2

I have been reading in Exodus, specifically about the construction of the Tabernacle. The question occurred to me, whether following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E., anyone considered building another (mobile) Tabernacle to replace the Temple, i.e., in order to carry on the sacrifices and so forth. Was this ever given serious consideration? What were the arguments for or against?

(I don't read Mishnaic Hebrew or Aramaic, so English translations, or links to English translations, would be greatly appreciated.)

4
  • 1
    Possible duplicate judaism.stackexchange.com/q/45115/759 – Double AA Jan 14 at 11:50
  • Note also the many references to "the place that He will choose" throughout Deuteronomy (e.g., Deut. 12:13-14). | Incidentally, the Temple of Onias at Leontopolis existed concurrently with the Second Temple. According to some opinions, it was fundamentally illegitimate. According to others, it was an exception that was prophesied in Isaiah 19:19 (see M'nachos 109b), and there are various opinions about how to reconcile this with the prohibition of bringing sacrifices outside the Temple in Jerusalem. – Fred Jan 14 at 18:30
  • IMHO the decision was political. The Romans could afford to let the Jews continue rebelling and Rabbis didn't want to establish another Temple to diminish the power of Rabbinic Judaism. – Al Berko Jan 15 at 12:18
  • Philon (Philo Judaeus AKA Yedidyah HaKohen) of Alexandria was a prominent Rabbi in Egypt at that time and said the Temple of Onias was illegitimate in his writings. He held there is no replacement for the Temple in Jerusalem. – Yaacov Deane Jan 15 at 12:52
3

The traditional Jewish ruling on this subject is as summarized by Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:3):

Once the Temple was built in Jerusalem, it became forbidden to build a sanctuary for God or to offer sacrifices in any other place.

There is no Sanctuary for all generations except in Jerusalem and [specifically,] on Mt. Moriah, as [I Chronicles 22:1] states: "And David declared: 'This is the House of the Lord, God, and this is the altar for the burnt offerings of Israel.' and [Psalms 132:14] states: "This is My resting place forever."

(Touger translation)

In this, Maimonides is channeling the ruling of the Mishnah (redacted in the third century CE) in Zevachim 14:8:

When they came to Jerusalem, bamot (local altars) were forbidden and were never again permitted.

I am not aware of any arguments that were offered against this view in the years following the Temple’s destruction.

4
  • 1
    I read the question as one of history: whether anyone gave any practical consideration to making a tabernacle. This doesn't address that. But maybe I misread it. – msh210 Jan 14 at 16:23
  • @msh210 See my edit – Joel K Jan 14 at 16:45
  • I did see a reference that Bar Kochba rebuilt the altar on the temple mount for a korbon pesach. Note that he used the original altar site and was planning to rebuild the bais hamikdash. He definitely did not consider any other location. – sabbahillel Jan 14 at 18:22
  • @sabbahillel See Shu"t Maharatz Chayes, 17. And, yeah, that would only be at the Temple Mount (see D'varim 16:5-7). – Fred Jan 14 at 19:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .