How many times did the Jews try to build a third temple?

1. Reflections on the attempts to renew the temple

My penultimate list, The one who dealt with the temple lamp, led me to extract from my former research "notes" the subject of the rebuilding of the Temple after the destruction of the Second Temple.

The first attempt, although we are talking about it, in the Maccabean/Hasmonean period, many years before the destruction of the Temple, was the example of the fourth son, the high priest, who requested, and perhaps even achieved, to establish in Egypt a temple identical to the one in Jerusalem, following the decrees of Antiochus on the one hand and a revolutionary dismissal of the priestly House of Zadok on the other by the Hasmonean house (Mishmar Yehoyrib) (fI published an article about this a long time ago in "Hidan").

Quite similar to this case, and even here in connection with the damage to the Jerusalem temple, there is an attempt in Rome, during the presidency of Rabbi Gamaliel, during the term of office of Thodos the Roman, the archsynagogue (head of the Jewish community), to build a kind of temple for the Jews in Rome for all kinds of reasons, the main one being the destruction of the house and its consequences , the devaluation of Rabbi Gamliel's status and the atmosphere in the Roman Empire before the outbreak of the revolt of the Jewish diaspora during the reign of Emperor Trianus (115/114 CE), and maybe-perhaps there was also a similar attempt, also during the reign of Rabbi Gamliel the President, to form a kind of ritual center for the Jews of Babylon, where he was sent , at the mitzvot of President Gamaliel, Rabbi Akiva, in order to spend the year there.

And here in the midst of it, or perhaps at the end of the Diaspora rebellion (118/117), Sage sources testify about an interesting and mysterious story as follows: "In the days of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hananiah, a royal decree was made that the Temple should be built. They settled Pappus and Lulinus Trapezin from Acre to Antioch and were sufficient for the exiles" (Beresheet Rabba Sed, XNUMX).

We have before us a rather problematic source, and not only because it is late and prescriptive, but on the one hand it can be dated to the days of the eve of Ben Khosba's revolt (decrees of Emperor Hadrian of 132 CE), or the days of the end of the Diaspora revolt in the days of Trianus (118-117 CE).
The mention of the brothers Pappus and Lulainus both in the Book of Ta'anit (XNUMX) and in the Babylonian Talmud, (Ta'anit XNUMX p. XNUMX) in a clear context to the Diaspora rebellion, and their death by the Romans in rebellion, gives greater weight to the attribution of the story in Genesis Rabba to the Diaspora rebellion.

So what is it about? In a highly problematic rebellion and shrouded in mystery, a total revolt of the Jews of the Diaspora (115 AD onwards), whose epicenters were in the Egyptian Alexandria and Kyrenia - the Roman province to the west of it, and whose branches were in Cyprus, Babylon, and possibly even in Judea.

And what does the midrash say? In the second decade of the second century AD, after the death of Rabbi Gamaliel, when the dominant figure in Judah was, so it seems, Rabbi Yehoshua, the "serial" antagonist against the former president, the Roman Empire allows the renewal of the construction of the temple, or rather decrees its construction, its erection anew, and perhaps it is about an initial plan by the emperor Hadrian, the successor of Trianus, to establish Ilia Capitolina in Jerusalem, which creamed skin and sinews on the eve of the revolt of Ben Khosva.

So why does Rome allow/decide to erect the temple?

If we are talking about the time of Emperor Trianus, who showed a tolerant attitude towards the subjects throughout the empire, and perhaps even on the eve of the rebellion, when he believed that the restoration of the temple would calm the Jewish public, what's more, in the days of his predecessor, Emperor Nerva, significant reconciliation steps were taken between Rome and Judea, including the cancellation of the disgrace of the "Jews' tax" on the Roman coins, as a punishment at the time of the people on the day of the great revolt, so the Roman step has some explanation. And the somewhat compelling terminology along the lines of "royal decree" can be interpreted as an official imperial decree on the one hand, or based on the continuation of Talmudic documentation on the other.

Moreover, if we are dealing with the days of Hadrian, then this reflects his restorative policy after the Diaspora revolt, and the phrase "royal decree" is consistent with his later decrees.

The lifting of this enormous project required enormous budget moves, and the two aforementioned brothers (Paphos and Lulainus), who maintained a dynamic network of dispatching donations both from the Jews of the Syrian province and perhaps even from the communities of Babylon, were entrusted with them. And this, by the way, is remarkably appropriate for the cancellation of the "Jewish tax", which until the Great Revolt, the Jews would transfer half the shekel to the Temple in Jerusalem, and here is the cancellation of the tax, which without a doubt, a huge gap in the Roman economy, allowed the Jews to renew the donations towards the construction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The two brothers also helped the pilgrimage lines.

The plan to build the temple was made possible even in an era when "there is no king in Israel", i.e. after the death of President Raban Gamaliel and the lack of a successor (his son was a tender zatot in years), when it was then possible to implement a plan that was perceived both in the days of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakai and in the days of Rabbi Gamaliel as completely delusional.

The continuation of the above midrash makes use of passages from the book of Ezra, when the Samaritans tried to convince the Persian monarchy (towards the end of the sixth century BCE) not to build the Second Temple with various excuses and evil suggestions such as changing the location of the temple site, or raising or lowering it so that the Jews They will withdraw their hand from the aforementioned project anyway. This passage probably came to present an internal opposition to the project of the Roman period.

And when the Roman officials arrived to implement the aforementioned changes, the Jews wanted to rebel in Rome, and the one who stopped the rebellious "Tsunami" was none other than Rabbi Yehoshua, and in his name - the "Ascholastica Daurieta" (the philosopher-thinker of the Holy Scriptures/Torah), who To the public the classic parable of the lion that got a bone stuck in his throat, and the long-beaked girl rescued him and asked for a reward, the lion answered her - your reward is your life, which was given to you as a gift, because you entered the lion's mouth in peace and came out of it in peace. "This is how we reasoned" - Rabbi Yehoshua cajoled the public - "that we entered this nation (Rome) in peace (that is, we asked to rebel) and we left (this delusional plan) in peace."

It is true that the source is problematic in the sense that it can serve at the same time the days of Trianus the emperor and at the same time - Hadrianus, who ordered the construction of Ilia Capitolina, which served as one of the factors that broke out the rebellion of Ben Khosva. Also, the reference to the book of Ezra within the midrashic text raises historiographical questions, as does Rabbi Yehoshua's ability to calm the public by telling a parable.

Despite this, one should not ignore the atmosphere of the diaspora revolt during the days of Emperor Trianus, which was stamped, to a certain extent, with the label of a religious war, what's more, the president (Rabban Gamliel) passed away and from the days of Ribaz onward, prayers were offered in memory of the destruction of this and the anticipation of the construction of the Sword Temple.

To these data must be added a dramatic and tragic event in the form of the destruction of the Jewish synagogue in Alexandria, the great and famous, during the confrontations between the Jews and the Hellenistic population and later also with the Roman army, when it is difficult to ignore the Sage's position on this matter considering a hint of rejoicing on Eid (as an integral part of the criticism towards the rebellion itself ) and a sort of sigh of relief that the center in Alexandria can no longer compete with the Eretz Israel center.

After the death of President Raban Gamaliel (115 AD as an estimate) and onward, there was no leader left, no heir left (since his son was still in his infancy) and the leadership was divided, geographically, among several sages of the Sanhedrin, and this, by the way, was the reason for the outbreak of Ben Kusaba's rebellion , regarding "in those days there is no king in Israel, a man who is righteous in his eyes will do it", and it is not for nothing that Hela, son of Kosba, beyond passing the torch of leadership to his territory, plans the restoration of the temple, and this is evidenced by the stamping of the front of the temple on one of its coins and the coin inscription "Elazar the priest" ( The researchers disagree on his identification.

One of the rebellion coins has the gate of the temple stamped on it, and researchers differ between them - whether this is a breach of the rebel forces into Jerusalem out of faith and intent to raise the Sword Temple, or whether it is a sort of call of encouragement and morale boost among Ben Khosba's fighters to break into Jerusalem and raise the Sword Temple.

Either way, it is highly probable that the leader of the rebellion did plan to revolt the temple, while the surrounding atmosphere allowed it in his opinion. And by the way, it is not for nothing that one of the passages in the Sage literature indicates that Ben Kusaba was executed by the sages and on the charge of impersonating a messiah.
interesting!