Hajj and the pilgrimage to the second temple

warner

Peace be upon you

The following article, on the ancient pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem (Second Temple)Normative Communitas and the Struggle for Religious Legitimacy
in Pilgrimages to the Second Temple by Dr. Jackie Feldman ,brings out many similarities to the Hajj in the Quraan.

The biblical injunction states "Three times yearly shall all your male issue by seen before the face of the Lord God at the place He shall choose" (Deut 1616; Exod 2217).

Pilgrimage to the Second Temple was one of the most widespread religiously motivated movements of people in antiquity. In this article, I examine several aspects of pilgrimage to the Second Temple within a theoretical frame drawn from the contemporary anthropological study of pilgrimage. In doing so, I hope to place Second Temple pilgrimage in a comparative frame and open the way to further dialogue between the study of pilgrimage to the Second Temple and research on other pilgrimages.

Introduction

The Second Temple served as the center of Jewish religious authority and worship, of values and social practices. In the writings of Flavius Josephus (Antiquities III179-183; V458-459), the Temple was portrayed as a microcosm of the universe. The ritual activities of the Temple priests were seen as insuring the fertility of the land, divine forgiveness of sins, the very existence of heaven and earth (TSot 152). In the Temple, the new moon was announced, Torah scrolls checked and corrected, the lineages of priests throughout the world verified, and religious knowledge transmitted. The Temple and its pilgrims were the major source of Jerusalem's income, and the force shaping the social makeup of the surrounding countryside. Especially for the Jewish religious leadership and the residents of Jerusalem and Judea, the Temple was "the point of convergence of the lines of structure, both cosmic and social".

By the late Second Temple Period, in the First Century C.E., however, the Jewish population had spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. While the Temple remained a cosmic center for Diaspora Jews, it was geographically and economically peripheral to most Jews' daily lives. For Philo of Alexandria, for example, pilgrimage to the Temple was not a regular calendrical event. Undoubtedly based on his own experience in Jerusalem (De Prov. II64), he writes that the pilgrim "leaves his homeland and his family and friends to sojourn in a strange country. Yet uncounted multitudes arrive, some by sea and some by land, from East and West and North and South on each holiday. The Temple serves them as a safe haven from the chaos and confusion of life. There they seek repose. ties of friendship are created between those who did not know each other before, and the sacrifices and libations are occasions of emotional exchange which provide the strongest certainty that all are of one mind" (Philo, De Spec Leg I, 6.

Structure and antistructure in the pilgrimage experience

The two aspects illustrated above - the cosmic centrality of the Second Temple and its distance from the daily lives of a large number of its pilgrims - correspond to the differing conceptualizations of the sacred center as expressed in the work of Mircea Eliade and Victor Turner.

Eliade understands each sacred center as a "center of the world" "the place where all essential modes of being came together; where communication among them is possible. where the most direct contact with the sacred is observed". Many references in Scripture and in Second Temple writings attribute cosmological significance to the Temple and Jerusalem. Indeed, Eliade refers to the Temple in Jerusalem as a prototype for the cosmic centrality of sacred places. Such cosmic centers have a strong ordering power; they create webs of meaning that both reflect and shape the experience of those attracted to them. They provide models for everyday conduct, while conferring legitimacy to the religious authorities associated with them.

Victor Turner, on the other hand, emphasized the geographical and social peripheriality of pilgrimage centers. Adapting theories on rites of passage developed by Van Gennep, Victor Turner suggested that the pilgrim leaves his home and his familiar surroundings to journey, often facing hardships and dangers, to a sacred periphery, a center out there, which transiently becomes the center for the individual. Turner maintained that pilgrimage is not primarily a reflection of social structure prevailing in everyday profane life, but most often its reversal, antistructure. At the center out there, the pilgrim experiences communitas, "the being no longer side by side, but with one another of a multitude of persons", "a moment in and out of time...which reveals, however fleetingly, some recognition (in symbol if not always in language) of a generalized social bond". Often, external signs, such as uniform clothing, fasting or common meals will represent and reinforce the leveling down of status signs that is the mark of communitas. The pilgrim returns home transformed, with a new status. As radical communitas has the potential of dissolving borders, thus threatening social structures, religious authorities will often attempt to limit spontaneous outbreaks of communitas, by directing them into normative forms. These forms, however, are informed by the "free spirit" of communitas, and are not simply replications of social structure. Turner designated this condition by the name normative communitas, which he saw as an attenuation or degeneration of the original, spontaneous impulse that created the 'miraculous' sense of existential oneness.

Turner's claim that communitas and antistructure are universal characteristics of pilgrimages has been criticized on empirical grounds, notably by Michael Sallnow. Sallnow demonstrated that, pilgrimages could be marked by animosities and strong boundary-marking procedures between ethnic and geographical sub-groups of pilgrims. He suggested examining pilgrimage, not as a reversal of structure, but as a realm of competing discourses, where different groups of participants may possess different understandings of the same pilgrimage.

Erik Cohen suggested that Turner's search for universals in the pilgrimage experience, based on data from popular Catholic Marian shrines, led him to disregard other pilgrimage sites in which the principal religious and political centers are fused. Such pilgrimage centers may not be "out there", but rather "centers of the world" (Eliade), centers that shape social and religious structures and values diffused throughout the broader society. Where the religious and the political domains coincide, Cohen suggests, we may expect greater control over pilgrim behavior on the part of central religious authorities, more formalized and decorous demeanor and fewer expressions of ludic or anti-structural behavior.

I suggest that these perspectives can provide new insights into certain practices of Second Temple pilgrimage and the conflicting forces that affect the pilgrim experience. I will begin with a short survey of the historical sources and background for Second Temple pilgrimage, and describe the extensive influence of the late Second Temple on the economy and society of Jerusalem and its surroundings. This will demonstrate how the centrality of the Temple was manifested in the social realm. I will then provide several illustrations to show how the masses of pilgrims on festivals expressed strong leveling forces that breached everyday barriers. The interplay of the various hierarchical and leveling forces result in what Turner calls normative communitas, regulated forms that nonetheless retain qualities of existential brotherhood and equality. Normative communitas is, however, a dynamic process, a function of competing discourses (see Sallnow, above, note 10), fostered by bearers of competing theological views and financial and political interests. In the examples I chose, I will show how popular communitas was encouraged by the Pharisees, often against the (predominantly Sadducee) priesthood, that sought to limit it.

Sources and historical background of Second Temple Pilgrimage

I have chosen to focus on the last century of the Second Temple (30 BCE-70CE). From this period, we have the writings of Josephus, and occasional references in the New Testament, the apocrypha and pseudopigrapha, Philo of Alexandria and the literature of Qumran. Archaeological excavations, especially those of the Southern Wall and the Jewish Quarter, have enriched our knowledge of the economic and social conditions of Jerusalem and its pilgrims. These sources, admittedly, do not provide a totally representative picture. They may reflect the partisan views or political purposes of their authors, and they provide almost no experiential accounts of pilgrims coming from afar. From a slightly later period, we possess the traditions on pilgrimage, the Temple and purity laws, which were preserved in Tannaitic literature. While these sources were compiled after the destruction of the Temple and may reflect nostalgia for an experience past and gone, I hold that, where they are not obviously tinged by mythical perspectives, the Tannaitic descriptions of Second Temple pilgrimage do reflect realities of the period, especially as seen by the Rabbis' predecessors, the Pharisees. Indeed, the independent descriptions of the Temple in the New Testament and in Josephus, as well as archaeological discoveries, largely corroborate the picture. This wide variety of sources enables us to construct a fairly accurate portrait of the pilgrimage to the Temple and its effect on the population of Jerusalem.

While in the early Second Temple Period, the number of pilgrims to the Temple was small, in the Hasmonean Period (mid 2nd Century B.C.E. - mid -1st Century B.C.E.), larger areas came under domination of Jewish priest-kings, and conquered peoples (Edomites, Itureans, Galileans) were forcibly converted to Judaism. Moreover, Judaism became a major missionary religion throughout the Roman Empire. Starting 20 B.C.E., Herod rebuilt the Temple to accommodate throngs of pilgrims, increase the financial and political importance of Jerusalem, and, consequently, his own legitimacy, fortune and fame. The pax romana and the improvement in road service, safety and transport, facilitated long-distance travel to the Temple on the part of Jews in far-away places. Unlike their surrounding cultures, diaspora Jews could sacrifice in one place only - the Temple in Jerusalem. In the Roman world, the insistence on pilgrimage to a single shrine was unique to Jerusalem. Many Diaspora Jews who rarely visited the Temple, considered it a central symbol as well as a source of authority and pride.

The influence of the Second Temple on its surroundings

In Jerusalem, as in many pilgrimage centers, the holiness of the sanctuary was extended to the surroundings, and the temple city became a holy city. In addition, the presence of the sanctuary profoundly influences the economy and social makeup of the surrounding area.

Although scholars' estimates of their numbers vary, they clearly outnumbered the permanent residents of Jerusalem. The multitudes of pilgrims required water, food, sacrificial animals, pottery for cooking, fuel, lodging, proper sanitation, special clothing and much more. The activities of the Temple and its pilgrims supported a wide range of occupations in Jerusalem, and purity and holiness regulations made their mark on the city. The relatively long stay of pilgrims in the city, and the diverse wares that many pilgrims brought with them, made Jerusalem, a city with little natural strategic importance, into an international marketplace. Magen Broshi estimates the annual income of the Temple in Herod's day at ten percent of Herod's income from his entire kingdom. Much of this income found its way into the hands of several High Priestly families, who lived in Jerusalem in great luxury.

The catchment basin of Jerusalem pilgrimage was exceedingly large, as many Jews, as well as Gentile God-fearers (phoboumenoi) or potential converts from across the Roman Empire and beyond made their way to the Temple. Many settled or sojourned for an extended period of time in the city, as is attested to by the names and birthplaces on funerary inscriptions unearthed in excavations. Pilgrimage thus became a means of diffusing religious knowledge and orthodoxy from the spiritual center to the periphery. Hence, the Temple became an arena where Jewish groups and leaders competed among pilgrims for spiritual authority in the wider Jewish world.

Structure and flow in Second Temple pilgrimage

Throughout the year, Temple priests could inscribe the ordering principles of their social structure on the space of the Temple and on its sacrificial ritual. Furthermore, everyday economic relations were ordered by a hierarchical oligarchic society, in which (at least in Jerusalem) the priesthood enjoyed a privileged position. Pilgrimage festivals, on the other hand, were often the occasion for breach in the mundane order. I will illustrate this breach in three domains 1. the economic obligations of Temple pilgrims, 2. popular participation in the Temple cult on festivals, and 3. purity regulations involving commensuality and bodily contact in and around the Temple. In the first case, the status differences marking rich and poor are attenuated and the contractual obligations of purely economic exchange are, in part, replaced by the less alienating ties of social exchange. In the latter two cases, the rigid lines of priestly structuring of the cosmos, as symbolized in the Temple and its cult, are blurred or obliterated by the irruption of communitas, and the undifferentiated flow of the mass pilgrim experience. In this state, there is a loss of self-consciousness that frequently leads people to ignore the markers between the permitted and the prohibited. In the latter two cases, I will also demonstrate how the fostering of normative communitas through pilgrimage legislation could serve a particular leadership group (in this case, the Pharisees) in their struggle for authority and legitimacy.

a. Communitas and the regulation of the economic obligations of pilgrims

Each pilgrim to the Second Temple was obliged to bring a sacrifice upon his arrival, although the monetary value of that sacrifice was not specified(MZeb 131). Uncontrolled, this could result in the conspicuous display of wealth by pilgrims and in the exclusion of poorer pilgrims from the festivities. Economic differences were, however, minimized through a series of regulations that are clear expressions of normative communitas.

Any farmer living within a day's walk of Jerusalem was required to bring first-fruits of their vines (neta r'vai) in kind, rather than redeem them for monies to be spent in the city, so that he "distribute them to his neighbors, relatives and acquaintances and adorn the market with them" (TMa'aser Sheni 514). The abundance of fruit actually brought prices down on festivals, in spite of the heightened demand "if it was expensive there, once (the pilgrims) entered, it was cheap" (Avot deRabbi Natan, Version B, Section 39). First-born animals were also to be brought to the city in kind, "so that much livestock be available for pilgrim (needs)" (PT Sheq 31. Ber 58a). Sacrifices were to be eaten within thirty-six hours. Consequently, there was an abundance of meat in the Temple courts and throughout the city, often more than could be consumed by the donors; this insured that the poor would have their bellies filled and would be invited to sup together with pilgrim groups (Philo. De Spec Leg II, 210-211).

Pilgrims were required to lodge in Jerusalem throughout the festival. Homeowners were prohibited from taking rental monies from pilgrims (TMa'aser Sheni 13; Abot deRabbi Natan, Version A, Section 35). The reason provided by the Tosefta for this decree is telling "One does not rent out houses in Jerusalem. because they belong to the tribes" (TMa'aser Sheni 112)(alternatively "because they are not theirs" (Megilla 26a)). The holiness of the city - that is, its belonging to the entire covenant people (or, alternatively, its consecration to God) - weakens the force of Jerusalemites' individual property rights. The ultimate Master of the house, God, demands that guests of His house take precedence. This weakening of property rights is a legal formulation of the conception of Jerusalem as teruma or as intertribal and thus, exterritorial, as outlined in the visionary sacred geography of Ezekiel, Chapters 45 and 48. The result of such legislation is described by the Midrash as one of the ten 'miracles' of Jerusalem "no one ever said to his friend, there is too little space for me to lodge in Jerusalem" (Abot deRabbi Natan, Version A, Section 35).

On four years of each seven-year cycle, agriculturalists living in Israel were required to set aside a "second tithe" that could be used in Jerusalem for expenditures on food, drink and oil for anointing the body. In most cases, these monies were spent on pilgrimage festivals. The laws of second tithes specify "Second tithe may not be sold, nor given as pledge, nor exchanged, nor used for reckoning weights. One may not say to his neighbor in Jerusalem, 'Here is wine and give me oil (in exchange)', or 'here is oil, give me wine (in exchange)'. But one may say, 'here is wine for you, for I have no oil', 'Here is oil for you, for I have no wine'. But they give each other free gifts" (MMa'aser Sheni 11). The Tosefta adds "Consequently, they exchange and yet do not exchange, and do each other favors" (TMa'aser Sheni 11-2). The Jerusalem Talmud comments on the law "since he cannot legally enforce the transaction, it is not an exchange" (PT Ma'aser Sheni (1), 52c).

The distinction between permitted and prohibited exchanges of produce of this pilgrimage fund is an excellent example of the distinction between social and purely economic exchange as elaborated by Marcel Mauss (on the gift), Bronislaw Malinowski (on the kula ring) and Peter Blau. As Blau explained, "social exchange. involves unspecified obligations, the fulfillment of which depends on trust because it cannot be enforced in the absence of a binding contract. Only social exchange tends to engender feelings of personal obligation, gratitude and trust; purely economic exchange does not. The taboo on explicit bargaining in the case of gifts is designed to protect their significance as tokens of friendship, that is, as signs of altruistic attraction, from being obliterated by the inherent value of the objects themselves". In their regulation of the use of pilgrim funds, the halakhic authorities sought to replace the rigid structure of the laws of the marketplace, and the consequent alienation of the produce from the person of the producer, with the free grace of gift-giving that is a mark of communitas. Thus, the Mishna states "One should not say to his friend 'take these fruits up to Jerusalem for me to distribute'. Rather, he should say, 'let us take them up so that we may eat and drink of them in Jerusalem'. But they give each other free gifts" (MMa'aser Sheni 31). The Jerusalem Talmud's commentary on the second tithe law sums up this understanding, citing a popular saying that refers to second tithe produce as 'manna' "just as manna is given in gift, so too, second tithe is given in gift" (PT Ma'aser Sheni 52c). The laws governing Second Temple pilgrims' exchange encourage and exalt communality and are imbued with the spirit of communitas.

b. b. Priestly cosmology and popular participation in the cult on pilgrimage

As William Scott Green formulated it, "from the priestly perspective, reality was reflected in, and holiness could only be achieved through, the ritual complex of the Temple cult". The priestly class envisioned the cosmos was that of a well-regulated series of concentric circles surrounding the center of the world, the Holy of Holies. The space of the Temple precincts was governed by a strict hierarchy of sacrality of function and successively more severely restricted access. As one approached the center, the Holy of Holies, purity, lineage and bodily perfection requirements became more stringent, whereas the range of activities performed in each area became more sacred and more restricted (MKelim 16-9) . The Holy of Holies could be entered only once a year, on the Day of Atonement, and only by the High Priest performing the service. Certain trespasses - Gentiles entering beyond the sorag barrier into the Court of Women, impure priests serving in the Sanctuary (MSanh 96; TKelim, Baba Kamma 16; Antiquities XII, 145; XV417-41,) - were punishable by death.

The priestly cosmology was also reflected in cultic performance. In the First and early Second Temple, the offering of sacrificial animals, the sprinkling of blood and the offering of incense, performed by the priests inside the hekhal, which was off-limits to laymen, comprised almost the entirety of worship. In the Second Temple, music and prayer became an important part of the ritual, and much of the focus moved outside to the courtyard and the altar of sacrifice, where the people could see what was going on. Yet, even here, on normal occasions, non-priests were permitted only as far as the altar, where they handed their sacrificial animals over to the priests for the laying on of hands, slaughtering and offering. Popular participation, and the breach of these priestly regulations was most evident on the three pilgrimage festivals, Passover, the first-fruits procession (often on Shavuot) and Sukkot.

On the eve of the Passover, thousands of lambs were slaughtered in the Temple courtyards by their donors, and priests circulated among the crowds with vessels to collect the blood to be sprinkled on the altar. In Philo's words, "the entire congregation, young and old, slaughtered the Paschal lamb; for, on that day all were, so to speak, raised to the dignity of the priesthood" (De Spec Leg II, 145).

The Feast of Shavuot was, for many pilgrims, the occasion to bring their first fruits to the Temple in a massive popular procession "All the villages in the ma'amad congregate in the town of the ma'amad, but do not enter the houses. Those close by bring figs and grapes, while those far away bring dried figs and raisins. The ox goes before them, his horns gilded and an olive wreath on his head. The flute plays before them until they reach the Temple Mount. When they reach the Temple Mount, even King Agrippa takes the basket on his own shoulder and enters until he reaches the Courtyard. When they reach the courtyard, the Levites open in song." (MBikkurim 32-5).

The festive procession took place mainly outside the Temple area; the priests are notable by their absence, while the equality of worshippers is demonstrated by the report that even King Agrippa took the basket of first fruits on his own shoulder. This procession, which Philo calls the Basket Festival, bears many similarities with the pagan first-fruits processions to Eleusis slow marching, mass pilgrimage in groups representing villages and towns, accompaniment by song and musical instruments (especially flutes), festive reception at the gates by inhabitants of the Temple city, accompaniment of the first-fruits with animal sacrifices, and even the heading of the procession by a garlanded ox with gilded horns.

On the feast of Sukkot, the highlights of the celebration were the beating of the willow (M. Sukka 45 sqq.) and the night-long Feast of the Water-Drawing (simhat bet hasho'eva) (MSuk 5 1 sqq.; TSuk 4 1-9), celebrations without First Temple precedent, similar in form to contemporary pagan festivals. During the beating of the willow, the people circumambulated the altar, striking it with their willow-branches, and entering a part of the courtyard normally off-limits to non-priests, in spite of Sadducee priests' objections (TSuk 31). The Talmud quoted a popular saying "whoever has not seen the Feast of the Water Drawing has never seen joy in his life" (MSuk 51). Rabbis juggled torches and performed acrobatics (MSuk 54; TSuk 44), as the Levites played their musical instruments and the congregation sang songs. Some Temple authorities felt obliged to separate the men from the women in the Temple courtyards, "lest it lead to light-headedness" (MSuk 54; TSuk 47; Suk 51b).The feast ended with the pouring of the water on the altar, an act pregnant with cosmic symbolism and sympathetic fertility magic.

The late Second Temple Period was marked by conflict between Pharisees and Saducees over questions of popular participation in the cult. Thus, when the Sadducee High Priest made light of the popular custom by dribbling the water on his feet instead of pouring it on the altar, the infuriated crowd stoned him with their etrogim. The incident is cited by rabbinic sources as a case where the people supported the Pharisee views against the Sadducee ones (MSuk 49; TSuk 316). The people's objections undoubtedly stemmed from the magical rain-making significance attributed to the proper performance of the ritual. By promoting popular customs such as the water-libation during the mass pilgrimages, Pharisees could position themselves as champions of the people and create a new base for religious authority, although they possessed neither the privilege of Aaronic descent, nor Scriptural sanction of their authority. We know that, by the end of the Second Temple Period, Pharisees succeeded in imposing their laws in many areas (Antiquities XVIII15), including the priestly ritual on the Day of Atonement service in the inner sanctum (MYoma 52; TYom Hakuppurim 18-9).

Another example concerns the display of the sacred vessels. On each of the festivals, the sacred vessels, the seven-branched candelabrum and the table with the shew-bread, normally kept inside the hekhal, (where they could only be seen by priests) were displayed to the public, to the dismay of the more conservative priests (M Hag 38; THag 335; Yoma 54a). The candelabrum itself was called by Sadducee priests "the light of the moon" (Tos. Hagiga 335), and the sight of these vessels was a high point of many pilgrims' quest.

c. Temple purity restrictions and communitas

Purity regulations and purification rites were the basis for much of the differential access to sacred space and the restrictions on performance of rituals. "Pollution", writes Mary Douglas, "is a type of danger which is not likely to occur except where the lines of structure, cosmic and social are clearly defined". Although the Temple - centered regulations did not draw the dominant lines determining social stratification in everyday life, they did promote a vision of the universe in which the Priests were at the center and reinforced the status of the priests as sole mediators of the holy.

On pilgrimage festivals, purity regulations were modified to attenuate the differential status enjoyed by the priesthood. All, or almost all pilgrims underwent a seven-day purification period upon their arrival in Jerusalem. Philo writes, "But it is prohibited to enter the Sanctuary even for those entirely pure before seven days" (De Spec Leg III, 205). All pilgrims entering the Temple Mount were required to remove their clothes, immerse themselves in a ritual bath and, leaving their sandals, staffs and money-purse outside, enter the Temple in white garments. We find that in many pilgrimage festivals, such as the hajj to Mecca (as well as in rites of passage), the stripping off of daily clothing, purification rites and the donning of uniform pilgrims' garb make pilgrims of different social classes more or less indistinguishable from one another. Here, they also resemble the white-clad, barefoot priests. All those entering the Court of Israel, adjacent to the altar of sacrifice, were required to immerse themselves, even the High Priest (MYoma 33; TYoma 115; MNeg 148; TNeg 89). As Safrai commented, "the Tannaitic Halakha thus made Israelites equal to Priests and saw their entry into the sanctuary as a kind of priestly worship".

Dr. Jackie Feldman is an anthropologist at Ben Gurion University of the Negev in Beersheba and a veteran guide with NET tours. His fields of research are pilgrimage and tourism, anthropology of religion. Readers may respond directly to Dr. Feldman.

Find the full article at the following link

www.netours.com/jrs/2003/forum/off-track/pilgrimage-2nd-Temple1.htm

Lost_Philosopher

One question come to my mind, does the dome of the rock mosque prevent jews to pilgrimize to thier temple?

warner

Peace

I wanted to post the rest of the above article in case if anyone has trouble accessing the site and also this part of the artcile gives all the references, which can be useful to anyone interested.

Normative Communitas and the Struggle for Religious Legitimacy
in Pilgrimages to the Second Temple by Dr. Jackie Feldman

While many of the purity restrictions applied primarily in the Temple context, some were extended to everyday life. The haverim, a Pharisee elite, adopted Temple customs in everyday life. They ate their daily meals in closed circles of other haverim, in conditions of purity similar to those obtaining among Temple priests eating consecrated foods and avoided contact with amei ha'aretz (MDemai 22-3; TDemai 22-3), "the simple people of the rural and urban masses. who were more cavalier or selective in their observance of the commandments". On the pilgrimage festivals, however, the Pharisees suspended the purity restrictions of the haverim "'Jerusalem built up, a city knit (hubra) together, (to which tribes would make pilgrimage)' - a city that makes all Israel haverim.the rabbis made the impurity of the am ha'aretz equivalent to purity" (BBes 11b; BNid 34a). The elevation of all amei ha'aretz to the status of haverim - members of the elite group, is what enables all pilgrims, haverim and amei ha'aretz alike to become haverim - friends. The suspension of these purity restrictions, however, applied only on pilgrimage festivals. The resulting festival spirit is conveyed through the Midrash "And the (nations of the world) find all of Israel in Jerusalem, all eating the same meal, all drinking the same drink, all praying to the same God. and they say, 'there can be nothing better than to attach oneself to this people'." (Sifrei Deut 354 (Horowitz ed., p. 416)).

Pilgrimage and religious legitimation

Pilgrimage offered an opportunity for the Temple priesthood to display their status as religious mediators, but they usually remained distant figures, isolated by lineage, purity restrictions (cf. MSanh 21), separate entrances to the sanctuary and an aristocratic self-conception as a tribe set apart. As the author of a contemporary pseudopigraphal book writes, "they with hand and mind will touch impure things. yet they will say, 'Do not touch me, lest you pollute me in the position I occupy'." (As. Mos. 7, 9-10). Furthermore, the High Priestly families' amassed riches, their alliances with wealthy lay families, their exemption from both State and Temple taxes (MSheq 13-4), their abuses of power (TMen, 1321), their fraternal violence (Antiquities V 180-181; X 213), occasionally leading to murders within the Temple precincts (MYoma 22; TYom Hakippurim 112), and their often pro-Roman sympathies, all engendered resentment on the part of many people, especially those in Jerusalem who came in more frequent contact with them. This resentment burst forth during the Great Revolt in the year 70 C.E. (Wars II427; IV414; VII412ff.).

While the High Priests fortified their lofty position, the Pharisees employed the arena of pilgrimage to present their world-view and to gain the affection and respect of the people. They mingled among the masses on pilgrimage festivals, sharing their meals, teaching the Law and encouraging the people to participate more actively in Temple rites, moving the focus from the Holy of Holies to the more visible and accessible altar and courtyards. They went to the extent of juggling torches and performing acrobatics on the Feast of the Water-Drawing (TSukkah 42). Undoubtedly, the contacts made on pilgrimage would aid them as they went out to the provinces and the Diaspora to preach their message in synagogues. Furthermore, in addition to their participation in the Temple cult, the Pharisees promoted Torah study and observance of ethical and ritual laws in daily life as pillars of Judaism, alongside the sacrificial cult (MAbot 12). Towards the close of the Second Temple Period, they also began to practice certain secondary Temple rites in synagogues throughout the Jewish world lighting an eternal flame, blowing the ram's horn, holding processions in the synagogue with the etrog and lulav, reading the Torah in public, reading the daily Psalm, and more. These practices extended Temple sanctity to areas outside the holy city and, paved the way for the acceptance of the Pharisee's spiritual descendants, the Rabbis, as authoritative vehicles of holiness.

Conclusions

The examples I have provided illustrate how ritual barriers erected by the Temple priesthood, which confirmed the priests' superior position as sole mediators of the divine, were swept away or rendered more flexible by the flow of festival pilgrims, who sought to appear as equals "before the Lord". The interaction of priestly and popular forces, along with the encouragement of a popularizing class of intellectual Pharisees, resulted in the dynamic process of normative communitas. But because of the status of the Second Temple as center of the world, communitas itself could be employed by non-Priestly groups as a tool in their struggle for Temple-based legitimacy.

NOTES

For a detailed historical account of pilgrimage to the Second Temple, see Shmuel Safrai , , , " ("&#1492. , ", ", , , ", ' 487 - 498. Return to text.

Jacob Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism, Leiden, 1983, p. 29.

, " ", , , ", ' 154-165,

Mircea Eliade and Lawrence F. Sullivan, "Center of the World", Encyclopedia of Religion, New York, 1987, Vol. 3, p. 166. Cf. Mircea Eliade, "Symbolism of the Centre'", Images and Symbols, Kansas City, 1981, pp. 27-56. Return to text.

Raphael Patai (Man and Temple, London 1947) provides a detailed, if uncritical, survey of the sources attaching cosmic meaning to the Temple, its vessels and rites. See also Jackie Feldman, "Le second Temple comme institution ?conomique, sociale et politique", in Shmuel Trigano, ed., La Soci?t? Juive A Travers L'histoire, Tome II, Paris 1992, 156-158.

Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, New York 1959, 20-65. Much of Eliade's material is drawn from A. J. Wensinck, The Ideas of the Western Semites concerning the Navel of the Earth, Amsterdam, 1916.

Clifford Geertz, "Religion as a Cultural System", in The Interpretation of Cultures, New York 1973, 87-125.

Victor Turner, "Liminality and Communitas", The Ritual Process, Chicago 1969, 96. idem., "The Center out There The Pilgrim's Goal", History of Religions 12 (1973), 191-230. Victor Turner and Edith Turner, Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture, Oxford 1978, 34-35. Return to text.

Michael J. Sallnow, "Communitas Reconsidered The Sociology of Andean Pilgrimage", Man, Vol. 16 (1981), 164-182.

"Introduction", in John Eade and Michael Sallnow, eds, Contesting the Sacred The Anthropology of Christian Pilgrimage, London and New York 1999 {1991}, 1-6.

Eric Cohen, "Pilgrimage Centers Concentric and Excentric", Annals of Tourism Research 19(1), (1992), 47.

Cohen, "Pilgrimage Centers", 33-37. Return to text.

For a discussion of the trustworthiness of rabbinic sources on the Temple, see Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods, Atlanta 1995, 103-106, and bibliography ad loc.

For example, the proliferation of stone vessels in Jerusalem, in the late Second Tempe Period, as well as the Mikvaot found near the Temple Mount confirm details of Tannaitic halalkha. See Yitzchak Magen, "Jerusalem as a Center of the Stone Vessel Industry during the Second Temple Period", in Hillel Geva, ed., Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, Jerusalem 1994, 244-256; idem., "Ancient Israel's Stone Age Purity in Second Temple Times", Biblical Archaeological Review 24, 5, (1995), 46-52.

, " " " ", , , ", ' 225-256. , " - , ", ; , , ", ' 205-212.

Some scholars go so far as to suggest that encouragement of mass pilgrimage was an innovation of Herod's. The encouragement of pilgrimage was certainly in tune with Herod's larger financial schemes. See , " ", ., ., . , , , 1989, ' 174-181. . See also Martin Goodman, "The Pilgrimage Economy of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period", in Lee Levine, ed., Jerusalem Its Sanctity and Centrality in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, New York 1999, 71-72.

I ignore here the Temple of Onias at Leontopolos, which was, at best, a marginal local phenomenon, as well as the temple at Elephantine (Yev) in Upper Egypt, which served as a center of sacrificial worship for the local Jewish military colony during the 6th and 5th Centuries BCE. Return to text.

R. Mac Mullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire, New Haven, 1981, pp. 25-29. See also Goodman, Pilgrimage Economy, 70-75.

Contra Flaccum 45-46. On the symbolic importance of Jerusalem for Hellenistic Jews, see

, " ", 11 , 1979, ' 45-46. " , " ", , , 1957, ' 192-208. .. , " ", , , ", ' 172-178.

Pierre Deffontaines, "G?ographie des p?lerinages", Geographie et Religions, Paris 1948, 295-338. David Sopher, Geography of Religions, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1967; B.Z. Kedar, and R.J.Z. Werblowsky, Sacred Space Shrine, City, Land, New York, 1998. Moshe Weinfeld, "Jerusalem as a Political and Spiritual Capital", in Joan Goodrich Westenholz, ed., Capital Cities Urban Planning and Spiritual Dimensions, Jerusalem, 1998, 15-40. Return to text.

Safrai, Ha'aliyah laregel, 71-74. Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, Philadelphia 1969 (1967), 90ff. See also

' , ? , , 2000, ' 35, 4, .

, " ", 5, 1985, ' 16-17.

, , , ", ' 80-92.

On catchment basins of pilgrimage, see Deffontaines, G?ographie; Mary Nolan and Sidney Nolan, Christian Pilgrimage in Modern Western Europe, Chapel Hill 1989. Return to text.

See the exhaustive list of references in Safrai, ha'aliya laregel, 42-71.

This phenomenon has been well documented in the history of Islamic pilgrimages, especially from West Africa See William R. Roff, "Pilgrimage and the History of Religions Theoretical Approaches to the Hajj", in Richard C. Martin, ed., Approaches to Islam in Religious Studies, Tucson 1985, 78-86; 220-222. C. Bawa Yamba, Permanent Pilgrims The Role of Pilgrimage in the Lives of West African Muslims in Sudan, Washington 1995.

Jonathan Z. Smith (To Take Place Towards Theory in Ritual, Chicago 1987, 63-73) has argued that the hierarchy of successively more stringent purity restrictions governing access to the inner precincts of the Temple should be understood, not as the religious man's perception of the absolute nature of sacred space (qua Eliade), but rather as the projection of categories of social status differentiations on undifferentiated space by particular groups of men. Return to text.

See the discussion of the exterritoriality of Jerusalem in Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel. II Teilband, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969, 1219-1235, and Smith, To Take Place, 47-73.

Marcel Mauss, The Gift Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies, London, 1954. Bronislaw Malinowski, Argonauts of the Western Pacific, New York 1981 {1922}, 95-96. Peter Blau, "Social Exchange" in Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York 1964, 88-114.

Blau, "Social Exchange",.112-113. Return to text.

Blau, Social Exchange, 98.

Blau, Social Exchange, 112.

Victor Turner, From Ritual to Theatre, New York 1982, 49.

William Scott Green, quoted in Jacob Neusner, A History of The Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part Twenty-One, Leiden, 1977, 1.

Eliade, Sacred and Profane, 20-65.

On the warning inscription , see Elias Bickermann, "The Warning Inscription on Herod's Temple", Jewish Quarterly Review 37 (1946-7), pp. 387-405. Peretz Segal, "The Penalty of the Warning Inscription from the Temple of Jerusalem", Israel Exploration Journal 39 (1989), 79-84. Return to text.

For an account of the conflict between priests holding a highly abstract view of God, who was to be served in silence (P), and a second, more popularizing group (H), that introduced song and popular practices, see , , , , ", ' 120-155, 159-184.

Although, according to the halakha, non-priests were allowed to slaughter sacrificial animals, in practice, the task was performed by priests, except for the Passover lamb (cf. Safrai, ha'aliya laregel, 181).

The comparison with Eleusis is taken from Bruria Biton-Ashkelony,

, , -, -, ".

J. L. Rubinstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods, Atlanta 1995, pp. 145-148. Return to text.

The sections on aspects of the Sukkot festival in the Temple are based on my Master's thesis, Jackie Feldman, The Pull of the Center and the Experience of Communitas in Second Temple Pilgrimage, unpublished M.A. thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1988. Several of the themes in my thesis were expanded by Israel Knohl, , " ", ' ("&#1488, ' 139- 146.

On the cosmic significance of the festival, see Raphael Patai, Man and Temple, 24-53. On simhat beit hasho'eva in general, see Rubinstein, Sukkot, 122-131; 163-179. Also Jeffrey L. Rubinstein, "The Sukkot Wine-Libation", in Robert Chazan, William W. Hallo and Lawrence Schiffman eds., Ki Baruch Hu Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine, Winona Lake, Illinois 1999, 575-591.

These conflicts may date back to the struggle of different schools of priests, the Priestly Cult (P) and the Holiness School (H), in the late First Temple Period. See Israel Knohl, Pulmus Hakittot, 145-146. See also Jeffrey L. Rubinstein, "The Sadducees and the Water Libation", Jewish Quarterly Review 64(4), 1994, 417-444, who provides two alternative explanations of the Pharisee-Sadducee conflict over these Sukkot Temple customs. Return to text.

On the question of the display of the table to pilgrims and the depiction of the table on Bar Kochba coins, see ", " ' ", " - -", ("&#1494, ' 22-25, " ("&#1495, ' 67-57.

In an early apocryphal Gospel, Papyrus Oxyrynychus V 840, the High Priest accuses Jesus and his disciples of visiting the Temple in order to gaze at the sacred vessels, even though they were not properly purified. See the sources on the link of the Biblical command of pilgrimage and revelation in Knohl, Mikdash, pp. 139-140, notes 6-9. Knohl suggests that some sources understood that "the vision of the sacred vessels was a kind of vision of God".

Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger, New York, 1989 (1966), 113. See also her chapters on pollution in idem., pp. 29-40; 94-114; "Pollution", in idem., Implicit Meanings Essays in Anthropology, London 1975, 47-59. Return to text.

James Preston, "Purification", Encyclopedia of Religion, New York 1987, Vol. 12, 93; Turner, Ritual Process.

Safrai, ha'aliya laregel, 141.

Benjamin Uffenheimer, Am Ha'aretz, Leiden 1977. The quotes here are translated from the Hebrew version.

See Daniel Schwartz, Priesthood, Temple, Sacrifices Opposition and Spiritualization in the Late Second Temple Period, unpublished dissertation, Jerusalem 1981, 9-43. Return to text.

The Tractate Abot writes the Priesthood out of the history of revelation. Priests are completely eliminated from the line of transmission of the Law from Sinai. See " , " ", 18 1947), ' 1-29.

, " ", , , ", ("&#1495, ', ' 133-153.

? 2003 Dr. Jackie Feldman

warner

Peace Lost Philosopher

I did not understand your question did you mean whether muslims are preventing the Jews from the Temple mount.

I post the following article hoping it will answer your question but I am unable to verify the authenticity of the information. Please find the link and verify the references given.

The Western Wall of the Temple Mount remains standing until today and due to its proximity to where the Temples once stood has, for practical purposes, became the holiest site for Jews to pray. Many Jews often leave written prayers addressed to God in the cracks of the wall.

Jewish religious law concerning entry to the site

1978 sign at entrance to Temple Mount

Most Orthodox rabbis, both those belonging to the Religious Zionist and the Haredi Orthodox streams of, have issued prohibitions against entering the Temple Mount because of the danger of entering the area of the Temple courtyard and the difficulty of fulfilling the ritual requirement of cleansing oneself with the ashes of a red heifer (see Numbers 19), and declared it punishable with karet, death by heavenly decree . The boundaries of the areas which are completely forbidden, while having large portions in common, are delineated differently by various rabbinic authorities. Some rabbis, primarily belonging to right-wing Religious Zionism, disagree with the majority position and maintain that it is permitted and even commendable to visit those parts of the Temple Mount which according to most rabbinic authorities do not lead to any controversy.

Those who forbid Jews from entering the Temple Mount
In August 1967, the Chief Rabbis of Israel, Isser Yehuda Unterman and Yitzhak Nissim, in concert with other leading rabbis, asserted that "For generations we have warned against and refrained from entering any part of the Temple Mount."
When in January 2005 a large group of leading rabbis from the national-religious (Zionist) stream of Orthodox Judaism signed a declaration confirming that the 1967 decision of Chief Rabbis Unterman and Nissim was still valid, declaring that it is absolutely forbidden for Jews to ascend on the Temple Mount until Moshiach, the Jewish Messiah comes, the Temple Institute responded furiously. Rabbis who signed on to the declaration were

? Rabbi Yona Metzger, Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel
? Rabbi Shlomo Amar, Sefardi Chief Rabbi of Israel
? Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, spiritual leader of Sefardi Haredi Judaism and of the Shas party, and former Sefardi Chief Rabbi of Israel
? Rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron, former Sefardi Chief Rabbi of Israel
? Rabbi Shmuel Rabinowitz, rabbi of the Western Wall
? Rabbi Avraham Shapiro, former Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel
? Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, rosh yeshiva of the Ateret Cohanim yeshiva
? Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, former Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel and current Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv

All Ashkenazi Haredi rabbis forbid entering the Temple Mount. Some of them are

? Rabbi Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky, the Steipler
? Rabbi Yosef Sholom Eliashiv
? Rabbi Avraham Yeshayeh Karelitz, the Chazon Ish
? Rabbi Velvel Soloveitchik, the Brisker Rov
? Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rov

Those who permit Jews to enter the Temple Mount

Some rabbis who permitted Jews to enter the Temple Mount include

? Rabbi Shlomo Goren, former Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel
? Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, former Sefardi Chief Rabbi of Israel
? Rabbi Chaim David Halevi, former Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv and Jaffo
? Rabbi Dov Lior, Rabbi of Kiryat Arba
? Rabbi Yosef Elboim
? Rabbi Yisrael Ariel
? Rabbi Shear Yishuv HaCohen, Chief Rabbi of Haifa
? Rabbi Yuval Sherlo, rosh yeshiva of the hesder yeshiva of Petach Tikvah

They have "strongly encouraged" Jews to visit the permitted sections of the Temple Mount.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Mount

There is a lot of information available on this subject on the net at wikipedia , answer.com and encyclopedia britanica possibly because it is a very important and holy site for Jews Christians and Muslims and for over 3000 years connected to these 3 religions and also it has been the controversial hot spot for the lat 60 years .

warner

Peace Lost Philosopher

The following is from the same wikipedia link giving more information on entry and prayer at the mount.

Management of the site

A Muslim Waqf has managed the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif continuously since the Muslim reconquest of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Since taking control of the area in the Six-Day War, Israel has permitted the Waqf to retain internal administration of the site. Under this arrangement Jews and Christians are permitted to visit the site. As a security measure to prevent Intifada-related riots from destroying the site, however, the Israeli government has agreed to enforce a ban on non-Muslim prayer on the site. Non-Muslims who are observed praying on the site are subject to expulsion by the police

On 7 June 1967, immediately after the fighting had died down in Jerusalem, the then Prime Minister, Levi Eshkol, convened the spiritual leaders of all the communities in Jerusalem and assured them that "no harm whatsoever shall come to the places sacred to all religions", and that contacts should be maintained in order to make certain that spiritual activities of the religious leaders in the Old City may continue. He also mentioned that upon his request the Minister of Religious Affairs had issued instructions according to which arrangements in connection with the Western Wall, Muslim Holy Places and Christian Holy Places should be determined by the Chief Rabbis of Israel, a council of Muslim clerics and a council of Christian clergy respectively. Together with the extension of Israeli jurisdiction and administration over east Jerusalem, the Knesset passed the Preservation of the Holy Places Law, 1967, ensuring protection of the Holy Places against desecration, as well as freedom of access thereto.?Jerusalem?The Legal and Political Background Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Israel

According to a posthumously-published interview with Haaretz, General Uzi Narkiss reported that on June 7, 1967, a few hours after East Jerusalem fell into Israeli hands, Rabbi Shlomo Goren had told him "Now is the time to put 100 kilograms of explosives into the Mosque of Omar so that we may rid ourselves of it once and for all." His request was denied; according to Goren's aide Menahem Hacohen, he had not suggested blowing up the mosque, but had merely stated that "if, during the course of the war a bomb had fallen on the mosque and it would have - you know - disappeared - that would have been a good thing." Later that year, in a speech to a military convention, he added "Certainly we should have blown it up. It is a tragedy for generations that we did not do so. ... I myself would have gone up there and wiped it off the ground completely so that there was no trace that there was ever a Mosque of Omar there." Shlomo Goren also entered the Dome of the Rock with a Torah book and the shofar.

Recent events

Plans for a synagogue

During the Sukkot festival in 2006 Uri Ariel, a member of the knesset from the National Union party ascended to the mount, and said that he's preparing a plan where a synagogue will be built on the mount. His suggested synagogue won't be built instead of the mosques but in a separate area in accordance with rulings of the prominent Rabbis. He said he believed that this will be correcting a historical injustice and that it's an opportunity for the Muslim world to prove that it's tolerant to all faiths.

Plans for a new minaret

October 14, 2006, it was reported in The Times that there are plans to build a new minaret, the first of its kind for 600 years, on the Temple Mount. King Abdullah II of Jordan announced a competition to design a fifth minaret for the walls of the Temple Mount complex, imprinting his Hashemite dynasty on the site. The new addition would, the King said, ?reflect the Islamic significance and sanctity of the mosque?. The scheme is likely to cost ?200,000. The plans are for a seven-sided tower ? after the seven-pointed Hashemite star ? and at 42 metres (130ft), it would be 3.5 metres (11ft) taller than the next-largest minaret. The minaret will be constructed on the eastern wall of the Temple Mount near the Golden Gate.

Although Israel has not objected and plans are on track for construction to begin early 2007 , a leading Israeli archeologist lambasted the plan. "I am against any change in the status quo on the Temple Mount", said Bar-Ilan University's Dr. Gabi Barkai, a member of the Committee for the Prevention of Destruction of Antiquities on the Temple Mount. "If the status quo is being changed, then it should not just be the addition of Muslim structures at the site?.

The existing four minarets include three near the Western Wall and one near the northern wall. The first minaret was constructed on the southwest corner of the Temple Mount in 1278. The second was built in 1297 by order of a Mameluke king, the third by a governor of Jerusalem in 1329, and the last in 1367.

Claims of exclusivity

Jewish claims

Jews claim that the Temple Mount is one of the sites that was legally purchased by their ancestors and therefore remains the legitimate property of the Jewish people only. They cite the midrash (Genesis Rabba 797) which states that ?There are three places regarding which the nations of the world cannot taunt Israel and say ?you have stolen them.? They are The Cave of the Patriarchs, the Temple Mount (I Chronicles 2125) and the burial site of Joseph." .

Jews point to the edict of Cyrus the Great, (ca. 576 or 590 BCE ? July 529 BCE), ruler of the Persian Empire, who gave permission and encouraged the exiled Jews of the time to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple. A few years later when the authorities in Jerusalem asked the Jews what right they had to build a Temple, they referred to the decree of Cyrus. Darius, who was then reigning, organised a search for this alleged decree. When it was found in the archives at Ecbatana ('Achmetha.' Ezra 62), Darius reaffirmed the decree and the work proceeded. This edict, fully reproduced in the Book of Ezra, confirms non-Jewish recognition of the Jewish rights to the site.

In another non-Jewish acknowledgment of the Jewish rights to the site, a letter written by Julian, the Roman Emperor between 361-363, tells of how he told the Jews that he would rebuild the sacred city of Jerusalem for them, (closed to the Jews since Hadrian in 135), ?...which for so many years you have longed to see inhabited, ... and together with you, glorify the Most High God therein?. A personal friend of his, Ammianus Marcellinus, wrote about the effort to rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, as did Sozomen (c400-c450) in his Historia Ecclesiastica.
Most Israelis and Jews acquiesce to the continued Arab presence on the Temple Mount. However, traditional Judaism believes that the Temple Mount area will eventually come under Jewish control, and a Temple will be rebuilt. Some Israelis and Jews hold secular or liberal views and regard the sacrificial cult as an earlier primitivism. They see no need for a future Temple, although concur that the site holds immense cultural significance in Judaism. Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak did not give up Israeli sovereignty of the Temple Mount and its retaining walls during negotiations at the Camp David 2000 Summit. Religiously Orthodox Jews eagerly await the building of the third and final Temple with most religious authorities viewing this event as occurring by Divine Providence at the hand of a future Jewish Messiah.
A minority view, following the influential view of Maimonides, holds that when possible, Jews should attempt to rebuild the Temple on their own as a necessary step in bringing about the Messianic age.

Another view is to establish not the Temple but a synagogue on the Mount. During the Camp David 2000 Summit, the then Prime Minister Ehud Barak raised the possibility of building a synagogue on the mount while more recently MK Uri Ariel has called for the construction of a synagogue on the mount.

A very small minority, notably the Temple Mount and Eretz Yisrael Faithful Movement and The Temple Institute, advocate as a political platform the immediate removal of the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa mosques, which they deem signs of "Islamic conquest and domination", suggesting that they be "rebuilt at Mecca" and claiming "God ... expects Israel to re-liberate the Temple Mount from the pagan Arab worshippers."

While the Temple Mount and Eretz Yisrael Faithful Movement has had very little success in persuading the Israeli government to forcibly remove the area's mosques, it has had greater success in its efforts to lift restrictions on Jewish worship at the Temple mount. The group has had growing (although still limited) support in Israel in its political campaign in support of permitting Jews to worship at Judaism's holiest site. Currently, Jews are permitted to enter the Temple Mount under tight police observation, but are prohibited from bringing ritual objects or praying there.

Muslim claims

Muslim Caliphs never made the western wall inaccessible to Jews, while Muslims also view it has a holy place.

Sheikh Raad Salah - head of the Islamic Movement in Israel has stated "We remind, for the 1,000th time, that the entire Al-Aqsa mosque, including all of its area and alleys above the ground and under it, is exclusive and absolute Moslem property, and no one else has any rights to even one grain of earth in it."

In a Makor Rishon interview, published on May 22, 1998, the Imam of al-Aqsa Mosque and the PA?s Jerusalem Mufti Akrem Tzabari announced that ?Jews have no right to the Temple Mount.?

"The archaeology of Jerusalem is diverse - excavations in the Old City and the areas surrounding it revealed Umayyad Islamic palaces, Roman ruins, Armenian ruins and others. Outside of what is mentioned written in the Old and New Testaments, there is no tangible evidence of any Jewish traces remains in the old city of Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity."?Palestinian Authority Information Ministry Press Release, December 10, 1997

During the Camp David 2000 Summit, Dennis Ross, the US envoy, reported that Yasser Arafat "never offered any substantive ideas, not once" at the talks. However, "He did offer one new idea, which was that the Temple didn't exist in Jerusalem, that it was in Nablus."

"The claims being made by the rulers of Israel and its rabbis about the alleged Temple are pure fabrications without any base or foundation."?Statement by the Higher Islamic Authority of Palestine Al-Quds (PA), December 28, 2001 (Translation by BBC Worldwide Monitoring)

Acknowledgments of the basis for its holiness to other religions

Jewish

As Jews do not consider the Qur'an sacred, their tradition ideologically refutes Muhammed's status as a prophet and his journey to Jerusalem. Some Jews (and others) hold that the Qur'an's discussion of the night trip never involved Jerusalem or the Temple Mount (as the place of the event is not specified and neither is mentioned by name anywhere in the Qur'an), but rather that this was a later Muslim reinterpretation of the verse, made for political reasons. See the discussion of this topic at Isra and Mi'raj.

However, the Government of Israel and most Jews recognize that Muslims regard the site as holy based upon their beliefs, and respect the rights of Muslims to hold such beliefs and to pray there in their fashion. The State of Israel allows Muslims access to the site since capturing it in the Six-Day War, and they are the only ones who are permitted to pray on the site ; however, Palestinians under the age of 45 have been barred from entry during past periods of conflict. , Palestinians were restricted due to Israeli-claims of architectural integrity , and, further, Palestinians from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are often currently unable to reach the site due to restrictions on their movements . Recent controversy has developed when Israeli authorities allowed non-Muslims to enter the mosque compound, against the wishes of the Waqf who administers the site .

Muslim

Many Muslims acknowledge that the Temple Mount is holy to the Jews, the main reason being that the Temple Mount was the site of the Temple of Solomon. In A Brief Guide to al-Haram al-Sharif, a booklet published in 1930 by the "Supreme Moslem Council", a body established by the British government to administer waqfs and headed by Hajj Amin al-Husayni during the British Mandate period, states (page 3)

"The site is one of the oldest in the world. Its sanctity dates from the earliest (perhaps from pre-historic) times. Its identity with the site of Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to universal belief, on which David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings."
This has been the orthodox position in Islam. More recent examples include a fatwa issued by the Saudi Sheikh M. S. al-Munajjid, quoted on IslamOnline, 18 March 2001.

Other examples of Islamic scholars giving similar acknowledgements include

Imam Al-Qurtubi, the Islamic counterpart of the Jewish commentator Rashi, quotes the earlier commentator Imam Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari who related the Prophet Muhammad's response to a follower's query about the ruins of the fabled Jewish Temple. Qurtubi sets out in writing Tabari's words about the destruction of the Temple, which tally in every detail with biblical accounts of the Temple's destruction by the Babylonians, reconstruction, and final destruction by the Romans.

Yusuf Ali
The Farthest Mosque must refer to the site of the Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem on the hill of Moriah, at or near which stands the Dome of the Rock? it was a sacred place to both Jews and Christians? The chief dates in connection with the Temple in Jerusalem are It was finished by Solomon about 1004 BCE; destroyed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar about 586 BCE; rebuilt under Ezra and Nehemiah about 515 BCE; turned into a heathen idol temple by one of Alexander the Great's successors, Antiochus Epiphanes, 167 BCE; restored by Herod, 17 BCE to 29; and completely razed to the ground by the Emperor Titus in 70. These ups and downs are among the greater signs in religious history. Commentary number 2168
Shaykh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi goes as far to suggest that the Quran expressly recognizes that Jerusalem plays for Jews the same role that Mecca does for Muslims, and quotes the Quran

...They would not follow thy direction of prayer (qibla), nor art thou to follow their direction of prayer; nor indeed will they follow each other's direction of prayer... (Koran 2145)

All Quranic commentators explain that "thy qibla" (direction of prayer for Muslims) is clearly the Kaba of Mecca, while "their qibla" (direction of prayer for Jews) refers to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

In relation to this, M. Shaykh Zadeh Hashiyaah states in Qadn Baydawn's commentary "Verily, in their prayers Jews orientate themselves toward the Rock (sakhrah), while Christians orientate themselves eastwards..."

Starting in the 1990s, however, some people, including Sheikh Ekrima Sa'id Sabri, chairperson of the Palestinian Higher Islamic Commission and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was appointed by the PA have denied that the site is connected with Solomon, or that it had any history involving the Jews

progod

Peace,

Honestly, the way I see it is that the Children of Israel and the later Jews made a mistake. They made it so their religion was based on one location in one and one temple. The Samaritans created another temple and went to that one obviously because of their disgust for the rest of the Children of Israel's attitudes. However, they too tried to give their temple all of the shine. They were proven wrong in this when God took many of them to Babylon where their religion had to undergo change and not be temple-centered. The temple was even destroyed later on. This was a sign from God. their religion was not supposed to be centered on one temple. Whatever temple that was raised to God was the temple they were supposed to go too. However, in what we see in the Bible is more representative of the temples or mosques that we are supposed to construct. Being regional mosques, not Mosques on every corner. Nor do we have to go their everyday only during the times of pilgrimage is is obligatory for us to go, of we can go.

Godbless,
Anwar

God forbid some natural disaster or war destroys mecca for good. The way the Muslims are acting something like this is bound to happen, which will change the path of Muslims forever.

noble

Salam
There are records that Mu'awyah (of the Ummayads) the self-proclaimed Caliph in Damascus, Syria after (he deposed "peacefully&quot Ali, gave the injunction that using the Temple in Jerusalem was better than the ones in Makkah or Medinah, this was due to his dislike of the Hashimite tribe (the Prophet's tribe), and so for a good while, the pilgrimage from Syria and Iraq was done to Jerusalem.
So it might be that Makkah was after all a genuine temple for the Hajj, despite what I was led to believe in Ayman's articles, and that indeed the temple in Jerusalem is a second temple...
TBC

warner

Peace brother

We can not run in to conclusions that fast. The information I posted above about the Second Temple is Jewish History written many years after the incident. I do not think that there is real evidence The Second Temple existed in that location as described just as there is no evidence that Mecca and Kaaba, the cubic structure, existed in pre-quranic times or that Abraham built it. Further there is no quranic support for this. Also there was no Temple in Jeruslaem during the time of Muawiya, Dome of the Rock being built much later by Malik Ibn Marwan and Masjidul Aqsa years after. But as suggested during the time of Muawiya or even later Muslims could have visited Jerusalem as a pilgrimage.

noble

Peace warner
The problem we have is not being allowed to make archaeological investigations around and within holy sites in what is now known as "Saudi Arabia".
I am sure we might be able to settle the debate where the Hajj is to be performed using scientific evidence, unless all evidence was destroyed, but even then, however careful, something will usually be left behind, especially if the Creator wills it so (cf. detective stories )

noble

Peace Bros
I would like to add this (my view)
I do not think there is a second temple.
From the logic of the revelations, and the people they address, it seems that the best place for the place for Pilgrimage is and has been within Jerusalem.
It seems the various communities who took over the reins of the Islamic Empire (Caliphates or whatever), changed the Capital where they were strongest (Medinah, Kufa, Damascus, Baghdad, etc) , and probably the Restricted Temple was moved from Jerusalem to Makkah because of some political and ethnical reasons (the Ummayads and Abbassids were Arabs).
Then they had to justify it by inventing some hadiths to make up the story, inclusive of the birth place of Muhammad etc.

youssef4342

peace be with you guys as well,
Thank you for sharing,
May God Almighty make all things clear and understandable to us.