- When the Temple existed, it was the source of Jewish identity and unity. After the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, memory of the Temple or Beit Hamikdash became the focal point of Jewish history for the past two millennia. The longing for the reestablishment of that Temple animated Jewish life and was the central aspiration of Jewish hope. When life was extremely challenging to Jews in the diaspora, they dreamed of a homeland and the Temple which was crucial to their liberation. When life in exile was pleasant, Jewish law insisted that Jewish pleasure could never be fully realized as long as the Temple did not exist.
The memory of the Temple operated in dual and conflicting stages. Two terms were used to describe this memory: Zeicher L’Churban (i.e. memory which emphasized the destruction itself) and Zeicher L’Mikdash (memory which emphasized how the Temple functioned). Both were necessary to achieve the result to which the Rabbis aspired, i.e. that the Temple never be forgotten.
Zeicher L’Churban emphasized the tragic aspect of Jewish history. After the destruction, the Rabbis instituted various mourning practices, both on the days leading to the destruction and the day of the destruction itself. In addition, various reminders of the destruction continued throughout the year. Examples of these are the prohibition against totally plastering one’s dwelling by leaving a rough finish which faced the door; not having extensive decorations with murals in one’s home; less than complete courses at a feast; women were required to eliminate an ornament of gold or silver from their jewelry; and bridegrooms were required to put ashes on their foreheads (Bava Basra 60b, also Mishneh Torah, Taaniyot, 5: 12-13). The Rabbis also restricted the use of musical instruments and singing during wine feasts. Both bridegrooms and brides were not to wear crowns (Sota 48-49, Mishneh Torah, Ibid 14-15).
Today we have the custom that a bridegroom breaks a glass at the end of the wedding ceremony. Finally, one had to tear his garments upon encountering Jerusalem and then again upon encountering the Temple Mount if he had not seen them in 30 days (Moed Katan 26, Mishneh Torah, Ibid 16).
Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakai recognized that such reminders could soon lose their desired effect if the Temple would not be rebuilt for an extended period of time. This was especially true if those who practiced these acts of mourning did not appreciate the importance of the Temple in Jewish life. He thus prescribed that in addition to symbolic actions which recognized the loss of the Temple, there should also be activities that reproduced what actually occurred in the Temple and would be able to be experienced even in the Temple’s absence.
One example was the blowing of the shofar if Rosh Hashanah occurred on Shabbat. During the days of the Temple, the shofar could be blown on Rosh Hashanah if it coincided with Shabbat only in the Temple. It was forbidden in all other places, lest the person carry the shofar on Shabbat in a public domain to go to an expert to learn the process of blowing. After the destruction of the Temple, Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakai allowed the blowing of the shofar on Shabbat in any community that had a constituted Beit Din (Rosh Hashana 29b). Today, this is no longer practiced because there is no accepted constituted Beit Din.
A more significant enactment is recorded in the following Mishnah:
"At first the Lulav was taken in the sanctuary seven days and everywhere else one day. When the sanctuary was destroyed, Rabbi Yochanon Ben Zakai enacted that the Lulav be taken in all places for seven days as a remembrance of the sanctuary . . . (Sukkah 41a)."
The requirement to take the Lulav in the Temple seven days is derived from the phrase, “and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.” (Leviticus 23:40, Sifri). This is the concluding statement in the verse which actually commands the taking of the four species.
The Talmud inquired about the basis for the concept of Zeicher L’Mikdash. Rabbi Yochanan stated that it was based on a verse in Jeremiah, “I will restore you to health and will heal your wounds, sayeth the Lord, for they (the nations) call you an outcast, she is a wilderness, no one cares for you.” (Jeremiah 30:17). The Talmud analyzes the final statement and states, “no one cares for you, implies that you must be taken care of” (Sukkah 41a). It is fitting that Jeremiah, who speaks mainly of the destruction, also offers hope for reconciliation. The concept of Zeicher L’Mikdash is the first step in the reconciliation between God and Israel.
The discussion of the obligation of the Lulav when the Temple existed and the different obligation which ensued after its destruction, most clearly demonstrated the essential role of the Temple in establishing Jewish identity. The Talmud tells us that during the days of the Temple, if the first day of Sukkot occurred on the Sabbath, those who went to the Temple brought their Lulav sets before the Sabbath to the Temple and used them the next day in the Temple on the Sabbath. This prevented them from carrying the Lulav on the Sabbath. Those who did not live in the proximity of the Temple brought their Lulav sets before the Sabbath to the synagogue and used them the next day. When fights broke out due to disputes over ownership of the sets, the Rabbis enacted a remedy which required people to fulfill the Mitzvah of the Lulav in their homes (Sukkah 42b).
It is obvious, that this procedure was necessary, because although the verse indicated that the Lulav was to be taken on the first day of Sukkot, even if it was the Sabbath, that activity should not involve any aspect of work which was forbidden on the Sabbath, such as carrying in a public domain.
Ultimately, the Talmud concluded that when the first day of Sukkot occurred on the Sabbath, and the obligation to take the Lulav was universal, the Rabbis did not enact any Takkanot (rabbinic decisions) to limit its use. When the Sabbath occurred during the week of Sukkot, and the Lulav was required only to be used in the Temple, the Rabbis forbade this limited use in the Temple because the Rabbis were concerned that people might carry the Lulav to the Temple on Shabbat (Sukkah 43a). The Rabbis were able to forbid the Lulav’s use even though it was a Torah obligation because they were able to nullify commandments of the type where the person simply refrained from performing an act. The guiding principle, however, was that the requirement to perform the act was limited to a small minority (Rashi, Sukkah 43a).
In truth, however, even when the Temple existed and the taking of the Lulav on the first day which coincided with the Sabbath was universally obligatory, not everyone was able to do so. Those who lived far from Jerusalem and were unsure when the new month was established could not take the Lulav on the Sabbath because they were in a state of doubt (Sukkah 43b-44a).
When the Temple was destroyed, no one was permitted to take the Lulav on the first day of Sukkot when it coincided with the Sabbath including those who knew the correct date.
Rashi explains that the reason for the universal prohibition of not taking it on the first day if it coincides with the Sabbath (even for those who knew the proper time) was in order not to create the impression that two separate Torahs were observed by the people of Israel (Sukkah 44a). Such a perception would constitute the prohibition of not creating factions (agudot) in Israel which would be a violation of the verse Lo Titgodedu (Yevamot 14a).
The Rambam condenses the Talmudic analysis in two laws:
"When the Temple was in existence, the Lulav was taken when the first day occurred on the Sabbath and likewise in the locations where they knew for certain that that day was the day of the holiday in the land of Israel. However, the faraway places that did not know of the establishment of the new month, did not take the Lulav, due to their uncertainty [of the day] (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Lulav 7:16).
"When the Temple was destroyed, the Rabbis prohibited the taking of the Lulav on the Sabbath on the first day (of the holiday) even for those living in Israel who sanctified the new month (and certainly knew when the new month began). This was because of those who lived far away who did not know of the establishment of the new month. This was in order that all should be equal in this matter and not that one group take the Lulav on Shabbat and the other group not take it since the obligation of the first day is everywhere and there is no Mikdash (holy Temple) to rely upon (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Lulav 7:17)."
What must be more thoroughly examined is the underlying reason for both Rashi and Rambam. Why did the issue of one group taking the Lulav on the Sabbath and another group not taking it create the problem of establishing two factions? Why did this become a concern only after the Temple was destroyed and existed without controversy while the Temple existed?
The Lechem Mishnah explained the Rambam’s reasoning in the following manner:
". . .Even at first, when the Temple existed, those that were close [to the Temple] would take [the Lulav] on the Sabbath, and those that lived far away would not. This would still appear as two Torahs! This is why [the Rambam] says that at the time of the Temple, even though those close to the Temple would take the Lulav on the Sabbath, [while those far away would not] they relied completely on the Temple that was in existence. Now, however, when there is no Temple, the Torah would appear as two Torahs. . . )Commentary on 7:17)."
The Lechem Mishnah seems to be interpreting the Rambam in the following manner: The critical role which the Temple played in Jewish history was the unification of the Jewish people into one identity. This was true under all circumstances and all occasions. The fact that Jews living in different parts of the world would adopt different practices due to specific historical conditions (for example, the inability to properly calculate the new moon in Jerusalem because they lived far away) did not imply that they observed a different Torah or had a different understanding of the Torah and did not share the same belief and identity as all other Jews.
The Temple was an overarching influence in their lives that became their central focus and nullified the importance of any other factor. Without the Temple, that could no longer be said and differentiated practices assumed greater importance in their lives. It was only natural that being cut off from the Temple, the local environment in which they lived would have greater impact upon them. They would thus focus more on what separated them than what brought them together. To make sure that that did not happen, the Rabbis were willing to totally eliminate a universally obligatory Torah commandment, i.e. the taking of the Lulav on the first day of Sukkot when it coincided with the Sabbath.
It now becomes evident, how clearly Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakai could foresee the future. He understood that the Temple would become just a faint memory. That caused him to institute various Takkanot which we call Zeicher L’Mikdash. We not only remember, but actually practice and attempt to experience what was done in the Temple. The Temple thus remains an active part of our lives and we still remain one people.