Sunday, November 25, 2007

The Tamid

In the Mishnah of Masechet Taanit we have the following:

(4:6) Five things happened to our fathers on the 17th of Tamuz, and 5 on the 9th of Av. On the 17th of Tamuz:

  • The tablets were broken
  • The Tamid offering was ceased
  • The walls of the city were breached
  • Apastumus burned the Torah
  • And he put up an image in the Heichal

On the 9th of Av:

  • Our fathers were sentenced to not enter the Land
  • The First Beit HaMikdash was destroyed
  • And the Second (Beit HaMikdash was destroyed)
  • Beitar was captured
  • The city (Yerushalayim) was plowed

I would like to examine just the underlined items in blue shown above, regarding the walls of Yerushalayim and the Tamid offering.

The Zohar Chadash says that from the time of the cessation of the Tamid to the destruction, for both of the Batei Mikdash was 22 days. Note that it is 22 days and not 21 days; this is connected to the drash in Mechirat Yosef where this statement is made, where 22 is related to the 22 years that Yosef didn't see Yaacov.

The Talmud Yerushalmi (4:5) comments on both events separately. Regarding the Tamid, it recounts how during the sieges on Yerushalayim, the Jews used to send money out over the city walls in exchange for animals for the korbanot, and then one time the Romans sent up 2 pigs. It then goes on to say from that time, the sins caused the Tamid to cease and the Beit HaMikdash to be destroyed. See there for the entire account, which is also recounted in Yerushalmi Brachot. The next section of the Gemara is already dealing with the breach of the walls. The section regarding the breaching of the walls has to do with the actual dating of the events, because of the difficulty regarding the dates we go by and the dates which appear in the Tanach. The Yerushalmi states that the dates that are recorded in the Tanach are wrong, and were incorrect due to the troubles occuring at the time. See the mefarshim there on the daf for more.

The Bavli (Tannit 28b) is even more terse regarding the Tamid. It has one word: Gemara. Rashi there says "thus we have received from our fathers". I.e. it is a tradition that it occured on this day. On the breach of the walls, the Bavli says that it is not a problem, 17th of Tamuz is only for the 2nd Beit HaMikdash, the other date, namely the 9th of Tamuz, was for the 1st Beit HaMikdash. The Yerushalmi also brings this as a secondary explanation aside from the one I mentioned above.

As we can see from the two Talmuds, there is no explicit saying that the Tamid offering ceased the same year that the Beit HaMikdash was destroyed. The closest statement is the line from the Yerushalmi that in that hour, the sins caused the cessation of the Tamid and the Beit HaMikdash to be destroyed. However, just as all that was not in "that hour", so too not necessarily in that year.

The Zohar Chadash on Mechirat Yosef, however, is more of a problem. It says 22 days difference, and it links it to the Tamid, not the breach of the walls. However, I think the important item for this drash is that it is 22 days apart on the calendar, not necessarily that it is the same year. I have reason to believe, because of elsewhere in the Zohar, that this is the case, and that there is no contradiction.

From this we see the source of the different traditions regarding when the cessation of the Tamid offering took place. For some the different possibilities, see Mikraot Gedolot on Daniel. I do not believe, however, that the answer is to be found in the Mikraot Gedolot. HaMevin Yavin.

28 comments:

  1. Saadia HaGaon at Daniel 8:12 is very interesting regarding Tamid

    ReplyDelete
  2. Indeed. What is the pesher of Arami'im there? The Byzantines or the Romans (Aeolia Capitolina)?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm having trouble understanding this grammatically.

    It says that the Yishm'eilim put their Beit Tefillah "Bein HaTamid". Between should be followed by HaTamid and something else, or we assume that HaTamid itself is plural, in which case, why not Temidim?

    ReplyDelete
  4. וְתַשְׁלֵךְ אֱמֶת אַרְצָה וְעָשְׂתָה וְהִצְלִיחָה

    HaTamid must refer to what stands there "forever" as the sign of the suppression of the Jew, built by a Jewish Edomite to control the real Jews in Beit HaMikdash, and later adopted by the Pagan and Christian Edomites who ruled over Yerushalayim. And after that, until our day, by the Yishmaelim.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I hear what you're saying, and I see the remez for Edom in the part of the pasuk you quoted, as well as the peirush.

    However, it's still kasheh for me. The Rasag is referring to (according to what I see) the mosque. If we want to say that bein hatamid is referring to what is north and south of it, I still find that to be difficult for Nechemiah 3:26.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There was a Sh'ar HaMayim towards the East, and the Netinim built from there towards the outlaying Migdal, which thus would be around the place were they have been digging up a palace (as reported in the news last week).

    ReplyDelete
  7. בין: בתוך, נאמצע, לא בקצה

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sorry, that was too fast, the palace is to the West of course...
    But to the East there was place also. Flavius Yosephus explains it. Shlomo made a very high wall there to make the mountain wider...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Your implication regarding the Tamid is clear to me, to the Har itself or to the singular structure, as well as when it was done, hence my mentioning the pasuk with the Netinim and where they lived. They must have lived somewhere close to or south of the archaeological park by the southern wall of Har HaBayit, and that was well before the rise of Edom in Eretz Yisrael.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why is this so kasheh?

    Would it help to know that Antonia was built as an extension of a previous fortress, called the Birah?

    ReplyDelete
  11. The kashya has to do with this being related to the Tamid at the end of the sefer. The Tikkunei Zohar points to one definition of the Tamid. What is the shikutz according to this?

    ReplyDelete
  12. The Shikutz would be what Yishmael built on the Haram when the Tamid of the Christians stopped. The Jewish Tamid (hegemony, control over the Land) was fundamentally stopped by Nevukadnezar, temporarily by Hordus, and "forever" by Titus.

    ReplyDelete
  13. תמיד האמת ותמיד השונא את האמת. הבנתי.

    ReplyDelete
  14. And therefore the 2300 is Erev Boker because it is a total number of years that are opposite, where one of the twins is on top in Eretz Yisrael, until this Beit Tefillah.

    ReplyDelete
  15. One Shikutz being in the middle of the Edomite Tamid, the other being Maskif on ours.

    ReplyDelete
  16. > And therefore the 2300 is Erev Boker

    From Hakamat Bayit Sheni until Hakamat HaMedina.

    ReplyDelete
  17. > And therefore the 2300 is Erev Boker

    From Hakamat Bayit Sheni until Hakamat HaMedina.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The 2300 is by far the most obvious of calculations in Daniel, but the reasoning behind it is not so easy.

    עַד-מָתַי הֶחָזוֹן הַתָּמִיד וְהַפֶּשַׁע שֹׁמֵם--תֵּת וְקֹדֶשׁ וְצָבָא, מִרְמָס

    And then the appending of these words to the answer:

    וְנִצְדַּק, קֹדֶשׁ

    So why, from what is said here, is this starting davka from 3408?

    Nitzdak Kodesh is the return of Har HaBayit to Jewish sovereignty?

    ReplyDelete
  19. That is assuming, of course, you meant Ichud Yerushalayim, not Hakamat HaMedinah.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Alas a mistaken correction, 5708-3408=2300

    ReplyDelete
  21. As I understand Daniel, his prophetic "now" was the time of Hakamat Bayit Sheni, after 70 years.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The perek starts in the 3rd year of Belshatzar. According to Chazal, indeed this was the 70th year, however the 70th year of Bavel, not Churban HaBayit. Using Seder Olam as the tzofen, we're still off from that about 20 years.

    Regarding ונצדק קדש:

    אחרי 2300, תיצדק זכותו של עם הקדש

    או

    אחרי 2300, *אז* תתחיל תהליך של נצדק מקום הקדש

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think I see it. The Chazon occured in the 3rd year of Belshatzar but it says it was in Shushan HaBirah. Belshatzar was the king of Bavel, not Paras.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Regarding the timing of the vision, the Ibn Ezra points out the location being Shushan, indicating it was regarding the future. Is there a hint there for the precise year?

    Do you mind if I put together a post on this (2300, not the meaning of the vision)? I could send it to you for review if you'd like.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You can post as you wish, without citing. Regarding Daniel, what Daniel was told is that the restored Temple would not mean freedom for a long time. Paras, Yavan, Edom, and Yishmael would rule over the Temple (site), until the time of the end.

    ReplyDelete
  26. That explains the question

    עַד-מָתַי הֶחָזוֹן הַתָּמִיד וְהַפֶּשַׁע שֹׁמֵם--תֵּת וְקֹדֶשׁ וְצָבָא, מִרְמָס

    But v'Nitzdak Kodesh is referring to "and *then* (after all this is finished) is the process of making right the Holy (place) or "and *then* will be the justification of the Holy Nation (UN resolution, etc)."

    ReplyDelete