Q&A: Fulfilling the Temple Commandments and Conducting the Service in a Temporary Tabernacle Built and Dismantled on the Temple Mount
Fulfilling the Temple Commandments and Conducting the Service in a Temporary Tabernacle Built and Dismantled on the Temple Mount
Question
To Rabbi Dr. Michael Abraham, greetings,
I would like to ask the Rabbi for his halakhic opinion regarding the political and interreligious circumstances surrounding the fulfillment of the Temple commandments and the Temple service in the ongoing present—that is, not "tomorrow morning," but in circumstances that may persist for years or decades. This is based on the premise that one should respect the feelings and sensitivities of nearly two billion Muslim believers around the world, and their corresponding shari'a laws as well (and there are also halakhic considerations of "ways of peace").
Likewise, I do not want to dwell here on issues of corpse-impurity, appointing priests, validating the location of the altar, the need for monarchy, and so on. These are fascinating and important issues, but that is not the halakhic topic I wish to raise.
I should also add in advance that, from my study of the Qur'an, the hadith, contemporary shari'a discourse in the laws of waqf (Islamic endowment), and also the statements of the Palestinian delegation to the Western Wall commission that was established בעקבות the events of 1929, I came to understand that there is no fundamental shari'a problem with Jewish worship in the courtyard of al-Aqsa (al-Haram al-Sharif). (I would add that Israeli Muslims with whom I have spoken about this did not object to the very idea of Jewish worship in the courtyard of al-Aqsa, but mainly to "Ben-Gvir and the settlers," etc.) By contrast, there is a shari'a problem in permanently converting a waqf area that was dedicated to mosques and public prayer to another purpose.
And now to the question itself, in three parts:
- In the Rabbi's opinion, is it possible to fulfill all the halakhic obligations connected with the Temple and its construction by means of a tabernacle that is built and dismantled for the needs of the service (the morning offering, the afternoon offering, lighting the menorah, the showbread, etc.) in an open area on the Temple Mount that includes the location of the altar of burnt offering? (I am not familiar with any view that says the place of the altar is where there is currently an Islamic structure.)
- Is it correct to say that it is indeed possible to fulfill all the halakhic obligations connected with the Temple and its construction as above, even if that tabernacle, when it is erected, does not surround the Dome of the Rock (assuming that within it lies the former site of the Holy of Holies), so long as on Yom Kippur the order of the service is carried out by the High Priest (sprinkling, confession, etc.) inside the Dome of the Rock?
- Is there any halakhic problem with accepting, in some normalization agreement between the State of Israel and a Muslim authority or state, that within these outlines for a tabernacle built and dismantled, the Jewish (-Israeli) demands regarding the Temple commandments and the service there on the Temple Mount would come to an end—even without a permanent structure? (Or perhaps with the accompanying note that "we hope for international and interreligious recognition, through the free will of the nations of the world, in the fullness of time, when the earth shall be filled with knowledge of the Lord, to allow of their own free will the development of the Temple as a house of prayer for all peoples," etc.?)
I would be glad if the Rabbi would indicate the sources and halakhic principles on which he would rely in answering.
Many thanks in advance, and with tremendous blessing,
Ofir Eliyahu Gal-Ezer
P.S. I would note that in my opinion, a tabernacle that is built and dismantled is more ideal for the Jewish people than a permanent Temple, in light of the tendency of the Jewish people throughout the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) to rely on the Temple as something that would save them from enemies, and to idolize the Temple as a mediator between God and man: "Do not trust in deceptive words and say: 'The Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord are these'" (Jeremiah 7:4), and in the spirit of what is said in II Samuel chapter 7: "Go and say to My servant David: Thus says the Lord: Would you build Me a house to dwell in? For I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought up the children of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have gone about in a tent and in a tabernacle. Wherever I have gone among all the children of Israel, did I ever speak a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people Israel, saying: Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?"
Answer
A hypothetical and unnecessary discussion. When the Muslims agree to a mobile tabernacle in that place, they will also agree to building the Temple. By the way, offerings can be brought even without a Temple.
Discussion on Answer
To hold a discussion with the Muslims about agreeing to Jewish worship on the Temple Mount seems to me like discussing with a pastry chef how to eat the cake and still have it whole, when he does not even want to bake it for you.
But go on with your efforts. Apparently you make a living from this bizarre occupation.
First of all, let the Jewish people among themselves agree that they want the cake and not to demolish the bakery.
See an article I published on the subject in the Tel Aviv University journal Urbanologia on constructing the discourse (there may currently be a problem with the site) –
https://urbanologia.tau.ac.il/al-aqsa/
Do I make a living from this? Spiritually. No one pays me money for it. This is work that comes from a sense of mission and social responsibility.
Someone who regularly gets paid for teaching Torah would be the last person who should preach on this subject.
For me it is not unnecessary at all. I am personally working to create a conversation on this issue in Jewish and Arab society in this country, in the hope that if a Jewish movement arises that speaks in the language of equality, partnership, and peace on the Temple Mount–al-Aqsa, there will also be Muslims in this country and around the world who may want to join it, and it will have a meaningful voice that will be worth taking seriously even among actual decision-makers regarding procedures on the Temple Mount.
It is always possible to dismiss initiatives in advance, but someone who gives up in advance on political or religious change may be doing so mainly out of misplaced despair or laziness. Even a journey of a thousand steps begins with one step, and so do significant political and religious movements.
This issue is so important for the security of all the inhabitants of the region, and since 1929 every intifada and even the October 7 attack has been called the "al-Aqsa Flood." This place needs to be a symbol of peace that brings healing, and many Muslims may also support an idea that speaks in the language of equality, partnership, and peace, in order to open a path to peace and stability. Because everyone needs that and it is in everyone's interest, and it is not hard to understand that without a reality of coexistence on the Temple Mount–al-Aqsa, a most necessary part of international peace or stability will be missing, and that decision-makers will not be able to agree on anything on the matter without support from the peoples themselves (and see where peace talks got stuck in the past).
By contrast, someone who rejects every good initiative in advance, even at the level of discussion, will never get anywhere, and someone who in every attempt to solve a conflict points at the other side in advance will be condemned to a life of misery. (And I am not saying that the Rabbi rejects everything and blames others for everything in his life from the outset, but an approach of that kind is reflected in this specific answer of yours.)
With abundant blessing,
Ofir (the questioner)