According to a law set forth in our Parshah, G-d's destruction of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem was not just a tragic event -- it also may have been illegal...
Very upbeat positive tone, interesting too.
Paralleling this to contemporary day similar notions of G-d circumvented the prohibition against iconoclasm by displacing his rage against the Temple, instead of the Jewish nation, could apply to the ravaging of synagogues in Natzi Germany and ever increasing attacks on Jewish establishments today. In affect, the preservation of the ultimate religious "artifact," namely, the Jewish people have continued to thrive, despite precipitously calculated attempts at annihilation.
Without asserting all of our tribulations were divinely sanctioned (in my opinion, a horrible claim to make) I very much enjoyed this pollyannish perspective.
Thank you!
|
Discussing The Legalities of Destruction with my daughter, she raised the question that, if one can destroy a Beit Ha Micdash should the purpose of the destruction is its betterment throughout the process of building a second one, how comes that our ancestors cried because the second Temple wasn't as beautiful as the first? So, is the construction of the second Beit Ha Micdash a case of illegality (G_d forbids) (following the logic of the article)?
|
Interesting observation/question. Without being certain, I think that those who lamented the appearance of the second Beit Ha makidash, had solely done so with respect to the spiritual difference of the second temple not the material difference. With that in mind, the second temple was a superior structure to the first, but lacked certain spiritual qualities that the first contained. Presupposing we were lamenting the spiritual differences of the temple, it seems like the logic of the article does makes sense.
|
Eli has a true point as the gemarah says that the ten miracles which were present by the first temple (the smoke rising straight upwards, the fires being permanent, the bread on the table remaining fresh the whole week) were missing by the second. So too the main holiness of the temple, the aron, was missing. An excellent article.
|
even His law and commands. In fact, when He speaks it happens... (as soon as He wills it, it becomes.) so, a discussion over whether or not He broke the law is beyond overboard -- it approaches blasphemy.
It is Man who must choose whether or not to overstep the laws of G-d, not the other way around. Perhaps, if Man would spend more time thinking about what He has said and not about what people said He has said or should have said, or meant to say, there would be a LOT less confusion, pain and destruction on the planet.
Our intellectual growth is stunted by putting G-d into question. We do not grow by this. We are not made better. Certainly, the hypothesis is negated in the article, but the fact that it is honored as a legitimate question is disappointing.
|
From a beginning student looking in, I wonder if the Jews violating the convenant did not in fact void the contract with G-d. If that is the case, then the act would be legal. Further, was not warning given years in advance?
|
The covenant between G-d and Israel is described in a number of places in the Torah as an "everlasting covenant." Leviticus 26:44-45 states explicitly that even when the Jews have sinned and are sent into exile as a punishment for their sins, G-d will not break His covenant with them.
|
|
LOGIN
ASK THE RABBI
Read this article
