19. When the Jews returned to Jerusalem with permission from the Persian government to rebuild the Temple, Haggai tested the priests on their knowledge of the laws of purity. He asked them the following two questions [Haggai 2:12-13]: "If a man is carrying a sacrificial flesh in a fold of his garment, and with that fold touches bread, stew, wine, oil, or any other food, will the latter become holy?... If someone defiled by a corpse touches any of these, will it be defiled?" The answers to these two questions are not in the Torah. How were the priests to know the answers if not from an oral tradition [Rashbatz, ibid.]?
To clarify, God told Haggai to ask the priests these questions. Haggai asked if holiness is transferred from a holy to a neutral object: the priests answered "no". He then asked if defilement is transferred from a person defiled by a corpse to a neutral object: the priests answered "yes". Haggai did not need these answers for any actual legal issue. He asked the questions to get the priests' attention to what he was about to say next, namely, that rebuilding the Temple is crucial.
1. It does not say anywhere that the priests answered correctly. Just because they gave an answer does not imply that there was a divine source for it.
2. The priests did have a basis for their answers in logic and in the written Torah.
To the first question, of whether holiness is transferred from holy to neutral: the Torah states all the actions that are (religiously) forbidden. If it did not, then what value would it have: we might do forbidden things without ever knowing it. The Torah does not mention anything about holiness being transferred. If holiness was transferred, then we would unknowingly sin by doing forbidden things with holy objects that we did not even know were holy. But this contradicts the premise that the Torah alerts us to all the sins. Therefore, the priests answered this question logically, that holiness is not transferred. This logic is similar to the principle that "everything that is not forbidden is allowed".
To the second question, of whether defilement is transferred from a person defiled by corpse to objects: Numbers 19:14-22 discusses the person defiled by a corpse. The person is to be decontaminated over a seven day period. A (ritually) pure person is to sprinkle a specific mixture on the defiled person on the first, third, and seventh days, decontaminating the defiled person by the seventh day.
The clean person shall sprinkle it [the mixture] upon the [person defiled by a corpse] [on the first day,] on the third day and on the seventh day, thus cleansing him by the seventh day. He [the person being cleansed] shall then wash his clothes and bathe in water, and at nightfall he shall be clean. If anyone who has become unclean fails to cleanse himself, that person shall be cut off from the congregation, for he has defiled YHWH's sanctuary. The water of lustration was not dashed on him: he is unclean.That shall be for them a law for all time. Further, he who sprinkled the water of lustration shall wash his clothes; and whoever touches the water of lustration shall be unclean until evening. Whatever that unclean person touches shall be unclean; and the person who touches him shall be unclean until evening.
Firstly, it says that a person who is defiled by a corpse and who fails to go through the decontamination procedure defiles the sanctuary. This must mean that defilement is transferred from a person defiled by a corpse to the sanctuary. This is not exactly what Haggai asked, but it's close. The priests might have reasoned that since the defilement is transferred to the sanctuary, it is also transferred to other objects.
Another possibility is the verse "Whatever that unclean person touches shall be unclean". The verse does not refer to the person defiled by a corpse, but the priests might have misread it to refer to such a person.
Thus, we see that the priests did have a scriptural basis for both answers. It's true that the second answer is subject to interpretation, and that reasonable people might disagree with it. The point is that the priests did not need to rely on any oral tradition: they might have seen the basis for their answers in the written text itself.
3. The answers of the priests were not used to decide any legal issue. Haggai used the priests' answers to appeal to them in support of rebuilding the Temple. He might have known how the priests would answer, and asked those questions on purpose to make his point. In other words, for his purpose, it didn't even matter whether the answers were correct or not.
4. Haggai makes a strong case for rebuilding the Temple. In chapter 1:
Thus said YHWH of Hosts: These people say, "The time has not yet come for rebuilding the House of YHWH."
And the word of YHWH through the prophet Haggai continued:
Is it a time for you to dwell in your paneled houses, while this House is lying in ruins? ...
You have been expecting much and getting little; and when you brought it home, I would blow on it! Because of what? -- says YHWH of Hosts. Because of My House which lies in ruins, while you all hurry to your own houses!
And in chapter 2, after Haggai asks the two questions:
As long as no stone has been laid on another in the House of YHWH, if one came to a heap of twenty measures, it would yield only ten; and if one came to a wine vat to skim off fifty measures, the press would yield only twenty. I struck you -- all the works of your hands -- with blight and mildew and hail, but you did not return to Me -- declares YHWH. Take note, from this day forward -- from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, from the day when the foundation was laid for YHWH's Temple -- take note while the seed is still in the granary, and the vine, fig tree, pomegranate, and olive tree have not yet borne fruit. For from this day on I will send blessing.
Haggai's words are still very relevant today. Jews in Israel have wealth and freedom, yet the Temple lies in ruins. What does the Orthodox establishment say on the matter? I understand that the Arab-Israeli conflict and the presence of Muslim structures on the Temple Mount make the subject of rebuilding the Temple very difficult. But does the Orthodox leadership support the rebuilding in any way, even symbolically? Absolutely not. They even refuse to acknowledge the restored half-shekel, which does not require any effort on their part, and would be a purely symbolic gesture.
The actions of the Orthodox leadership are presumably informed by the Oral Torah. Those same actions seem to contradict Haggai's plea for the rebuilding of the Temple. [But see comments below.]
Posted by Ami at March 7, 2004 04:59 AM | TrackBack.
Posted by: at May 12, 2004 03:28 AMAthaleyah-
To Haggai's question of whether holiness is transferred from a holy to a neutral object, the priests answered *no*. The verses you bring would suggest that they should have answered yes? Then again, the verses that you bring talk about consecrated food coming into contact with laymen, which is not what Haggai was asking about.
There is also this:
Eze 44:25-27: a priest defiled by a corpse cannot enter the Sanctuary. This supports the possibility that defilement is transferred from a person defiled by a corpse to objects.
Posted by: Ami at March 18, 2004 11:24 PMI was wondering if you had taken into consideration Ezekiel 44 and 46 in your support for the priest's answer to Haggai? Is the concept below found also in the Pentateuch?
I think so, in Exodus 29:33, where Aaron and his sons are instructed not to allow a stranger to eat the food offered for atonement.
(33) And they shall eat those things wherewith atonement was made, to consecrate and to sanctify them; but a stranger shall not eat thereof, because they are holy.
In Ezekiel 44:19 it seems to indicate that sanctification (setting apart) for holiness is possible by the priests wearing the holy garments amongst the people.
What do you think?
19) And when they go forth into the outer court, even into the outer court to the people, they shall put off their garments wherein they minister, and lay them in the holy chambers, and they shall put on other garments, that they sanctify not the people with their garments.
And also in Ezek 46:20 as well, similar language to what is found in Exodus. If the dating of Haggai is correct (520 B.C.), the priests would have had both Ezekiel and Exodus as examples to draw from.
Thoughts?
-Athaleyah
Posted by: Athaleyah at March 16, 2004 09:57 PMLol.. OK, I went a *little* overboard with number 4. :-) It is true that there is no prophet today. And it is true that Haggai was talking about the rebuilding of the second Temple, not the third one.
But... Haggai did not simply say, now is the time to rebuild the Temple. Haggai's point is that the situation where the people are rich but there is no Temple is wrong. That same situation exists today. The same logic was used by King David, who was not a prophet (2 Samuel 7), though, as you will probably correctly point out, David did get prophetic confirmation after deciding to build the Temple. And it's also true that Jews did not build the (first) Temple immediately after entering into the Land, but waited until there was peace.
Posted by: Ami at March 7, 2004 11:49 PMwell, i dotn think in this case u can logically accuse orthodoxy of contradicitng Haggai's advice.
Haggai, was sent as a prophet, saying it was time to rebuild the 2nd temple. This was after the exile had ended, and he had received divine instruction.
today, no proven prophet exists, and nor has any told us it is time to rebuild temple # 3.
There is NO current prophetic instruction that is being contradicted by orthodoxy. Sorry mate, logic defeats you on this one
eddie
Posted by: eddie at March 7, 2004 10:36 PM