J.

David B leic h
The author of this essay is Rabbi of The Yorkvile
Synagogue - Congregation B'nai Jehuda and teaches
philosophy at Hunter College of the City University
of New York, and the James Striar School of Ye-
shiva University.

A REVIEW OF HALAKHIC LITERATURE

PERTAINING TO THE REINSTITUTION
OF THE SACRIFICIAL ORDER
". . . All the conversations of mankind centre around the land. . . All
the prayers of Israel centre around the Temple. . . 'Mari matai yitbeni
Bet ha-Mikdash - Lord, when wil the Temple be rebuilt?''' (Bereshit
Rabba, XIII, 2)
A chain forged of the prayers although intrinsically old, are new
and yearnings of centuries rivets in the imminence of their applica-
the Jew to Jerusalem with a bind- bilty. Questions regarding sanctity
ing force and tenacity greater than of the Temple site, entry onto the
that of an iron bond. Despite the Temple mount and even the pos-
length and vicissitudes of the dis- sibility of resuming the sacrificial
persion, at no time were the links of service have now been transformed
this chain severed, in no place were into halakhic issues begging for
they corroded. The Temple ruins, clear-cut and definitive answers.
standing desolate in far-off Jerusa- To Torah students examination
lem, were always, to the Jew, the of these topics was never. a mere
focal point of his dreams and aspi- academic exercise upon which
rations. His heart in the East, his scholars, seeking to develop intel-
thoughts attuned to Zion, wherever lectual acumen and halakhic prow-
his physical abode, he stood "be- ess, honed their minds. Even
fore thy gates, 0 Jerusalem!" though its laws are temporarily in
The dramatic events of this past abeyance, Seder Kodshim, an inte-
June have made the concern of gral part of Divine Revelation, was
ages even more vivid. During the always approached with reverence
ensuing months, to a greater degree and zeal in the true spirit of Torah
than ever before: the hearts and li-shmah. Such study may often
minds of world Jewry have been have been denigrated and relegated
filled with solicitude and care for to the realm of the irrelevant and
the Land of IsraeL. The newly-re- the inconsequential; cynics may
covered Holy Places command the have scoffed and do indeed con-
attention and dominate the conver- tinue to quip that this involvement
sation of Jews everywhere. Over- with charting "the pathways to the
night, Halakhah has been called Kingdom of Heaven" is misplaced.
upon to grapple with a whole new Yet it is precisely this concern that
set of problems - problems, which is so eloquent a testimony to the

103
 TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
abiding emunah of the Jew, to his and to delineate the maze of hala-
recognition of the intrinsic worth khic diffculties with which they are
of every facet of Torah study and fraught. As such the scope of this
to his vivid and eager anticipa- presentation is far from exhaustive.
tion - "mehera yibaneh ha-Mik- Hopefully, the reader wil find his
dash!" appetite whetted and wil be
Needless to say, in the normal prompted to peruse the original
course of communal life questions sources.
of immediate relevance had pri-
mary claim on the time and atten-
tion of Torah authorities and their The rebuilding of the Bet ha-
investigation quite naturally super- Mikdash itself is unquestionably
seded that of areas divorced from precluded until the coming of the
practical application. Moreover, the Messiah.! Rashi in his commentary
student of Kodshim was at an on Sukkah 41a and Rosh ha-Sha-
added disadvantage in that this dis- nah 30a states that the third Tem-
cipline was surrounded by a laby- ple wil not be a human artifact but
rinth of abstract technicalities and shall miraculously appear as a fully
he was accordingly forced to con- built edifice. According to Rashi's
ceptualize with regard to matters opinion the verse, "The sanctuary,
which did not fall within the pale o Lord, which Thy hands have
of his experience. The result was established" (Exodus 15: 17) re-
the relative neglect of Seder Kod- fers to the future Bet ha-Mikdash.2
shim, a development already de- The Rambam, on the other hand,
cried by so early a figure as the .enumerates the building of the Bet
Rambam (Commentary on the ha-Mikdash as one of the 613 com-
Mishnah, Introd. to Seder Kod- mandments.3 Since the very nature
shim), and a cònsequent paucity of of a commandment implies a deed
halakhic literature pertaining to to be performed by man rather than
this field of inquiry. an act emanating from God, the
While the specific question of re- Rambam obviously maintains that
institution of the sacrificial rites the Bet ha-Mikdash wil be the pro-
has been discussed from time to duct of human endeavor. However,
time in rabbinic writings, for the he states explicitly that this Bet ha-
most part these discussions are re- M ikdash wil be rebuilt only with
condite analyses of an already ob- the advent of the Messiah himself.
scure subject. Nevertheless, de- Not only wil the Temple be built
spite the intricate nature of the by the Messiah but this construc-
subject matter, its current rele- tion wil serve as substantiation of
vance demands that we strive the messianic claim. ". . . If he
for an understanding and ap- builds the Bet ha-Mikdash on its
preciation of the grave halakhic site and gathers in the dispersed of
issues involved. This review h:is IsraeL. kê is, in certainty, the Mes-
been undertaken as an attempt at siah.f' (Mishneh Torah, Melakhim,
least partially to acquaint the read- XI, 4)
er with the nature of these issues The proposal to reestablish the

104
 A Review of Halakhic Literature
sacrificial rites despite the absence point in his discussion of the section
of a Bet ha-Mikdash is based upon Rabban Gamliel omer. Further evi-
the statement of Rabbi Joshua dence that sacrifices were actually
('Eduyot VIII, 6 cited Shevuot 16a brought after the destruction is ad-
and Megilah lOa) "I have heard duced by Rabbi Zevi Hirsch Chajes
that (it is permitted J to sacrifice in his Responsa, nos. 2 and 76 and
although there is no Temple." This chapter 2 of his Darkei Hora'ah.6
dictum is accepted by the Rambam These historical contentions are re-
as authoritative (M. T., Bet ha-Be- butted by R. Chaim Nathanson in
chirah, VI, 15).4 Further confirma- his Avodah Tamah (Altona, 5632).
tion that the offering of sacrifices in Whatever may have been the
our own day is at least a theoretical case in the period immediately fol-
possibility is to be found in the lowing the destruction of the Tem-
Rambam's statement (M. T., Ma'a- ple, the centuries which ensued wit-
seh ha-Korbanot, XIX 15) that the nessed the total abrogation of the
penalty for shechutei chutz - the sacrificial rites.7 For generations re-
slaughtering of sacrificial animals sumption of sacrifice was at best a
other than at the temple site - ap- theoretical possibility; its translation
plies also in our time. Since the into practice could have been no
penalty is applicable only in those more than an ephemeral phantasy.
instances in which the animal is Nevertheless, the report of a con-
ra'uy le-fnim - where there are no crete proposal for the reinstitution
halakhic impediments to its being of sacrifices occurs in an early 14th
offered as a sacrifice at the proper century work entitled Kaftor va-
site - the apparent conclusion is Ferach written by R. Ishturi ha-
that Maimonides accepted, at least Parchi, a victim of the French ex-
in theory, the possibility of reinsti- pulsion. The author recounts hav-
tution of the sacrificial service.5 ing brought his manuscript to a
There is also some historical evi- certain Rabbi Barukh in Jerusalem
dence that sacrifices - particularly in order that the latter might ex-
the paschal sacrifice - were offered amine and correct the work prior to
sporadically during the period im- publication. Rabbi Barukh is re-
mediately following the destruction ported to have informed the author
of the Temple. R. Jacob Emden of Kaftor va-F erach of the sur-
(She'elat Ya'avez, VoL. I, No. 89) prising fact that in the year 5017
identifies the Rabban Gam1Iel quot- Rabbenu Yechiel (or Rabbenu
ed in Pesachim 74a as commanding Channanel or Rabbenu Chayyim,
his servant, Tabi, "Go and roast the depending upon the variant textual
Pesach sacrifice," with the Rabban readings) 8 of Paris wished to emi-
Gamliel who served as head of the grate to Israel and there to offer
Academy in Yavneh after the de- sacrifices. The author raises certain
struction of the Temple. The Tash- objections but states that due to the
batz, R. Simon ben Zemah Duran, pressure of reviewing the manu-
in his commentary on the Hagad- script he did not pursue the matter
dah, Yavin Shemu'ah (Livorno, by discussing the questions involved
5504) makes essentially the same with his mentor. Quite evidently

105
 TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
nothing came of these plans; Rabbi tion, he maintains, wil take place
Chaim Nathanson in the A vodali in the following manner: first, a
Tamah concludes that undoubtedly partial in-gathering of the exiles to
the French scholar was dissuaded be followed by the reinstitution of
from doing so by the sages of his korbanot; after this wil occur the
generation. war between Gog and Magog and
Once more the issue recedes into the complete in-gathering of the
the background. Nothing more is exiles culminating in the advent of
heard of the proposal and the entire the Messiah. As evidence for his
question is permitted to lie fallow position Kalisher cites the state-
until the middle of the 19th century ment of the Yerushalmi as quoted
when we find a new protagonist ac- by Tosfot Yom Tov, Ma'aser Sheni,
tively espousing resettlement of the V, 2: "The Temple (wil J be re-
Holy Land and reintroduction of built before the reign of the House
sacrificial worship. In a letter ad- of David."lo Referring to the Sifri
dressed to Baron Asher Anshel cited by N achmanides in his com-
Rothschild, dated 12 Elul, 5596, mentary on Deuteronomy 12:5,
Rabbi Zevi Hirsch Kalishersolicits Kalisher maintains that the offer-
the latter's support for plans to ing of sacrifices is causally con-
colonize the Land of Israel and out- nected with the reappearance of
lines his views regarding the sacri- prophecy and has as its effect the
ficial rites. When these opinions re- manifestation of the divine pre-
garding resumption of the sacrificial sence just as the Shekhinah appear-
service were incorporated in a work ed in the tabernacle in the wilder-
entitled Derishat Zion and pub- ness only following the sacrificial
lished a little over 100 years ago, in offerings of the milu'im. Therefore,
5622, the question for the first time he concludes, reinstitution of the
became a live issue.9 Considerable sacrificial rites is not dependent up-
controversy was aroused and re- on a prophetic injunction; rather
sulted in a meticulous 'examination prophecy cannot become manifest
by the foremost authorities of the without prior sacrificial offerings.ll
time of the halakhic issues sur- In a letter to Kalisher the famed
rounding the proposed innovation. R. Nathan Adler cites Rashi in his
Opposition to Kalisher's views was commentary on Sukkah 41 a and
of a dual nature. Apart from the Tosfot Shevu'ot 15b to the effect
controversial halakhic ramifications that not only the Temple itself but
of his proposal, Kalisher's novel also the altar and all utensils and
eschatological views caused many appurtenances of the third Temple
of his contemporaries to take sharp will be built miraculously by God
issue with him. Kalisher argues not by means of a heavenly fire. Since
only that reinstitution of the sacri- miraculous occurrences are to be
ficial rites is both permissible and anticipated only after the coming of
halakhically feasible but that it con- the Messiah, the opinion of these
stitutes a positive mitzvah and is in authorities obviously contradicts
addition a sine qua non for the ad- the view of the Palestinian Talmud
vent of the Messiah. The redemp- as cited by Kalisher. Rabbi David

106
 A Review of Halakhic Literature
Friedman in a short treatise en- prayer for all peoples, and finally
titled Kuntres Derishat Zion ve-Ye- the reinstitution of the sacrificial
rushalayim and published as the rites. This order is reflected in the
opening section of his She' elat blessings of the 'amidah which were
David maintains that the reading sequentially ordained by the Men
cited by Kalisher and Tosfot Yom of the Great Assembly in a manner
Tov is erroneous and that the cor- paralleling the chronological un-
rect textual reading is "Jerusalem folding of events leading to the re-
wil be rebuilt" not "the Temple demption. We may accordingly in-
wil be rebuilt." Furthermore, he fer that sacrifices cannot be reinsti-
argues, from the context of the tuted until after the re-establish-
statement in the Y erushalmi it is ment of the Hous.e of David and
not at all evident that this is an as- the rebuilding of the Temple,12 To
sertion of a necessary order of this argument Kalisher replies that
events leading to the redemption (as indeed the reinstitution of sacrifi-
Kalisher opines) but, on the con- cial offerings including private sa-
trary, merely of a possible order. crifices is impossible without the
Thus even accepting Kalisher's coming of the Messiah - and it is
reading, the Yerushalmi falls short to such individual sacrifices that
of stating that the Temple must be the Gemara and the liturgy refer.
rebuilt as a prerequisite to the ad- Nevertheless communal sacrifices
vent of the Messiah. In the 'amidan can be reinstituted according to his
as ordained by the Men of the view even though there is no Bet
Great Assembly, the blessing per- ha-Mikdash.
taining to the reinstitution of sacri- In addition, it is of interest to
fices follows the blessings alluding note that contemporary scholarship
to the in-gathering of the exiles, has uncovered manuscript evidence
the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the in contradiction to Kalisher's the-
restitution of the House of David. sis. Rabbi Menachem Kasher in an
This order is seen by Friedman as appendix to voL. 12 of the Torah
corresponding to the optimum Shelemah (New York, 5708), p.
chronological sequence, whereas 165, cites a reading of the previ-
according to Kalisher the order is ously unknown Midrash Tannai'im:
sequentially impossible and hence "Just as you are unable to offer the
without apparent rhyme or reason. Pesach other than in the Temple,
R. Jacob Ettlinger in the first so also with regard to leap years -
responsum of the Binyan Zion (Al- you shall not ordain leap years
tona, 5628) states that the authori- other than ( when J the Temple
tative order of the redemption is (stands J." The obvious inference
that given by the Gemara in M e- is that sacrifice of the korban Pe-
gilah 17b. There we find the fol- sach is unsanctioned until such
lowing sequence: the rebuilding of time as the Temple shall be rebuilt.
Jerusalem, the re-establishment of Kalisher's vigorous advocacy of
the Kingdom of the House of reinstitution of the sacrifice met
David, the rebuilding of the Tem- with determined opposition on the
ple, which shall become a place of grounds of halakhic technicalities

107
 TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
as welL. In his own day rabbinical dedication of the altar.
authorities of world repute such as
R. Akiva Eiger, R. Moses Sofer TUM'AH
and R. Jacob Ettinger contended
that there exist halakhic impedi- Admitting the contention that the
ments which completely nullfy the building of the Bet ha-Mikdash it-
proposaL. Despite Kalisher's asser- self is manifestly impossible with-
tions to the contrary, there is no out prophetic direction - in the
evidence that any of these three words of Scripture "All this in writ-
halakhic personalities became re- ing, as the Lord has made me wise
conciled with Kalisher's views. Of by His hand upon me" (Chronicles
the three, R. Jacob Ettlinger pub- I, 28: 19) - Kalisher points out
lished his opposition to Kalisher's that only the mizbeach is necessary
proposal as the very first responsum in order to offer sacrifices and in-
in the Binyan Zion, R. Moses Sofer deed Ezra reinstituted korbanot
limits the proposal to the korban long before the Temple was com-
Pesach alone and R. Akiva Eiger, pletely rebuilt. He then himself
despite a protracted correspondence voices three possible objections to
with Kalisher, never reversed his his proposal and endeavors to ob-
views on the subject:. Kalisher's viate each in turn. The first prob-
work led to the composition of the lem is that one may not enter the
'Avodah Tamah by R. Chaim Na- Temple site nor offer sacrifices in a
thanson and the Migdal David by state of ritual impurity. At present,
R. Alexander David of Lissa, both however, we have all been defiled
of which are polemical in nature through contact with the dead and
and devoted to the express purpose lack the ashes of the red heifer to
of refuting Kalisher's contentions. effect the requisite purification. The
The controversy gave rise to much general principle that communal
heated debate which has continued sacrifices may be offered in a state
unabated into recent times.13 Allur- of ritual impurity, if there is no al-
ing as it may have been, Kalisher's ternative,14 applies not only to the
proposal was deemed unfeasible in actual sacrificial acts but also to
practice. Seen as constituting po- preliminary entry into the Temple
tential barriers to the implementa- mount in order to carry out the
tion of the sacrificial services were necessary preparations.15 Accord-
the concrete questions of ritual im- ingly Kalisher limits his proposal to
purity, the sanctity of the Temple communal offerings and to the pas-
site, genealogical purity of the ko- chal sacrifice to which the principle
hanim, ascertaining the precise lo- tum'ah dechuyah be-zibur is appli-
cation of the mizbeach (altar) and cable.
its construction, unavailabilty of PRIESTLY YICHUS
the materials required for weaving
the priestly garments, problems in- Less readily resolved is the prob-
volved in the appointment of a lem of authenticating the claims of
High Priest, collection of shekalim, present-day kohanim to be recog-
inauguration of the Kohanim and nized as descendants of the priestly

108
 A Review of Halakhic Literature
family. Ezra demanded written pe- Messiah, R. Jacob Ettlinger con-
digrees: "These sought their regis- cludes that the Mishnah in question
ter, that is, the genealogy but it was refers only to questions of legitima-
not found; therefore they were cy and bastardy and does not en-
deemed polluted and put from the compass the question of priestly
priesthood" (Ezra 2:62). Applying genealogy.
himself to this issue - one already R. Akiva Eiger takes issue with
raised by the author of Kaftor va- Kalisher regarding the requirement
Ferach - Kalisher argues that for supportiveevidence for priestly
documentary eviaence was neces- yichus. He maintains that genealo-
sary only in the time of Ezra since gical claims of present-day koha-
many scions of the priestly family nim are uncorroborated and there-
had intermarried with gentiles dur- fore remain in doubt. The Chofetz
ing the course of the Babylonian Chaim (Zevach Todah,17 Zevachim,
exile. Once the claims of these as- ch. 13) also shares this view. This
pirants to the priesthood were ex- position is further elucidated by R.
amined and verified they and their David Friedman who quotes the ex-
descendants remained bechezkat position by the Sifri, Parshat Shof-
kashrut and required no further tim, of the verse: "One witness
credentials. In support of this view shall not rise up against a man for
Kalisher cites the Mishnah 'Eduyot any iniquity, or for any sin, in any
VIII, 7, "Elijah wil come neither sin that he hath sinned" (Deutero-
to defile nor to purify, neither to nomy 19:15). The words "le-khol
draw nigh nor to put aside," which 'awon u-lekhol chatat" are under-
he understands, as referring. not stood by the Sifri as teaching that
merely to questions of legitimacy of two witnesses are necessary for
birth but to claims of priestly de- both admission to the priesthood
scent as well.16 and for exclusion from perform-
In his Binyan Zion R. Jacob Et- ance of the priestly functions.18
tlinger disagrees with Kalisher's in- Historically, despite the scrupu-
terpretation of this Mishnah. Tos- lous manner in which the courts
fot, (Sanhedrin 51 band Zevachim guarded the priestly genealogy, we
45a) questions why this statement know of many uncertainties which
of the Mishnah does not constitute arose as early as the Talmudic per-
a hilkhata le-meshichah - a deci- iod. For example, those priests who
sion applicable only in the days of claimed descent from the Hasmo-
the Messiah. As such this statement neans were accepted as legitimate
seemingly contradicts the proce- for an extended period of time until
dural principle that such decisions Rabbi Judah publicized their ilegi-
wil be left for the Messiah himself timacy (Kiddushin 70b). Another
to render and consequently are not incident recounted by the Gemara
included among Talmudic dicta. involves 4,000 priests who inter-
Since T osfot fails to answer that married with the slaves of Pashchur
such a statement is necessary in ben 'Enur, some of whom escaped
order to sanction the services of detection and were mistakenly per-
kohanim prior to the advent of the mitted to perform the priestly func-

109
 TRADITION: A Journ~l of Orthodox Thought
tions (Kiddushin 70b). Bechirah, I, 3) that once the Tem-
ple was erected the prohibition
SANCTITY OF THE HAR HA-BAYIT against private altars became per-
manent and accordingly continues
The third and perhaps the most in effect even after the destruction
weighty problem discussed by Ka- of the Bet ha-Mikdash. Rambam's
lisher involves the sanctity of the position in this matter is entirely
Bar ha-Bayit (Temple Mount) fol- consistent since he is of the opinion
lowing the destruction of the that the original kedushah or sanc-
Temple, Kalisher assumes that tification of the Temple site con-
according to the opinlOn of tinues in effect and has not been
Rabad, who maintains that the nullified by the destruction of the
sanctity of the Temple was abro- Temple. Rabad, who disagrees and
gated upon its destruction, there maintains that the original sanctifi-
ensues no problem regarding sacri- cation lapsed with the destruction
fices at the present time. Kalisher of the Temple, would hence have
maintains that according to Rabad been expected to append a gloss
even bamot or private altars are disagreeing with Rambam's state-
now permissible as they were prior ment regarding the permissibilty
to the erection of the Temple; of private altars in the period fol-
hence an altar erected on the Tem- lowing the destruction of the Tem-
ple mount would qualify for the ple. Since he fails to do so, R. Aki-
offering of sacrifices no less than a va Eiger apparently concludes that
private altar. The Rambam declares Rabad agrees with the Rabbenu
that the original kedushah or sanc- Channanel quoted by Tosfot Ze-
tification of the Temple site con- vachim 61 a and maintains that ba-
tinues to be in effect and has not mot are now forbidden even though
been nullfied by the destruction of kedushah rishonah 10 kidshah
the Temple. According to this view le'atid lavo. Accordingly, since the
an altar built on the Temple site re- sanctity of the Bet ha-Mikdash has
tains the original kedushah. lapsed, an altar on the Temple
In a responsum addressed to Ka- mount bezman ha-zeh would con-
lisher and incorporated in the stitute a bamah according to Rabad
Derishat Zion R. Akiva Eiger takes and is therefore forbiden, as are all
strong exception to Kalisher's pro- private altars.
posaL. R. Akiva Eiger's first objec- R. Friedman suggests one pos-
tion is voiced in a cryptic statement sible manner in which the inaugu-
asserting that we cannot effect a ration of sacrificial offerings may be
decision with regard to the contro- considered. The feasibility to be
versy between Rambam and Rabad considered hinges upon a condition-
concerning the sanctity of the Bet al sanctification of the sacrificial
ha-Mikdash. R. Friedman, in the animal under a formula pronounc-
previously cited preface to the ing that if indeed the Temple
She'elat David, notes that Rabad mount retains its sanctity as a Bet
expresses no disagreement wirh ha-Mikdash, as is Rambam's view,
Rambam's position (M. T., Bet ha- then the animal is indeed sanctified

110
 A Review of Halakhic Literature
as a korban Pesach, and the slaugh- missible. This principle is clearly
ter of the animal and the sprinkling enunciated in Zevachim 104b.
of its blood be effective for sacrifi- Moreover, R. Frank expresses
cial purposes; but if on the other astonishment that R. Akiva Eiger
hand the sanctity has lapsed, as is did not comment on the logical in-
Rabad's opinion, then the sanctifica- consistency inherent in Kalisher's
tion of the sacrificial animal be null proposal. According to Rabad a
and void and the subsequent mizbeacherected on the Temple
slaughter of the animal and the site is to be considered a private
sprinkling of its blood and burning altar. Hence, according to Rabad
of its flesh be secular in nature. communal sacrifices are impossible
This suggestion is rejected by R. in our day since even an altar on
Zevi Pesach Frank (Kuntres Bar the Temple mount would have the
Zevi appended to Teshuvot Bar status of a bamah and communal
Zevi, Jerusalem, 5724) 19 on the sacrifices cannot be offered on a
grounds that the priestly garments private altar. But according to the
contain a mixture of linen and wool Rambam, who maintains that the
and as such cannot be worn other original sanctity prevails even after
than for the purpose of performing the destruction, the question of re-
the sacrificial rites. In the event that establishment of the sacrificial rites
such an offering does not in reality arises only with regard to commu-
constitute a sacrifice, as would be nal sacrifices since it follows from
the case according to Rabad, the his position that only communal
offciating priest would then be vio- sacrifices may be brought in the
lating the prohibition of shatnez. state of turn' ah (impurity). Ka-
R. Frank rejects the argument of lisher's argument is thus dramatic-
R. Zevi Hirsch Chajes and others ally demolished by R. Zevi Pesach
that the benefit derived is an unin- Frank.
tentional one and hence not pro- R. Friedqian raises an engaging
hibited. Basing himself upon the question based upon the ramifica-
treatment of the topic by the Bet tions of Rabad's position. As estab-
ha-Levi, I, nos. 1-3, he maintains lished by R. Zechariah ha-Levi, au-
that since no additional garments thor of the Chinukh, the command-
other than the priestly vestments ment to build a Bet ha-Mikdash is
may be worn while performing the not deemed to be incumbent upon
avodah the benefit is inescapable - us except at such time as a majority
a pesik reshah-which is forbidden of Jewry resides in the Land of Is-
even though the benefit is uninten- raeL. (The building of the Second
tional. Furthermore R. Frank Temple by Ezra, even though this
points out that the korban Pesach condition was not fulfilled, was the
(which, for reasons which wil be result of specific prophetic edict.)
noted, is the only sacrifice whose Nevertheless, the rebuilding of the
inauguration can be seriously con- Temple should be obligatory ac-
sidered) could not be offered on a cording to Rabad, not as an in-
private bamah even during the per- trinsic obligation, but because the
iods when private altars were per- attendant sanctifcation is requisite

111
 TRAITION: A Journ,al of Orthodox Thought
in order to fulfill the mandatory tar. In the Rambam's phraseology,
obligation of offering sacrifices. The "mekom ha-mikdash mekhuvan be-
offering of sacrifices, if not for yoter - the site of the altar ( is
technical impediments, would, of located J with extreme precision."
course, be mandatory even in con- This spot, hallowed through the
temporary times. Friedman con- ages, is pin-pointed by tradition as
cludes that the prospect of rebuild- the exact site of Adam's first sacri-
ing the Temple cannot be enter- fice to the Almighty, of Noah's of-
tained by us since the Mishnah fering upon emerging from the Ark
(Shevu'ot 14a) declares that sanc- and of the binding of Isaac. The
tification of the Temple area re- diffculties in the task of locating
quires a king, a prophet, the urim this site with exactitude are such
ve-tumim and the Sanhedrin. Al- that the Gemara (Zevachim 62b)
though there is one opinion in the relates that at the time of the con-
Gemara that anyone of the four struction of the Second Temple the
requirements enumerated is suff- location of the altar was revealed
cient, we do not possess any .of by a prophet who returned from
them at present. In addition, though Babylonia for this purpose. Kalisher
a prophet, according to this opin- maintains that this was necessary
ion, may not be required for the only because no remnant whatso-
act of sanctification, the korban ever remained of the First Temple
todah (thanksgiving sacrifice) of- as was foretold: "Rase it~ rase it,
fered on that occasion requires a even to the foundation thereof"
prophet in order to direct the (Psalms 137 : 7) . Of the Second
manner in which it is to be sacri- Temple, however, there are yet ex-
ficed. Moreover, notes R. Fried- tant sections of the walls; these,
man, the Rabad himself states that Kalisher asserts, may be utilized for
Ezra did not promulgate a perpet- purposes of determining the dis-
ual kedushah because he knew by tance between the walls and the al-
means of the Holy Spirit that even- tar. In the previously cited respon-
tually both the Temple site and J e- sum R. Akiva Eiger argues that we
rusalem itself would be expanded cannot rely on our measurements
and the 'enlarged boundaries would in order to determine the exact lo-
be sanctified with enhanced and cation of the mizbeach since these
unprecedented glory; therefore it measurements are based upon the
does not behoove us to sanctify tefach or handbreadth measuring
the Temple mount other than ac- four fingerwidths. These dimen-
cording to the directions of a pro- sions cannot be determined with
phet.2o exactitude at present since phy-
MIZBEACH sical proportions have changed
over the course of centuries. Al-
As previously indicated a Bet ha- though various halakhic standards
Mikdash is not necessarily required dependent upon these. measure-
for the offering of sacrifices. Yet ments may vary according to the
any sacrifice must be offered on the average physical proportions of
precise location of the original al- mankind in each generation, stand.

112
 A Review of Halakhic Literature
ards derived in this manner cannot Then, even accepting the western
enable us to measure geographical wall as a landmark on the testi-
distances and locate spatial points mony of the Tanchumah we may
which are unvariable. stil have no accurate means of
Rabbi Friedman expresses the measurement, for the location upon
same objection, but with a most in- which the mizbeach stood originally
teresting twist. Our point of demar- may indeed have shifted. Further~
cation in any such attempt at de- more, the kotel ma'aravi can give
termining the location of the miz- us only the western boundary from
beach is the Wailing Wall. Our au- which to measure the distance to
thority for identifying the kotel the location of the altar. The wall
ma'aravi with the western wall of is not complete in length and there-
the Temple is the statement found fore we cannot determine the
in the Midrash Tanchumah, She- northern and southern extremities.
mot, that the western wall wil Hence we cannot ascertain where
never he destroyed.21 We are, how- the altar stood vis-a-vis the north
ever, governed by the principle that and south walls. Moreover, a com-
halakhic applications may not be parison of the pertinent statements
derived from aggadic sayings. This in Y omah 36a and Zevachim 53a
principle is rooted in the recogni- and the Mishnah in Midot II, i,
tion that (1) by virtue of its figura- discloses a basic contradiction re-
tive nature we cannot be certain of garding the location of the miz-
the precise meaning of the aggadah beach. This is reflected in a differ-
and (2) there may well be dif- ence of opinion between Tosfot,
ferences of opinion among the vari- Y oma 16b and Rambam, M. T.,
ous and varied aggadic sources Bet ha-Bechirah I, 6 and V, 16.
which are either unknown to us or Since it is not in our power to re-
not properly understood by us. solve this dispute we remain in a
With regard to this particular ques- quandary with regard to the deter-
tion, Rabbi Friedman reasons, if mination of the. original location of
we are indeed to take the pertinent the altar. The same hesitation re-
aggadic dicta literally, we must also garding the location of the altar is
be mindful that the Gemara de- echoed by the Chofetz Chaim (Ze-
clares (Gittin 57a) the place known vach Todah, Zevachim, ch. 13.)22
as Bar ha-Melekh to have con- The first significant modern in-
tained 600,000 cities, each one vestigation of the dimensions of the
serving as the dwellng place of no Bet ha-Mikdash site and its imple-
less than 600,000 inhabitants; but ments was that undertaken by the
today the locale could not 'encom- Slutzker Rav, Rabbi Jacob David
pass 600,000 reeds! If this aggadic Wilovsky. In the Teshuvot Bet Rid-
statement is to be understood li- vaz (Jerusalem, 5665) No. 38,
terally we must conclude that now Rabbi Wilovsky questions whether
the area has shrunk in physical the Wailing Wall is the remnant of
size. If so, this phenomenon may the wall surrounding the Temple
very well have taken place in the mount as is commonly assumed, or
area of the Temple mount as well whether it is rather the wall of the

113
 TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
Temple courtyard proper. His query blood of the chalazon for the mak-
is based upon statements found in ing of this dye, R. Bezalel ha-
Teshuvot Radvaz, voL. 1, nos. 648 Kohen, Reshit Bikkurim (Vilna,
and 691. He concludes that even 5628) , VoL. II, No.2, cites the
given the measurements of Tractate Tosefta, Menachot, Ch. 9: "purple
M idot we have no single point of wool ( dyed J other than through
demarcation whose location is the use of the blood of the chala-
known with certainty.23 zon is unfit." These opinions run
In addition, the construction of counter to Kalisher's view, that
the mizbeach entails a technical dif- purple wool dyed in this fashion is
ficulty involving the stones of which not an absolute requirement with
the altar is to be fashioned. These regard to the priestly garments. R.
must be absolutely smooth - a Frank in the Bar Zevi, after ex-
niche in which a fingernail may be amining the evidence pro and con
caught renders the stone unfit for concludes that there is insuffcient
this purpose - and dare not be halakhic evidence to resolve the is-
planed by means of a metal imple- sue 'either way.25
ment. We, of course, are not for- Another material used in the
tunate enough to possess a shamir, weaving of the avnet was argaman
the worm employed by King Solo~ or red wooL. R. Akiva Eiger points
mon to perform this task in the out that since the nature of arga-
building of the original mizbeach.24 man is the subject of a controversy
between the Rambam and Rabad
PRIESTLY GARMENTS we now simply have no way of de-
termining what ingredients went in-
R. Akiva Eiger, in the previously to the composition of this dye. In
mentioned epistle to Kalisher, raises the same vein R. Akiva Eiger main-
a further objection based upon the tains that a similar objection might
unavailability of one of the ma- be raised with regard to the tola'at
terials necessary for the weaving of shani or scarlet-colored wool since
the priestly garments. One of the the Tosefta (Menachot, Ch. 9)
four garments donned by the koha- states that only the tola'at which
nim while performing the sacrificial abounds in mountainous regions
rites was the avnet (girdle). This may be utilzed in the preparation
garment contained tekhelet (pur- of this dye. Here again the diffculty
ple-wool) , which was dyed the of proper identification is in sur-
proper color through the use of the mountable.26 He further notes that
blood of the chalazon, a worm there is a difference of opinion
which is now either unavailable or among Rishonim regarding the
unidentifiable. This argumeit is number of fabrics which went into
also advanced by R. Friedman, the weaving of the avnet27 and that
She' elat David, and the Chofetz in this instance as well we are not
Chaim, (Zevach Todah, Zevachim, competent to resolve the disagree-
Ch. 13). Answering the contention ment. Therefore, concludes R. Aki-
of the Tiferet Yisrael that the va Eiger, since we cannot provide
priestly garments do not require the proper priestly vestments the koha-

114
 A Review of Halakhic Literature
nim cannot possibly perform the communal sacrifices.28 It is there-
avodah. This last diffculty is the fore required that the tzitz or
subject of an appendix "that the frontplate be present on the fore-
paper shall not remain blank" ap- head of the High Priest while the
pended to the final page of the sacrificial ritual is performed in
Kuntres le-Kedushat ha-Mikdash, order to expiate the sin of defile-
authored by R. Samuel David Le- ment.29 This necessitates the prior
vine and published together with appointment of a High Priest and
his Leshed ha-Shemen (Vilna, his donning the eight garments of
5689). This discussion 'examines his offce for the performance of
the possibility of the kohen don- his functions. However since we
ning two avnetim at the same time lack the jewels necessary for the
in order to conform to the specifi- breastplate and ephod it is impos-
cations of the various authorities. sible for the High Priest to perform
The question hinges upon whether his duties. The Chofetz ChaIm
or not the prohibition of bal tosif raises the same question regarding
applies to such a contingency. (The the tzitz30 (Zevach Todah, Zeva-
question of chatzitzah is dismissed chim, Ch. 13) . R. Zevi Hirsch
as academic because due to the fact Chajes adds that we no longer
that the avnet is only three finger- possess the special shemen ha-
widths wide the two garments may mischa with which to anoint the
be placed alongside, rather than High Priest and hence he cannot
over, one another). A similar dis- be inaugurated into offce.
cussion occurs in the Taharotha-
Kodesh by the same author (Pie- SHEKALIM
trokow, 5690), p. 40f.
A number of letters dealing with
ApPOINTMENT OF THE HIGH PRIEST this subject were exchanged be-
tween R. Akiva Eiger and R. Zevi
In a letter to his son-in-law, R. Hirsh Kalisher, until the former
Moses Sofer, R. Akiva Eiger adds found it physically diffcult to con-
that we are no longer able to iden- tinue the correspondence due to the
tify the precious stones which are infirmities of advanced age and
necessary for the vestments of the consequently forwarded the rele-
High Priest. The import of this vant manuscripts to his son-in-law,
objection is not readily apparent R. Moses Sofer. In his reply, pub-
since sacrifices maybe offered even lished as Responsum no. 236 in the
though the offce of High Priest is Teshuvot Chatam Sofer, Yoreh
vacant. She' elat David explains R. De'ah, R. Moses Sofer rejects the
Eiger's objection by pointing out proposal on the basis of the objec-
that the final halakhic decision is tion expressed by R. Jacob Emden
tum'ah dechuyah be-tzibur rather in the She'elat Ya'avez, VoL. i. No.
than hutrah - the prohibition 89, in which the latter demonstrates
against offering sacrifices in a state that all communal sacrifices must
of ritual defilement is merely abro- be purchased with the half shekel
gated, not nullified, with regard to collected from each Jew once a

115
 TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
year for this purpose. The obliga- it is incumbent upon him to offer a
tion of machtzit ha-shekel is not in- minchat chavitin. This meal offer-
cumbent upon us after the destruc- ing has the status of a private sacri-
tion of the Temple. Moreover, in fice and as such cannot be offered
any event it would be exceedingly when the priest is in a state of de-
diffcult effectively to collect this filement. Accordingly, runs the ar-
tax from all Jews. Hence R. Jacob gument, how wil the priests per-
Emden concludes that such com- form the sacrificial rites since they
munal sacrifices would be impos- cannot offer the inaugural sacrifice
sible and he limits the pertinence due to their defilement through con-
of reinstitution of korbanot to the tact with the dead? To this query
korban Pesach which is purchased Kalisher offers an interesting an-
with private funds. A similar view swer based upon a similar problem
is expressed by R. Moses Sofer in surrounding the inauguration of the
the aforementioned responsum and High Priest. The Mishneh le-Me-
by R. Chajes in his Kuntres A cha- lekh (Kelei ha-Mikdash, V, 16)
ron, A vodat ha-Kodesh. questions how it is possible for the
"substitute" High Priest to perform
DEDICATION OF THE MIZBEACH AND the ritual of the Day of Atonement
INAUGURA nON OF THE KOHANIM in the event that it becomes impos-
sible for the High Priest to do so.
In view of the conclusions of The problem is based on the fact
these authorities that other sacri- that the High Priest has to offer a
fices do not come into question, R. similar sacrifice as part of his inau-
Zevi Pesach Frank poses the prob- guration into offce; since this kor-
lem of chinukh (dedication) of ban has the status of a private of-
the altar. The Mishnah states ex- fering it cannot be offered on the
plicitly (Menachot 49a) that a new- Day of Atonement. The Mishnelz
ly-fashioned altar must be inau- le-Melekh concludes that the lack
gurated through the sacrifice of the of such prior offering on the part of
tamid shel shachar and no other the High Priest does not invalidate
sacrifice may precede the morning his performance of the sacrificial
sacrifice on the new altar. Since rites and therefore in instances
this sacrifice cannot be offered due where this offering is impossible he
to the lack of shekalim with which may perform his duties despite its
to purchase the sacrificial animal absence. Kalisher concludes that
any altar constructed by us would the same regulation is applicable to
remain uninaugurated. Consequent- the meal offering of the kohen
ly no other sacrifice, including the hedyot.
Pesach could be offered on this
mizbeach. INACCEPTABILITY OF SACRIFICES
Yet another objection was raised
in a letter addressed to Kalisher by The Binyan Zion includes an-
R. Elijah of Gridetz. Before any other noteworthy objection to Ka-
kohen proceeds to perform his lisher's proposal. R. Jacob Ettlin-
priestly functions for the first time ger's major contention is based up-

116
 A Review of Halakhic Literature
on the verse, "And I wil bring your CONCLUDING REMARS
sanctuaries unto destruction and I
wil not smell the savor of your Apart from the specific problems
sweet odors" (Leviticus 26: 31). discussed there is one theme which
The Gemara prescribes that each is recurrent throughout the vast
sacrifice be offered with six "inten- halakhic literature dealing with our
tions" (ZevaC'him 46a); among topic: In this most nebulous area it
these are le-shem reach and le-shem is almost impossible to arrive at a
nichoach. Ettlnger argues that definitive pesak with regard to the
since God says He wil not smell myriads of practical and concrete
"the savor of your sweet odors" questions which inevitably arise.
while the Temple lies desolate we Typical of this attitude is an article
cannot offer the sacrifice with such which appeared in an early journal
an intention. A similar concept is of Torah scholarship. Writing in
expressed independently in the ha-Levanon, VoL. I, No.8, p. 54,
Emek Berakhah (Jerusalem, 5708, R. Meir Auerbach, chief rabbi of
p. 66) by Rabbi Aryeh Pomeran- Kalish, notes many peripheral ques-
chik, a distinguished disciple of the tions involving halakhic disputes
late Brisker Rav. Quoting an oral which we are incompetent to re-
tradition related in the name of R. solve. A case in point is the manner
Naftali Zevi Judah Berlin, Rosh of roasting the pascal sacrifice - a
Yeshivah of V olozin, Rabbi Pome- matter which is the subJect of a
ranchik asserts that while ordinari- disagreement between the Ram-
ly a sacrifice in which these inten- bam and the Rabad, M. T. Korban
tions are absent remai1l-valid,----pesar-x 11. The Rambam main-
nevertheless in instances when these tains that the animal must be roast-
intentions are impossible, the sacri- ed together with its gid ha-nasheh
fice is rendered invalid. The sole (sciatic nerve). To this view the
exception is the paschal sacrifice Rabad responds, "By my head!
which the Torah never refers to as There is no greater prohibition ...
being offered for purposes of "a If I wil be privileged and wil eat
sweet odor." Rabbi Pomeranchik the pesach and he should bring be-
explains the difcult phrase in the fore me such (an animal J i would
Haggadah, "May we partake there hurl it to the ground before his
of the sacrifices and of the paschal eyes!" Commonplace questions of
offerings, whose blood shall be kashrut arising from adhesions on
sprinkled upon Thine altar for ac- the lung are nowadays rendered
ceptance . . ." in light of this novel trefah in instances where we have
interpretation. The term le-razon no means of reaching a decision.
expresses our prayer that we shall Such questions cannot be disposed
be able to offer the Pesach in a re- of so readily when arising with re-
built Temple in a perfect manner gard to sacrificial animals. One rea-
so that it wil also be accepted as "a son for this is that it is forbidden
sweet odor," although this is not to dispose of sacrificial animals
strictly required in the case of the which are in reality kosher. If the
paschal sacrifice. sacrifice is valid the various par-
117
 TRAITION: A Journ,al of Orthodox Thought
tions must be consumed either on pertaining to the construction of
the altar or by the kohanim or by the Bet ha-Mikdash and the sacri-
those. offering the sacrifice, as the ficial order, by their very nature,
case may be. occupy a unique position unamcn-
To ilustrate the insurmountable able to the usual canons of pesak.
diffculties involved in rendering a Even a cursory examination of the
final decision in this uncharted responsa literature on this topic in-
field R. Auerbach recounts an dicates a dearth of precedents and
anecdote which adds a revealing parallel citations, the very fabric Gf
biographical note to the life of one which legal decisions are woven.
of the luminaries in the history of One should bear in mind that the
Halakhah. R. Auerbach relates that monumental works authored by
R. Alexander Schorr, author of the such giants of hora' ah as the Rif
Tevu'at Shor (Zolokiew, 5473), a and the Rosh do not include a co-
standard and authoritative work dification of the laws of Kodshim.
dealing in minute detail with the There can be no doubt that in pro-
laws pertaining to shekhitah and testing their inabilty to reach ha-
trefot, also composed a similar lakhic conclusions - and to ad-
compendium pertaining to the laws duce suffcient evidence in support
of the sacrificial service. The latter of such pronouncements - Torah
work was patterned upon the for- authorities were not reflecting mis-
mat of the widely accepted Tevu'at placed humilty but were stating the
Shor. Before his death R. Alexan- simple truth.
der Schorr ordered that the un- Although there are manifold ha-
published manuscript be placed in lakhic impediments which prevent
his grave. His intention was that us from fulfillng the many mitzvot
the work not be circulated since an attendant upon the performance of
ultimate decision regarding these the sacrificial service, our inabilty
matters cannot be rendered until to do so is certainly to our detri-
the advent of the Messiah. ment: "If not for the ma'amadot
One dare not hastily conclude heaven and earth would not en-
that such an approach reflects a re- dure," states the Gemara (Ta'anit
ticence born of fear or mere le- 2 7b ); the Mishnah (' Abot, 1, 2)
thargy. Expositors of Halakhah al- reckons the sacrificial service as
ways met the social issues of their one of the pilars upon which the
day forthrightly and did not hesi- world stands. But with the lapse of
tate to legislate on every facet of the Temple service we are offered
personal and communal life. In all an equally effcacious substitute.
generations Torah scholars have The Gemara depicts Abraham as
striven to overcome any and all appearing before the Almighty and
obstacles in order to issue halakhic expressing his fear that the Jewish
rulings; consistently the attitude of people might perhaps be destroyed
GedoZei Yisrael has been: yikov ha- in punishment for their transgres-
din et ha-har. However, differing sions. To this God replied, "Take
dramatically from all other areas for Me a three-year-old heifer."
governed by Halakhah, questions Whereupon Abraham countered,

118
 A Review of Halakhic Literature
"That is well so long as the Temple 'ilu" indicates that these too are
stands but when the Temple no attainable thrugh the study of Kod-
longer exists what shall become l,f shim. The Chofetz Chaim advo-
them?" God answered, "I have or- cated the establishment of kollelim
dained for them the order of the whose students would devote them-
sacrifices. Whenever they study it I selves to this field of scholarship.
shall account it as if they had He heralded the appearance of such
offered a sacrifice before Me and I institutions, citing Scriptural refer-
wil forgive all their sins" (M egil- ences demonstrating that increased
lah, 31b). proficiency in precisely this area of
Elsewhere our Sages declare that study wil speed the redemption
during the period of theexI1e wor- (Ma'amar Torah Or, ch. 10).
ship in the Temple is supplanted by "Investigate and receive reward!"
the study of the Halakhah pertain- exhort our Sages (Zevachim, 45u)
ing to the korbanot denied us in in answering a query regarding
actuality. "Anyone who engages in the purpose of pursuing studies per-
(the study of) the law of the sin- tinent only during the days of the
offering is accounted as if he had Messiah. From the words of the
sacrificed a sin-offering" (Mena- Chofetz Chaim it follows that they
chot, ll1a). The term "ke-ilu - is may be understood to have an-
accounted as" -is to be understood swered that this reward is, in its
quite literally. The study of Kod- ultimate form, the very coming of
shim effects for us the self-same the Messiah alluded to by the Tal-
benefits which flowed from the sa- mudic interlocutor and the hasten-
crifcial offerings of our ancestors. ing of the fulfillment of the proph-
If indeed korbanot, in addition to etic promise, "I shall bring them to
their other propitious effects, are my holy mountain . . . their burnt-
also essential for the initiation of offerings and their sacrifices shall
prophecy, as Nachmanides asserts, be acceptable upon Mine altar, for
or requisite to effect the advent of My house shall be a house of pray-
the Messiah, as is Kalisher's con- er for all the nations."
tention, the use of the term "ke-

NOTES

1. Cf. R. Abraham Isaac Kook, Mishpat Kohen (Jerusalem, 5697), no. 94. The
conclusions expressed in this responsum, dated London, 21 Cheshvan, 5678, were
evidently reconsidered in view of the contradictory view expressed subsequently
by R. Kook in a letter of approbation to Yaskil 'Avdi, by R. Obadiah Hdaya
(Jerusalem, 5691), voL. i.
2. Rashi's view is implicit in the nachem prayer of the Mincha service for
the Ninth of Ab, ". . . For Thou, 0 Lord~ didst consume it (the Temple) with
fire and through fire wilt Thou in future rebuild it. . . :' The text of this prayer
is based upon the Yerushalmi, Berakhot, iv, 3. Regarding the apparent con-

119
 TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
tradiction between Rashi as here cited and Rashi's comments on Ezekiel 43:11
see Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Zevin, "Mikdash he-'Atid Ie-Or ha-Halakhah," Macha-
nayimJ No. 119 (.5725), p. 14, for an ingenious resolution based upon Teshuvot
Dirvrei Ta'am (Warsaw, 5664).
3. Serer ha-MitzvotJ No. 20. Saadia Gaon, too, includes the building of the
Bet ha-Mikdash in his list of communal obligations. Sefer ha-Mitzvot le-Rabbenu
Sa'adya GaonJ Minyan Shishim ve-Chamesh ha-ParshiyotJ No. 51.
4. It should however be noted that the Ri mi-Gash in his commentary to
Shevu'ot l6a limits the application of R. Joshua's dictum to cases of temporary
demolition or absence of the Temple walls such as occurred during the period
of construction following the return of Ezra or the reconstruction of the Temple
by Herod, inferring that it is inapplicable during periods of desolation. Despite
the quotation by the Mishnah of the Halakhah in the name of R. judah, the
Rabad terms the Rambam's incorporation of this provision in the M. T. "his
(Rambam's) own theory." R. David Alexander of Lissa, Migdal David (War-
saw, 5635), p. 27, explains that this characterization of the Rambam's position is
rooted in Rabad's interpretation of the Mishnah in the manner of the Ri mi-
Gash - an interpretation which effectively negates any inference regarding per-
missibility of sacrifice after the destruction. In addition, citing numerous parallel
uses of the phrase "I have heard," the author of Migdal David endeavors to
demonstrate that this terminology indicates the transmitter's disagreement with
the Halakhah he has "heard."
5. It is, however, possible that the intended meaning is that the penalty is
actually incurred for the haktarah - burning of the various parts of the
animal - rather than for the slaughtering. Haktarah other than on the Temple
.site is culpable even though the sacrificial animal is not ra'uy le-fnim. See
Mishneh le-Melekh Klei ha-MikdashJ V, 16 and R. Zevi Hirsch Chajes, Kuntres
Acharon 'Avodat ha-Kodesh, ch. 1.
6. Astonishingly, Chajes claims to have seen Sifreî ha.'amin which report
that the paschal sacrifice was offered as late as during the reign of Justinian, at
which time it was finally abrogated.
7. On the declared intention of the Emperor Julian (361-363) to rebuild
the Temple so that the .Jews might resume the offering of sacrifices and on
Jewish reactions to this abortive proposal see Salo W. Baron, A Social and Re-
ligious History of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1952), II, 160 and 392, note 41.
8. Vide Kaftor va-Ferach, ed. Joseph Blumenfeld (New York, 5718), p. 214,
note 17, and H. J. Zimmels, "Erez Israel in der Responsenliteratur des späteren
Mittelalters, Monatsschrift fÜr Geschichte und Wissenschart des Judentums,
LXXIV (1930), p. 50, note 6.
9. In fact R. Solomon Drimer of Skole in an undated responsum quotes an
unnamed interlocutor who reported that "the sages of the Sephardim and of
Lithuania wished to sacrifice (the paschal offering) this past Erev Pesach."
Teshuvot Bet Shelomo (Lemberg, 5637-5651), Yoreh De'ah II, No. 125.
10. In further support of this view Kalisher cites the wording of the Mussaf
service of Rosh Chodesh: "A new altar shalt Thou establish in Zion and the
burnt offering of the New Moon shall we offer upon it," which is subsequently

120
 A Review of Halakhic Literature
followed by the phrase "and in the service of Thy Temple shall we all rejoice."
Kalisher argues that reference to rejoicing in the Temple service - which is
general in nature - should logically precede the more specific mention of the
burnt offering of Rosh Chodesh. From this he concludes that the prior reference,
which is to a new altar (not to a Bet ha-Mikdash), refers to the reinstitution of
communal sacrifices and hence is not dependent upon the rebuilding of the
Bet ha-Mikdash, whereas the subsequent mention of the Temple service refers
to private sacrifices which are contingent upon the rebuilding of the Temple
(for reasons that wil be examined later in this review) and wil, therefore, be
reinstituted at a latter date.
Ii. It is a bit puzzling that in endeavoring to establish this point Kalisher
does not cite the more explicit and more a propos discussion of the Ramban
contained in his commentary on Leviticus 1:9 in which he analyzes the ra-
tionale underlying the sacrificial precepts.
12. David Alexander of Lissa, Migdal David (Warsaw, 5635) finds this se-
quence also reflected in the blessing included in the repetition of the 'Amidah
prior to the priestly benediction, ". . . cause My shekhinah to return to Zion
and the sacrificial order to Jerusalem. . . ." The prior reference to the return
of the Divine Presence is a quite apparent allusion to the rebuilding of the
Temple and in this context precedes reinstitution of the sacrificial order.
13. For some further references see R. Chayyim Medini, Sedei Chemed ('Var-
saw, 5656-5662), Kuntres ha-Kelalim, Ma'arekhet ha-Kof, LXXVII, 13, VoL. III,
1303.
14. Migdal David advances a tenuous argument to the effect that the abroga-
tion of the law of tumah with regard to communal sacrifices applies only to in-
cidental occurrences which necessitate suspension of this prohibition in order
not to cause a disruption in the chain of communal sacrifice. However once the
sacrificial service has lapsed because of other factors, it cannot be resumed other
than in a state of ritual purity.
15. Rabbi Samuel David Levine in his Taharat ha-Kodesh (Pietrokow, 5690),
addressing himself solely to the question of entering the Temple mount, argues
that though there may be halakhic impediments in our day with regard to
offering other sacrifices, nevertheless preparation of the parah adumah (the red
heifer) is feasible in order to purify those defiled by tum'at met. His proposal
provides for conditional sanctification and conditional sacrifice of the parah
adumah. The stipulations to be made are: if .the kohen is truly a mem-
ber of the priestly family and if the original sanctification of the Bet ha-Mikdash
remains in effect, then the sanctification of the sacrifice be effective and its
slaughter and the sprinkling of the blood be effective for sacrificial purposes.
If, on the other hand, the kohen is not of pure descent and if the original sanc-
tification of the Bet ha-Mikdash is now abrogated then the sanctification be
ineffective and the slaughter and subsequent sprinkling of blood be secular rather
than sacrificial in nature. Despite the fact that the slaughter of unsanctified
animals is not permitted within the confines of the Temple, cÒnditional sacrifice
is possible with regard to the red heifer because that sacrifice takes place on the
Har ha-Mishcha-the Mount of Olives-rather than on the Temple site. Those

121
 TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
purified by this parah adumah would then be permitted to enter the Temple
mount through the application of a sefek sefekah: Perhaps the original sancti-
fication has been abrogated, in which case entry is permissible without further
ado. In the event that the original sanctification has not lapsed, perhaps this is
an effcacious parah adumah and accordingly capable of effecting the cleansing, of
defilement. It should, however, be noted that R. Levine's proposal concerning the
red heifer is fraught with many of the diffculties surrounding korbanot bezman
ha-zeh cited in this review.
16. Both Kalisher and R. Zevi Hirsh Chajes (Kuntres 'AcharonJ tAvodat ha-
KodeshJ ch. 1) cite R. Ezekiel Landau, Nodah bi-YehudahJ Drach Chayyim KamaJ
no. 35, to the effect that even in our day we may rely upon the genealogical
claims of at least some kohanim. The case in question is tangental to our topic but
relevant none the less. An individual who had committed adultery with the same
woman on numerous occasions inquired of R. Landau what form of penance was
required in expiation of his sins and added that on many of these occasions
the woman was a niddah. R. Landau tentatively advances the opinion that if the
woman in question was a niddah on the occasion of their first adulterous act he
requires expiation for the issur niddah as well.
The general rule "one prohibition cannot become effective upon another" does
not apply in this instance because although the woman in question is already
forbidden to the adulterer as a married woman the prohibition of niddah is an
issur mosif-a more encompassing prohibition, prohibiting the menstruant to her
husband as welL. The additional prohibition of niddah consequently becomes
effective and applies to acts of cohabitation both with her husband and others.
However, in the case of an adulteress who was not a niddah on the occasion of her
first infraction, the very act of adultery renders her forbidden to her husband.
Since she is already forbidden to all other men on account of her marital status
any subsequent state of niddah cannot add to the severity of her prohibition
('en issur chot at issur). Reconsidering, R. Landau argues that subsequent niddah
(after the adulterous act) is indeed an issur mosif since in becoming effective
is carries with it a prohibition against entering the Temple. If not for the issur
niddah it would be permissible for the adulteress to enter the Temple courtyard
for the purpose of offering the paschal sacrifice. She would be permitted to do so
despite the fact that at present we are all teme'ei metim because the korban Pesach
may be offered in a state of tum'ah if a majority of the community has become
defiled through contact with the dead. However, the principle of tum'ah hutrah
be-tzibur does not apply to the tum'ah of niddah or zivah. From this entire dis-
cussion Kalisher and Chajes conclude that the Nod'ah bi.Yehudah considered the
offering of the korban pesaCh a distinct possibilty. However, a careful examina-
tion of the responsum in question shows the opposite to be the case. R. Landau
cites the Kaftor va-Ferach as objecting to the reinstitution of the paschal sacrifice
because we lack priests of verified genealogy. To this he adds that "somewhere in
the world there does exist a genealogically pure priest." It would seem that the
Nodtah bi-Yehudah accepts the fact that we cannot determine which of the priests
are of pure descent. But since the sacrifice of the pesach is theoretically possible
and our inability to discover the identity of the true kohanim is merely a tech-

122
 A Review of Halakhic Literature
nical failure, the prohibition of niddah does indeed become superimposed upon
the prohibition of adultery.
17. The Zevach Todah is composed of expository notes included by the Chofetz
Chaim in the Likutei Halakhot (Pietrokow, 5670). The entire work is known by
the latter name.
is. D. Levine, Taharat ha-Kodesh, cites M.T., Parah 'Adumah III, 4, that a
total of nine red heifers was offered from the time of Moses until the destruction
of the Second Commonwealth and that a tenth wil be brought by the Messiah.
He concludes that the reason that the red heifer cannot be prepared in our day
is because we have no means of ascertaining the geneological purity of the
kohanim.
19. It is of interest to note that the fourth edition of Kalisher's Derishat Zion
was published in Israel in 5679 and was prefaced by a letter of approbation signed
by the Bet Din of Jerusalem of which R. Frank was then the junior member. The
treatise Har Zevi authored by R. Frank, in which he emphatically disagrees with
Kalisher's conclusions was first printed as an appendix to that
edition of the
Derishat Zion.
20. Addressing himself to a different question entirely, R. Moses Sofer (Teshu-
vot Chatam Sofer, Yoreh De'ah, 236) cites Rashi's interpretation of Exodus 25:9,
"According to all that I show thee, the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern
of all the furniture, and so shall ye make it." Troubled by the incongruous usage
of the word "and" in ve-khen ta'asu, Rashi, referring to Sanhedrin 16b and
Shevuot 14b, interprets this as an injunction to future generations. The Ramban,
in his commentary on this passage, raises an obvious objection to Rashi's
interpretation: namely, that Solomon did indeed deviate from these
specifications. R. Moses Sofer emends Rashi's interpretation and views
the phrase "and so shall ye make it" as referring back to the
very beginning of the passage "Kekhol 'asher 'ani mar'eh otcha-according
to all that I show thee" which he takes to mean: that in subsequent generations
any rebuilding of the Sanctuary must be in accordance with "all that I show
thee" -a specific prophetic revelation prior to each construction as was the case
with the building of the Tabernacle. According to this view it is absolutely im-
possible to rebuild the Temple other than under clearly enunciated prophetic
instructions.
21. Similar statements are also found in Midrash Rabbah, Shemot, II, 2:
Midrash Rabbah Bamidbar XI, 3; Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah, II, 22; Midrash 'Ekha,
I, 32; Yalkut Shimoni Melakhim, 196; Midrash Shochar Tov, Psalms, 11:5; and
Zohar, Shemot, Sb. Cf. also Tanna de
be 'Eliyyahu Rabbah, ch. XXX.
22. Cf. also Teshuvot Bet Shelomo, Yoreh De'ah II, No. 125; Yaskil 'Avdi, VoL.
1, letter of approbation bearing signature of Rabbi A. 1. Kook.
23. A further implication of this uncertainty is grounded upon the Halakhah
that zavim and nidot are not permitted to
enter any section of the Temple mount.
Accordingly if the Wailng Wall marks the boundary of the Temple courtyard
proper (meaning that it is set in a distance from the boundary of the har ha-
bayit) those possessed of these forms of defilement are forbidden to approach the
katel ma'aravi. A further discussion of these questions is contained in Har Zevi

123
 TRAITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought
and Judah Leib Graubart, Chavalim be-Ne'imim (Lodz, 5694), Vol. 4, No. 80.
24. Vide She' elat David and Teshuvot Bet Shelomo, loe. cit.
25. In ha-Levanon, Vol. 1, No.8, p. 63, dated 19 Elul, 5623, the journal wherein
R. Friedman's treatise first appeared in serial form, there is a note appended by
the editor indicating that R. Samuel Salant, famed rabbi of the Ashkenazic com-
munity of Jerusalem, concurred with R. Friedman regarding the question of
tekhelet. Cf. also R. Isaac Schmelkes, Teshuvot Bet Yitzehak (Lemberg, 5655),
Yoreh De'ah II, No. 83.
26. Regarding these various dyes see also Teshuvot Besamim Rosh, No. 244.
27. Fora detailed discussion of these various opinions s'ee Mishneh le-Melekh
on M.T., Klei ha-Mikdash, VIII, 2.
28. For a discussion of this topic see Sedei Chemed, Kuntres ha-Kelalim,
Ma'arekhet ha-Tet, XX-XXIII, VoL. I, 437.
29. Cf. Teshuvot Bet Yitzehak, Yoreh De'ah II, No. 83.
30. See also Isaac Aaron ha-Levi !tinga, Teshuvot Mahari ha-Levi (Lemberg,
5653), VoL. I, No. 88.

124