Welcome to the Judaism community on Codidact!
Will you help us build our community of learners? Drop into our study hall, ask questions, help others with answers to their questions, share a d'var torah if you're so inclined, invite your friends, and join us in building this community together. Not an ask-the-rabbi service, just people at all levels learning together.
How did people understand references to 2 destructions before the first destruction?
Note -- I know that this is not a fully formed question yet so I welcome any edits.
There are "prophecies" and references which we understand to be about the destruction of the two temples and the building of a third beit hamikdash. How were references like this understood during the time of the first temple?
If the Gemara in Megilla explains that Yosef wept (In Bereishit 45) on Binyamin's neck בָּכָה עַל שְׁנֵי מִקְדָּשִׁים שֶׁעֲתִידִין לִהְיוֹת בְּחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל בִּנְיָמִין וַעֲתִידִין לֵיחָרֵב
regarding the TWO temples that would be destroyed in Binyomin's territory
how was that pasuk explained while the first temple stood? Even if there was prophecy that that temple would be destroyed (and this is where the question needs help, identifying which of the nevi'im was testifying about the loss of the FIRST temple as opposed to the second) was there a public understanding that the second temple would be temporary because it was destined to be destroyed?
I sense that there are more references I could cite -- the question would be the same: how were they understood before the 1st temple was destroyed (or at least before the 2nd was built)? Is the application to two destroyed temples a post-second destruction innovation or was there any awareness of the "need" (expectation) for 3 temples even initially? (similarly, references to a number of exiles or kingdoms -- were they understood earlier in the process?)
0 answers
0 comment threads