Early Religious Zionism and Erudition Concerning the Temple and Sacrifices

Abstract

Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalisher’s messianic innovations asserted the centrality of a renewal of offerings on the altar to the creation of a linear path to redemption. Despite the common convention, his ideas were not disregarded by his peers and followers. In fact, while his ideas did not predetermine the rabbinic discourse, halakhic questions concerning the rebuilding of the Temple and its laws became quite popular and common. Surprisingly, lay figures, as well as several Talmudic scholars, kept this messianic idea alive. Indeed, from the second half of the nineteenth century onwards, such figures published numerous works calling for concrete efforts to rebuild the Temple and renew the offerings. These findings shed light on the renewed religious Zionist interest in this method of reconnecting with God and promoting the final redemption, which is neither new, nor does it deviate from known and publicly articulated ideas.

1. Introduction

Concluding a paper entitled “The Rebuilding of the Temple and the Re-introduction of Sacrifice in the Light of Rabbinical Judaism”, Raphael J. Z. Werblowsky (Werblowsky 1953) asserted:

Halakhic opinion is, to say the least, not such as to encourage the rebuilding of the Temple and the resumption of sacrifice.1 The orthodox rabbinical attitude is one of extreme reluctance, the liberal one is definitely negative. The biblical and liturgical texts may still have significance as imagery or as historical or symbolical utterances, but for all practical purposes, sacrificial ritual appears to have ceased, at present, to be a central and dynamic Jewish aspiration.

However, it seems that Werblowsky’s unambiguous tone does not accord with an analysis of a wide range of rabbinic works penned since the mid-nineteenth century. Specifically, his harsh criticism of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalisher (1795–1874), the famous proto-Zionist,2 as a lone maverick who almost deviated from rabbinic tradition is completely baseless3. More recently, Cohn-Sherbok and Waxman went even further, omitting the sacrifices completely from their portrayals of Kalisher’s ideology and theology (Cohn-Sherbok 2007, pp. 115–19; Avineri 2017, pp. 29–32; Waxman 1987, pp. 175–92).

In fact, many halakhic works from the mid-nineteenth century onward discuss the renewal of sacrifices in the Temple (Bleich 1967). As I endeavor to demonstrate in this paper, many of these works were composed as part of an ideological movement that espoused the Temple and its worship as essential elements of redemption. Some considered the actual performance of sacrifices an important phase of redemption, yet others were content with an intellectual consideration of these issues. When assessing the religious roots of religious Zionism’s ideology, one realizes that this repressed trend was quite focal, albeit not vociferous. Hence, I believe that while some researchers identify contemporary interest of religious Zionist circles in the Temple as an ideological deviation, the opposite is true. A yearning for the Temple, ideologically, within rabbinic literature and among artists, architects, and geographers with religious Zionist backgrounds is, in fact, natural.

2. Rabbi Kalisher and the Renewal of Temple Worship as a Crucial Phase of Achieving Redemption

Rabbi ZH Kalisher, the proto-Zionist, believed that the power of sacrifices offered in the future Temple would stimulate the process of redemption. Indeed, according to Kalisher, to achieve the maximal impact required for the full magnitude of redemption, two parallel forces were necessary: an earthly rebuilding of the land, with its agricultural, industrial, and infrastructural facets, and the renewal of Temple worship to stimulate Divine intervention vis-à-vis the redemptive process.4 In the first chapter of his work Derishat Zion, after describing the theological necessity of realizing and initiating the earthly aspects of settling the Land of Israel, he states (Kalisher 2002):

And when many of the dispersed people of Israel will dwell in the holy land and in Jerusalem, and they will sacrifice their offering to God, and rebuild the destroyed altar, a Divine desire from the Almighty to bestow a holy spirit on His nation will be conferred…

At that time, the war of Gog and Magog will come… after Israel will be collected from their dispersal, and then the Plant of God will grow and all his Righteous with Him, God will rejoice with His creatures, and He shall be the true King.

In his vision, Kalisher employs biblical (e.g., Ezekiel ch. 38) and midrashic sources. However, none of the sources he cites specifically refers to the role of sacrifices in the Temple as inherent to the process of redemption and bringing about Divine intervention to conclude the redemption (whereas many of the sources he employs support his claim that the physical return to the Land of Israel will indeed precede the coming of the Messiah and the final stages of redemption). Only in one source (Isaiah 56:7–8: “Even them will I bring to my holy mountain and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all people. The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him”)5 does Kalisher find an alleged concrete basis for his idea: he understands the verses as describing two phases of redemption—an early one, which includes the sacrifices and has a more particularistic character, and a later phase, a universal celebration of faith and prayer on the holy mountain (pp. 43–44). Another vague source that Kalisher cites is Nahmanides’ use of the Sifra (Nahmanides 2011, 12:5), but the disparity between Nahmanides’ discussion (which concentrates on intellectual and political efforts to attain control over the Land of Israel and the Temple Mount) and the renewal of active worship in the Temple is quite evident (p. 44).6

Further, even less relevant, sources are the Palestinian Talmud tractate Eduyot 8:7 (pp. 45–46) and some midrashic sources, none of which could be considered pertinent to the dramatic concept that Kalisher promotes.7

Despite the lack of sources that positively affirm Kalisher’s belief in the power of the Temple offerings, he accomplished a political and halakhic victory: he succeeded in recruiting two major contemporary rabbinic scholars to support the halakhic feasibility of the offerings in the present time: Rabbi Akiva Eger of Posnan (1761–1837) and Rabbi Moshe Schreiber of Pressburg (1762–1839; the latter affirmed only the renewal of the Passover offering as feasible and relevant to the goal) (Hatam Sofer 1851, answers 233, 236; see, also, Hatam Sofer 1973, answer 59). They followed in the footsteps of Rabbi Ya’akov Emden of Altona (Emden 1738, answer 89) and the medieval Talmudic scholar Rabbi Ashturi haParhi, citing Rabbi Yehiel of Paris, one of the prominent Ashkenazi leaders of the Tosafot school (Ishturi HaParhi 1546, p. 22b). By creating such a powerful coalition, Kalisher was able to disseminate his ideas, not only the halakhic discourse but also the ideological belief in the power of the offerings, among growing rabbinic circles.

However, it is quite evident that the section of Kalisher’s program dealing with the Temple and sacrifices did not have such a great impact on the Zionist movement at large or on the religious Zionist movement specifically. It is worth mentioning that, as some scholars have noted, during the 1860s, Kalisher was already aware of the remoteness of the feasibility of rebuilding the Temple in his time.

While the idea of rebuilding the land became popular and was realized from the late nineteenth century onwards—evidenced by the growing numbers of settlers and settlements, ideologues, and preachers—the idea of revitalizing the Temple was seemingly repressed and neglected. Indeed, much literature on religious Zionist messianism considers the idea of rebuilding the Temple and worshipping in it to be a complete deviation from the mainstream concepts of modern redemption (Ramon 1997; Rosenson 2001; Ben-Eliyahu 2008; Inbari 2007; Chen 2017).

Hence, many scholars describe contemporary interest in and engagement with issues relating to the Temple Mount and the Temple itself at the beginning of the new millennium as an expression of extreme fundamentalism and a right-wing romantic avant-garde. According to mainstream scholarship, only perversive interpretations of the conventional models of redemption could direct followers towards such a daring route.

However, in this paper I wish to shed light on an additional trend, one that existed in parallel with mainstream models of redemption in the history of the religious Zionist movement. I believe that the passion for and the necessity of the Temple as a crucial aspect of the futuristic redemption was an inherent component of the ideology and theology espoused by many figures who identified with religious Zionism or its various satellite groups. This trend has continued to exist from the time that Kalisher introduced his controversial ideas until the present today. (For a general survey of rabbinic literature on Temple issues, see Shalva 2006.) Hence, I believe that the Temple and the yearning for its rebuilding may be considered a natural component of several religious Zionist redemptive models. Moreover, the reintroduction of this idea into the political sphere, rabbinic literature, and arts, does not represent a deviation from normative models but rather a reawakening, a refocusing on a dormant and peripheral section of religious Zionist theology and ideology.

3. Early Messianic and Temple Trends within Proto-Zionism

In this section I wish to explore a range of ideologues who discussed the various questions regarding the possibility of reactivating the altar on Temple Mount, even without a surrounding Temple, as suggested by R. Kalisher. As was discussed above, Kalisher asserted that such an initiative would act as a stimulus for Divine intervention and ignite a powerful mode of redemption. Many of Kalisher’s contemporaries shared these ideas.

Rabbi Nathan Friedland, perhaps the most devoted adherent of Kalisher’s efforts and writings, published a book in Wloclavek in 1866 entitled Solu Solu HaMesilah (Isaiah 62:10, “Cast up, cast up the highway”) (Klausner 1967). This work constituted an anthology of sources supporting his teacher’s ideas and it described his tireless efforts and correspondence with rabbis and communal leaders throughout the world to raise funds and rouse the public to awareness of the opportunities that proto-Zionist initiatives offered. On p. 77, he writes:

I studied with the righteous and utterly wise genius R. Yosef Zundel Salanter, of righteous and blessed memory,8 … who was undoubtedly a student of the divine pious genius R. Hayyim of Volozin of righteous and blessed memory, whom all of his words and stories are always from his undisputed teacher, the Vilna Gaon, may his memory guard us, and he used to cite him as follows: If we only had the chance to sacrifice on Temple Mount the continual offering once—it will all be over … and that is his sublime opinion.9

Despite the vagueness of this testimony, Friedland evidently attempted to create a firm linkage between Kalisher’s innovative concept and the Gaon’s teachings. Indeed, he cites the names of highly prominent and well-known students, aligning them with the avant-garde role of achieving redemption for the nation by the mere act of bringing sacrifices.

Another testimony regarding the concept of offerings as stimulating the redemption during the early days of proto-Zionism, originating from the Vilna Gaon’s school, can be found in Rabbi Ya’akov Yosef HaLevi Dimitrovsky’s preface to his 1919 edition of Kalisher’s Derishat Zion (more on this edition below):

While visiting Rabbi Zvi Pesach Frank, one of Jerusalem’s scholars was present. When we spoke of this, he said that he testifies with certainty that he heard from the pious genius R. Yitzhak Melzan,10 that he heard the idea I cited from Solu Solu haMesilah from our rabbi, the great genius R. Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin of Volozhin, and he explicitly told him that they have a tradition, man by man, going back to the Vilna Gaon, ZTL.

A parallel concept can be found in R. Eliyahu Guttmacher’s ideological texts. In his notes on Kalisher’s Derishat Zion, Mikhtav meEliyahu, in response to R. Ya’akov Etlinger’s remarks, Guttmacher states (Kalisher 2002, p. 261):

According to our teacher, Rabbi Zvi Kalisher, [who says] that the redemption will not arrive suddenly but rather as a slow process, we must understand that in the beginning there will only be a progressive growth of David’s Horn [as in Isaiah 61:11, “as the garden causeth” a slow growth]… and as the rays of light of growth shine—when Jerusalem will be slightly built… a prayer will be held, and sacrifices [will be offered] in the place of the Temple. Then the phase of “to all the people” will arrive. All in the path of our teacher, Rabbi Zvi Kalisher.

Guttmacher appears to only summarize Kalisher’s ideas, without elaborating on them at all. In the preface to the edition that contains his notes, Guttmacher observed the following, supporting my interpretation of his restrained attitude towards the subject (namely, if Kalisher said so, it is apparently correct…):

Regarding what the author wrote lengthily in the portion “article of worship” [concerning the renewal of Temple worship] with casuistry and proficiency, much is to be said. I myself contributed some notes there… yet… one must understand clearly that it is a great commandment to publish and assert this part, since the scrutiny, the inquiry, the writing, reading, and learning of these topics stimulate compassion and pardon upon us, to open the gates of redemption and to allow us to fulfil all of God’s commandments, and every saying on this subject is a sweet savor to our father in Heaven.

Again, he does not dwell on the topic. He merely portrays it as important, ratifying Kalisher’s ideas.11

R. Yitzhak Nissenbaum, the last president of the Mizrahi movement in Poland, dedicated journalistic columns, which were later collected in a book, to Friedland and Guttmacher’s mythical endeavor for realizing the redemption. However, despite his thorough and detailed acquaintance with their works and his specific mention of Friedland’s relationship with Rabbi Salant, the great disciple of RH of Volozin, we find a complete disregard for the aspects of his vision relating to the Temple.12

R. Menahem Mendel (RMM) of Shkloŭ, one of the most prominent leaders among the students of the Vilna Gaon who immigrated to the Land of Israel, also promotes the idea of reactivating the worship in the Temple as a stimulus for the redemption. In an early book, composed even before he left Europe, he writes (Menahem Mendel of Shkloŭ 2008, p. 48):13

And then our mouths will be filled with joy… and from there [the Temple] Torah will be its light will shine upon Israel, by means of the practice of sacrifices, and of course [by] the high priest with his eight garments [who] will atone for all our sins, and with the two continuous offerings, as required, then from Zion the Torah will emanate, and the words of God, Halakha, from Jerusalem, specifically, [thus realizing] the secret of the feminine (Nukva), the secret of the Hewn Stone chamber, half of it in the Holy and half in the non-holy…

Admittedly, however, RMM does not claim that rebuilding the Temple is a necessary and sufficient condition for the redemption, as Kalisher does. He indeed mentions the contribution of the Temple to the redemptive process, its spiritual importance, yet had he believed it was as central and pivotal as Kalisher did, we would find a much greater scrutiny of the physical Temple, which is missing from his work.

In sum, whereas Kalisher asserted the central role of renewing worship in the Temple as part of the process of Jewish redemption, his peers and students did not entirely agree with this idea. We find to some extent in teachings from the Vilna Gaon’s school and among many of his followers an interest in renewal of the Temple and the assimilation of this concept in their visions of redemption. Hence, we can conclude that Kalisher’s ideas concerning the Temple were neither rejected nor fully embraced in the early years of proto-Zionism.

4. Scholarly (Lamdanut) Discussions Regarding the Offerings Ignited by Kalisher

Kalisher’s ideas sparked a new interest in two somewhat hypothetical questions:

(1)

Is building the Temple nowadays feasible?

(2)

Is one permitted to worship and offer sacrifices while the Temple lies in ruins and, more importantly, is this an effective method of stimulating redemption?

It is important to note that this discussion does not concern the geo-political or diplomatic aspects of these questions. Rather, I wish to outline a range of halakhic discussions regarding these matters. I believe this may indicate the emotional commitment to and intellectual importance of the idea of a physical Temple in actual phases of redemption. Discussing questions of the Temple and its functionality may imply that these are not abstract interests but rather serious discussions concerning significant aspects of the future redemption. Such remarks are very common and accompany many judicial analyses relating to this topic.

In this section, I wish to shed light on the scope of the discourse concerning the second question: Are sacrifices on the altar permissible today?

As was mentioned above, R. Ya’akov Etlinger published a direct rejection of Kalisher’s innovations.14 No less than four letters at the beginning of his collection of responsa discuss Kalisher’s audacious initiative. Etlinger examined the various pieces of textual evidence that Kalisher cited, declaring: “In my humble opinion, not only do they fail to support your claims, but in fact they oppose them” (Etlinger 1868, vol. 1, answer 1). Yet it appears that the importance of this response lies in what Etlinger reveals later, when he describes a discourse with Rabbi Ya’akov Koppel Bamberger of Worms. Etlinger asserts that one must differentiate between Jewish life with and without the Temple. With a valid prophetic commandment and Divine stimulus, it is permitted to offer sacrifices on the altar even without a Temple. By contrast, when the Temple lies in ruins, without a Divine stimulus, it is against God’s will to offer sacrifices.15

This issue attracted the attention of contemporaneous Talmudic scholars.16 Some opposed Kalisher,17 while others enthusiastically endorsed his ideas.18 Both his opponents and his supporters contributed to a boom in the field of scholarly discussions concerning the Temple, a subject that has continued to draw interest ever since. Hence, Kalisher’s initiative may be considered an important turning point in Talmudic scholarship of the last 150 years.

The most prominent contributor to the discussion of this issue, despite having no known ties to religious Zionism, is Rabbi Yisrael Meir haCohen of Radin, known as the Hafez Hayyim (henceforth, HH).19 Some of his students and relatives connected his scholarly interest in the Temple with messianism.

The HH composed no less than seventeen rabbinic volumes dealing with the Temple and its laws:

Twelve volumes of Likutei Halakhot;20

Three volumes of exegetical anthologies concerning Temple-related tractates, entitled Aseifat Zekenim;21

A commentary on the Sifra (Warsaw 1928); and

Torah Or (on the necessity and merits of studying topics relating to the Temple) (Warsaw 1900).

All these works acknowledge the inherent power of theoretically scrutinizing topics related to the Temple, which is of great significance in bringing about redemption. In his first preface to Zevahim, which the HH references in all the following volumes, he mentions the two-faceted virtue of Torah study—theoretical (after the destruction of the Temple) and practical. He includes Temple-related topics in the theoretical facet. The HH is intrigued by the neglect of this portion of Torah studies because numerous opinions claimed that studying the sacrifices is equivalent to bringing the actual offerings. Yet nowhere does he call for an actual renewal of Temple worship, nor does he mention its unique contribution to the redemption.

However, this concept can be found in HH’s work Torah Or, which is dedicated to promoting the study of issues regarding the Temple. Chapter 10 bears the subtitle: “Describing how offerings and their study brings the redemption closer”. Yet a reading of the chapter reveals that the HH did not attribute a specific redemptive virtue to the offerings. Rather, he discussed a reality of fully practicing all of God’s decrees, including the Temple decrees, as crucial to achieving spiritual closeness to God and thus achieving redemption. Nowhere does he mention that the offerings possess a mystical power or that they can act as some sort of means to bypass the long and complicated processes of redemption.

Essentially, the HH’s extensive discussions of Temple issues may be understood as confronting the radical Messianic concepts promoted by Kalisher. Indeed, he moderates the messianic facet of this topic, normalizing it within the formal rabbinic curriculum.

In his preface to a book by his son-in-law, Aharon Cohen, and in a short letter that his son-in-law cites in his own preface, HH repeats similar ideas (Cohen 1913). Yet in his own brief preface, Aharon Cohen mentions the redemptive power of topics relating to the Temple:

And this brings the redemption closer, as is mentioned in the Midrash on Lamentations, during the destruction of the Temple, Isaac our forefather asked God whether the diaspora is irreversible, and God responded, “Don’t say that, there will be a generation that will expect my kingship and they will be redeemed immediately.”

Despite the fact that this source makes no specific reference to offerings, Rabbi Cohen identified God’s renewed kingship with the renewal of the offerings. Cohen himself did not elaborate on this point in his other writings.

The HH was not the only prominent scholar to return to the matter of the Temple in a more moderate manner. Several non-Hebrew works from the same period, targeted at general and academic audiences, focused on reviving the centrality of the Temple in religious life. Indeed, Rabbi Esriel Hildesheimer, a famous nineteenth-century German Orthodox leader, dedicated a German work to Herod’s Temple, Die Beschreibung des herodianischen Tempels in Tractate Middoth und bei Flavius Josephus.22 According to Hildesheimer, his aim in composing this text was to affirm the measurements in the Mishnah and to harmonize them with historical documents from the same period.

Likewise, Rabbi Saul Moshe Slagter from the Netherlands published several Dutch articles on daily life in the Temple.23 Slagter opens his work with a stark proclamation (p. 7):

A clear understanding of the history of the Jewish people necessitates first and foremost a comparison of the life of the Jewish people with the spiritual summit that it must aspire to achieve. Namely, the place in which the most perfect materialization of the Divine commandments of the Torah [occurred], both nationally and personally, where Judaism is fully revealed, and where Jewish history discloses to us its greatest chapters.

Shortly afterwards, Rabbi Yehoshua Yosef Kolbo authored his fictional work Binyan Ariel (Kolbo 1883), describing alleged documents and findings from the Vatican and other mysterious libraries.24 This work, despite its dubious character, ignited many theories of conspiracy and rumors regarding the Temple’s archeological remnants and messianic virtue.25 Kolbo, a professor of archeology, was known as the greatest specialist of his time on the topic of the Temple Mount.26

Two additional noteworthy works from the same period, composed by lay people, are Ya’akov Novik’s Yesod HaMikdash (Warsaw: Edelstein & Co., 1905)27 and Aharon Daglin’s Mikdash Aharon (Warsaw: Orgelbrand Bros., 1891).28 Novik called for a political coalition to promote the rebuilding of the Temple. He believed this would evolve into a fundamental part of the transformations the Jewish nation was experiencing at the turn of the twentieth century. Daglin aimed for a more hypothetical target: he promoted the study and creation of accurate models of the Temple and the Tabernacle, as mentioned in his preface and in the various letters of approbation that he received.

It seems that, despite some interest in the field of the Temple and some enthusiasm within the HH’s circle and school, only a few decades later would religious Zionist scholars promote more professional and messianic scrutiny, as we will see in the following section.

5. Religious Zionism and Proxy Discussions Regarding the Temple in Rabbinic Circles

During the first half of the twentieth century, the Temple became a theoretical topic within rabbinic circles. The significant scholars who discussed this matter belonged to different circles of religious Zionism, some more dominant than others. Their discussions reveal that this topic was of great importance in molding the religious Zionist ethos. Undoubtedly, the most important contributor was Rabbi Zvi Pesach Frank, who later served as Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem and was a fierce advocate for Rabbi Kook’s leadership and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, a Zionist enterprise that opposed the anti-Zionist ultra-orthodox circles.29

Frank (1873–1960) was one of the most important rabbinic figures of his time in the Land of Israel. Many of his writings were collected and published under the title Har Zvi.30 Frank was particularly interested in messianic discussions of the Temple, as is revealed in the edition of Derishat Zion published under his authority and with his encouragement, as mentioned above (the Dimitrovsky edition).

Frank himself composed several works concerning the Temple,31 most importantly Kuntres Har Zvi, written in 1917.32 Frank discusses in great detail the possibility and feasibility of rebuilding the Temple before the arrival of the Messiah, under foreign rule, and as a means to hasten the redemption.33 He concludes the epilogue to his endeavor by articulating the possibility of contemporary offerings in the following manner:

It is a Divine commandment to scrutinize the building of the Temple and its vessels, even when [they are] destroyed. Especially in this time, when we have been granted the right to observe the signs of imminent redemption, and the voice of the dove can be heard in our land, it is imperative that Torah scholars notice this portion of Halakhah, which the great spiritual leaders of our generations began studying, when no trace of redemption was evident, and they were far from where we are. A fortiori now when God has brought us closer in His grace…

Rabbi Frank vocally advocated the renewal of the offerings. In a series of articles, he dismantled the opposition to Kalisher’s initiative, disputing the restrained positions that allowed only the Passover offering to be performed in the present day (1921–1922).34

Yet Frank was not the only rabbinic scholar interested in these issues. The following is a partial list of notable religious Zionist rabbinic masters and their works on the Temple and its halakhic world:

Yitzhak Vinograd (died 1912), head of Yeshivah Torat Hayyim, Jerusalem. Torat Hayyim.35

Shmuel Yitzhak Hillman (1868–1953), Chief Rabbi of Glasgow, head of Yeshivah Ohel Torah, Jerusalem. Or HaYashar, six volumes on Temple-related issues (Jerusalem: 1921–1936).36 One of the volumes (Bekhorot, published in 1921) contains Rabbi YI Herzog’s first book, Kuntres Divrei Yizhak, which is also dedicated to Temple issues. Hillman was known for his positive attitude towards Zionism, as reflected by the fact that the Minister of Religious Affairs and chair of the religious Zionist party, Moshe Hayyim Shapira, was one of the eulogists at his funeral.

Moshe Avigdor Amiel (1882–1945), Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv, and one of the Mizrahi movement’s leaders and ideologues. Derekh HaKodesh, two volumes (Antwerp: 1922–1925).37

The absence of Rabbi A.Y. Kook from this list is quite evident, due to his centrality within rabbinic circles with a positive attitude towards Zionism. Some reasons for his being omitted from a discussion of this theme, besides the obvious one—that he negated it—may be mentioned. Kook was Chief Rabbi, with a firm historical self-view and responsibility. He was not any ordinary thinker or rabbinic leader. Hence, any expression of this sort might cause severe turbulence religiously but even more so politically. His restrained attitude is quite clear in his testimony before the international committees dealing with Jerusalem and the Wailing Wall (see Ben-Eliyahu (2008)). Yet, as mentioned above and hereinafter, many of the rabbis and lay people who did pronounce an active vision and passion for the Temple came from his inner circles.

Yehiel Michel Tucazinsky (1871–1955). Ir HaKodesh veHaMikdash, volumes 4–5 (Jerusalem: Salomon Press, 1970).38 Tucazinsky was a member of the Chief Rabbinate’s Council, appointed by Rabbi Kook. He is the most explicit of all the figures in this list, affirming Kalisher’s novelty:

When we will be granted the right to build the altar, and to offer on it public offerings, we will earn the virtue to fulfill our destiny and completely build our glorious Temple, and bring our messiah, who will redeem all of Israel entirely, in matter and spirit. Many nations will follow his light, and all the earth will become aware of God’s presence.

Shmuel Yom Tov Halevi Brott (1885–1963), President of the Mizrahi movement in Poland, member of the Supreme Rabbinic Court of Israel. Sugyot beKodshim (Brott 1969) (ed. Hayyim Naftali Weissblum).

Yisrael HaLevi Be’eri-Kolodner (1911–1972), Chief Rabbi of Nes Ziona, member of the Mizrahi movement, and its rabbinic body. Be’eri was Rabbi Ya’akov Moshe Harlap’s (one of the closest students of Kook and one of his successors in running his Yeshivah, Merkaz HaRav) son-in-law. Mishnat Rishonim, three volumes (Jerusalem, 1950–1966).39

Yehudah Gershoni (1908–2000). One of Rabbi AY Kook’s most famous students. Hukkat HaPesach, two volumes (Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1946–1955).

A predominant authority in this field was Rabbi Mordekhai Ilan (1915–1981), who penned the highly acclaimed works Knesset HaRishonim and Torat HaKodesh.40 Ilan was a student of Kook’s famous Yeshivah—Merkaz HaRav—and, like Rabbi Be’eri, was son-in-law of one of its leaders, Rabbi Yitzhak Arieli.

In the preface to the first volume of Torat HaKodesh, a passionate messianic document, Ilan states:

The scrutiny of the Torah and the Temple will reunite the people of Israel, it will help them regain their exalted and sublime status, inspiring the revelation of prophecy and God’s light and Israel’s holiness in the world.

While not as radical as Kalisher, Ilan identifies learning the laws of the Temple as an essential aspect of achieving redemption. While he does not refer to physical offerings, by learning and publishing on the Temple, so he claims, one can help to promote the redemption and ensure that the nation of Israel regains its place.

As was mentioned above, these represent but a small sample of a vast trend of scholarly interest in the Temple and its contemporary feasibility within religious Zionist rabbinic circles. Their linkage to Rabbi Kook’s inner circle in indisputable and the fact that they were interested in various aspects of the Temple vis-à-vis their strong emotions regarding the establishment of a Jewish state, in conjunction with their Zionist worldview, is quite evident.

6. Lay Interest in the Temple’s Measurements and Potential Appearance

The scope of interest in the Temple reflects an internalization of the ideals and worldviews of the forefathers of religious Zionism. This allows us to understand the phenomenon of focusing on the Temple as a substantial layer in the evolution of redemption in a deeper sense. Many diverse sectors of religious Zionist society were deliberate in achieving progress in the promotion of Temple-related ideas. Perhaps the most unique facet of the renewed interest in the Temple is the range of non-expert studies regarding the possibilities of its reconstruction. We can discern a striking passion to portray and promote the Temple specifically among the grassroots of religious Zionist society from the end of the nineteenth century onwards, as mentioned above (i.e., Daglin and Novik). As time passed, this trend intensified.

The following list includes some notable individuals and their works:

Ya’akov Shmuel Trachtman, Zurat HaBayit o Pil’ei HaZayar (Trachtman 1913). A romantic trope on a pseudo-biblical figure destined to create an image of the Temple. The epilogue identifies modern creations, such as schools, hospitals, and public institutions, as Temple-like milestones in the re-establishment of a Jewish state. Trachtman was a known advocate for rebuilding the Land of Israel, agriculturally, financially, and with an emphasis on a religious atmosphere.

Yehudah Noah Brawer (1860–1940), Avnei HaLevanon (Brawer 1926). This booklet is dedicated to creating a movement promoting the rebuilding of the Temple and recruiting the rabbinic world to this mission. It is comprised of letters sent as early as 1917.41 Brawer preached in several towns in Eastern Europe, but after immigrating to the Land of Israel he did not officiate as a rabbi; in fact, he was considered a maverick in rabbinic circles. This was mainly because of his next publication, Sha’ar Daltei HaLevanon. On p. 8, Brawer cites Gershon Hanoch Hennich Leiner of Radzin-Izbica as a source for the idea of stimulating redemption via human endeavors related to the Temple.42

Idem, Sha’ar Daltei HaLevanon (Brawer 1928). A booklet dealing with the possibilities of entering Temple Mount in the current time. Rabbinic circles responded fiercely, and Rabbis Kook, Tucazinsky, Sonnenfeld, and many others were united in their opposition to this work.43

Moshe Weiss, Beit HaBehirah (Weiss 1946). Chief Rabbi Herzog’s restrained approbation expresses his discomfort regarding parts of this book.44

Aharon Moses, Beit Mikdash veKorbanot (New York: STAM, 1948). In his preface, Moses claims that the existence of the Temple would have prevented violent atrocities against the people of Israel, alluding specifically to the Holocaust. According to him, the Temple unites Israel’s soul and flesh, while in its absence Israel’s flesh is slaughtered and offered on the devil’s altar (pp. 2–3).

Raphael Avraham Shalem, Yarim Rosh (Jerusalem, 1967) (containing ten annotated illustrations of the Temple).45 Shalem was a religious Zionist and had family ties to Mizrahi institutions (his son, Shimon-Shlomo, who died as a soldier in reserve, was on the faculty in Mizrahi seminars for teachers).

Shaul Sheffer (1918–1996), penned seven volumes of his anthology Encyclopedia of the Tabernacle and the Temple (Jerusalem: Yefe Nof, 1959–1969). Numerous mentions of his books and influence on the field of Temple awareness within religious Zionist papers and pamphlets are an attestation of the place they found in the hearts of their readers.

This collection of publications is quite unique. Such interest in and writing about a supposedly rabbinic topic by non-rabbinic figures implies a subversive trend within religious Zionist society and its proxy sections of the Jewish communities, specifically in the Land of Israel (and later the State of Israel).

It appears that while Kalisher ignited a spark of interest regarding the Temple within rabbinic circles and among Talmudic scholars, the general public, mostly within religious Zionist circles, was, in fact, heir to his messianic attitude towards this issue in a more blatant and non-apologetic manner.

Most rabbinic figures tended to interpret the possible messianic virtue of dealing with the Temple’s numerous laws and logistical challenges as a cognitive one; while limited to the intellectual sphere, in the long term this could possibly promote real change. Some also believed that spreading interest in the Temple may entail metaphysical merit.

However, lay figures tended to promote discussions of and interest in the Temple as a concrete step toward achieving redemption and as a crucial step in advancing actual attempts to renew worship and rebuild and reactivate the Temple.

7. Conclusions

Kalisher’s messianic innovations were bold and generally lacked the support of classic sources of rabbinic literature. He sincerely believed that a renewal of offerings on the altar would create a linear path to redemption. Although respected by many of his peers, and despite attracting several adherents within rabbinic circles (most notably Rabbi Zvi Pesah Frank), it is evident that his ideas did not predetermine rabbinic discourse on this topic. Indeed, halakhic questions concerning the rebuilding of the Temple and its laws became quite popular and common. The HH certainly contributed to that effort more than any other influential scholar. Yet the messianic passion that Kalisher articulated did not spread, essentially becoming extinct in rabbinic discourse.

Surprisingly, lay figures kept the messianic idea alive. Indeed, from the second half of the nineteenth century onwards, such figures published numerous works advocating concrete efforts to rebuild the Temple and renew the offerings.

These findings shed light on modern-day interest in the Temple and its possible reconstruction. Religious Zionist interest in this method of reconnecting with God and promoting the final redemption is not new, nor does it deviate from known and publicly articulated ideas. As I have shown, a broad and encompassing interest in the Temple and its rebuilding was prevalent in religious Zionist circles for more than a century, and this interest was diverse in its agents and forms of revelation. The resurfacing of this movement and ideology should be attributed more to the geo-political and demographic shifts in Israeli society than to an invention of new and aberrant traditions within Jewish thought.