We, thank God, live in a time when many Jews have returned to Eretz Yisrael. In light of this situation, we hope to soon rebuild the Temple and offer korbanot (ritual sacrifices).1Beyond the mitzvot to offer korbanot, Rav Yosef Albom (Techumin 5:439) notes that approximately one-third of the Torah’s positive mitzvot are directly linked to the functioning of the Beit Hamikdash. The total rises to approximately half of the mitzvot if one includes mitzvot that connect indirectly to the Beit Hamikdash, such as the laws of tumah and taharah (ritual purity) and kehunah (priesthood). In fact, one might question why we do not attempt to reinstate korbanot even now. This question first arose in the nineteenth century, when Rav Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer (in a book entitled Drishat Tzion) strongly urged the Jews of his time to pursue offering certain korbanot.2The Kaftor Vaferach (Chapter 6) actually records that in the year 1257 Rabbeinu Yechiel of Paris declared that he was traveling to Jerusalem to offer korbanot. However, intensive discussion of their renewal began with Rav Kalischer. The great authorities of that time, including Rav Akiva Eiger (in letters published in Drishat Tzion), Rav Yaakov Ettlinger (Teshuvot Binyan Tzion 1:1), Rav David Friedman (introduction to Sh’eilat David, Kuntres Drishat Tzion Viy’rushalayim), and Rav Moshe Sofer (Teshuvot Chatam Sofer, Yoreh Deah 236), debated his proposal. We review the basic issues that they discussed.3Rav Eliezer Waldenberg (Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 10:1:44) summarizes the pre-Six-Day War literature about offering korbanot today. Rav J. David Bleich (Contemporary Halakhic Problems 1:245 note 1), in the midst of his discussion of this topic, lists sources for the additional debate that arose following the Six-Day War.
Rebuilding the Beit Hamikdash
Many sources indicate that we should not build the Beit Hamikdash (Holy Temple) today. The Sefer Hachinuch (95) writes that the mitzvah to build the Beit Hamikdash applies only when a majority of world Jewry lives in Israel (which seems not yet to have occurred as of this writing).4We have presented the Sefer Hachinuch’s opinion according to its simple reading. See, however, Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer (10:1:11 and 10:2:1), who entertains several other possible interpretations. He cites and rejects a view that whenever Jewish immigration to Israel is unrestricted, such as the present time, it is as if most Jews live in Israel. He also suggests that the Sefer Hachinuch requires that a majority of the inhabitants of Israel be Jews, but does not consider whether many more Jews live in the Diaspora. Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Moadim Uzmanim 5:351) notes that a simple reading of the Sefer Hachinuch’s view raises the difficulty that most Jews regrettably lived outside of Israel when the Second Temple was built. For further discussion of the Sefer Hachinuch’s position, see Techumin 12:490. Furthermore, Rashi and Tosafot (Sukkah 41a s.v. Iy Nami) cite a Midrash that states that the Third Temple will not be built by humans, but will miraculously descend from the heavens as a complete edifice.5Rav J. David Bleich (Contemporary Halakhic Problems 1:246 note 3) argues that the Nacheim prayer (recited on Tishah B’av) also implies that the third Beit Hamikdash will descend from heaven and not be built by human hands. The Binyan Tzion (1:1) also demonstrates from our prayers that the Mashiach’s arrival will precede the Beit Hamikdash. He refers to a passage from the Gemara (Megillah 17b-18a) that explains the structure of the Shmoneh Esrei. The Gemara states that the blessing of Et Tzemach David (which prays for the return of David’s dynasty) precedes R’tzei (which focuses on restoring the Temple service) by two blessings, because the return of David’s dynasty will precede the Temple service’s restoration by two steps in the redemption process. The Binyan Tzion thus explains that the Rabbis did not offer korbanot after the Temple’s destruction, despite the fact that they had access to ashes of the parah adumah (red heifer) in order to purify themselves. Rav Waldenberg (Tzitz Eliezer 10:1:46 and 10:7:7) vigorously emphasizes this point. The Netziv (Ha’ameik Davar, Vayikra 26:31) also implies that korbanot may not be offered before the arrival of Mashiach, because he claims that a condition of exile is that God will not accept our korbanot. The Netziv argues, however, that the Korban Pesach is an exception to this rule and may be offered even before the Beit Hamikdash is rebuilt. (In fact, the Netziv believes that the Korban Pesach was actually offered during the years immediately following the Second Temple’s destruction.) Later in this chapter, we cite Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook’s belief that korbanot may be offered before rebuilding the Beit Hamikdash. On the other hand, the Rambam (Hilchot Beit Habechirah 1:1,4) strongly implies that human hands will indeed build it. Elsewhere (Hilchot Melachim 11:1,4), he adds that when someone successfully builds the Beit Hamikdash, we will know that he is the Mashiach (Messiah). According to the Rambam, it follows that we need not wait for a miracle in order to commence working towards a Beit Hamikdash and korbanot.
Rav Hershel Schachter (Nefesh Harav pp. 96-97) cites Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik as stating that the Torah (Devarim 12:10-11 and Rashi s.v. V’haya Hamakom) clearly indicates that we will build the Beit Hamikdash only after the Jewish people are settled in Israel securely, without any threats from our neighbors. Since, unfortunately, Israel’s enemies still threaten her, we should not yet consider building the Mikdash. The proponents of building the Mikdash, however, counter that the Ramban (Bemidbar 16:21) writes that had the Jews sought to build the Beit Hamikdash during the period of the Judges, they could have done so despite the lack of security and stability during much of that period. In fact, the Ramban insists that the Jews were severely punished for their failure to seek the construction of the Beit Hamikdash.6The Ramban suggests that the plague that followed the census in King David’s time (see II Shmuel 24) came as a punishment for the people’s failure to “rally and say, ‘Let us seek out God and build a home for His name.’”
We find in I Divrei Hayamim (28:19) that King David notes receiving direction from God for the construction of every part of the Beit Hamikdash. This verse might imply that Divine guidance is necessary in building the Beit Hamikdash, even when it is built by human hands. In fact, the Sifrei (commenting on Devarim 12:5) indicates that, although humans should initiate a search to locate the proper place for the Beit Hamikdash, we cannot know for sure that we have identified it correctly until a prophet tells us so (see Tzitz Eliezer 10:2:1 and 10:5). Consequently, one might argue that even according to the Rambam, we may not take concrete steps towards building the Beit Hamikdash without prophetic direction.
Offering Korbanot in a State of Impurity
Nowadays, we are all t’mei’ei meit (ritually impure from being in close proximity to dead bodies), so our impurity seemingly precludes our offering korbanot. Moreover, we cannot purify ourselves, for we lack the ashes of a parah adumah (red heifer), which remove tum’at meit. Accordingly, Rav Kalischer (Drishat Tzion, Ma’amar Ha’avodah 1:3) limited his proposal to the Korban Pesach and the communal offerings, which can sometimes be brought when the Kohanim are impure. The rule of tumah dechuyah betzibur,7Regarding whether the proper term should be tumah dechuyah betzibur or tumah hutrah betzibur, see Yoma 7b-8a and Encyclopedia Talmudit 19:578-579. which teaches that the impurity of a majority of the Jewish People overrides the prohibition to offer sacrifices in a state of tum’at meit, permits impure Kohanim to offer these sacrifices even in a time, such as our own, when we cannot change our state of impurity.8See Encyclopedia Talmudit (19:559-641). Already the Kaftor Vaferach (Chapter 6) suggests that tumah dechuyah betzibur would permit offering korbanot nowadays. Rav Kalischer further claims that tumah dechuyah betzibur even permits ascending the Temple Mount in a state of impurity for the purposes of locating the appropriate spot for the mizbei’ach and constructing it.
Identifying Kohanim
Although we can bring certain korbanot without purifying ourselves, we must find and appoint Kohanim to perform this service. While any Jew may slaughter an animal sacrifice, only a Kohein may perform all subsequent actions (see Rashi on Vayikra 1:5). Before accepting a Kohein for Temple service, witnesses must testify that he descends from a Kohein who served in the Second Temple (see Rambam, Hilchot Isurei B’iah 20:2). After hearing their testimony, we can assume that a beit din authenticated the ancestor’s status before admitting him for Temple service. The Rambam (Hilchot Isurei Bi’ah 20:1) writes, however, that all of today’s Kohanim cannot prove their lineage, so they base their status purely on a family tradition (Kohanei chazakah). Although we generally treat Kohanei chazakah as full-fledged Kohanim,9See Aruch Hashulchan (Yoreh Deah 305:55), Pitchei Teshuvah (Yoreh Deah 305:12 and Y.D. 322:3), Sdei Chemed (Letter Kaf 92), and Nishmat Avraham (Orach Chaim 128:10) for a summary of the debate among the Acharonim whether to absolutely consider Kohanei chazakah to be Kohanim or to view their status as doubtful. Rav Yosef Albom (Techumin 9:456) claims that if one were to cast aspersions on the status of Kohanim, then one could (God forbid) cast aspersions on everyone’s status as Jewish! We know that we are Jewish in the same manner that Kohanim claim to be Kohanim - family tradition. In fact, Rav J. David Bleich and Rav Mordechai Willig (in a lecture at Yeshiva University’s Yadin Yadin Kollel) stated that the consensus view among halachic authorities treats our Kohanim as definite Kohanim, without any doubt, regarding which women Kohanim may marry (see Sdei Chemed, ibid.). Similarly, Rav Hershel Schachter (reported by Rav Ezra Frazer) argued that once Rav Kalischer and the Chatam Sofer accepted Kohanei chazakah for Temple service (as we explain in this chapter), their position indicates that we follow the view that Kohanei chazakah are full-fledged Kohanim. Accordingly, no Kohein chazakah nowadays may marry a woman prohibited to Kohanim by claiming that his lineage is in doubt. Even if a dispute exists regarding whether a Kohein may marry a particular woman (such as the daughter of a Jewish woman and non-Jewish man; see Shulchan Aruch, E.H. 4:5,19, and Techumin 15:292-296), the Kohein’s status as a Kohein chazakah could not be taken into consideration as additional grounds for leniency. they cannot function as Kohanim for the purpose of offering korbanot. Hence, the absence of Kohanim with provable lineage (Kohanim meyuchasim) appears to preclude bringing korbanot until messianic times, when Kohanim will once again be able to attain the status of meyuchasim (see Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 11:3).
Rav Kalischer (Ma’amar Ha’avodah 1:4-5) asserts that we need to investigate a Kohein’s lineage only if we have reason to doubt its authenticity (rei’uta), but ordinarily even Kohanei chazakah may offer korbanot.10See Chazon Ish (Even Ha’ezer, Hilchot Piryah Verivyah 2:7), who also entertains the possibility that today we do not require Kohanim meyuchasim. For further discussion of using Kohanei chazakah, see Mishkan Shiloh (p. 405). Rav David Friedman rejects this view. On the other hand, the Chatam Sofer (Teshuvot, Yoreh Deah 236) claims that the lack of Kohanim meyuchasim should not stop us from offering korbanot.11Regarding the Chatam Sofer’s general position on offering korbanot, Rav Eliezer Waldenberg (Tzitz Eliezer 10:7:7) seeks to demonstrate that the Chatam Sofer believed that we may not offer korbanot today. He explains that they would not use Kohanei chazakah in the Second Temple because the option of Kohanim meyuchasim existed, whereas today we have only Kohanei chazakah. Furthermore, even if some Kohanim turn out to have blemishes in their lineage, the Chatam Sofer argues that the blemishes would probably be minor enough that b’dieved (post facto) they would not invalidate the korbanot (see Rambam, Hilchot Bi’at Hamikdash 6:10).
Priestly Garments
Even if we could locate Kohanim with the necessary lineage, they still may not offer korbanot without wearing the bigdei kehunah, the priestly garments (Zevachim 15b). Several of these garments require wool dyed with techeilet (see Shemot Chapter 28), or else they are unacceptable.12Some debate exists regarding precisely which garments need techeilet; see Rambam (Hilchot Klei Hamikdash 8:1) and Ir Hakodesh V’hamikdash (5:5). We also do not know the identities of two other dyes, tola’at shani and argaman, which the Torah also requires for the bigdei kehunah. Techeilet, a shade of blue (see Menachot 43b), comes from a creature known as the chilazon,13See Rambam, Hilchot Tzitzit 2:1-2, and compare with Hilchot Klei Hamikdash 8:13. The Mirkevet Hamishneh (Hilchot Tzitzit 2:1) notes that the Rambam mentions the chilazon only regarding tzitzit. Accordingly, he suggests that the Rambam would permit dying the bigdei kehunah with any blue dye (including dyes that fade), and not only the “blood” of the chilazon.
The Tiferet Yisrael (Kupat Harochlim, Klalei Bigdei Kodesh Shel Kehunah; printed as an introduction to Seder Mo’eid) goes even further, arguing that even tzitzit do not actually require the chilazon’s “blood,” but rather can be made of any permanent (non-fading) blue dye (also see Drishat Tzion, Ma’amar Kadishin 3). He explains that the Gemara often contrasts the chilazon with a plant dye called kaleh ha’ilan because kaleh ha’ilan is the only dye that cannot be used for techeilet. Most authorities do not appear to accept the views of the Mirkevet Hamishneh and Tiferet Yisrael (see Mishneh Lamelech, Hilchot Klei Hamikdash 8:11, and Mishkan Shiloh p. 407). Indeed, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik told me he believes that the bigdei kehunah are invalid without proper techeilet. which we have not used for centuries (see Rambam’s commentary to the Mishnah, Menachot 4:1). Great efforts have been made in recent years, however, to identify the chilazon as the Murex Trunculus snail (see Techumin 9:423-446). Dye from this snail has now been made available for use in tzitzit and could theoretically be used to dye bigdei kehunah. Although some prominent rabbis (such as Rav Hershel Schachter) treat many of the arguments for the use of the Murex Trunculus seriously, only time will tell if the observant community will widely accept this dye as authentic techeilet.14See Tekhelet: The Renaissance of a Mitzvah for essays by several Rashei Yeshiva of Yeshiva University regarding the use of techeilet from the Murex Trunculus in tzitzit. Rav Schachter, in his essay, describes the Murex Trunculus as safeik techeilet (possible techeilet). Also see Kovetz Teshuvot 2, where Rav Yosef Shalom Eliashiv rejects the use of the new techeilet.
Rav Kalischer (Drishat Tzion, Ma’amar Kadishin 3) argues that we could make bigdei kehunah without techeilet, just as, in the absence of techeilet, we wear tzitzit with white strings only (Menachot 38a). Most authorities reject his position, noting that the Tosefta (Menachot 6:6) explicitly states that bigdei kehunah cannot be made without techeilet. Moreover, the bigdei kehunah contain sha’atnez (a prohibited mixture of wool and linen; see Devarim 22:11). The positive commandment to make bigdei kehunah overrides this prohibition, but wearing bigdei kehunah that were made improperly would violate it.
Positioning the Mizbei’ach
The Mishnah (Eiduyot 8:6) records Rabbi Yehoshua’s testimony that we may offer korbanot even in the absence of a Beit Hamikdash, and the Rambam (Hilchot Beit Habechirah 6:15) codifies his opinion.15See, however, Teshuvot Binyan Tzion (1:1), who raises the possibility that Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion applies only to times when the process of rebuilding the Beit Hamikdash has begun based on divine command, whereas one may not offer korbanot when no divinely sanctioned plans exist to rebuild it. However, although we may bring korbanot without the Beit Hamikdash, we still need a mizbei’ach (altar).16Constructing the mizbei’ach is also complicated, because its stones may not be cut with metal (see Shemot 20:22). See Tosafot (Sukkah 49a s.v. shekol) regarding the possibility of cutting the stones with metal before they have been sanctified for the mizbei’ach. The Rambam (Hilchot Beit Habechirah 2:1) writes that the mizbei’ach must be built in an extremely precise location on the Temple Mount. Due to the difficulty in properly identifying the mizbei’ach’s place, the people consulted prophets when they constructed it shortly before building the Second Temple (Zevachim 62a and Rambam, Hilchot Beit Habechirah 2:4). Accordingly, the Binyan Tzion (1:1) asserts that we need a prophet to pinpoint the location for the mizbei’ach. Nevertheless, Rav Kalischer (Ma’amar Kadishin, “Comments to the Av Beit Din of Griditz” 4) argues that we may simply follow the measurements found in Masechet Midot to position the mizbei’ach. He explains that a prophet was required during the building of the Second Temple only because they lacked a written record of the mizbei’ach’s precise location. On the other hand, the Mishnah in Middot stipulates exactly how far the mizbeiach should be from each wall. Similarly, Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook (in the sources cited in Techumin 11:532-545) does not believe that a prophet is indispensable for renewing the korbanot. Nonetheless, Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Moadim Uzmanim 5:351) comments that we cannot easily implement Rav Kalischer’s suggestion, because great uncertainty surrounds the size of an amah (cubit), the unit of measurement used by the Mishnah (see Encyclopedia Talmudit 2:29).
Unresolved Disputes
Our inability to resolve disputes in many areas of Halachah might further hinder our ability to bring korbanot. For example, Rav Akiva Eiger asserts that we must consider the opinion of the Ra’avad (commenting on Hilchot Beit Habechirah 6:14), who believes that the Temple Mount lost its sanctity following the Second Temple’s destruction. According to this opinion, Rav Eiger argues that we cannot offer korbanot until the Mashiach arrives and once again sanctifies the Temple Mount.17Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Minchat Shlomo 3:140 and 3:162) entertains several ways to circumvent the problem posed by the Ra’avad’s opinion. Nevertheless, he fundamentally agrees that unresolved disputes constitute a barrier to rebuilding the Beit Hamikdash. Although the Rambam (ibid.) claims that the Temple Mount remains holy, Rav Eiger suggests that we lack the ability to resolve this dispute.18Regarding how this dispute affects the question of whether one may visit parts of the Temple Mount nowadays, see Teshuvot Minchat Yitzchak (5:1) and several chapters in the recently published book Kumu V’Naaleh. Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (Mikdash Melech, Chapter 6) also indicates that this unresolved dispute prevents the offering of korbanot in our era.
Rav J. David Bleich and Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Moadim Uzmanim 5:351) add that we similarly do not know how to resolve halachic disputes concerning the Temple service, due to the lack of a tradition on how to conduct various rituals.19Rav Shternbuch notes that without the ability to resolve these disputes, offering korbanot risks violating many prohibitions entailing the severe punishment of kareit. He suggests, however, that the desire to explore the possibility of offering korbanot in the pre-Messianic era pleases God, as it shows that His people sincerely desire to fulfill His mitzvot. Rav Shternbuch uses this approach to explain the phenomenon of an extensive literature exploring the viability of offering korbanot today. Only the Mashiach’s arrival will enable us to renew this tradition.20See Tosafot (Pesachim 114b s.v. Echad Zeicher), who write that Moshe and Aharon will instruct us in the rituals of the korbanot for the Third Temple. For example, Rav Bleich (Contemporary Halakhic Problems 1:266-267), citing Rav Meir Auerbach (Halevanon 1:8 p. 54), notes a disagreement between the Rambam and the Ra’avad (Hilchot Korban Pesach 10:11) about whether the gid hanasheh (sciatic nerve)21The Torah prohibits eating this nerve (Bereishit 32:33). of the sheep is roasted along with the rest of the Korban Pesach. One cannot simply be strict and follow both opinions, since if one were to follow the Ra’avad and remove the nerve, the animal would no longer be “whole” according to the Rambam, thus invalidating it. On the other hand, leaving the gid hanasheh in the animal invalidates it according to the Ra’avad. Rav Shternbuch lists a host of other gray issues regarding the priestly garments, such as how to design the avnet (belt), ketonet (tunic), and migba’at (hat) of the ordinary Kohein. We do not even know how to identify the color argaman, used in the making of the priestly garments.
It seems that the Rambam (Hilchot Melachim 11:1) may have been sensitive to difficulties such as these. He writes that the Mashiach will build the Beit Hamikdash and then korbanot will be offered. The Rambam may be telling us that only when the Mashiach comes will we be able to offer korbanot. Indeed, when I asked Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik what he felt about this subject, he responded immediately by quoting this passage from the Rambam. He told me (in 1984) that this passage shows that those who want to build the Third Temple today are incorrect.
On the other hand, Rav Kook (Otzarot Har’iyah 2:1251; cited in Techumin 11:544) writes that an eminent beit din, composed of the Jewish people’s leading scholars and recognized by all Jews, should convene to resolve all the aforementioned disputes.22Rav Shternbuch, though, believes that if these many disputes could not have been resolved in the generations of Rav Akiva Eiger and the Chatam Sofer, then certainly in our times, when the level of Torah scholarship has diminished considerably, we dare not decide which opinions to reject.
Regarding Rav Kook’s general opinion of renewing korbanot, see Techumin 11:532-545. Also see Rav Kook’s letter of approbation to the first volume of Rav Ovadia Hadaya’s Teshuvot Yaskil Avdi, (cited by Rav Eliezer Waldenberg Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 10:1:45) which seems to demonstrate that Rav Kook rejected the notion that we could offer korbanot in his time. Rav Kook (Otzarot Har’iyah 2:929; cited in Techumin 11:532-533) insists that Chazal indicate in many places (most explicitly in the Yerushalmi, Maaser Sheini 5:2) that the Beit Hamikdash will be rebuilt before the arrival of the Mashiach.
However much poskim may currently debate the future sequence of these events, the Rambam (Hilchot Melachim 12:2), in his discussion of the ultimate redemption, has already noted that we can know how it will develop only once it actually unfolds:
Regarding all of these matters, no man will know how they will be until they happen, for they are cryptic in the prophets. Even the Rabbis have no concrete traditions regarding the issues, just what they can interpret from verses in the Bible. Accordingly, there are many disputes about them. Regardless, neither their sequential order nor their precise details comprise a fundamental part of the religion, so one should not delve into these aggadot or spend much time on these types of midrashot.
Other Impediments
Rav Yaakov Emden (Teshuvot Sh’eilat Ya’avetz 1:89) raises two additional objections to offering korbanot: our inability to collect shekalim (coins to fund the communal korbanot) from every Jew and our inability to organize ma’amadot (shifts) for each Jew to watch the korbanot.23Israelites (as opposed to Kohanim or Levites) watch as the Kohanim perform the actual service of the korbanot. The Gemara discusses the ma’amadot in detail in the fourth chapter of Ta’anit, and the Rambam details their procedures in the sixth chapter of Hilchot Klei Hamikdash.
Rav Emden excludes the Korban Pesach from his concern for the lack of ma’amadot. In fact, he believes that the Korban Pesach was offered during the period immediately following the Second Temple’s destruction despite the absence of ma’amadot. Rav Emden believes that the lack of a ma’amad invalidates the korban, so we cannot renew the korbanot until we know how to assign ma’amadot.24Similarly, Rav Moshe Shternbuch argues that the a Kohein may serve only during the appropriate shift for his specific family (mishmar). Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 3:162) disputes both points. If we lack shekalim, he argues that we could simply acquire the communal korbanot on behalf of all of Jewry. Regarding ma’amadot, Rav Shlomo Zalman seeks to demonstrate that they are not indispensable.
The Presence of the Dome of the Rock
Rav Waldenberg (Tzitz Eliezer 10:1:44) cites that the Teshuvot Shaarei Tzedek (O.C. 96) opposes offering korbanot when the Dome of the Rock stands on the Temple Mount, viewing its presence as a disgrace to the korbanot. Rav Yosef Albom (Techumin 5:456-457) responds that the Moslems would deem the korbanot an affront to their religion, so offering the korbanot would not enhance the prestige of the Dome of the Rock.
At the time of this writing, the Israeli police do not permit Jews to pray on the Temple Mount, due to concern that violence would erupt. Surely violence would flare if Jews attempted to offer sacrifices or build the Beit Hamikdash there. Rav Moshe Shternbuch believes that the mitzvah to build the Beit Hamikdash does not apply when it endangers lives. Rav Itamar Warhaftig (Techumin 11:543 note 4) also points out that no explicit source ever teaches that we must risk our lives to build the Beit Hamikdash.
Conclusion
The sources that we have cited explore many aspects of this complex topic. Although some prominent rabbis have encouraged rebuilding the Beit Hamikdash and offering korbanot in our time, the overwhelming majority of rabbis remain opposed to the idea. Nevertheless, we all still yearn for the day when we may renew korbanot. We conclude with a quotation from Rav Kook (printed in Techumin 11:532 from Ginzei R’iyah p. 154):
The force that sustains the soul of the Jewish People is its incredible yearning to rebuild the Beit Hamikdash and to restore its glory to its perfect state. Only this yearning has uplifted the spirit of all the generations to know that there is a lofty purpose to their lives and their historical continuity. In this lofty point is hidden the lifeblood of the connection that the Jewish People have to Eretz Yisrael. All of the mitzvot that are contingent upon Eretz Yisrael, to whatever extent they apply, preserve the vitality of this fundamental dew of life.