Screwed? I wouldn’t say that. In fact, burial of the dead is an important commandment and is called “the true kindness” in Jewish tradition.
If a Jewish mortician wanted to visit the Temple, he’d have to take a week off from work prior to his visit to undergo the purification rite. But that’s all the hardship his career choice would entail.
Just wondering since the topic’s been brought up: wouldn’t it make more sense for a gentile to do the work in accordance with the proper rituals? Just curious here, wondering if there’s anything in the death rites for judaism that makes being cared for by gentiles a problem. (Similar to the way that Jews were used by Xtians to get around usury commandments; or the idea of a sabbath servant in some Orthodox households.)
Much of the confusion comes from the fact that Camp Rabin, the Israeli MoD/Military HQ - more commonly known as the Kiryah - is located in Tel Aviv. Because most security-themed official announcements are issued from there, many newspaper or TV news articles come with a "Tel Aviv’ byline. The remainder of the government, including the executive branch, parliament, supreme court and national agencies are located in Jerusalem, making it the de facto capital, recognized or not. Like America did with D.C., Israel decided to seperate its cultural and financial center from its political one.
Not really, but it’s like the old joke:
“Has your grandmother stopped sliding down the banisters?”
“Well, we wound barbed wire around them.”
“That stop her?”
“No, but it sure slows her down!”
Thanks for the reality check guys.
How did this thread get to 40+ replies, when the answer was there right in the OP? 
OtakuLoki:
Heavens, no! Burial of the dead is a commandment from G-d. It’s such an important one that even a High Priest or a Nazirite, who are supposed to have no contact with the dead bodies of even close relatives, are obliged to do so if the encounter a corpse with no one else around to take care of it. Burial of the dead is considered to be the purest form of kindness, because the doer knows that the recipient of the favor can never repay it.
Jews would certainly not pass up the opportunity to perform this important commandment by institutionally handing over these responsibilities to gentiles. The inconvenience of being unable to go to the Temple for a week (and how often did the typical Temple-era Jew go there anyway?) is no reason for Jews to wash their hands of the mortuary process.
I know I’m echoing Alessan here, but no way am I willing to host the capital in my city! It’s far too much trouble having the city closed down every time a dignitary deigns to visit. And the politicians! :eek:
So I’m willing to consider this idea only if we get to make the politicians (and the religious leaders) stay at ground zero for the duration!
Slightly more seriously, some people hold that the Knesset (the Israeli parliament), as a symbol of Jewish independence, is substitue enough for the temple. This is of course problematic because of the assumption “Israeli == Jewish” which is patently untrue, yet I do find it somehow romantically appealing.
Dani
So I understand that you say that since the Al Aqsa is there, the fact that the Al Aqsa is there its presence solidifies Palesinian claims on Jerusalem?
Or maybe of the whole Muslim world to take Jerusalem as its capital?
Or what are you saying?
As some others asked you already: That is a “good thing” why?
So following your intelligent non-biased reasoning: Since the Al Aqsa is there, it is as good as saying to the Israelis: OK, this piece of real estate is non-negotiable. You might get an other piece of land in the USA or elswhere on this globe, but this place stays with us.
?
Yes, who would care except of few millions of Muslims and a few thousands of potential suidcidal volunteers etc…
By the way: I think you understimate also largely the “fuming” of the rest of the world.
I think they do a lot of renovation, actually.
So you think that of a Jew going to the wall is just a bit of “hanging”?
Do you ever show respect for someones religion or do you simply have no clue and just went on ranting.
Oh, I see…We have the Greatest US Historian on board. So sorry I did not recognize you.
About what? I’m confused…
Salaam. A
I think the question has been posed before, but I’ll ask again, in hopes of getting a definative answer (or as close to one as can be hoped for in the discussion of religious issues):
The Ark is lost, probably forever. Even if, by some incredible feats of archeology and deduction, one were to figure out where to put the Holy of Holies (we’ll ignore Al Aqsa for the sake of argument), what good is that if there’s nothing to put in it?
Another (probably) related question: On certain auspicious dates, the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies and spoke the Lord’s Name (the Tetragammon). Thing is, the correct pronounciation has been lost, in no small part because the name was only to be spoken by the High Priest, on certain dates, in the Holy of Holies, and we know what happened to that tradition. Historians and liguists can hazard some guesses, but the fact is, we really don’t know how to say it any longer. So, there’s another major part of Temple ritual lost to the ages. How does one cope with this? “Hey, J Man, this is The Priest!”? If there’s no remedy, is it proper to rebuild under any circumstances, red heifers and heirs of David or no?
The Ark was almost certainly lost when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, if not earlier. That did not deter the Jews from rebuilding the Temple (presumably with the Holy of Holies left empty) after the Babylonian Exile ended and Cyrus of Persial allowed them to return to Jerusalem.
People will be able to sacrifice again, so that’s something…
OK, but was rebuilding the Temple in the time of Ezra and Nehemia without controversy?
Loopydude:
The site still has holiness. During the time of the second Temple, the Yom Kippur incense rite was performed in there, even in the absence of the Ark.
One day a year - Yom Kippur.
Not true. The explicit name is still spelled out, with vowelization, in Hebrew prayer-books and Scriptures. We don’t say it that way because it’s reserved for that holy occasion, but we’d be capable.
BrainGlutton:
According to Jewish tradition (based on II Chronicles 35:3), King Josiah had the Ark put in hidden chambers somewhere under the Temple Mount which had been part of the Temple plan by Solomon.
Loopydude:
Pretty much. It was rebuilt just seventy years after the first one was destroyed, so there were plenty of people around who remembered precise locations as necessary. In addition, there were prophets still prophesying in those days - Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. There was some opposition from outsiders, but no religious controversy amongst the Jews over the rebuilding.
So the Ark might still be buried under the Temple Mount? Has anyone tried to dig it up?
The explanation we got at my (quite half-assed) Sunday school was that nobody would look, because they were afrid of finding it without having undergone the necessary purification rituals or something like that, and that the consequences for stumbling upon the Ark unprepared would be dire.
I’m rather fuzzy on the details, both because my religious education was rather lousy and because I was something like 11 years old when we last discused this, so I’ll gladly defer to someone who actually has a clue and/or some cites.
The Israeli authorities have allowed some excavations under the Temple Mount, tho they have been greatly challenged & I believe for the most part curtailed by Muslim authorities, perhaps for reasons similar to that but mainly because they contend that excavations could undermine the stability of the Dome.
The late “C’tian archaeologist” Ron Wyatt, maker of many dubious claims but perhaps a few valid ones, claimed (I think totally dubiously) to have found the real Golgotha under which the Ark was hidden in a cavern & that at the Crucifiction, JC’s blood trickled down a crevise to land on the Ark’s cover.
:rolleyes: galore!
Indeed they would! Just ask Indiana Jones!
I rather think if there’s no archaeological excavation going on to find the Ark under the Temple Mount, that’s because Muslims have objected strongly and loudly (and even violently) to any archaeological excavations on the Temple Mount – because they regard any digging under the Rock as sacreligious, and probably also because they would view such excavations as a first step towards rebuilding the Temple.
So if Wyatt actually found Golgotha and the cavern under it, that means he must have found the Ark itself – so where is it?
Hmmmm…in retrospect, thinking about that Sunday school discussion of Temple excavations, I can’t for the life of me remember how we managed to have an entire discussion about that issue without going into the political ramifications.
But then having grown up in north suburban Chicago in the 70s, I don’t think by that time I’d ever knowingly met a Muslim or had any consciousness of what the whole Middle East conflict was really about, so I may just have completely missed the point.