What about Beit Chonio? In ancient times, a sacrificial rite was considered the only valid form of communal divine service. Therefore, it was astonishing that the exiles, after the destruction of Bayit Rishon, did not attempt to build some sort of temple on foreign soil (“Hora’at Sha’ah” or “She‘at Hadechak” etc.) While they developed important institutions such as the Beit K’nesset and the Beit Midrash on Babylonian soil, nevertheless, they remained loyal to the memory of the Beit Hamikdash. A “Babylonian Jewish sacrificial ritual” did not evolve; the exiles were simply not interested. They firmly believed that the Beit Hamikdash, the Temple of Jerusalem, was the only lawful place to bring Korbanot. It was the vision of the restored Mikdash that sustained the people in exile; it was the Heaven-sent opportunity of rebuilding the Mikdash that motivated them to return to Eretz Yisrael. Even the Zoroastrian Cyrus, King of Persia, whom the prophet Isaiah called “the Lord’s anointed”, understood this. “…He [the Lord G-d of Heaven] charged me to build Him a House in Jerusalem. Whosoever there is among you of all His people – the Lord His G-d be with him – let him go up” [to Eretz Yisrael and rebuild the Mikdash] (II Divrei Hayamim 36:23). Centuries later, Antiochus IV (175-163 BCE) was the first alien ruler to actively interfere with the internal administration of Eretz Yisrael and play havoc with the Mikdash and the spiritual life of Am Yisrael. Antiochus believed that he could unify his polyglot kingdom by aggressively spreading Hellenism. This policy met with success elsewhere, but he met unexpected resistance in Jerusalem and in rural Judea. Antiochus, furious with the Jewish resistance to his Hellenizing policies, banished the legitimate Kohein Gadol Onias (Chonio) III, scion of the venerable House of Tzadok and a staunch defender of traditional Judaism. (King Solomon had appointed the “original Tzadok” Kohein Gadol 850 years earlier!) The meddlesome king then sold the office to Onias’ more “modern” brother Joshua, who took the Greek name Jason. Joshua-Jason was an enthusiastic supporter of Hellenistic culture and promised to be more “amenable”. However, the extreme Hellenists were not satisfied because “they were desirous to leave the laws of their country, and the Jewish way of living... and to follow the King's laws and the Grecian way of living” (Antiquities, Bk. 12, ch. 5:1). At their request, the king replaced Jason with the even more extreme Hellenist, the apostate Menelaus. Antiochus IV had concluded that the Jews' stubborn and inexplicable adherence to their ancestral religion was the root cause of their maddening rejection of his Hellenization pro- gram. By royal decree, Seleucid soldiers fanned out across the land, burning Sifrei Torah, preventing Brit Mila, constructing pagan altars to the many Greek gods, and enforcing Hellenistic worship. This first religious persecution in history only intensified resistance to the king’s program and precipitated the ultimately successful “Maccabean Revolution”. Onias IV, son of Onias III, was the lawful heir of the legitimate high priests of the House of Tzadok. He had reason to hope that after the initial victories of the national party under Yehuda HaMaccabi, the nation would recall him to the office of his fathers. However, the Seleucids pushed forward Alcimus (Yakim), a “compromise candidate”. A Tzadokite, he was considered a “moderate” Hellenist. Because of his distinguished ancestry, he easily gained the confidence of the naive, credulous, peace- loving Chassidim who on principle opposed any conflict with the Seleucids. Exploiting their misguided trust, Alcimus showed his “moderation” by murdering quite a few of them at the first opportunity. During this stormy period, Onias IV, disappointed in his expectations by the appointment of Alcimus, fled to Egypt. Josephus writes, “…When this Onias saw that Judea was oppressed by the Macedonians (i.e. Syrian Greeks), he resolved to send to King Ptolemy… to ask leave that he may build a temple in Egypt like that in Jerusalem.” About 154 BCE, with the permission of Ptolemy VI (Philometor), he built a temple at Leontopolis, which was called Beit Chonio, after its founder. Josephus writes, “Onias built a fortress and a temple, not like that in Jerusalem, but such as resembled a tower. He built it of large stones to the height of 60 cubits; he made the structure of the altar in imitation to that in our own country… he did not make a candlestick (i.e. the Menorah) but had a [single] lamp hammered out of a piece of gold, which illuminated the place with its rays, and which he hung by a chain of gold. The entire temple was encased with a wall of burnt brick, though it had gates of stone” (Antiquities 7:10). Perhaps forgetting his history, Onias probably expected that after the desecration of the Mikdash by the Hellenists, his shrine would become the new Jewish center. After the Maccabean victory, the Hasmonean family reserved for itself the High Priesthood. The Mishna ruled, "If Kohanim served in Beit Chonio, they may not serve in the Temple of Jerusalem… for it is written, 'Nevertheless, the priests of the high places did not come up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem but they did eat unleavened bread among their brethren (II Melachim 23:9). Thus, they were like they that have a blemish; they may share [in the Kodashim] and they may eat [of the Kodashim but they may not offer sacrifice at the altar]" (Menachot 13:11). Even so, when you think of the unceasing polemics against Bamot that characterize some Sifrei Tanach, the Sages were surprisingly “accepting” of this schismatic shrine. Despite the fact that the altar of Beit Chonio had the Halachic status of an illicit Bamah, and the Sages never would have dreamed of authorizing anyone to offer sacrifice on it, nevertheless, they tacitly countenanced it as Halacha Lo Lema’aseh. And they had a case! They said (Menachot 109b), “He [Onias] went to…. Egypt, built an altar there, and offered thereon sacrifices in honor of G-d; for so it is written, ‘On that day shall be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the Land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord.’” (Yeshiyahu 19:19). In a manner of speaking, basing themselves on Yeshayahu’s words, the Sages actually legitimized Beit Chonio! After the destruction of the Mikdash, the Romans looted and then closed Beit Chonio. They “made it totally inaccessible there remained no longer the least footsteps of any divine worship that had been in that place. Now the duration of the time from the building of this temple until it was shut up again was 343 years” (Wars, Bk. 7:10). However, Beit Chonio was always secondary for Egyptian Jewry and it did not play a major role in the life of the community. It became the cloistered sanctuary of an isolated military garrison in the boondocks. In his voluminous writings, the philosopher Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Beit Chonio, refers to the Temple of Jerusalem many times and in considerable detail, but he does not mention Beit Chonio even once. Catriel's book in progress: The Temple of Jerusalem, A Pilgrim’s Perspective; A Guided Tour through the Temple and the Divine Service [The
Parshat B'ha'alot'cha Homepage]
|
