Halakhah su Esodo 25:9

Rabbi Friedman raises an engaging question based upon the ramifications of Rabad's position. As established by Sefer ha-Hinukh, the commandment to build a Bet ha-Mikdash is not deemed to be incumbent upon us except at such time as a majority of the Jewish people resides in the Land of Israel. (The building of the Second Temple by Ezra, even though this condition was not fulfilled, was the result of a specific prophetic edict.) Nevertheless, the rebuilding of the Temple should be obligatory according to Rabad, not as an intrinsic obligation, but because the attendant sanctification is requisite in order to fulfill the mandatory obligation of offering sacrifices. The offering of sacrifices, if not for technical impediments, would, of course, be mandatory even in contemporary times. Friedman concludes that the prospect of rebuilding the Temple cannot be entertained by us since the Mishnah (Shevu'ot 14a) declares that the sanctification of the Temple area requires a king, a prophet, the urim ve-tumim and the Sanhedrin. Although there is an opinion in the Gemara that any one of the four requirements enumerated is sufficient, we do not possess any of them at present. In addition, though a prophet, according to this opinion, may not be required for the act of sanctification, the korban todah (thanksgiving sacrifice) offered on that occasion requires a prophet in order to direct the manner in which it is to be sacrificed. Moreover, notes R. Friedman, Rabad himself states that Ezra did not promulgate a perpetual kedushah because he knew by means of the Holy Spirit that eventually both the Temple site and Jerusalem itself would be expanded, and the enlarged boundaries would be sanctified with enhanced and unprecedented glory; therefore, it does not behoove us to sanctify the Temple Mount other than according to the directions of a prophet.²⁴Addressing himself to a different question entirely, R. Moses Sofer (Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 236) cites Rashi’s interpretation of Exodus 25:9, “According to all that I show you, the pattern of the Tabernacle and the pattern of all the furniture, and so shall you make it.” Troubled by the incongruous usage of the word “and” in ve-khen ta‘asu, Rashi, referring to Sanhedrin 16b and Shevu‘ot 14b, interprets this as an injunction to future generations. Ramban, in his commentary on this passage, raises an obvious objection to Rashi’s interpretation; namely, that Solomon did indeed deviate from these specifications. R. Moses Sofer emends Rashi’s interpretation and views the phrase “and so shall you make it” as referring back to the very beginning of the passage “Kekhol asher ani mar’eh otḥa— according to all that I show you” which he takes to mean that in subsequent generations any rebuilding of the Sanctuary must be in accordance with “all that I show you”—a specific prophetic revelation prior to each construction, as was the case with the building of the Tabernacle. According to this view, it is absolutely impossible to rebuild the Temple other than under clearly enunciated prophetic instructions.