Why can't you build it elsewhere? Wouldn't a temple elsewhere be better than no temple at all?
Deuteronomy is heavily in favour (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2012;&version=31;) of centralised worship. The Davidic dynasty invested a lot of effort in making the place of that centralisation Jerusalem. After centuries of this, it became unthinkable for it to be anywhere else; it's one of the four holy cities of Judaism.
What are the worst case consequences of not having the temple?
Business as usual. :o) Whilst it's important to Orthodox Judaism that there is a Temple, there are also injunctions in the Talmud against trying to reverse the Exile and bringing the Messiah (both of which are linked with the building of the Temple) by force. (Historically, this was because the last time the Jews had tried to do so, in the Bar Kochba revolt, it had resulted in hundreds of thousands of Jews being killed, and vast numbers more being carried off into slavery by the Romans; however, Judaism subsequently retconned theological reasons for not forcing the end of days.)
The animal sacrifices thing is odd, surely if you're commanded to do so by your deity you ought to do it, and you ought to consider such sacrifices to be morally OK.
The thing is, some Jews, including the notable mediaeval commentator Maimonides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides), consider that sacrifices were never necessary to the worship of G-d, but were rather a sop to a people not ready for a religion without. Now religion based on prayer rather than sacrifices is normal, to reinstate them would be a backward step.
But in any case, Judaism is not, and has never been, bound by the literal word of the Bible. The Torah, for example, mandates capital punishment; but the rabbis of antiquity legislated it out of effective existence. As Rabbi Jeremy Gordon puts it, they were passionately in favour of the existence of the death penalty, and passionately against its practice.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-20 09:22 pm (UTC)Deuteronomy is heavily in favour (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2012;&version=31;) of centralised worship. The Davidic dynasty invested a lot of effort in making the place of that centralisation Jerusalem. After centuries of this, it became unthinkable for it to be anywhere else; it's one of the four holy cities of Judaism.
What are the worst case consequences of not having the temple?
Business as usual. :o) Whilst it's important to Orthodox Judaism that there is a Temple, there are also injunctions in the Talmud against trying to reverse the Exile and bringing the Messiah (both of which are linked with the building of the Temple) by force. (Historically, this was because the last time the Jews had tried to do so, in the Bar Kochba revolt, it had resulted in hundreds of thousands of Jews being killed, and vast numbers more being carried off into slavery by the Romans; however, Judaism subsequently retconned theological reasons for not forcing the end of days.)
The animal sacrifices thing is odd, surely if you're commanded to do so by your deity you ought to do it, and you ought to consider such sacrifices to be morally OK.
The thing is, some Jews, including the notable mediaeval commentator Maimonides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides), consider that sacrifices were never necessary to the worship of G-d, but were rather a sop to a people not ready for a religion without. Now religion based on prayer rather than sacrifices is normal, to reinstate them would be a backward step.
But in any case, Judaism is not, and has never been, bound by the literal word of the Bible. The Torah, for example, mandates capital punishment; but the rabbis of antiquity legislated it out of effective existence. As Rabbi Jeremy Gordon puts it, they were passionately in favour of the existence of the death penalty, and passionately against its practice.