Terumah - 5773

In the nineteenth century a number of Rabbinic luminaries explored the possibility of rebuilding the Bais HaMikdosh and/or offering sacrifices in advance of the coming of Mashiach. Among these were the Chasam Sofer in his Responsa to Yoreh Deah, R. Yaakov Ettliger in Responsa Binyan Tzion, and R. David Friedman of Karlin in She’elas David. (As an aside, although R. David of Karlin is hardly known today, in his lifetime he was considered to be among the Gedolei Hador by no less than R. Chaim of Brisk!)

One of the relevant sources to this question is the statement at Sanhedrin 20b:

It has been taught: R. Jose said: Three commandments were given to Israel when they entered the land; [i] to appoint a king; [ii] to cut off the seed of Amalek; [iii] and to build themselves the chosen house [i.e. the Temple] but I do not know which of them has priority. However, when it is said: “The hand upon the throne of the Lord, the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation”, we must infer that they had first to set up a king, for 'throne' implies a king…Yet I still do not know which [of the other two] comes first, the building of the chosen Temple or the cutting off of the seed of Amalek. However, when it is written, “And when He gives you rest from all your enemies round about…then it shall come to pass that the place which the Lord your God shall choose,” it is to be inferred that the extermination of Amalek is first.

If appointing a king comes before the war against Amalek and, in turn, the war against Amalek precedes building the Bais HaMikdosh, it follows that appointing a king comes before building the Bais HaMikdosh. It would therefore appear that the coming of Mashiach would be a precondition to the rebuilding of the Bais Hamikdosh. This argument is advanced by R. Dovid Karliner z’l in She’elas David, but he raises two fascinating points:

1. How was the second Bais HaMikdosh built in the absence of a Jewish king? We know that the monarchy was not restored until after the Hasmonean revolt and the legitimacy of that dynasty – being comprised of Kohanim – is questioned. (See Ramban, Bereishis 49:10, and Rambam, Hilchos Melachim 1:8 for a dissenting view.)
2. In the Shemoneh Esreh, the blessing in which we pray for the restoration of the Bais HaMikdosh comes before the blessing in which we pray for the coming of Moshiach which implies that there is at least a possibility that the Bais HaMikdosh will be rebuilt first.

I would suggest a resolution to these difficulties by pointing out that there is an apparent contradiction in the Rambam as to the source of the Mitzvah to build the Bais HaMikdosh. In Hilchos Bais HaBechira (1:1) he cites the verse in our Parsha (Shemos 25:8), “And you shall make for Me a Sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst.” In Hilchos Melachim (1:1) discussing the three Mitzvos obligatory upon entry into Eretz Yisrael – based on the above cited Gemara in Sanhedrin – he cites a different verse (Devarim 12:5), “You shall seek the place of the Shechina and you shall come there.”

The answer to this contradiction is actually quite simple. There are two different components to this Mitzvah. First, there is an obligation to build a facility in which the Divine service will be performed. This has nothing to do with Eretz Yisrael. The construction of the traveling Mishkan in the desert was a fulfillment of this imperative. But there is a second aspect – derived from the Devarim verse – which is to identify the permanent site of the Bais HaMikdosh. This, of course, only applies after the entry to Eretz Yisrael.

A careful reading of the two source texts shows a subtle but meaningful distinction. Regarding the temporary Mishkan, the Torah says to build it and afterward the Shechina will come. Regarding the permanent Bais HaMikdosh, the Torah says the opposite: Seek the place of the Shechina and then build the building there. Of course, this makes perfect sense. As the Jews crossed the desert, the Shechina led them and came to rest where the Jews made a home for it. In Eretz Yisrael, the Shechina was already in Yerushalayim; according to Chazal this was the point of contact between the spiritual and material worlds from the very moment of creation. The place merely had to be identified.

I would suggest that having a Jewish king is only a necessary condition for this second Mitzvah of identifying the permanent site. (Keep in mind that the Mishkan was built in the desert without a king!) Furthermore, I would suggest that once the site had been identified, if there should arise the need to rebuild the Bais HaMikdosh on the same spot, there would be no requirement for a Jewish king. Thus, the second Bais HaMikdosh was rebuilt before the restoration of the monarchy and the possibility exists that this pattern will be repeated for the third and final Bais HaMikdosh as well.