Rabbinic Debate Erupts Over Temple Mount Location and the Dome of the Rock
A heated and detailed debate has emerged within the Torah study and scholarly community regarding the exact location of the ancient Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The controversy was sparked by Rabbi Barak Shargai's new book "Noyo Shel Olam," which challenges the traditional belief that the Temple stood beneath the Dome of the Rock. Instead, Shargai argues that the Temple was situated in the southern part of the Temple Mount complex and is now buried underground.
Rabbi Elisha Wolfson has responded sharply to Shargai's claims, defending the historical tradition that identifies the Dome of the Rock as the site of the Holy of Holies and the Foundation Stone (Even HaShtiya). Wolfson cites classical rabbinic sources, including the rulings of the Radbaz, and archaeological and topographical evidence supporting the traditional location. Shargai counters by asserting that the traditional identification is a later development, emerging only after the Muslim conquest, and that earlier Christian and Jewish sources indicate the Dome of the Rock was not the Temple site but rather a Roman judicial location.
The debate covers numerous points, including the interpretation of rabbinic texts distinguishing between "stone" and "rock," the topography of the Temple Mount, measurements of the sacred precinct (Teku'a), and historical continuity of Jewish presence and tradition in Jerusalem. Wolfson emphasizes the unbroken tradition and halachic rulings affirming the Dome of the Rock's sanctity, while Shargai highlights inconsistencies and gaps in the tradition, suggesting the Temple was located south of the Dome, buried beneath later Roman and Byzantine constructions.
Both rabbis engage deeply with sources ranging from the Talmud, Midrashim, medieval commentaries, to historical travelers and archaeological findings. Wolfson criticizes Shargai for dismissing the authority of the tradition and major rabbinic decisors, while Shargai accuses Wolfson of clinging to outdated assumptions and ignoring new evidence. The dispute also touches on the implications for Jewish prayer direction and the sanctity of the current Temple Mount structures.
This ongoing polemic reflects broader tensions in religious scholarship over historical and halachic interpretations of the Temple Mount, a site of profound spiritual and political significance for the Jewish people. Readers are invited to explore the full debate to understand the complexities involved in identifying the holiest site in Judaism.
