The Netziv interprets as a double punishment ‘v’hashimosi es mikdisehichem’, which refers to the destruction of the Bais haMikdash, ‘v’lo ariach b’reiach nichocheichem’, which refers to Hashem’s refusal to accept our korbanos. Even though theoretically korbanos could be offered on the mizbeyach without the Bais haMikdash standing, the tochacha prohibits doing so. The only exception would be to offer the korban pesach, which is never described as ‘reiach nichoach’. (There exists a whole literature in achronim on the possibility of offering a korban even without the bais hamikdash standing – if I recall correctly, R’ Yechiel m’Paris, of the ba’alei hatosfos, suggested such a possibility, and it was widely debated in the 18th century by the likes of R’ Tzvi Hirsch Kalisher, R’ Akiva Eiger, and others).
According to the Netziv, it would be permissible to bring korbanos once this curse of ‘lo ariach’ is lifted even before the actual Bais haMikdash is completed, but what struck me is the condition he sets up for thaqt occurring - “ad sheyhiyeh he’ara min hashamayim v’rishyom m’umos ha’olam livnot beit hamikdash”. I am not sure if this is poetic flourish of some sort or to be taken literally, but it suggests that without some Heavenly sign or assistance (he’ara min hashamayim) and also without the permission of the non-Jews (rishyon m’umos) the Bais haMikdash cannot be rebuilt. True, the second Bais haMikdash was built only with the permission of Koresh, but I had assumed that was more of a practical matter because the Persian Empire controlled the location, not a halachic requirement. Does the Netziv here mean we need permission from the non-Jews also simply as a practical matter, or is there some halachic significance to this statement?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
R. Eliyahu Gutmacher, in his Michtav Me-Eliyahu notes to Derishas Tziyon, points out that according to the Ramban and Rabbenu Bachya, the pasuk of "ve-hashimosi..." is referring to the galus following Bayis Rishon.
ReplyDeleteI could be wrong, but wasn't Michtav Me-Eliyahu R' Dessler?
ReplyDeleteMichtav m'Eliyahu=R' Eliyahu Guttmacher. The Ramban learns one tochacha is for bayis rishon, one bayis sheni (and there will never be another churban). But the Netziv is saying a halacha l'doros, not a unique circumstance to churban bayis rishonm - see his kashe from zevachim.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, as the Galut is characterized by the oppression of the Gentiles, the end of the Galut will be marked by some sort of formal acknowledgement that there will be no more oppression. Or another perhaps--there will be some formal promise by the nations that they will never again come with war against the Sanctuary.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm not sure those would qualify as purely halachic considerations. Perhaps he was factoring in the adjurations of Shir haShirim (on which he did himself write a commentary)??
The GRA in his commentary to Shir HaShirim re the Three Oaths refers explicitly to the Mikdash as something we are not allowed to build without Rishyon HaUmmos.
ReplyDeleteI did not know that - can you point me to where he says this? Thank you!
ReplyDeleteOn Shir HaShirim 2:7 .
ReplyDeleteI have to correct that, I could not find it there. I'll have to look some more. What I do know for certain is that in a Kuntress on matters of the Geula called MiMayenei HaYeshua, by a son of a Talmid of the GRA, based on his teachings, it says that the Three Oaths preclude us from building the Mikdash without Rishyon HaUmmos. Where it is in the GRA on Shur HaShirim - I have to look some more. Sorry for the wrong Mareh Makom.
ReplyDelete