intended to increase the knowledge, interest, and anticipation of the reader, thereby hastening the realization of our hopes and prayers for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Beit HaMikdash.

“How dare you?”
So began an email I received last Motza”Sh. Breathing fire and brimstone, it continued, "…How can you accept the testimony of a disgusting character like Josephus? You take his description of the (Herod's reconstructed) Beit HaMikdash over the (description of the Mikdash found in the) Gemara?" My wrathful correspondent was referring to last week’s TT where I quoted Josephus' eyewitness account of the eastern fa?ade of the Bayit. "Now the outward face of the Temple in its front wanted nothing that was likely to surprise either men's minds or their eyes; for it was covered all over with plates of gold of great weight and at the first rising of the sun, reflected back a very fiery splendor, and made those who forced themselves to look upon it to turn their eyes away, just as they would have done at the sun's own rays (Wars, 5:5).” My angry corre- spondent took umbrage because I refrained from quoting a conversation between Herod and the Sages cited in the Gemara. "It was said, 'He who has not seen the Temple of Herod has never seen a beautiful building.' Of what did he (Herod) build it? Rabbah (a Babylonian Amora who was born 200 years after the Churban) said, 'Of yellow and white marble.' And there are those who say 'of blue, yellow and white marble' He (Herod) originally intended to cover it with gold but the Sages advised him not to, since it was more beautiful as it was, looking like the waves of the sea (Baba Batra 4a)." However, neither the version quoted above, nor its parallel in Sukka 51b states that Herod acted upon their advice.

Several years ago after constructing a model of the Beit HaMikdash, a certain Rav came in to see it and noted the gold facade of the Bayit a la Josephus. He berated me saying, "Hordus Lo Haya Yachol Leharim Yad Varegel Bamikdash Bli Haskamat Chachamim…" or loosely put, Herod couldn't do a thing in the Mikdash without the agreement of the Sages.

Historically, that is untrue. That Herod disregarded the suggestion of the Chachamim with respect to the aesthetics of the facade, and covered the beautiful stones of the Mikdash with gold, is a comparatively minor point.

The integrity of the Avoda was not thereby affected. And in fact, centuries later, the Rambam ruled, "It is a Mitzva Min Hamuvchar to strengthen and raise the height of the building (of the Bayit) as much as the abilities of the community enable it to do so, as it is written, 'to exalt the House of our G-d (Ezra 9:9)'. And it is to be glorified and beautified as much as they are able to do so. If they can cover it (“Oto” - implies in and out) with gold… Harei Zo Mitzva - it is a Mitzva (Hilchot Beit Habechira 1:11). The Kesef Mishna, one of the classical commentators writes, "Mitzva Min Hamuvchar? That's obvious. After all, Sh’lomo HaMelech covered it - Bayit Rishon - with gold".

The Halacha of covering the Mikdash with gold is derived from Pesachim 57a and Middot 4:1. While the Gemara in Pesachim is usually understood to refer to aureation only within the Heichal, nevertheless, there is no logical reason why we should not take literally the Mishna in Midot 4:1 which says "Kol Habayit" (the 'entire house', not just the inside) was covered with gold". Josephus continues, "But this Temple appeared to strangers, when they were coming to it at a distance, like a mountain covered with snow; for those parts of it which were not covered with gold were exceedingly white".

The Mishna notes that every year before Pesach, the white color of the Bayit was renewed (Midot 3:4). If the facade was beautiful "blue, yellow and white marble that looked like the waves of the sea", would they have whitewashed it every year?

And what of Herod's constant intervention in the internal affairs of the Beit HaMikdash, interference that conceivably could have impacted on the very validity of the Avoda? Theoretically only the Great Sanhedrin - the Court of Seventy-One - had the authority to appoint or to confirm the naming of a Kohein Gadol. The right of succession was, however, from father to son.

Sh’lomo HaMelech appointed Tzadok to be Kohein Gadol in the newly built Bayit Rishon. The descendants of Tzadok served as Kohanim Gedolim in Bayit Rishon and Bayit Sheini for some eight hundred and fifty years, until Antiochus IV removed the last officiating Kohein Gadol of that dynasty. We are told that the Kohein Gadol was to "be outstanding among his brethren in strength, in appearance, in wisdom and in riches". These idyllic criteria unfortunately did not reflect the harsh reality of late second Temple times. In the thirty-three years of King Herod's rule, seven Kohanim Gedolim were appointed and removed. Herod's sacerdotal stooges were not necessarily the best qualified. The Gemara (Yoma 8b) asserts that the High Priesthood was sold to the highest bidder every twelve months like any other appointment in the Roman Empire. This is reflected in the name of the chamber set aside in the Azara for the Kohein Gadol during the seven days before Yom Kippur. It was called 'Lishkat HaPalhedrin' - the Chamber of the Counselors. The Mishna states, "If (on the night before Yom Kippur) he - the Kohein Gadol - was learned, he used to expound, and if not Talmidei Chachamim would expound before him. If he was able to read the Scriptures, he read. If not, they would read before him... Zecharia ben Kavutal said, 'Many times I read to him from (the Book of) Daniel' (Yoma 1:6).” Much of Daniel is in Aramaic. Perhaps some of the later Kohanim Gedolim did not even understand Hebrew! The Mishna (Yoma 1:3) depicts a situation where the possibility existed that the Kohein Gadol was not even familiar with the Yom Kippur Avoda!

But is Josephus (who really was a disgusting character) trustworthy? Josephus was a Roman apologist and had his own political agenda; justifying Roman atrocities and blackening the memory of the heroes of his people. He is even less trustworthy when he talks about himself and his role in the war against Rome. After deserting to the Romans, he proudly boasts, "when the city of Jerusalem was taken by force (and destroyed), Titus Caesar persuaded me frequently to take what I would of the ruins of my country." Josephus was exceedingly conceited, over-dramatic, overly credulous, and like most ancient historians, totally unreliable when it came to numbers. However, when Josephus describes what he saw, or was able to gather from primary sources or from reports of eyewitnesses, though his accounts are not free of discrepancies, he is surprisingly accurate. Scholars have compared his descriptions of Caesarea, Gamla, and in particular the topography of Masada with the most recent archeological findings and have found him to be generally reliable. Despite his many faults, Josephus is still by far the most authoritative source of information of the history of Eretz Yisrael in that tragic era.

Catriel Sugarman (acatriel@netvision.net.il, 02-652-7531) gives illustrated lectures on the Beit Hamikdash and related topics. Catriel is in the process of writing a book:The Temple of Jerusalem, A Pilgrim's Perspective: A Guided Tour through the Temple and the Divine Service.

[The Parshat R'ei Homepage]
[The TORAH tidbits Homepage] [How to use TORAH tidbits]
[About The OU/NCSY Israel Center] [About TORAH tidbits]
 [www.ou.org]