3 Kislev 5785
In follow-up to yesterday's post, "To Ascend or Not to Ascend? Is That the Question?", please allow me to introduce you to Rabbi Dr. Chaim Zimmerman, ztz"l.
Aharon Chaim Zimmerman (1914 – March 9, 1995) (7th Adar II 5755) was a Ukrainian-born American Orthodox rabbi. He was the son of Rabbi Yaakov Moshe Zimmerman and nephew of Rabbi Baruch Ber Lebowitz. He was known as a child prodigy ("illui"). As a teenager, he studied at the Kaminetz Yeshiva headed by his uncle, Baruch Ber Lebowitz. He left Russia at age 15 with his father, and immigrated to the U.S.Zimmerman received rabbinical ordination from Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik in 1939. His first published work, "Binyan Halakha", contains a letter of approbation from the Chief Rabbi of Eretz Israel, Rabbi Yitzchak Halevi Herzog, attesting that the young author was "fully knowledgeable in the entire Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi, Rishonim, and Achronim".He served as Rosh Yeshiva of Hebrew Theological College in Chicago until 1964, and later a Rosh Yeshiva in New York City and in Jerusalem. He immigrated to Israel in 1972. He died on March 9, 1995. (7th Adar II 5755)He published several books on Halacha and Philosophy. He was renowned as a genius in Torah learning, and was also well versed in mathematics, physics, and philosophy....In his book Torah and Existence, he cogently argues that the purpose of the world revolves around Torah. The first chapter contains an elaboration of his opinion that the founding of the modern State of Israel constituted the "Atchalta d'Geula" (Beginning of the Redemption), though he strongly opposed much of the policies and leadership of the state.
Sharing from his book Torah and Existence...
...The kedusha of eretz-Yisrael, and the people in eretz-Yisrael possess more kedusha than in any other place. The secularists in eretz-Yisrael who do not keep Torah and mitzvot - their tuma is the greatest. That is why the permissiveness here in Israel for the chilonim is the greatest and the strongest, more so than in any other democratic place. I have never heard of people destroying a synagogue where religious people pray, as was done here in eretz-Yisrael recently by the secular administration of Jerusalem, under the pretense of the law. No Jew would dare take the responsibility, no matter what his belief is, to destroy a makom-kadosh, a mikdash me'at. Only one who is involved with mem-tet sha'arei-tuma could do such a thing with a clear conscience and not be afraid that he will be punished by G-d, to have destroyed a makom-kadosh, where the Shechina of G-d rests.
Only in eretz-Yisrael could orthodox people go up on the har-habayit for the sake of tefila with a motive of national aspiration and not be worried about the issur-koret. In the democratic countries, no orthodox Jew would dare to transgress an issur-koret for the sake of tefila, whatever his motives are.
The Halacha of Shmirat-Hamikdash Today
The Rambam says, it is a mitzvat-aseh (positive commandment) to fear and revere the mikdash because it is written: "Umei-mikdashai tirau - and from my mikdash you shall fear" - which means you should stay in awe in front of the mikdash. (The words mikdash and beit hamikdash are usually translated as sanctuary and Temple Mount....)
The Rambam continues in the 7th chapter of Hilchot Beit Habechira: "This does not mean to fear the mikdash as such, but to fear G-d who commanded to respect the mikdash. What did this (command) to reverence imply? That one might not enter the mikdash with his staff, or with his sandals on his feet, or in his undergarment, or with dust upon his feet, or with coins wrapped up in his kerchief; and needless to say, it was forbidden to expectorate any place in the mikdash. If one found it necessary to expectorate, he had to absorb the spittle in his cloak.
Nor might one use the mikdash to shorten his way by going in through one entrance and going out through the opposite entrance, but he had to go around it from the outside. One might not enter it at all save for a religious duty . . . One might not act in a frivolous manner while facing the East Gate of the azora, which was the Gate of Nicanor, because it was directly opposite the kodesh-kodshim. Whenever anyone entered the azora he had to walk quietly to the place where he was permitted to go and regard himself as standing in the "presence" of G-d. ...He would have to walk with awe and fear and trembling,....
Even though the mikdash today is in ruins because of our iniquities, man is obliged to reverence it in the same manner as when it was standing. One should not enter save where it is permissible, nor should anyone sit down in the site of the azora or act irreverently while facing the place where stood the East Gate...."
[Why do we hear nothing of the following Rambam from the nationalist Jews?]
...The next chapter in the Rambam is about the mitzva of shmirat-hamikdash. The Rambam says: "It is a mitzva-aseh to watch the mikdash, even when there is no fear of enemies or robbers. Because this shmira is only as an honor guard to the mikdash. It is not similar - a palace that has no shomrim, to a palace that has shomrim. . . The mitzva of this shmira is to watch the whole night. The shomrim are the Kohanim and the Leviim, ....
[They were to guard the entrance gates and watch and give warning to those who might transgress...]
The Vilna Gaon indicates...for the honor of the beit-hamikdash, the Torah says take extra precaution and watch that those who are forbidden to enter should not enter.
He goes on at length to explain further and regarding the shmirah, ends with "all this can be done today!" And yet here we are with "record numbers" of Jews ascending with no one available to assure all is done in accordance with the halachah, to prevent sincere Jews perhaps unintentionally sinning grievously.
This would have been an excellent first step to pursue, but this is one of the troubling aspects of this movement, that it is not concerned with proceeding in a logical, Torah-prescribed order of action. The result is chaos, unholy mixtures, and a stumbling block to the blind. HKB"H plays no part in such schemes which are doomed to fail as a result, but what harm they cause along the way!
Because of your first post, I started writing a full, since my comment was getting to be way too long.
ReplyDeleteFor now, I will simply say I have increasing problems with certain organizations encouraging ascension of the Temple Mount.
However, Moshe Feiglin employs the kewanna (intent) of kibush (conquering) when he ascends. He is one of the few who puts halakha first an foremost. as opposed to deciding in advance his reasons, and then finding halakhic justification for it after the fact. Unfortunately, many Jews do this today about a variety of issues, the exact opposite of how the halakhic process should word.
I would put R' Barukh Kahane in the same category when it comes to halakha. Rabbi Yosef Elboim of Belz is a well-known haredi advocate of Temple Mount ascension. The Belzer Rebbe has not issued any ruling or injuction, and thus, by his silence, showed passive acceptance of R' Elboim's practices. Yeah, I know. But still significant.
Rabbi Tzvi Rogen's Temple Mount Information Center was a good resource for answers the standard Haredi questions about ascension of the Temple Mount.
R' Moshe Tendler him ascended the Temple Mount
I will end by reminding everybody that the Rambam himself ascending the Temple Mount. The Raavad who often disagrees with the Rambam also shows that it is permissible from his writings. The Rambam and Raavad disagree only why it is permissible.
That being said, I wonder if more damage that good is being done by many of these advocacy organizations, and completely undoing the good which has been done up until recently. I hope to get a post out soon about this.
I've heard it all already. Check out what Rabbi Avraham HaCohen Kook and his son Rav Tsvi Yehudah had to say about it. This is a nationalistic thing, not a religious obligation.
DeleteThe only time Moshe Feiglin expressed a kavana of kibush haaretz was immediately after becoming an MK, when it became an arguably legitimate point, acting as a representative of the state. And his intent wasn't to just ascend to the Mount, but enter the Dome of the Rock. That is, tread where all authorities claim it is prohibited. Hashem prevented him from doing so.
DeletePrior this, he had ascended on Roshei Chodshim, and stuck to the boundaries that the lenient rabbis say is permissible. As a private individual this is the limit of what he was willing to do.
OK. Just one thing: What does the State have to do with anything? Isn't this related to what Tomer Devorah mentions in her next post about the follies of so-called Religious Zionism? One of things which I believe separates the real Religious Zionists from the fakes is the view of the role of the State. When we pray three times a day for the return of Mashi'ah ben David, are we not praying either for the fall of the state or at the very least a massive revamping of it?
DeleteEsser Agaroth, if your question was directed at me, the answer is nothing much. My point was, Feiglin didn't have such an intention as a private individual. And given the reality of the state, I think he saw it as vehicle to act on behalf of the nation, once he was elected as an MK. I can understand reasoning of such. However, as I've noted multiple times, his plan never amounted to anything.
DeleteShimshon, Thanks for clarifying.
DeleteThank you for this Devorah, very well presented. Besides the serious Halachic issues involved, the whole thing is pointless and achieves nothing. The Arabs and their international antisemitic supporters love this, it gives them an excuse to go into meltdown. If we ourselves stay away from Har Habayit because of its sheer Kedusha, it would be a language they don't understand; too subtle for their thick heads. The day of reckoning is fast approaching but in the meantime they might treat the place with a little more reverence.
ReplyDeleteFWIW...
ReplyDeleteAre Jews allowed to enter the Temple Mount? Debate heats upSINCE A growing number of Jews are entering the Temple Mount every year, the issue is evolving into a major clash within the religious-Zionist population.
The debate can be categorized into three main camps within religious Zionism, each with its own ideological, theological, political and halachic nuances.
The first position is held mostly by the right flank of the religious-Zionist camp, considered by some to be “haredi-leumi,” or ultra-Orthodox-nationalist. While fiercely Zionist, they draw a line between the holiness of the Land of Israel in its entirety and that of the Temple Mount, which they view as being too holy to tread upon.
Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Hacohen Kook, the first Ashkenazi chief rabbi of British Mandatory Palestine, and his son, Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook, explicitly forbade ascension to the Mount. Based on their ruling, some of their followers, such as rabbis Avraham Elkana Kahana Shapira, Yisrael Tau and Shlomo Aviner, have claimed that while the land was redeemed by the Zionist movement and the return to the Promised Land, the Temple itself transcends this day-to-day status, and its redemption can only come at a time of higher religious experience, such as the coming of the messiah.
Cont'd...
This view is best represented by MK Avi Maoz, a member of Tau’s Noam faction, which merged into the Religious-Zionist Party, but whose view sharply differs from that of his party leader, Bezalel Smotrich.
DeleteThe second camp, the political and religiously liberal wing of the religious-Zionist populace, does not necessarily oppose ascension to the Mount as much as they see it as unnecessary and even as a provocation.
...The third camp is composed of supporters and activists promoting ascension to the site. It has been championed by rabbis including Dov Lior, Nahum Eliezer Rabinowitz, Eliezer Melamed and Yaakov Medan, and today is best represented in the Knesset by MK Itamar Ben Gvir.
This camp, which is becoming increasingly vocal and robust, cites the centrality of the site to the Jewish people, who have been praying for its redemption for 1,952 years. This therefore necessitates the need for Israel, as the only Jewish state, to establish its sovereignty there.
While some of the rabbis in this camp are also Rabbi Kook’s disciples, they claim that their teachers’ prohibitions were temporary and meant to prevent the general public from committing what Halacha considers a serious sin. If Israel indeed wishes to be a Jewish state, and the heart of Judaism is the Temple Mount, not visiting it is akin to giving up on the very essence of Jewish revival – and, according to some, even a violation of the biblical commandment that warns against accommodating foreign worship.
But the debate goes even deeper, explains Rabbi Dr. Ido Pachter, a member of the Religion and State branch in the Modern Orthodox Ne’emanei Torah Va’avoda and founder of “Techelet – Inspiring Judaism.”
Religious Zionism is currently undergoing an identity crisis, Pachter claims.
“We built settlements, built the country, we established our grip on the Land of Israel,” he said. “But what next? The Temple Mount is a symbol of the spiritual aspirations of [people] who want to take another step forward. We have a country, and now we are searching for a new spiritual goal.
“A large faction is saying, ‘Yes, we want to continue, conquer the Mount, to actualize the immense spirituality of the Holy Temple and sacrifices. On the other hand, there are those who are saying, ‘No, we should leave things as they are and deal with other things, [such as] social justice and other causes.’
“But I believe that this argument, which is growing, reflects a real ideological breaking point in religious Zionism, which is searching for its way.”
With the Temple Mount already serving as a flashpoint between Israel and the Palestinians, it remains to be seen if the pro-ascension wing continues its rise or if it slows down, either due to government pressure or to opposition from within the religious-Zionist population itself.