First Temple Judaism — as practiced by most of the population — had a heck of a lot of idol worship and paganism mixed in. Second Temple Judaism didn’t.
Don’t take my word for it … the Tanakh is replete with how, for the vast majority of its existence, the Temple itself was a place of idol worship and even sacred prostitution. And as for the common people? Most were worshipping numerous gods, including Baal and Asherah - including with human sacrifice. Only a minority of the population was monotheistic.
First Temple Judaism had Prophets, but only the beginning of the Second Temple period did.
The Sanhedrin and the scribes/scholars were far more prominent in Second Temple Judaism. It’s debatable whether the Sanhedrin existed at all during First Temple times.
The lack of Prophets and decline in the stature of Priests/Levites led to the flourishing of a new kind of spiritual leader … the Rabbi.
Judah was independent during the First Temple period, led by a King. The High Priest had a mostly ceremonial role, subject to the power of both King and Prophet. For most of the Second Temple period, the Jews were subjugated to foreign powers — but with the High Priest serving a dual religious and political role, often as functioning as a governor. During the Maccabean Era, the High Priests became the sovereign rulers and eventually took the title of King.
> For most of the Second Temple period, the Jews were subjugated to foreign powers
I have a problem with the framing of this sentence.
The Yehud Medinata, the Jewish province in the Persian Empire had just like all other provinces a high degree of autonomy.
You simply paid your taxes and the Empire left you alone.
The entire +200 years were completely uneventful for our people and probably the longest time of calm we ever had while the Persians protected us.
Because if you think that we would've been fine on our own I can just laugh.
Yes, that’s absolutely true in large part. But it still meant some subjugation of religion to a foreign power.
Most noticeably, Jews like to pretend that leap years were decided by a Sanhedrin after carefully scrutinizing whether barely had begun to ripen. But the evidence suggests that …. the High Priest simply adopted whatever the Persian Empire said. When the Persian Empire declared an Adar II, we followed.
It wouldn't necessarily be known as such at that time; instead, it would have been known as the Bet Din HaGadol - the Great/High/Supreme Court, and it would have been centered around certain individuals.
If you review the beginning of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah - Transmission of the Oral Law, you can see he lists the transmission of the Oral Law as not through individuals (e.g., Elijah to Elisha, Elisha to Yehoyada HaCohen, Yehoyada to Zechariah, etc.), but through these individuals and their "courts" - i.e., the "Sanhedrin" in which they were the most distinguished member.
Personally, I think Greek words like Sanhedrin and synagogue have their place in non-Hebrew texts (like the Talmud - Aramaic) and conversation (like modern English conversation), but we should try to use the original Hebrew (Bet Din HaGadol, Bet knesset, etc.) when speaking in Hebrew, which, G-dwillling, we will do more of.
Yes, that’s the standard line the Rabbis give. But it really doesn’t fit the text. If there was a Bet Din Hagadol functioning during the eras of the Judges and Kings, you’d think there would be some reference to it in Nach. There isn’t. There are no Rabbis, and no Rabbinical Courts.
The closest you get are oblique references to groups of Elders, which was perhaps an ad hoc consultive body.
Not according to Tanakh. Evidence for idol worship in the First Temple itself is all over Neviim.
2 Kings 20:4-7
2 Kings 23:4
Ezekiel Chapter 8
For just a few examples - there are many more.
*Dedicated in memory of Dvora bat Asher v'Jacot* 🕯️
See [Ezekiel Chapter 8](https://www.sefaria.org/Ezekiel.8) on Sefaria.
[2 Kings 20:4-7](https://www.sefaria.org/II_Kings.20.4-7)
וַיְהִ֣י יְשַֽׁעְיָ֔הוּ לֹ֣א יָצָ֔א (העיר) [חָצֵ֖ר] הַתִּיכֹנָ֑ה וּ֨דְבַר־יְהֹוָ֔ה הָיָ֥ה אֵלָ֖יו לֵאמֹֽר׃
>Before Isaiah had gone out of the middle court, the word of the L ORD came to him:
שׁ֣וּב וְאָמַרְתָּ֞ אֶל־חִזְקִיָּ֣הוּ נְגִיד־עַמִּ֗י כֹּֽה־אָמַ֤ר יְהֹוָה֙ אֱלֹהֵי֙ דָּוִ֣ד אָבִ֔יךָ שָׁמַ֙עְתִּי֙ אֶת־תְּפִלָּתֶ֔ךָ רָאִ֖יתִי אֶת־דִּמְעָתֶ֑ךָ הִנְנִי֙ רֹ֣פֶא לָ֔ךְ בַּיּוֹם֙ הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֔י תַּעֲלֶ֖ה בֵּ֥ית יְהֹוָֽה׃
>“Go back and say to Hezekiah, the ruler of My people: Thus said the L ORD , the God of your father David: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears. I am going to heal you; on the third day you shall go up to the House of the L ORD .
וְהֹֽסַפְתִּ֣י עַל־יָמֶ֗יךָ חֲמֵ֤שׁ עֶשְׂרֵה֙ שָׁנָ֔ה וּמִכַּ֤ף מֶֽלֶךְ־אַשּׁוּר֙ אַצִּ֣ילְךָ֔ וְאֵ֖ת הָעִ֣יר הַזֹּ֑את וְגַנּוֹתִי֙ עַל־הָעִ֣יר הַזֹּ֔את לְמַֽעֲנִ֔י וּלְמַ֖עַן דָּוִ֥ד עַבְדִּֽי׃
>And I will add fifteen years to your life. I will also rescue you and this city from the hands of the king of Assyria. I will protect this city for My sake and for the sake of My servant David.”—
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְשַׁעְיָ֔הוּ קְח֖וּ דְּבֶ֣לֶת תְּאֵנִ֑ים וַיִּקְח֛וּ וַיָּשִׂ֥ימוּ עַֽל־הַשְּׁחִ֖ין וַיֶּֽחִי׃
>Then Isaiah said, “Get a cake of figs.” And they got one, and they applied it to the rash, and he recovered.—
[2 Kings 23:4](https://www.sefaria.org/II_Kings.23.4)
וַיְצַ֣ו הַמֶּ֡לֶךְ אֶת־חִלְקִיָּ֩הוּ֩ הַכֹּהֵ֨ן הַגָּד֜וֹל וְאֶת־כֹּהֲנֵ֣י הַמִּשְׁנֶה֮ וְאֶת־שֹׁמְרֵ֣י הַסַּף֒ לְהוֹצִיא֙ מֵהֵיכַ֣ל יְהֹוָ֔ה אֵ֣ת כׇּל־הַכֵּלִ֗ים הָֽעֲשׂוּיִם֙ לַבַּ֣עַל וְלָאֲשֵׁרָ֔ה וּלְכֹ֖ל צְבָ֣א הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם וַֽיִּשְׂרְפֵ֞ם מִח֤וּץ לִירוּשָׁלַ֙͏ִם֙ בְּשַׁדְמ֣וֹת קִדְר֔וֹן וְנָשָׂ֥א אֶת־עֲפָרָ֖ם בֵּֽית־אֵֽל׃
>Then the king ordered the high priest Hilkiah, the priests of the second rank, and the guards of the threshold to bring out of the Temple of the L ORD all the objects made for Baal and Asherah c For this goddess, cf. 1 Kings 18.19; ordinarily asherah is rendered “sacred post,” e.g., 2 Kings 17.16. and all the host of heaven. He burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields d Meaning of Heb. uncertain. of Kidron, and he removed the ashes to Bethel.
All over? You mean generations after it was built where the tanach states that the rulers at the time were swayed to paganism? You make it sound like it was built for that purpose. Which is very incorrect.
Reading Nach as a historical account, it's pretty easy to see the First Temple period as being a constant religious struggle between monotheists and polytheists. From a Biblical perspective the polytheists were sinners who strayed from the Temple's original purpose, but it doesn't change the fact that they were *there*.
I never said that it was built for that purpose, only that there was paganism and idolatry for the majority of the First Temple’s existence.
It didn’t start generations later. Reheboam (Shlomo’s son!!) was already supporting sacred male prostitutes.
I don't think they're distinguishing it from First Temple Judaism, they're usually differentiating from Rabbinic or post-Temple Judaism.
The traditional view is that the differences are superficial at best (the less traditional view is that it's almost an entirely different religion that just claims lineage to the same Judaism), but it is a fact that after the destruction of the Temple, we had to shift our focus away from the Temple to local and personal modes of worship (such as prayer). A lot of purity law was deemphasised, if it didn't fall away completely. The special role of kohanim was deemphasised and study of Torah (and, arguably, Rabbinic leadership and law) became more important. A lot of the things that were done in the Temple were adapted to commemorate the Temple (eg we shake the Lulav all days of Sukkot and we hold a Seder with a sacrifice, and we wash our hands every time we eat bread).
Regarding the First Temple, the traditional view is that it was practically identical to the Second Temple. I think there's just very little historical or (extra-biblical) record of anything from that period, so historians don't say too much about it in this regard.
The differences between the first and second from a halachic perspective are discussed a lot in Yoma and mainly focus on things they just couldn't do anymore and how the service had to change.
But agreed to the rest of what you said. That being said, prayer as we know it was created as a replacement for the temple.
>The differences between the first and second...
Yes, the practicalities of Temple service changed with the lack of miracles, the architectural adjustments, and so on, but the laws of Judaism didn't change.
>prayer as we know it was created as a replacement for the temple.
"As we know it" is doing a lot of work here. Prayer has always existed and was part of the Temple service, not to mention that most Jews were not at the Temple most days of the year. There was also an evolution _at least_ beginning with the destruction of the First Temple, so these things existed in some form during the Second Temple already.
But yes, the formal structure and detailed requirements are a response to not having a Temple, as well as a form of commemorating the Temple service in everyday life.
>Prayer has always existed and was part of the Temple service
Wondering if you can elaborate on this statement. What prayers were recited in the Temple, who participated in reciting those prayers, how did prayer relate to the sacrificial rites, do you mean First or Second Temple or both, and what are your sources? Thank you.
"First Temple Judaism" is pretty much an anachronistic term. The Torah came into being as a product of the exile, as the enshrinement of a particular view of Israelite theology and history. Judaism unfolded (slowly) from that. Certainly Israelites in the first temple period would held to some of those theologies and historical ideas, most notably the belief in YHVH as the national deity of Israel, but it's not accurate to refer to it as Judaism.
First Temple Judaism was a polytheistic religion, almost identical to the religion in other Cannanite city states. Second Temple Judaism was monotheistic.
First Temple Judaism — as practiced by most of the population — had a heck of a lot of idol worship and paganism mixed in. Second Temple Judaism didn’t. Don’t take my word for it … the Tanakh is replete with how, for the vast majority of its existence, the Temple itself was a place of idol worship and even sacred prostitution. And as for the common people? Most were worshipping numerous gods, including Baal and Asherah - including with human sacrifice. Only a minority of the population was monotheistic. First Temple Judaism had Prophets, but only the beginning of the Second Temple period did. The Sanhedrin and the scribes/scholars were far more prominent in Second Temple Judaism. It’s debatable whether the Sanhedrin existed at all during First Temple times. The lack of Prophets and decline in the stature of Priests/Levites led to the flourishing of a new kind of spiritual leader … the Rabbi. Judah was independent during the First Temple period, led by a King. The High Priest had a mostly ceremonial role, subject to the power of both King and Prophet. For most of the Second Temple period, the Jews were subjugated to foreign powers — but with the High Priest serving a dual religious and political role, often as functioning as a governor. During the Maccabean Era, the High Priests became the sovereign rulers and eventually took the title of King.
> For most of the Second Temple period, the Jews were subjugated to foreign powers I have a problem with the framing of this sentence. The Yehud Medinata, the Jewish province in the Persian Empire had just like all other provinces a high degree of autonomy. You simply paid your taxes and the Empire left you alone. The entire +200 years were completely uneventful for our people and probably the longest time of calm we ever had while the Persians protected us. Because if you think that we would've been fine on our own I can just laugh.
Yes, that’s absolutely true in large part. But it still meant some subjugation of religion to a foreign power. Most noticeably, Jews like to pretend that leap years were decided by a Sanhedrin after carefully scrutinizing whether barely had begun to ripen. But the evidence suggests that …. the High Priest simply adopted whatever the Persian Empire said. When the Persian Empire declared an Adar II, we followed.
You are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
>Sanhedrin The word "sanhedrin" was taken from Greek, so I don't think there could have been a sanhedrin before the Greek invasion.
It wouldn't necessarily be known as such at that time; instead, it would have been known as the Bet Din HaGadol - the Great/High/Supreme Court, and it would have been centered around certain individuals. If you review the beginning of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah - Transmission of the Oral Law, you can see he lists the transmission of the Oral Law as not through individuals (e.g., Elijah to Elisha, Elisha to Yehoyada HaCohen, Yehoyada to Zechariah, etc.), but through these individuals and their "courts" - i.e., the "Sanhedrin" in which they were the most distinguished member.
Perhaps, but we use the word Sanhedrin. It's ironic in a way that you cannot read one page of Talmud without encountering a Greek word!
Personally, I think Greek words like Sanhedrin and synagogue have their place in non-Hebrew texts (like the Talmud - Aramaic) and conversation (like modern English conversation), but we should try to use the original Hebrew (Bet Din HaGadol, Bet knesset, etc.) when speaking in Hebrew, which, G-dwillling, we will do more of.
I try not to think about it that deeply. But if it makes you feel more connected, do it!
Yes, that’s the standard line the Rabbis give. But it really doesn’t fit the text. If there was a Bet Din Hagadol functioning during the eras of the Judges and Kings, you’d think there would be some reference to it in Nach. There isn’t. There are no Rabbis, and no Rabbinical Courts. The closest you get are oblique references to groups of Elders, which was perhaps an ad hoc consultive body.
What in tarnation!? The first beit hamikdash was, in many respects, more pure and monotheistic than the second go around.
Not according to Tanakh. Evidence for idol worship in the First Temple itself is all over Neviim. 2 Kings 20:4-7 2 Kings 23:4 Ezekiel Chapter 8 For just a few examples - there are many more.
*Dedicated in memory of Dvora bat Asher v'Jacot* 🕯️ See [Ezekiel Chapter 8](https://www.sefaria.org/Ezekiel.8) on Sefaria. [2 Kings 20:4-7](https://www.sefaria.org/II_Kings.20.4-7) וַיְהִ֣י יְשַֽׁעְיָ֔הוּ לֹ֣א יָצָ֔א (העיר) [חָצֵ֖ר] הַתִּיכֹנָ֑ה וּ֨דְבַר־יְהֹוָ֔ה הָיָ֥ה אֵלָ֖יו לֵאמֹֽר׃ >Before Isaiah had gone out of the middle court, the word of the L ORD came to him: שׁ֣וּב וְאָמַרְתָּ֞ אֶל־חִזְקִיָּ֣הוּ נְגִיד־עַמִּ֗י כֹּֽה־אָמַ֤ר יְהֹוָה֙ אֱלֹהֵי֙ דָּוִ֣ד אָבִ֔יךָ שָׁמַ֙עְתִּי֙ אֶת־תְּפִלָּתֶ֔ךָ רָאִ֖יתִי אֶת־דִּמְעָתֶ֑ךָ הִנְנִי֙ רֹ֣פֶא לָ֔ךְ בַּיּוֹם֙ הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֔י תַּעֲלֶ֖ה בֵּ֥ית יְהֹוָֽה׃ >“Go back and say to Hezekiah, the ruler of My people: Thus said the L ORD , the God of your father David: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears. I am going to heal you; on the third day you shall go up to the House of the L ORD . וְהֹֽסַפְתִּ֣י עַל־יָמֶ֗יךָ חֲמֵ֤שׁ עֶשְׂרֵה֙ שָׁנָ֔ה וּמִכַּ֤ף מֶֽלֶךְ־אַשּׁוּר֙ אַצִּ֣ילְךָ֔ וְאֵ֖ת הָעִ֣יר הַזֹּ֑את וְגַנּוֹתִי֙ עַל־הָעִ֣יר הַזֹּ֔את לְמַֽעֲנִ֔י וּלְמַ֖עַן דָּוִ֥ד עַבְדִּֽי׃ >And I will add fifteen years to your life. I will also rescue you and this city from the hands of the king of Assyria. I will protect this city for My sake and for the sake of My servant David.”— וַיֹּ֣אמֶר יְשַׁעְיָ֔הוּ קְח֖וּ דְּבֶ֣לֶת תְּאֵנִ֑ים וַיִּקְח֛וּ וַיָּשִׂ֥ימוּ עַֽל־הַשְּׁחִ֖ין וַיֶּֽחִי׃ >Then Isaiah said, “Get a cake of figs.” And they got one, and they applied it to the rash, and he recovered.— [2 Kings 23:4](https://www.sefaria.org/II_Kings.23.4) וַיְצַ֣ו הַמֶּ֡לֶךְ אֶת־חִלְקִיָּ֩הוּ֩ הַכֹּהֵ֨ן הַגָּד֜וֹל וְאֶת־כֹּהֲנֵ֣י הַמִּשְׁנֶה֮ וְאֶת־שֹׁמְרֵ֣י הַסַּף֒ לְהוֹצִיא֙ מֵהֵיכַ֣ל יְהֹוָ֔ה אֵ֣ת כׇּל־הַכֵּלִ֗ים הָֽעֲשׂוּיִם֙ לַבַּ֣עַל וְלָאֲשֵׁרָ֔ה וּלְכֹ֖ל צְבָ֣א הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם וַֽיִּשְׂרְפֵ֞ם מִח֤וּץ לִירוּשָׁלַ֙͏ִם֙ בְּשַׁדְמ֣וֹת קִדְר֔וֹן וְנָשָׂ֥א אֶת־עֲפָרָ֖ם בֵּֽית־אֵֽל׃ >Then the king ordered the high priest Hilkiah, the priests of the second rank, and the guards of the threshold to bring out of the Temple of the L ORD all the objects made for Baal and Asherah c For this goddess, cf. 1 Kings 18.19; ordinarily asherah is rendered “sacred post,” e.g., 2 Kings 17.16. and all the host of heaven. He burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields d Meaning of Heb. uncertain. of Kidron, and he removed the ashes to Bethel.
All over? You mean generations after it was built where the tanach states that the rulers at the time were swayed to paganism? You make it sound like it was built for that purpose. Which is very incorrect.
Reading Nach as a historical account, it's pretty easy to see the First Temple period as being a constant religious struggle between monotheists and polytheists. From a Biblical perspective the polytheists were sinners who strayed from the Temple's original purpose, but it doesn't change the fact that they were *there*.
That's not what you said in your original comment.
I never said that it was built for that purpose, only that there was paganism and idolatry for the majority of the First Temple’s existence. It didn’t start generations later. Reheboam (Shlomo’s son!!) was already supporting sacred male prostitutes.
I don't think they're distinguishing it from First Temple Judaism, they're usually differentiating from Rabbinic or post-Temple Judaism. The traditional view is that the differences are superficial at best (the less traditional view is that it's almost an entirely different religion that just claims lineage to the same Judaism), but it is a fact that after the destruction of the Temple, we had to shift our focus away from the Temple to local and personal modes of worship (such as prayer). A lot of purity law was deemphasised, if it didn't fall away completely. The special role of kohanim was deemphasised and study of Torah (and, arguably, Rabbinic leadership and law) became more important. A lot of the things that were done in the Temple were adapted to commemorate the Temple (eg we shake the Lulav all days of Sukkot and we hold a Seder with a sacrifice, and we wash our hands every time we eat bread). Regarding the First Temple, the traditional view is that it was practically identical to the Second Temple. I think there's just very little historical or (extra-biblical) record of anything from that period, so historians don't say too much about it in this regard.
The differences between the first and second from a halachic perspective are discussed a lot in Yoma and mainly focus on things they just couldn't do anymore and how the service had to change. But agreed to the rest of what you said. That being said, prayer as we know it was created as a replacement for the temple.
>The differences between the first and second... Yes, the practicalities of Temple service changed with the lack of miracles, the architectural adjustments, and so on, but the laws of Judaism didn't change. >prayer as we know it was created as a replacement for the temple. "As we know it" is doing a lot of work here. Prayer has always existed and was part of the Temple service, not to mention that most Jews were not at the Temple most days of the year. There was also an evolution _at least_ beginning with the destruction of the First Temple, so these things existed in some form during the Second Temple already. But yes, the formal structure and detailed requirements are a response to not having a Temple, as well as a form of commemorating the Temple service in everyday life.
>"As we know it" is doing a lot of work here. No arguments here. I just didn't care to put it in quotes.
>Prayer has always existed and was part of the Temple service Wondering if you can elaborate on this statement. What prayers were recited in the Temple, who participated in reciting those prayers, how did prayer relate to the sacrificial rites, do you mean First or Second Temple or both, and what are your sources? Thank you.
Except that we didn't have the Aharon
[A well-written answer by rav Yitzchak Levy!](http://etzion.org.il/en/holidays/yom-yerushalayim/differences-between-first-and-second-temples-i)
Check out Malka Simkovich’s work on this topic
"First Temple Judaism" is pretty much an anachronistic term. The Torah came into being as a product of the exile, as the enshrinement of a particular view of Israelite theology and history. Judaism unfolded (slowly) from that. Certainly Israelites in the first temple period would held to some of those theologies and historical ideas, most notably the belief in YHVH as the national deity of Israel, but it's not accurate to refer to it as Judaism.
I probably misunderstand people when they use the term. I never knew what they were contrasting it with, so I just assumed it was the first temple.
When the first Temple existed, a significant portion of the Israelite population were still polytheists.
First Temple Judaism was a polytheistic religion, almost identical to the religion in other Cannanite city states. Second Temple Judaism was monotheistic.
First temple, built by Solomon, was very much monotheistic.