Q&A: Three commandments: Is there a mechanism saying the public is still not yet obligated in the positive commandment to build the Temple?
Three commandments: Is there a mechanism saying the public is still not yet obligated in the positive commandment to build the Temple?
Question
The Sages stated that there are three commandments that Israel was commanded upon entering the Land: to wipe out the seed of Amalek, to appoint a king for themselves, and to build the Chosen House. Building the Chosen House is the last of them.
Is it possible to define things such that as long as the public has not fulfilled appointing a king and wiping out Amalek, they are not yet subject to the obligation of the Temple?
Really like a minor or an incompetent person who has not yet reached the stage of being obligated in commandments?
And the practical implication might be for other situations too, when the nation is not ripe for the Temple—(there is no “they shall seek the Lord their God and David their king,” there is no ethical and moral level, and regarding a Temple without an ethical and moral level the prophets warn of destruction, and in general “What need have I of all your sacrifices?”)—that this is not a neglect of a positive commandment, but rather the public is still not yet “subject to obligation” in this public commandment.
Of course, the conditions were never actually fulfilled: in the First Temple period the seed of Amalek still existed, and in the Second Temple period too, seemingly, the seed of Amalek also existed and they had no king. And seemingly the House indeed waited, but the sacrificial service took place at that time in the Tent.
In any case, if we define the three commandments—or even the prophecy that specifically “your son will build the House for My name, and not you”—as a category meaning that they are still not yet subject to obligation, this would make things easier for us now, when the moral and ethical situation is not at all certain to be suitable for building the House for the sake of God; and when it is not suitable, this is a commandment whose obligated parties are still not yet subject to obligation, and there is no concern here of neglecting a positive commandment.
(Of course, outside the discussion is the question of danger, since security experts apparently claim that right now this is dangerous, and we have not found that one risks life for this positive commandment.)
Answer
See an overview here: https://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/32136
Amalek does not exist today, so that is not relevant.
A king is perhaps sovereignty, and there is room to say that this exists (in my opinion, it does not).
The moral and ethical state is a consideration in its own right, and there is no need to hang it on other considerations that probably do not really hold water.
Discussion on Answer
Absolutely not. I mean that the public is not interested right now in establishing a Temple, and it does not speak to them. Therefore this commandment is not relevant at present.
And suppose the public were interested, but morally and ethically it was at rock bottom, in a state of disgrace agreed upon by all humanity.
Would it be obligated in the Temple in that state?
Did the prophets prophesy in God’s name for no reason?
Just for decoration?
That is a hypothetical question. If the public is ready to build, then it has an obligation to build. If its moral condition is bad, then let them repent.
And as long as the nation has not improved its ways and behaves with moral and ethical baseness,
is it exempt from the positive commandment of building a House for God (which it actually is interested in)?
No. It is obligated.
And what about the fact that the prophets warn again and again in God’s name that He does not desire this, and even promise that it will be destroyed in a state of moral baseness?
Doesn’t that put this commandment on hold?
No. The words of the prophets do not have halakhic status, and it is also incorrect to derive that conclusion from them. If the generation is morally corrupt, that does not exempt it from the commandment, but obligates it to repent. When there is a Temple and there are moral defects, are we exempt from sacrifices? (“What need have I of all your sacrifices?”!) Obviously not.
Okay, we’ve exhausted this.
Does the Rabbi mean that a nation whose moral values are lower than those of the world at that time (for example: crowning over the nation a person accused of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust—a low act not accepted among civilized nations; they would not appoint such a person even as assistant principal of some remote school—and specifically many religious and Haredi rabbis support this, meaning their ethical state is lower than that of healthy secular people, literally, and “sinners shall stumble through them,” “if one merits, it becomes for him an elixir of life; if not, it becomes for him an elixir of death”—that is, he becomes morally more base and lowly)
is not fit in that generation for the Temple?