The argument as to whether the Third Temple will descend from Heaven does not lack practical aspects. The question is not merely one of philosophy or of faith. The crux of the argument is the practical conclusion to be drawn from it: are we obligated today to build a Temple?

It will not be erroneous to state that contemporary rabbis who act to strengthen the belief in a Heaven-sent Temple do so in order to evade the uncomfortable reality that the site of our Temple is at present not in our hands. Thus they find it convenient to stress their belief in a Heaven-sent Temple. This is stated explicitly by contemporary poskim, authorities in Halakha (Jewish Law), to whom the rebuilding of the Temple in our time seems unrealistic. It is thus vital to clarify matters at the very onset.

It must further be noted that the authority to issue halakhic rulings in accordance with human reasoning was granted to human beings to ensure the fulfillment of Torah and the precise enactment of every Torah precept, and not to bring about their invalidation. This is the meaning of the Torah verse: For this Torah . . . is not in Heaven . . . for it is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart to perform it. And so, when a halakhic ruling is encountered, stemming not from the Sanhedrin, but rather from a single halakhic authority, and aimed at invalidating a Torah precept, such as the canceling of the obligation to build the Holy Temple at the present time, it should arouse the indignation of any Jew believing in the Torah.

The Almighty did not authorize our prophets and sages to invalidate Torah precepts, but only to defend the Torah and to encourage the Jewish people to perform its precepts. As with any other case of delegated authority, the following rule is valid; "I appointed you to improve the situation, not to worsen it" (Bavli, Kiddushin 42b).

In his commentary on the Torah, Rashi rules that the Temple is to be built by man as a lasting obligatory precept, whether he was discussing the Temple in the present or in the future.

The following are three Torah sources for Rashi's explanation:

[a] In Genesis (49:11) we read: he ties his donkey to the vine. Rashi explains that the verse refers to the building of the Temple in the end of days. Rashi adds (like the Targum) that the Jewish people will be the ones who build the Temple in the Messianic era, v. ibid.

[b] The Torah mentions the Temple to be built in the future in the Song at the Sea: The Temple, Hashem, Your hands have built. Rashi explains there (like the Mekhilta) that the verse does not mean that the building will be done by the Almighty Himself, but rather "as it were, with His two hands." In Rashi's opinion, the verse means that it will be a strong Temple, one that will not be destroyed by foes (v. Rashi and his source, the Mekhilta).

It is strange that the main source for the commentators' faith in a Heaven-sent Temple -- where they explained that "The Temple, Hashem, Your hands have built" means His actual hands, adding that Rashi was the first to rule that way -- turns out to say the precise opposite: Rashi himself explains that this phrase is no more than a parable, and that the Temple will be built by man, but that the Almighty will strengthen it as if it had been built "with His two hands."

[c] T'ruma is the main source for the precept of building the Temple. A hundred and forty precepts are stated in connection with the construction of the Tabernacle, the vessels and the garments: and they shall make Me a sanctuary, and you shall do so, and they shall make an Ark, and you shall make a candelabrum, and you shall join, and you shall plate, and you shall insert and so on. Rashi, following in the footsteps of the Sages (Sanhedrin 16 and Shavuot 14) states that these commandments are of lasting validity. By this statement Rashi has ruled out the possibility of a Temple being built by the Almighty.

One of the characteristics of the concept of a Temple descending from Heaven is the fact that all its proponents rely on Aggadic sources. This is so despite a basic rule in halakhic reasoning, that halakhic rulings are not to be based on the consequences of an Aggadic source. In the Jerusalem Talmud this rule is expressed in simple fashion: We do not make deductions from Aggadic sources (Yerushalmi, Pe'a 2:4).

We shall show infra that various writers have come up with curious statements in their books. Since there is no well-founded source for a Heaven-sent Temple, various ideas have been developed: one opinion is that the Temple descending from Heaven will be made of fire, another opinion is that it will be made of pearls and precious stones, and one writer states that it is the Temple described by Ezekiel that will drop from Heaven. Each writer derives his own hypothesis on the basis of what he has learned.

Moreover, there has been a lack of precision in quoting the sources, a phenomenon which facilitates the drawing of erroneous conclusions. In Rashi's commentaries, for instance, nowhere does it say that the Temple "will descend from Heaven." Rashi speaks of a Temple "which shall gradually appear on the scene." Such a Temple could, for example, be discovered by man on this earth, like many other discoveries made in our generation.

There are aggadic sources which mention the possibility of a Heaven-sent Temple, but the various midrashim make it clear that this is a Temple in the world to come. In this regard Maimonides has already stated "that in the world to come there is neither eating nor drinking . . . but merely the righteous sitting with diadems on their heads, enjoying the radiance of the Divine Presence" (Hilkhot T'shuva). If this is the case, the Temple in the world to come is a spiritual Temple. Our sages have said regarding this period in a spiritual world: Torah precepts are not valid in the world to come (Nidda 61).