Hello Rabbi, following what I sent you today on WhatsApp – Rabbi Shafran’s letter – I am interested in your opinion regarding the aforementioned words of Rabbi Shmuel Nadel, son of Rabbi Gedaliah zt”l.
The lesson in question is mainly about the renewal of the blue sky, but the punch in his words and what caused a stir in the audience were his words at the end of the lesson about the sacrifices.
He said there about the controversy that arose in recent generations about whether it is legally possible to offer a Passover sacrifice in our day even without the Temple, and that even if halakhic research instructs us that this is necessary, we will not do so under any circumstances [regardless of the political issue and the problem with mosques, etc.] because today we have no connection to the work of sacrifice, we have no idea what it is in practice, and that all the halakhic material written about sacrifices does not really show us what it is, and anyone who would offer sacrifices in our day is crazy and is doing foolish things, even if halakhic law in a dry way instructed us that this is what should be done.
According to him, in the rest of the commandments, our connection is the continuous tradition from generation to generation, while in the matter of sacrifices there is a gap of hundreds of years and the Messiah will restore the connection to us – he quoted the Chazo’a who said to those who asked him about the Passover sacrifice in our generation, “Do you want to make a slaughterhouse there?” And he quoted another who said to him, “The Holy One, blessed be He, has done us a favor by preventing us from performing the work of sacrifices.”
Do you identify with these things?
I am including the lesson here. The words about the victims that caused a stir that led to an intervention from one of the conference moderators are towards the end of the lesson:
They’ve already sent me a summary of the things that happened (someone from the conference editors who was in contact with me sent me a response to the things that came up).
I disagree, even though there is logic in his words. If there is a halakhic obligation, there is an obligation, and one should not make a calculation of connection and meaning. Unless there is a halakhic argument that explains why the idna does not belong in the sacrifice.
What is the logic in his words?
His assumption is apparently that there is no obligation to keep the Torah, and then of course it makes sense…
Before Passover, my daughter's school organized an event to raise the two loaves of bread. It started with some Levite children blowing long trumpets. Then some priestly children carried plates that resembled the two loaves of bread. Then two live lambs appeared. A priest, the father of one of the children, was asked to raise one lamb. Then they asked the audience to hold the other lamb. I went to hold it. I was told to raise it. I am a Levite, but it was just for show, so I tried to raise it. In the middle of the raising, I felt the lamb resisting me, so I put it down. After that, the priests asked me to say a blessing without a blessing (not as part of the recitation of the shetz). I answer Amen and the lamb says Mehaha. After that, a discussion developed as to whether when the leader said, "These are the lambs of Shelomith," he was consecrating them or if it was just to learn. After that, we went to crush wheat.
*Weeks ago
Yishai,
If I understood correctly, his technical reasoning (although he shortened the halachic explanations and discussed mainly matters of feeling and connection, so take this with limited liability), is that only part of the oral Torah was written down, and an important and significant part remained as oral tradition, and therefore when the part that remained oral was lost from the tradition, it is impossible to use the written instructions to restore the mitzvah because the bodies of Torah that are supposed to be passed down in the unwritten tradition are missing.
Roni
So I understand that he has 2 separate claims.
One is about feeling and connection, and what I said is correct about that.
Second, the Torah that we have is limited, and therefore we can only rely on what he has in practice. Apart from the fact that this claim is strange and we haven't really heard about this loss, it is not clear what its implications are. If ostensibly a blue thread should be cast, why would the disadvantage in the Tosh”a change that? The worst thing that can happen is that you didn't do the mitzvah in full. (Unless he claims that there is a disadvantage in the white thread, and I know someone who claims this and claims that because of the inability to decide how many threads of blue thread are needed, there is a concern about a disadvantage in the white thread anyway [which is a strange claim in itself, since blue thread cannot be decided, unlike other disputes], but this claim has nothing to do with the lost tradition in the Bible)
Yishai, if I understand correctly, he does not see this as two claims, but as two sides of the same coin. What we have lost in the loss of tradition are precisely the Torah bodies that are responsible for the fine-tuning of the mitzvah with life and its ways. And the lack of connection and the lack of knowledge of what exactly the percentages do to each other.
The claim of “the worst that can happen…” is not a halakhic claim. The claim of ‘if it doesn't help, it won't hurt’ is not common in the Gemara, and besides that he claims that there is also harm – lack of connection.
But it's better to ask him, there's no point in guessing and speculating what he believes (if that were my opinion, I would explain it, but this is not).
This is entirely a halakhic claim. If there is an apparent obligation, then one only needs to check whether there is anything to the contrary. One can always say that perhaps we are mistaken. For that, there needs to be a basis for doubt, and even then, if there is no contrary concern, then doubt is a grave matter (one can argue that it is not in accordance with a positive commandment, but he did not say that).
Yishai, in his opinion, the rules that the Torah is sufficient for the Ḥumra, and not only doubt but even doubt that the Ḥumra is certainly from the Torah (even according to the Maimonides), were stated only in a place where there is a living tradition, because tradition is the foundation for the life of Torah and mitzvot.
(I agree with you completely, just explaining what he said).
It seems to me that this is the essence of the dispute between the ‘Haredi’ and ’Religious Zionism’ or between Rashi and Maimonides” whether a third temple is from heaven or in the hands of man. Religious Zionism sees the redemption as something that is in our hands and the beginning of the redemption has already been accomplished in our hands, therefore we must work to complete the redemption by building the Temple and offering sacrifices.
Harediism holds that Rashi's entire view of the redemption is a miraculous view, for the reason that the Judaism we have received does not include a form of government suitable for our time and does not include offering sacrifices. What kind of government do we want? A democracy that has no understanding of the kingdom of Israel and nothing, or a monarchy like in the days of David? No form of Jewish halakhic government has developed that has adapted itself to the times. And we do not have a halakhic tradition that has developed in accordance with the reality of the sacrifices. The attempt to sacrifice today is like an attempt to establish a monarchy. The wonder is that the same religious Zionism that accepts with complete submission fashionable universal values such as feminism, etc., is working to establish a Temple that is nothing strange or repugnant in today's world of values. I look forward to seeing the videos on the network of the slaughter of the Tamidim, they will apparently be in the same category as the videos of the Da'esh.
Yaakov M., the end of your words is quite strange, those from religious Zionism who support feminism are not the same ones who support the construction of the Temple in our time, etc. These are two extremes in the national religious public that you are probably not aware of
Regarding videos of the slaughter of the Tamidim: The videos of the Samaritans' Passover sacrifice are actually very popular on YouTube and thousands of Israelis travel to Mount Gerizim every year to see the sacrifice (it does not take place on the same date as our Passover) out of curiosity
Amir,
It is precisely those who go up to the Temple Mount who are also more open from a feminist perspective and the like. And the more conservative ones also avoid going up to the Temple Mount.
There are many technical problems in building a Temple (the first of which is the location of the altar). The Temple Institute is apparently struggling and I am still afraid that it will take time for them to deal with everything. But I would not be complacent. People thought that there would be no Jewish state either, and suddenly seventy years ago it emerged (even if in the form of the kingdom of Ahab). The Temple could still emerge here much faster than people think. Just a year ago in the Magnometers, foreigners were prevented from entering the Temple Mount for two weeks. Which has not happened in two thousand and five hundred years since Jeremiah asked “Foreigners who crack open the temple, and where are your terrors?”. Its terrors are already on the way. Something will happen spiritually and foreigners will be prevented from entering the mount. We live in alarming times and I would avoid complacent predictions.
S”d 2’ b’ Av ”h
Without setting nails in the words of Rabbi Shmuel Nadel, which I did not have time to review, I will note that there are mitzvot that require maturity and mental fitness beyond the age of ’thirteen for the mitzvot’. For example, they used to wait until the age of 18 to fulfill the mitzvot of fertility and reproduction (and today even longer) because a 13-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl are not yet mature for the responsibilities of married life, and therefore the Torah does not obligate them to do what they cannot fulfill.
There is a similarity between standing before God and the state of marriage, in both there is an aspiration to reach a state of ‘Shekhina between them’, and the responsibility is not simple: Can we meet the requirements of purity that the service of the Temple requires? Can we meet the strict requirements of the ‘Holy Temple’ not to be careless before the ’ (which is not easy for us even in the ’small Temple’…); Can we meet the requirements of unity and peace required in the Temple?
It is not for nothing that the Torah conditioned the construction of the Temple on the condition that ‘And the ’He gave you rest from all your enemies and you dwelt in safety’ (Deuteronomy 12:10). The First Temple was built after a king who united all Israel arose and awoke to build it, and he too had to wait until Solomon reigned, during whose days the people would dwell in safety without wars. There was no king in the Second Temple, and it is likely that this is why many thought that ’It was not the time for the House of the ’to be built’ until Haggai the prophet awakened them and made it clear to them that the time had come.
In our generation, the question arose after the Six-Day War when Rabbi Yitzhak Nissim, the late (who was asked about it by Attorney General Meir Shamgar, in connection with the “Association for the Establishment of the Temple” that sought to register) brought up various methods here and there on the question of whether it is possible to build the Temple without a king or a prophet? Rabbi Nissim concludes:
“From all of the above, it must be concluded that when the majority of the Jewish people gather in their land, and this majority agrees to build it, and the matter of the building is not subject to the will of an individual or individuals. When we deserve this, the rabbis of Israel will convene and they will discuss and decide on the matter.
In any case, this matter is the greatest of Judaism and is the purpose of our lives, and for this we have prayed and our eyes are fixed on it every day and every hour.” That this great and terrible deed, which is unparalleled, would not be conceivable to be done by men, but that the entire nation from end to end should awaken for it and act accordingly…’
(Rabbi Yitzhak Nissim, General and Particular – Hilchot Katzovot, 1, Jerusalem 577”8, pp. 45-5)
It seems that the Temple is the connection of all Israel to their Creator, and therefore it should be done when the majority of the fast is in its land and with the will of the majority of the people and their sages. It seems, therefore, that in addition to engaging in the laws of the Temple, which the ’Cafetz Chaim’ has awakened, – the more we awaken the people's love for their land and the more love and unity among the parts of the people – we will bring God closer to building the Temple.
With blessings, Sh”c Levinger
S.C - You wrote some beautiful things and it could be said that you moderated the words of Rabbi Shmuel Nadel, who expressed himself more sharply [“to offer sacrifices today is madness” “foolishness” and other more or less sharp expressions of opposition]
Y.D - You may be talking specifically about figures like Yehuda Glick, whose positions are unique and different from most of the activists of the ascent to the Mount [I am not one of them, but I know the people and styles on the whole issue]. Most of the activists of the ascent to the Mount and the immigrants are really not from the liberal camp in the national religious community, those you wrote about who avoid it are mainly from the circles of Mount Moriah [but not only] but not all the conservatives in the national religious community come from this beit midrash - there are, for example, the students of Rabbi Dov Lior who are far from the liberal group and who ascend to the Mount, and there are others
Shchel and Amir – What does the Temple have to do with this? One can offer sacrifices even without it. Why do we need the entire Jewish people to be mentally prepared so that I can personally offer a sin offering for my inadvertent desecration of the Sabbath?
D’
The verse says “And I will make your sanctuaries and not let your fragrant smell be smelled”. From this they learned that any sacrifice that is for a fragrant smell cannot be offered without a sanctuary. They checked and found that only the Passover sacrifice is not for a fragrant smell. During my brilliant research, the author of Derishat Zion and the Valley claimed that even after the destruction, Passover offerings were still offered on the altar, and only after the Bar Kokhba war did the altar fall and they stopped offering Passover offerings. This sin is for a fragrant smell, and therefore it cannot be offered without a sanctuary.
To the point
In Turkey, they decided to renew the Muslim law to allow girls from the age of 9 and older to marry:
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12766/child-brides-turkey
Indeed, if Mr. Erdogan has come to the conclusion that even little girls are ready to start a family, let him go and build the Temple, and be remembered for generations as Cyrus, Darius, and Herod, who built the Second Temple, and about him it will be said: Whoever has not seen a building built by Erdogan has never seen a beautiful building 🙂
With greetings, Rajip Tayyip Lovinoglu
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
