XI. The Solution to the Problematics of Rashi's Opinion.

The distinction between a Temple in this world, which it is obligatory to build physically, and a Temple in the world to come, which is entirely Heavenly, explains the contradiction in Rashi's commentaries. Throughout his commentaries Rashi makes it clear that the precept of rebuilding the Temple obligates human beings until the end of time, while in his commentary to tractate Sukka (and Rosh Hashana) he mentions the concept of "the future Temple being revealed by Heaven."

This apparent contradiction has by now been resolved, for Rashi does not contest the principle that Torah precepts are forever valid, yet in order to explain away the problematics in the Amoraic saying raising the distant possibility of the Temple being built on a Festive Day -- Rashi finds it necessary to use the concept of a 'Heaven-sent Temple' in the world to come, thus facilitating the explanation of the unlikely possibility of the Temple being built on a Festive Day. There is, however, no certainty that Rashi's proposed solution was acceptable to the Talmudic protagonists, for other commentators offered other solutions -- as noted supra, and after all this his statement remains obscure.

XII. The Belief in a Heaven-sent Temple contradicts Basic Torah Elements.

The very existence of the concept of 'a Heaven-sent Temple' and the belief in such a concept would seem to challenge basic elements in Torah and in Jewish belief.

The following is a partial list of such Torah elements which seem to contradict any possibility of the existence in Judaism of such a concept.

A basic element of Jewish belief is the belief that Torah precepts are immutable. Accordingly, there cannot be a reality where Hashem first commands Israel to build a Temple as a lasting precept, followed by an order not to build any longer, for the Temple will descend from Heaven.

Maimonides in Hilkhot Yesodei HaTorah, in his Introduction to the Mishna and, in essence, in Iggeret Teiman writes as follows: "Moshe Rabbeinu . . . told us that there remain in Heaven no precepts to be handed down. . . . It is not in Heaven! He obligated us to believe in this Torah -- us, our children and our children's children until the very end of generations, for we find written: The things revealed are for us and for our children forever, to perform all the precepts of this Torah . . . and any prophet who says . . . that the obligation to perform any precept is no longer valid -- is lying! . . . and so we must put him to death if we are able to do so."

The ruling that at some stage the obligation for the Jewish people to rebuild the temple was invalidated, that precept now obligating Heaven, thus contradicts the basic elements of Torah in three ways:

[a] since no such thing was ever written into the Written Torah, and is a late ruling, it must mean that the Almighty altered the Torah;

[b] since the Jewish people took upon themselves the obligation to perform all Torah precepts forever, whereas the precept of building the Temple related only to the First and Second Temples (according to those who think this way) while the Third Temple will be built by the Almighty, this precept was thus removed insofar as the obligation to fulfill it was invalidated after a period of time -- but the Torah states explicitly: Do not detract from it.

[c] No prophet or commentator is authorized to innovate a Torah precept. How then did it happen that Rashi innovated a precept we learned not from Moshe Rabbeinu, not from any prophet, nor from our Sages -- that the precept of building a Third Temple is now invalid?

In light of all this, it is inconceivable that Rashi would innovate such a ruling which, as we have seen, is equivalent to the uprooting of basic elements of Torah and Jewish belief relating to the eternal nature of Torah and the eternal obligation to perform its precepts.

7

# pgs: 1 + article index, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Volume I, Number 1