Halakhah su Deuteronomio 12:5

We find in I Divrei Hayamim (28:19) that King David notes receiving direction from God for the construction of every part of the Beit Hamikdash. This verse might imply that Divine guidance is necessary in building the Beit Hamikdash, even when it is built by human hands. In fact, the Sifrei (commenting on Devarim 12:5) indicates that, although humans should initiate a search to locate the proper place for the Beit Hamikdash, we cannot know for sure that we have identified it correctly until a prophet tells us so (see Tzitz Eliezer 10:2:1 and 10:5). Consequently, one might argue that even according to the Rambam, we may not take concrete steps towards building the Beit Hamikdash without prophetic direction.

Once more the issue recedes into the background. Nothing more is heard of the proposal and the entire question is permitted to lie fallow until the middle of the nineteenth century when we find a new protagonist actively espousing resettlement of the Holy Land and reintroduction of sacrificial worship. In a letter addressed to Baron Asher Anshel Rothschild, dated 12 Elul, 5596, R. Zevi Hirsch Kalisher solicits the latter's support for plans to colonize the Land of Israel and outlines his views regarding the sacrificial rites. When these opinions regarding the resumption of the sacrificial service were incorporated in a work entitled Derishat Ẓion and published a little over one hundred years ago, in 5622, the question for the first time became a live issue.¹⁰In fact, R. Shlomoh Drimer of Skole, in an undated responsum, quotes an unnamed interlocutor who reported that “the sages of the Sephardim and of Lithuania wished to sacrifice [the paschal offering] this past erev Pesaḥ.” See Teshuvot Bet Shlomoh (Lemberg, 5637–51), Yoreh De‘ah, II, no. 125. Considerable controversy was aroused and resulted in a meticulous examination by the foremost authorities of the time of the halakhic issues surrounding the proposed innovation. Opposition to Kalisher's views was of a dual nature. Apart from the controversial halakhic ramifications of his proposal, Kalisher's novel eschatological views caused many of his contemporaries to take sharp issue with him. Kalisher argues not only that reinstitution of the sacrificial rites is both permissible and halakhically feasible but that it constitutes a positive mizvah and is, in addition, a sine qua non for the advent of the Messiah. The redemption, he maintains, will take place in the following manner: first, a partial ingathering of the exiles, to be followed by the reinstitution of korbanot; after this will occur the war between Gog and Magog and the complete ingathering of the exiles, culminating in the advent of the Messiah. As evidence for his position, Kalisher cites the statement of the Palestinian Talmud, as quoted by Tosafot Yom Tov, Ma'aser Sheni, 5:2: "The Temple [will] be rebuilt before the reign of the House of David."¹¹In further support of this view, Kalisher cites the wording of the Mussaf service of Rosh Ḥodesh: “A new altar shalt Thou establish in Zion and the burnt offering of the New Moon shall we offer upon it” which is subsequently followed by the phrase “and in the service of Thy Temple shall we all rejoice.” Kalisher argues that reference to rejoicing in the Temple service—which is general in nature—should logically precede the more specific mention of the burnt offering of Rosh Ḥodesh. From this he concludes that the prior reference, which is to a new altar (not a Bet ha-Mikdash), refers to the reinstitution of communal sacrifices and hence is not dependent upon the rebuilding of the Bet ha-Mikdash, whereas the subsequent mention of the Temple service refers to private sacrifices which are contingent upon the rebuilding of the Temple (for reasons that will be examined later in this review) and will, therefore, be reinstituted at a latter date. Referring to the Sifri cited by Nachmanides in his commentary on Deuteronomy 12:5, Kalisher maintains that the offering of sacrifices is causally connected with the reappearance of prophecy and has as its effect the manifestation of the Divine Presence, just as the Shekhinah appeared in the Tabernacle in the wilderness only following the sacrificial offerings of the milu'im. Therefore, he concludes, the reinstitution of the sacrificial rites is not dependent upon a prophetic injunction; rather, prophecy cannot become manifest without prior sacrificial offerings.¹²It is a bit puzzling that in endeavoring to establish this point Kalisher does not cite the more explicit and more a propos discussion of Ramban contained in his commentary on Leviticus 1:9 in which he analyzes the rationale underlying the sacrificial precepts.

That one brings all of his vows on the first festival: That anyone who vows or promised any sacrifice to the altar or any thing to the [Temple] upkeep within the year, bring it on the festival that he encounters first after his vow, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 12:5-6), "and to there shall you go. And to there you are to bring your burnt-offerings and other sacrifices, etc. and your vows" - that is a vow, meaning to say, that he said, "Behold, a sacrifice is upon me," and he is always liable for its fulfillment until he sacrifices it - "and your promises" - that is a promise, such as that he said, "Behold, this is a burnt-offering," and if it is lost, he is not liable for its fulfillment. And they said in Sifrei Devarim 63, "'And to there shall you go. And to there shall you bring them' - to establish them as an obligation to bring them on the first festival." And such is the understanding of the verse: Immediately when you go there - which is is the first festival - you shall bring the sacrifice.