THE CROSS AND THE CROWN

ON THE SUPPOSED TEMPLE-SYNAGOGUE.

APPENDIX X.

(Vol. i. Book 11. ch. x.p. 246).

PUTTING aside, as quite untenable, the idea of a regular Beth ha-Midrash in theTemple (though advocated even by Winche), we have to inquire whether any historical evidence can be adduced for the existence of a Synagogue within the bounds of the Temple-buildings. The notice (Sot. vii. 8) that on every Sabbatic year lection of certain portions was made to the people in the 'Court,H and thata service was conducted there during public fasts on account of dry weather (Taan. ii. 5), can, of course, not be adduced as proving the existence of a regular Temple-Synagogue. On the other hand, it is expressly said in Sanh. 88 b, lines 19, 20 from top, that on the Sabbaths and feast-days the members of the Sanhedrin went out upon the Chel of Terrace of the temple, when questions were asked of them and answered. It is quite true that in Tos. Sanh. vii. (p. 158, col. d) we have an maccurate statement about the second of the Temple-Sanhedrin as sitting on the Chel (instead of at the entrance of the Preists' Court, as in Sanh. 88 b), and that there the Sabbath and festive discourses are loosely designated as a 'Beth haMidrash' which was on' the Temple-Mount. [1 So laos by Maimonides, Yad ha-Chas. vol. iv. p. 24i a (Hilc. Sanc. ch. iii.).] But since exactly the same description, indeed, in the same words, of what took place is given in the Tosephta as in Talmud itself, the former must be corrected by the latter, or rather the term 'Beth ha-Midrahs' must be taken in the wider and more general sense as the 'place of Rabbinic exposition,' and not as indicating any permanent Academy. Buteven if the words in the Tosephta were to be taken in preference to those in theTalmud itself, they contain no mention of any Temple-Synagogue. Equally inappropriate are the other arguments in favor of this supposed Temple- Synagogue. The first of them is derived from a notice in Tos. Sukkah. iv. 4, in which R. Joshua explains how, during the first night of the Feast of Tabernacles, the pious never 'saw sleep' since they went, first' to the Morning Sacrifice, thence of the Synagogue, thence the Beth ha-Midrash, thence to the Evening Sacrifice, and thence to the "joy of the house of water drawing" (the night-feast and services in the Temple-Courts). The only other argument is that from Yoma vii. 1,2 where we read that while the bullock and the goat were burned the High-Priest read to the people certain portions of the Law, the roll of which was handed by the Chazzan of the Synagogue (it is not said which Synagogue) to the head of the Synagogue, by him to the Sagan, and by the Sagan to the High-Priest. [2 A similar arrangment is described in Sot. vii. 8 as connected with the reading of the Law by the kings of Israel to the people sccording to Duet xxxi. 10. Will it be argued from this that there was a Synagogue in the temple in the early days of the king?] How utterly inconclusive inferencefrom these notices are, need not be pointed out. More than this, the existence of a Temple-Synagogue seems entirely incompatible with the remark in Yoma vii. 2, that it was impossible for anyone present at the reading of the High-Priest to witness the burning of the bullock and goat, and that, not because the former took place in a regular Temple-Synagogue, but 'because the way was far and the two services were exactlyat the same time.' Such, so far as I know, are all the Talmudical passages from which the existence of a regular Temple-Synagogue has been inferred, and with what reason, the reader may judge for himself.