identifying name derived from the name of its owner or its nature, but in this it was separate from all other places. The essence and the name of this place was hidden.

as I’ve explained above in the portion of Vayera therefore is not simply called the place because it is not yet received the name which will distinguish it from all others. So, he’s adding a new nuance to this. But again, I think if in most s-

populations, Jewish populations. If I say the Rebbe, most people will say it’s the Lubavitcher Rebbe. You don’t have to ask which Rebbe. And if it’s the Rav, it’s Rav Soloveitchik. And I could go down the list. But he’s kind of saying that, but he’s also talking about this sense of being hidden. It’s like a wink-wink for those who know. So again, he goes into the future. There is…

It’s almost because there’s some esoteric nature to it also that just like we don’t call God by his name, I think he’s saying something like that. Just like we call God Hashem, the name, when we say Ha-ma-kom, everybody knows what place we’re referring to. I think it’s clear from all the commentaries that whether it was clear originally when it was written, it’s certainly clear

with the reference of Jewish history, what place we’re talking. I think if you would ask most Jews, no matter how knowledgeable they are in our sources, and if you ask them where did the binding of Isaac occur or where did the ladder occur, I think there would be a high percentage who would guess that it was on the Temple Mount. I’m not sure, what do you think?

Adam Mintz (15:29.041)

I think that’s probably right.

Geoffrey Stern (15:32.949)

So, they get in now to this foundation stone. And of course, there’s a beautiful story where Yaakov takes the stones in the plural before he goes to sleep and he wakes up and lo and behold, they’ve all become one unitary stone. And of course, we take all sorts of ethical and social lessons from that.

But in this particular case, they are now talking about the stone. And it’s called this eben haŠeṯīyyā the foundational stone that, according to rabbinic tradition, the world was built from, the Big Bang. I had a rebbi once.

who said that on this place, time and space were one. It was l’malah min ha makom and l’malah min ha’zman and he said it was EinShtein and he tied it into the theory of relativity. That was Rav Moshe Wolfson z’l the Mashgiach of Torah Vodaas but he said it with a smile. But this, again, this is a place that was inundated with,

Adam Mintz (16:23.153)

That’s funny.

Geoffrey Stern (16:37.569)

high spiritual definition. The Ibn Ezra says that in general there are some places where God’s presence is more manifest than others and I would say this is not a Jewish belief. This is a belief that we inherited and that’s why I quoted before when it said that

Abraham went to Elone Mamre, to the terebinth of Mamre, there were already holy sites, Shechem, Beit El, can, Shiloh, where the traveling tabernacle landed first, before the empire was united under David, and we had only one temple, there were…

places, holy places throughout the land. And I think that’s kind of, Rabbi, that harkens back to what you said a second ago, which is there could have been many Beth-El’s, there could have been many holy places, and then when the Empire, the monarchy was united and everything was put into Jerusalem, all of those Beth-El’s became this one spot. And I think we’re visual…

Adam Mintz (17:40.166)

Right.

Geoffrey Stern (17:56.843)

We’re seeing this textually in front of our eyes.

Adam Mintz (18:00.794)

I think that’s great. Okay, that’s, that means that not, and that works, right? According to this, Ibn Ezra that works, that there might’ve been multiple places called Beth El Good.

Geoffrey Stern (18:09.355)

Good. So now we get a little bit to the problem here. Because for those who don’t agree with you, Rabbi, and think that Beth-El is an actual place on WAZE if you’re traveling, you come up with a little bit of a problem. That if you’re leaving Be’er Sheva, which is what he did, and you’re going to Haran and you go to Beth-El,

It’s a problem of how do you get back to the Har Habayit, the Makom. So one of the explanations that Rashi brings, Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Yossi, the son of Zimra, the ladder stood in Beersheba and the middle of its slope reached opposite the temple. They had a problem, they had a solution, but it shows you how much it was important for them

to try to make this somehow, to reconcile it with Jerusalem. It follows therefore that a ladder whose foot is in Be’er Sheva and whose top is in Bethel has the middle of the slope reaching opposite Jerusalem. And there’s another thing that he quotes from Hulin, this righteous man came to the place where I dwell, whilst from here it is evident that he had come to Lutz.

Adam Mintz (19:05.168)

reconcile the two.

Geoffrey Stern (19:30.697)

And should he depart without staying over the night? There’s another tradition. This is pretty crazy. And one of the commentaries in Psachim says, Mount Moriah was forcibly removed from its locality to come to Lutz, and that this is what is meant by the shrinking of the ground that is mentioned in the treatise.

This might be the first time we hear of of Muhammad can’t come to the mountain the mountain comes to Muhammad But you heard it first on Madlik , that Mount Moriah came to Jacob the last Solution that I like is that he actually realized that he had passed Bethel and he turned back He decided to return to go as far as Bethel where the ground shrank for him

The bottom line is we are engaged on a textual level of trying to bring Jerusalem into this picture because we know where we need to get. We need to get where this Beth-El, this holy place is associated with the Har Habayit, with Mount Moriah, with the place where ultimately the first and the second temple were built in Jerusalem.

Adam Mintz (20:49.936)

And that’s what you say is interesting. And that is they work backwards. They need to get to the place of the temple. And then he gives these explanations, even if they’re far fetched, to be able to get to that place.

Geoffrey Stern (21:03.137)

Yep. So there are other sources. Pirkei de Rab Eliezer says that you can learn that everyone who prays in Jerusalem is reckoned as though he had prayed before the throne of glory for the gate of heaven is there and it is open to hear the prayers of Israel as it is said and this is the gate of heaven. So from here we have the tradition up until today where synagogues

point towards Jerusalem and I believe in Jerusalem they point towards Har Habayit because of this verse that says This is the gate of heaven.

Adam Mintz (21:39.477)

Correct.

Adam Mintz (21:46.429)

Right. So that’s interesting. That’s a great Pirkei D’Rav Eliezer because that basically says that this story is still very much alive today and that, because of this story, we still face that place.

Geoffrey Stern (22:02.035)

up until today. And again, you know, I always like to say that for those who will argue that the Jews discovered Israel with the beginning of the Zionist movement, it is pretty clear from here that Jews not only have been saying at the end of every seder “Next Year In Jerusalem”, at the end of every wedding, they’ve been breaking a glass,

for the rebuilding of Israel and of this temple that we’re discussing. But every synagogue architecture, so now we’re talking about material evidence, you will go around the world and you will see it’s all pointing towards Jerusalem.

So this is architectural history that shows that this did not begin in the age of colonialism. This began for thousands of years in the Jewish diaspora. People have been looking at this particular spot. So that is fascinating. So if we go on and we talk about, we’ve talked about the place.

We’ve talked about the land. We’ve talked even about the stone. Now let’s talk a little bit about what the stone was used for. And so he says, then this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, explain it as the Targum translates it, says Rashi, I shall serve the Lord upon it. This indeed he did on his return from Padan Aram.

when he said arise go up to Bethel, what is stated there and Jacob set up a pillar and he poured out a drink offering thereon. So this combination in our verse we have pouring oil on it so dedicating it. We’re gonna be coming to Chanukah soon where oil and dedication are both celebrated. But here when he came back again, they’re playing with the word Bethel because I think you would.

Geoffrey Stern (24:04.097)

Traditionally, we’d say he went to the literally to Bethel, but he came back to this place I could argue rabbi that maybe everywhere where a Jew decides to dedicate is I like that better

Adam Mintz (24:15.863)

is called Beit El. Right. See, this is interesting because the Avraham reference has Beit El before and here’s a Beit El afterwards. So, you know, it’s hard to know what it refers to, but okay, good. Right. Every place that you dedicate to God is called Beit El. We can call our cities Beit El too.

Geoffrey Stern (24:39.009)

Fantastic. So there seems to be a big controversy about how many times a place like Jerusalem is mentioned in the Koran, is mentioned in our texts. Of course, it’s mentioned many times in our Tanakh, but in our five books of Moses, which deal with creation, which deals with Exodus, not mentioned, I don’t think, even once. But the closest we get

to a mention is actually earlier in Genesis and it says, King Melchizedek of Shalem brought out bread and wine. He was a priest of God most high. He blessed him, meaning Abraham saying, blessed be Abraham of God most high, creator of heaven and earth.

and blessed be God most high who has delivered your foes into your hand and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. So getting back to what I was saying before, which is if this in fact does relate to Shalem being Jerusalem,

I think you’ll find that in the commentaries, Rashi says bread and wine thus is done from those weary through battle. But he goes the Midrashic explanation is that he Malchitzedek thereby gave an intimation to him Abraham of the meal offering and libations which his descendants would offer there in Shalem, which is Jerusalem and that he is quoting Genesis, Rabba. So again, it’s this sense that

that even Jerusalem, there were pre-religious sanctity to it. And it would be very rare, I would argue, that we would ever build a holy place on a spot that had not previously been shown to be holy. I think that’s pretty clear here. And therefore, this tradition of claiming a holy place as one’s own, I think goes back

Geoffrey Stern (26:44.565)

to the patriarchal period. goes back into ancient history. We’ve done it. Others have certainly done it to us. But we have to recognize that if, in fact, this is a reference by Shalem to Jerusalem.

Adam Mintz (27:00.685)

Yeah, no, that’s interesting, right. And, you know, Jerusalem only becomes important in the prophets later because when the Jews entered the land of Israel, Jerusalem was not a Jewish city. King David conquered Jerusalem and then Solomon built the temple in Jerusalem. So being able to identify it with an earlier place is actually very interesting.

Geoffrey Stern (27:25.921)

So I was very curious about this knee-jerk relationship that goes back to ancient times of building one holy place on top of another. And I really do believe there are two motivations here. One is a sincere motivation of it must be a holy spot to humanity. I want to channel it towards my God. The other is not so sincere, and that is one upmanship.

That is, I conquered you, I took over your country, the first thing I need to do is put a mosque on top of your church or on top of your holy spot. I found a book that is called, it’s called The Shadow of the Church, The Building of Mosques in Early Medieval Syria. But in it, it talks about not only the Har Habayit, but also in Bethlehem.

where and this goes up until today there was a intention of the local caliph to build a mosque right over the birthplace of Jesus, so to speak, and they convinced him to do otherwise. The author then brings our story, which is

There was also a renowned place where once the magnificent temple was built close to the eastern wall. Now there is a quadrangle house of prayer of the Arab Muslims built crudely by setting planks and beams on some remains of ruins. They attend this place. He gives the full history, but the immediate thing that they did when they created the caliphate and it took over our holy land

was do what maybe every religion has done in time immemorial, is they built a mosque on top of where that holy temple was. Initially, as it says, they were just planks, and then ultimately they built it into something that we now call the third holiest place in Islam.

Geoffrey Stern (29:35.479)

You know, I need to say that When I read the New York Times, and I love my Times, it’s part of my religion, so to speak. and when it refers to the Har Habayit, the mount that we’re talking about, it always says the third holiest place in Islam and the place of two temples in Judaism. And of course, when I hear the word two temples, I think maybe it’s Temple Sinai and Temple Immanuel.

You know to say that That it is not the The temple was the essence of our people and if you want to talk I I’m not I wouldn’t be proud to say that we have a list a hierarchy of holy places I don’t think we do have a list but there is one holy place. I think everybody can agree upon it’s called the Kodesh HaKadashim the holiest of the holy and so it is kind of fascinating this word game I would prefer if you’re

New York Times that you say it is the holiest place in Judaism and the third holiest place in Islam. What is fascinating though is that it was founded before the Kaaba in Saudi Arabia and so initially the Muslims prayed facing towards Jerusalem and then after

Adam Mintz (30:56.635)

Jerusalem.

Geoffrey Stern (30:58.763)

The Kaaba was made the first holiest place nowadays. I believe, I’m no expert in Islam, they pray facing it. So again, towards Mecca, so we have our different traditions, but it is so fascinating if we go back and we see that they have histories and they have developments. And the truth is, again, that we have more in common than…

Adam Mintz (31:06.557)

Yours, Mecca. Correct.

Geoffrey Stern (31:22.283)

we have a part in terms of how we handle these places. And we all need, I think, a little more humility in understanding the social and kind of historical activities that happen through ancient times up until today. I think I’ll end by saying, because I did say we would go up until the present, there was a thinker in modern Israel. I’ve mentioned him.

before. His name is Yeshayahu Leibovich. And when the Temple, the Six-Day War occurred in June of 67, he gave a damning speech in July of ’67 in Rehavia, the place where all the modern Orthodox Jews were. And very famously he says, I know what’s going to happen to the Kotel. It’s going to be made into a dis-kotel.

He basically said there are no holy places in Judaism to believe and act as if there were would be to practice avoda zara, idolatry. And he was very much against not only the idea of this holy place, I mean if you think about it Rabbi, in the five books of Moses we have something radical.

we have a mobile home synagogue. We don’t have that holy place. We should grab on to that a little bit more. But nonetheless, it is a holy place and if you are watching on video, you will see, you are very used to, I’m sure, seeing pictures of

whether it’s Abbas or it’s somebody from Hamas, all of them seem to have in the background a framed picture of the Mosque of Omar, the Golden Dome. We are now starting to see this is a screenshot from an interview with Moshe Feglin and you can see sure enough behind his head he put a picture of the temple to be rebuilt.

Adam Mintz (33:22.397)

So, I’ll buy it.

Geoffrey Stern (33:26.519)

And I will say, I am so fortunate to have a niece who just graduated the Army Training School. And here is a picture of her being sworn in at the Kotel. If you look to the right of her shoulder, you’ll see a soldier standing next to her holding a Tanakh.

Adam Mintz (33:35.27)

Wow.

Geoffrey Stern (33:47.229)

You are given at this swearing in ceremony, which by the way is coed. The state of Israel is now in this ceremony says we do it our way. Every soldier is given their gun and they are given their Tanakh. And they are told very beautifully, I believe, that when they take an oath to defend the state of Israel, they need to defend it, but they also have to

hold the high ethical and moral code of our Tanakh. I just, to me, that is that ladder that goes from heaven to earth. So maybe it does, Rabbi, start from this special place.

Adam Mintz (34:31.29)

Fantastic. This is really good. The second time we talked about the place, a different twist on it and it was wonderful. Okay, everyone should enjoy learning all about hamakom and Beit El and we look forward to seeing you next week. Shabbat Shalom.

Geoffrey Stern (34:44.865)

See you all then. Shabbat shalom.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Torat Cohanim, Then and Now

parshat vayikra, vayikra 1

Join Geoffrey Stern and Rabbi Adam Mintz recorded on Clubhouse. The Book of Vayikra (Leviticus) is also called Torat Cohanim (The Priestly Torah) and has traditionally been the first book to be studied by children in the Cheder. Today there is a growing and no longer fringe group of Mikdashnikim who want to rebuild the Temple. So today, from the mouth of babes up until the present we will trace and try to understand the unique place these laws play in Jewish theology and modern Israeli politics.

Sefaria source sheet: www.sefaria.org/sheets/553283

Transcript:

Mikdashnikim, I think. I gotta learn that one. Mikdashnikim. There are kibbutznikim, and now we have mikdashnikim. Rabbi, welcome back for another week of Madlik Disruptive Torah. You just finished the fast of Esther.  I was told at 11.30 today in New York, all of the Jewish people were gonna say the Shema together. So I was in meetings and we stopped for a second and we said Shema. I think the president of Israel was leading it. I don’t know if you heard about that one.

more

1:35 – Rabbi Adam Mintz:

Not only did I hear about it, but Sharon and I were on this website and there were over 50,000 people just on this one YouTube channel who were watching it all together saying Shema. So, you can imagine how many people were really there. Yeah, I think the president of Israel led everybody, which was really very powerful, I thought.

1:56 – GS:

Amazing, just amazing. It’s always wonderful when the Jewish people are together. You can’t disagree with that. So here we go. We are starting a new book tonight. In English, it is called Leviticus. In Hebrew, in this particular case, we follow the first word that’s used, Vayikra, which means, and God called to Moses. And as I said, we’re going to see fairly soon that in the Rabbinic literature, It is called Torah Kohanim, which is a lot more similar to Leviticus. Leviticus is based on the word Levi for priest, and so here we are.

2:36 – GS:

I have a long-time listener of Madlik, a friend named Henry, and he goes, “Vayikra oy vey”. It’s so just full of temple practices and sacrifices, things that seem very strange to us Moderns. But we are going to focus on how this book and these strange laws have evolved in our Jewish tradition. So, let’s continue a little bit on the name. The reason it’s called Torah of the Kohanim, the Torah of the Kohanim, is later in Leviticus, in Chapter 6, 18, it says, Speak to Aaron and to his son, saying, This is the Torah of the sin offering, Zot Torah ha-chatat.

3:27 – GS:

And in the Mishnah in Megillah, for instance, we’re very timely here. It says, on the first day of Passover, the congregation reads from the portion of the festival of Leviticus. But in Hebrew it says, תּוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים So the rabbis really did call it the Torah of the Kahanim. Which already puts us into a little bit of a state of mind that more than any other book of the Torah, it was to be studied. And maybe we’ll see what that means. In the Talmud in Menachot 110a, Rabbi Yitzchak said, what is the meaning of that which is written?

4:12 – GS:

This is the Torah of the sin offering. Zot Torat H’chatat. And this is the law of the guilt offering. These verses teach that anyone who engages in studying the law of a sin offering is ascribed credit as though he sacrificed a sin offering. And anyone who engages in studying the law of a guilt offering is ascribed credit as though he sacrificed a guilt offering. So, Rabbi, right from the get-go, even though we’re just talking about a name, the rabbis seem to address the need to explain how this book is treated differently, and from the get-go, it seems to be something that is studied more than, may I venture to say, maybe than done. Because clearly in the rabbinic period there wasn’t much to do with these laws. So the focus started to be on study. Do I have a leg to stand on here?

5:13 – AM:

You sure do, and I’m going to tell you an amazing practice that they had basically in Eastern Europe before the Holocaust, and that is that the little children, when they used to study chumash, they used to study from the book of Vayikra. Because this is the book of holiness, and that made them holy. Now, it seems ridiculous because it’s the least understood book, but it’s this idea of studying about holiness makes you holy. We don’t have sacrifices to make us holy, but we study these rules, and it’s as if we are holy.

5:52 – AM:

I’ll tell you something else. There’s a part of davening in the morning that is called the karbonot, we say the order of the sacrifices that were given each morning. Most modern Orthodox synagogues skip that part of the davening. It’s not relevant. You have to go to kind of an old-fashioned Hasidic shul to say it. But if you go and you look in the Siddur, the paragraph that we say in the Siddur is, we ask God, consider our saying or studying of these verses to be as if we gave these sacrifices.

6:32 – AM:

Exactly what you said, right? The study is as if we did it, which is absolutely remarkable.

6:49 – GS:

So we have a lot of that material in the source sheet. We’re going to come back to it. I think the source for that practice of Eastern Europe. Is I found it in Yalkut Shemoni. And what’s interesting about this practice of children starting from Vayikra is that it is part of a contextual discussion. So I’m going to go up a few lines and start from Rav Acha in the name of Rabbi Achar Bar Papa said, when the temple existed, we would sacrifice all the sacrifices of the Torah. Now, what is the use of them? The Holy One, blessed be He, said, since you are studying them, I will raise you up as if you were sacrificing them. So exactly as you said, study replaced action.

7:29 – GS:

Then it continues, and there is a little gap in between. Rabbi Asi says, for what reason do we begin instructing children in Torat Kahanim? They should begin with Bereshit. Begin at the beginning of the book. But the Holy One, Blessed One, said, Since children are pure and sacrificial offerings are pure, so should the pure ones engage in study about the pure matters.

7:58 – AM:

So I want to say, first of all, you get a lot of credit for finding that. I never knew that, Yalkut Shimoni. that’s fantastic.

8:04 – GS:

But it’s fascinating to see it within context, because I am going to go out on a little bit of a limb here and say that while pure, definitely the simpl meaning is exactly as you say. Children are holy. The laws of Leviticus, of the temple, all have to do with the holiness code, with creating holiness through sacrifices. I want to suggest a nuance on that, and that is that children have no experience. Children are a blank slate. Nothing that they are studying is impacted by experiences that they have, so forth and so on.

8:52 – GS:

So I think, again, within the context, while clearly pure means tahor and it means holy, It also means, again, as we’re kind of talking about studying for study’s sake, studying in, I wouldn’t say an academic sense, but almost in an abstract (theoretical) , unexperiential sense. This is segregated from real life. It’s not as though these laws are going to come up in the shukh tomorrow, as are the laws of whether it’s mekkah or memchah (buying and selling) of Baba Batra, or it’s the laws of Shabbat. But in any case, the emphasis seriously is on (theoretical) study.

9:37 – GS:

As you said a second ago, and this is all in the source sheet, which I suggest that you all go to in the Safaria source sheet, I have from the Siddur, we make the blessing over learning Torah. And then there’s a bunch of Torah that we learn, and a bunch of it is Karbanot. It’s the second section of Karbanot. And in it, Rabbi, exactly as you said, for the chatat, the guilt offering, it says to teach us that when one studies the law of the sin offering, it is considered as though he had actually brought it on the altar.

10:17 – GS:

Now I had always thought that prayer took the place of action, but if you focus, it’s the study, the Torah of karbonot in this regard that takes the place of action, which I think is fascinating. It goes on with a Yehi Ratzon, which asks God to pardon us for all of our transgressions, and may You (God) build the holy temple quickly. And this is going to come into our conversation a little bit later. It’s not, and I am not suggesting, that the people who said study, study, study when it came to these laws were against having a temple or didn’t wish to have a temple, but they did not believe it was their job to make a temple.

11:06 – GS:

It was their job to either study or, as we’ll see in the next section, where we get to the Tamid, it says, may it be thy will, God, our Lord, and the Lord of our forefathers, that the speech of our lips will be valued and accepted and welcomed before you, as though we have sacrificed the Tamid sacrifice in its time and stood on our post. So again, the nuance here is that, number one, we do pray that God will create this temple, but either through prayer or through study, this has, in fact, replaced the actual ability to do the temple.

11:57 – GS:

And I will interject even here Whereas if it was impossible for me to do a certain commandment, you could say it’s my job to create the context where I could do the commandment. You can see already a certain thread in Jewish thought. For, I would say, passiveness (inaction). I would say the idea is that it is not our job to build the temple. That is up to God. God has told us, according to the Midrash, that as long as there is no temple, this is what you should do. You should study, and you should mouth the words.

12:38 – GS:

But that is the commandment from God at this time. What do you make of all this so far?

12:43 – AM:

I mean, I think this is fascinating. I think there needs to be one thing that we add. You know, the fact that we have three prayers every day, in the morning, the afternoon, and at night, that corresponds to the fact that there were three sacrifices that were given. One in the morning, one in the afternoon, then the evening, the afternoon sacrifice stayed on the altar all night long. So this idea that accept our words as if we gave the sacrifice, it’s really what all prayer is about.

13:22 – AM:

Actually, we’re like hyper-focused on the sacrificial service. Now, we don’t give sacrifices, but in their place, everything we do, all of the prayer services that we have, have these sacrifices in mind.

13:38 – GS:

And the truth is, on Shabbat, that extra service is musaf, which is the name of a sacrifice. Mincha, the afternoon service, is literally called the same name as the mincha sacrifice. I don’t think so much with shachrit and ma’ariv. But you’re absolutely correct. They both correspond, and in the case of Musaf and Mincha, they actually take their name from sacrifice. So there’s no question that even the word avodah, avodah initially always meant the service of the Temple. But when we talk about al shloshah devarim, that on three things the world stands on.

14:20 – GS:

And the avodah there is not—I mean, it could be taken to mean the avodah in the Temple, but it was enlarged to mean the good deeds, the mitzvot and the avodat HaShem. The service of God. So absolutely, Rabbinic Judaism took the temple and made it into words of study and words of prayer. What’s fascinating is if you go back to, for instance, Isaiah—correct me if I’m wrong—Isaiah prayed in the temple. He was co-existent with the Temple. He wasn’t a rabbinic Jew who was preaching after the Temple was destroyed.

15:12 – GS:

And he writes words that are revolutionary. I believe we read them on the High Holidays. What need have I for all your sacrifices? לָמָּה־לִּ֤י רֹב־זִבְחֵיכֶם֙ , says the Lord. I am sated with birthed offerings of ram, and suet of fatlings, and blood of bulls. I have no delight in lambs and he goats that you come to have here before me. Who ask that of you? Trample my courts no more, bring oblation is futile. Incense is offensive to me. New moon and Sabbath proclaiming solemnities, assemblies with iniquity, I cannot abide.

15:53 – GS:

And it goes on and on. They have become a burden to me. He’s talking about hypocrisy. He’s not limited to the service of the temple because he mentions the hypocritical keeping of the Sabbaths and the holidays in the morning and going to the shuk in the afternoon, but he says, cease to do evil, learn to do good, devote yourself to justice, aid the wronged, uphold the rights of the orphan, defend the cause of the widow. Hosea also, I believe, at the time of the Temple, says it a lot more concisely.

16:29 – GS:

Ki chesed חֶ֥סֶד חָפַ֖צְתִּי וְלֹא־זָ֑בַח . I desire chesed, goodness, not sacrifice. So the truth is that this tradition of, I would say, evolving, if one believes that would be the correct word, or certainly transitioning and moving from the actual sacrifices to deeds of good, maybe the lessons behind the sacrifice, those purities that we talked about in the children, this has a deep tradition within both prophetic Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism.

17:08 – AM:

It sure does. And I would say, you made an interesting point, that actually what the Prophet is worried about is hypocrisy. But he expresses that through the sacrifices. And that just shows how important the sacrifices are. That they’re the model for the Prophet. When he wants to make a bigger point, what he uses is the sacrifices. It’s like if we want to talk about something, we make a reference to sports. Because everybody knows sports, so you can make your reference in terms of sports.

17:41 – AM:

So they made their reference in terms of the sacrifices, because that, for them, was what everybody knew.

17:48 – GS:

Absolutely. And this is a thread, but I am arguing it is a very strong thread within prophetic and within rabbinic Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism, you could clearly make the point that this was because they had no temple, they had no other option, but sometimes they even punch that envelope. In Devarim Rabbah 5, it says, this is what scripture says. To do what is right and just is more desired by the Lord than sacrifice. He’s quoting Mishle; Proverbs. The Midrash goes on, Scripture does not say as much as sacrifice, but more than sacrifice.

18:30 – GS:

How is that? Whereas sacrifices could only function inside the temple, to do what is right and just is mandated inside and outside the temple. Another opinion. Whereas sacrifices could only atone for unintentional, accidental sins, acts of righteousness and justice atone even for intentional sins. Another opinion, whereas sacrifices are significant only in this world, righteousness and justice will remain a cornerstone in the coming world. [gs World to come… or in times to come… in the future?] And then it goes on. The end blew me away.

19:08 – GS:

If a person wanted to curse David, what would he do? He would say to David, it would be good if you built the house. You should know what David’s answer was. Psalms 122, was glad when they said to me, let’s go to the house of Hashem. He doesn’t want to build the house. So you clearly have this thread, this strong pathway within both Rabbinic and prophetic Judaism that what we have constructed in Judaism as we know it today is equal to, is parallel to, is an offset, and in the last midrash, even more powerful and better than what we had in the past.

20:04 – GS:

Very powerful tradition.

20:06 – AM

That’s very powerful.

20:07 – AM:

You see, that’s actually a great kind of evolution of this idea. And that is, one is, it’s as if we gave the sacrifices. But since we can’t give sacrifices anymore, we need to say to ourselves that what we’re doing is as good as and then better than actually giving the sacrifices. That’s a way to justify the fact that we can’t actually do it anymore.

20:35 – GS:

There are many different levels to it, but it is not, as we talked about last week, it’s not a minority opinion. There’s a strong, strong tradition for this that starts, as I said from the beginning, with children studying Torah at gan. There’s a piece of Talmud I won’t even quote where Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi, the traditional originator of the Mishnah (the source of Rabbinic Torah) , his favorite area of study was the Torah Kohanim [because it was theoretical ?]. But now let’s move fast-forward to modernity. And we are going to start in 1921 when a certain magazine noticed that Rabbi Kook had opened up a new yeshiva.

21:23 – GS:

And the yeshiva was called Yeshivat Torah Kohanim. And the first magazine to pick it up was called The Christian. It was not a Jewish magazine, and it was saying how the significance of this was so important that he had created this yeshiva and seminary to be established in the Holy Land for instructing priestly and Levite-descending Jews in temple rites. And it seems that all of the secular Zionists got hot under the collar and they huffed and puffed, and Rav Kook actually responded.

22:05 – GS:

And this we have in a text. I couldn’t find it in Hebrew, but it comes from Adapted from Zichron Re’iyah, pp. 201-203; Igrot HaRe’iyah vol. IV, 1127, and I have it in English translated in the source. And Rav Kook says the following, that it is true that Yeshiva Torat Kohanim was established in the Old City with the unique goal that scholars who are Kohanim will study the Talmudic order of Kedoshim, which is the authoritative source. He says, however, the reason we need to do that is we must affirm at all times our eternal aspiration that the temple be rebuilt speedily in our days.

22:52 – GS:

So he is not straying from tradition in saying what Jews aspire to, what they hope to. He goes on to say, even though this yeshiva is entirely and purely an institution for theoretical Torah study, I think I mentioned that before, that’s what we’re talking about, the yeshiva’s establishment nonetheless contains a subtle message to the world. The nations should not think that we have an even a fleeting moment of despair, God forbid, conceded to relinquish our rights to the site of the Temple, the cornerstone of all holy places.

23:29 – GS:

So, again, I think we would be dishonest if we say that Jews throughout the ages, not only including Rav Kook, but especially Rav Kook, prayed and wanted for the temple to be established. He says, nonetheless, divine providence brought about the means so that which was improbable became probable. We are certain that this process will continue. So I wish I had the Hebrew, but from my “diuk” (technical reading of the text and word choice) , from my analysis of the English, what he was saying was that he lived in a time where God had brought us to the state of Israel, something that we had never imagined possible.

24:10 – GS:

And he was preparing in terms of study for when God will bring us the next stage in life and do whatever God wants with these laws, these traditions, and these customs. Again, he is very careful about not saying that we need to go ahead and (actively) build the temple or anything that he was doing was proactive in that way. I think he’s picking his words very carefully. Would you agree?

24:41 – AM

I would agree very, very carefully.

24:43 – GS:

So I talked about the mikdashnikim, the people who are really focused day in and day and night on the Mikdash, and there have been a number of studies about them. And I’m going to quote from two. One was written in 2007 by Moti Inbari, and he talks about there are four schools of thought with regarding to the rebuilding of the temple. And even being on temple grounds, the first rejects such a possibility, which is left to messianic position as shared by the majority of the plenum of the chief rabbinate.

25:23 – GS:

So the chief rabbinate, who Rabbi Kook was a part of, are very strong. We can’t do anything to bring about the rebuilding of the temple, and we certainly cannot enter the temple mount. The second seeks to prepare actively for redemption, but within legitimate religious frameworks, through theoretic studies of the laws relating to the sacrifice. This does not include actual entry into the Temple Mount site and remains, again, within the accepted framework of Torah study. The approach of Avram Yitzchak haCohen-Kook reflects this approach.

25:59 – GS:

The third school argues that the construction of the temple is indeed a public commandment, but before this takes place, spiritual elevation is needed. So, if you look at certain laws, the mitzvot, some are tluyot be’aretz, some require we be in the land, and some actually provide that the Jewish people enter a certain level of religiosity. So that you can work to bring the level of religiosity up, that you can do, but you can’t actually go and make the Temple itself. This approach is the most common among Merkaza Rav Yeshiva school.

26:38 – GS:

The fourth and most activist school permits Jews to enter the temple mount with certain restrictions. To this end, much effort is devoted to studying the borders of the temple, an area to avoid actually walking on a place that you’re not allowed to. This fourth school is becoming more dominant among religious Zionist leadership, both political and rabbinic. That was written in 2007. There is an amazing book that if you are interested in this subject and also interested in where the Dati Leumi, the national religious community is, it’s called Frayed, and it’s by Yair Edinger.

27:23 – GS:

It was originally written only in Hebrew. It came out last year, and it is in English, and he talks about issues that are dividing the national religious community, and some of them have to do with women, some of them have to do with the gay rights LBGTQ community. There’s a whole chapter on the Temple Mount. It’s fascinating, it’s all in the notes, but what is really fascinating to me is how statistically the numbers are growing. This is no longer a fringe movement. This is something that is growing, and it’s becoming very… it’s almost nationalistic in terms of those who aren’t on the bandwagon are almost seen as though they are a defeatist.

28:22 – GS:

And all the statistics are there, but what’s fascinating is some of the people who are criticizing it. I’m going to quote one Dr. Tomer Persico, he’s from the Hartman Institute in Jersalem, and he says that the Jewish Temple Mount movements not only made a radical departure from Rabbi Kook’s vision of redemption as a piecemeal process, they are also demanding the effective secularization of a holy place. The increasing visits by religious Zionists to the temple mounts, he writes, amount to an active revolt against Rabbinic tradition.

29:05 – GS:

Ettinger says we are watching under our very eyes. We’re so used to watching whether it’s Reform or Conservative, others change the law in front of our eyes. Here we have in possibly 10 or 15 years, some people trace it to the Oslo Accords, Others trace it to leaving Gush Katif in Gaza, but somehow there was a displacement and a focus is we are not giving up anymore. We are taking back the Temple. It is a fascinating movement that is happening as we speak. In the notes, I have a screenshot from an interview sent to me by my secular brother-in-law of Moshe Feiglin, who is one of the leaders of this movement.

30:01 – GS:

And above his head in the picture, you can see a picture of the rebuilt Temple. He is actually copying every Palestinian leader that you’ve ever seen who has a picture of the Dome of the Rock behind them. We are going face-to-face, head-to-head with this. What makes it even more confusing is that Feiglin, if you look at his Wikipedia listing, he is for open marriage in Israel. He is for women’s rights. You can’t make a clean argument here. The argument that’s in Frayed is that what combines all of this stuff is (a rejection of) traditional rabbinic leadership.

30:48 – GS:

A rabbi is no longer being respected. And that these movements are just taking the halacha into their own hands. We are in a, it’s a balagan, and it’s a serious one. I’d love to know your thoughts on what’s going on.

31:08 – AM:

I mean Balagan in the sense that there’s no real leadership. That’s the point that you’re making, right? There’s no real leadership. We need leadership. The question is, how do you define what good leadership would be?

31:26 – GS:

It’s funny. It also mirrors the early secular Zionists rejected the rabbis. The rabbis said, wait for the Messiah, pray and study, and they rejected it. And in an ironic way, these new religious Zionists are doing the same thing. They’re again rejecting the rabbis, and they are saying that not only are we not going to listen to them about reclaiming the land, as the early Zionists did, we’re not going to listen to them either when it comes to laws that go against what we want. And it is, and it’s tearing, I believe it’s tearing the religious Zionist movement apart.

32:10 – GS:

We assume they’re one cohesive group. Read this book, Frayed, they are actually not. Maybe that’s good news, but these are definitely interesting times that we’re living in, and certainly there is a rupture with the tradition that we started tracing from the Cheder. I want to end with a little snippet of audio from a podcast, (The Promised Podcast) which is from an interview that was conducted today. It’s from a guy named Bradley Burston. He used to be a writer for the Haaretz. He’s clearly a very secular Jew.

32:49 – GS:

He’s just come out with a book called The End of Israel: Dispatches from a Path to Catastrophe . So, he’s not that optimistic, but what he is going to be talking about when I push the button is that he is seeing this happen, and he’s taking a glimmer of motivation from it that really resonated with me. So I’m going to play it, and then we’re going to end by discussing where this is forcing him to be almost a bigger Zionist and lover of Judaism than we were before.

33:23 – AM

So let’s give a listen. Okay.

33:27 – Bradley Burston

The obsession with bringing back the temple, the obsession with the Temple Mount itself, you know, somebody snaps their fingers and says, oh, well, it’s true that a little while ago, the rabbis determined that we shouldn’t be on the Temple Mount because we would mistakenly step on the Kedosh HaKadoshim, the Holy of Holies, because we don’t know where it is really. Somebody snaps their fingers and says, no, no, now we can all go up in Temple Mount, and we should, and we should make pictures of how we’re gonna build a third Temple, and we should study this sacrificial rituals.

33:54 – Speaker 2

And I’m thinking, well, I guess I don’t understand idolatry very well, because I’m worried that that’s what’s happening here, that there’s all kinds of new idols that are being celebrated. We saw it during the war. The war hadn’t been going on very long. And there’s a convention in Jerusalem that was the Dancing on the Blood Convention, where they decided that we have to resettle Gaza permanently. We have to go back, because that’s what’s important now. So, I don’t want to leave this place to those people.

34:21 – Speaker 2

I don’t want to feel like I’ve done everything I could to keep some kind of sane and humanistic element to Judaism. Because it’s all there in the teaching, you just decide which things you decide to follow.

34:32 – AM

Wow.

34:33 – GS:

And I couldn’t have said it better, and I think that’s the source of Madlik. I don’t want to leave Judaism to others to decide what it is. I want to have a voice.

34:43 – AM

That’s amazing.

34:44 – AM:

That’s remarkable, that little snippet. Thank you.

34:48 – GS:

So I really do think that this means that it’s just that much more important. For those of us who have his opinion, I love the way he ends where he says, he’s not saying they don’t have a leg to stand on, but what he’s saying is we all have to fight for our Torah. And in this particular case, I’ll be damned, I’m going to fight for my Torat Cohanim.

AM: I’m fighting too.

GS:  I’m going to fight for my Israel and I’m going to fight for my Judaism.

35:15 – GS

So here’s to the fight.

35:16 – AM:

Thank you so much. Here’s to the fight. Happy Purim, everybody. This is amazing. See everybody next Thursday. Can’t wait.

35:23 – Multiple Speakers

Have a great Purim, everybody.

35:25 – GS:

I know it’s hard to say happy Purim in these days. But because I’m involved with so much charity work in Israel, all day I’ve been seeing pictures of children who are displaced from the South and the North having full bloated Purim parties, because for them they have to remember, they have to forget, they have to enjoy. I’ve seen Purim parties for soldiers. So, it might be hard for us to celebrate Purim, but trust me, there are people out there who are being encouraged to forget, to take a little vacation in their mind and remember the beauty of life, the happiness of life, the joy of life, (the silliness of life), the simcha of life.

36:13 – GS:

And I’m going to have pictures of those people celebrating Purim in my mind, this Purim, when I try to celebrate. So Purim Sameach to you all.

Sefaria Source Sheet: www.sefaria.org/sheets/553283

Listen to last year’s episode: Oops I did it again



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Temple Politics

parshat tetzaveh, exodus 28

Join Geoffrey Stern and Rabbi Adam Mintz recorded on Clubhouse on March 2nd 2023. We survey the prophetic and Rabbinic re-imagining of a Temple culture without a Temple but we also continue our discussion from last week where we noted how messianism, including Jewish Messianism includes an eschatological, often violent break with accepted practice, intentionally breaking moral and Rabbinic norms to hasten the end. We explore how after the Six Day War, but specifically after the Oslo Accords previous Rabbinic guidance relating to the sanctity of the Temple Mount has been cast aside.

Sefaria Source sheet: https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/470857

Transcript:

Welcome to Madlik.  My name is Geoffrey Stern and at Madlik we light a spark or shed some light on a Jewish Text or Tradition.  Along with Rabbi Adam Mintz, we host Madlik Disruptive Torah on clubhouse every Thursday and share it as the Madlik podcast on your favorite platform. This week’s Torah portion is Tetzaveh. We survey the prophetic and Rabbinic re-imagining of a Temple culture without a Temple but we also continue our discussion from last week where we noted how Jewish Messianism includes an often violent break with accepted practice, intentionally breaking moral and Rabbinic norms to hasten the end. We explore how after the Six Day War, but specifically after the Oslo Accords previous Rabbinic guidance relating to the sanctity of the Temple Mount has been cast aside. So join us for Temple Politics.

more

Well, welcome back another week in Madlik. And obviously, I think we’ve all been watching the news out of Israel and two, beautiful Jewish souls were killed in a terrorist attack. But afterwards, some of the video that we’ve all seen is as as I wouldn’t say, as disturbing nothing can be as disturbing as the loss of life. But some seemingly ultra orthodox Jews lit some Palestinian homes on fire. And as the sun set, decided to dive in, Maariv, and that juxtaposition of praying while people’s homes burned, was really a disconcerting to say the least. So as I said, in the introduction, we’re gonna continue the conversation of what the temple means and what it meant after it was no longer with us. But we are going to fast forward into the present in terms of how the temple has been politicized in terms of the change in halacha. And what more better subject for Madlik then to review how halacha is changing in front of our very eyes. And Rabbi Adam, how are you this week?

Adam Mintz  02:21

I’m really good. I mean, it’s not California, but we’re good here in New York, and I’m looking forward. This is a great conversation, and I’m looking forward to having

Geoffrey Stern  02:30

fantastic so in Pasha Exodus 28: 2 says make sacral vestments for your brother Aaron for dignity and adornment. Make בִגְדֵי־קֹ֖דֶשׁ  holy clothing for Aaron your brother, לְכָב֖וֹד וּלְתִפְאָֽרֶת  for Kavod and adornments, beauty, and maybe you are not aware, because we’ve really not discussed this tradition in Judaism many times before. But there is a tradition that there are a certain set numbers of commandments; 613 commandments, and at a certain time, Maimonides wrote a book called Sefer HaMitzvot. And this began a tradition of writing a book and counting the very different commandments. So the first thing that one does, when one looks at a innocuous pasuk like this, a verse like this, that simply says, do something, when wants to see did it rank to become one of those 613 commandments, and lo and behold, in safer ha mitzvah, the positive commandments, number 33. It says that is that he commanded the priests to wear special garments for glory and adornment, so they can serve in the temple. And that is his saying, and make holy garments for your brother Aaron from glory and adoration. So he quotes our verse, and he says that this is an actual commandment. And he goes on to say, and it already appears in the Sifra, which is a midrashic commentary that wearing these garments is a positive commandment. So we’ve been focused in the last week or two on building the tabernacle, the Mishkan and now we’re getting to the accessories if you will. And from this verse, we learned that wearing the clothing is an accessory. But Rabbi the first thing that struck me was the pasuk says make Sacred vestments   וְעָשִׂ֥יתָ בִגְדֵי־קֹ֖דֶשׁ  make them and all of the commentaries universally say that the commandment is to wear the special garments. Are you struck by that as well?

Sefaria Source Sheet:

Temple Politics | Sefaria

Parshat Tetzaveh – We survey the prophetic and Rabbinic re-imagining of a Temple culture without a Temple but we also continue our discussion from last week where we noted how Jewish Messianism includes an often violent break with accepted practice, intentionally breaking moral and Rabbinic norms to hasten the end.

Listen to last year’s episode: Why Blue and White?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized