Does the Vatican Still Have the Temple Vessels?

It seems to be a common belief among many Orthodox Jews that many of the vessels that were used in the Second Temple are presently in the custody of the Vatican. This belief is reinforced by the famous image of the Arch of Titus, showing the Romans carrying off the menorah and other artifacts from the Beis HaMikdash. Many Orthodox Jews to this very day believe that the looted treasure is still somewhere in the Vatican. Just today, two Israelis (I don't know if they are members of the government or not) tried to prevent the Pope from coming to Israel until (among other demands) the vessels are returned.

Personally, I'm a bit skeptical that the Pope has them. While I'm certain the Vatican has an impressive collection of historical memorabilia, including, probably, things that would be of incredible interest to Jewish historians*, I'm not so certain that golden vessels (especially something as large as the menorah) would be among them.

For starters, let's remember that the Romans who destroyed the Beis HaMikdash and plundered its treasures were not Christians, but were pagans. You might expect that if Christians had plundered the Temple, they might have kept the menorah out of some respect for an artifact from their "parent religion." The pagans, however, probably had no such sentimental feelings. In all probability, they probably saw the menorah and other Temple vessels as simply gold and silver -- nothing more. They would simply have no reason to keep them around in a dusty basement somewhere. Rome wouldn't become Christianized for a few centuries yet. It's difficult to say that the pagan Roman emporers would have kept all this treasure around without melting it down and using the gold/silver for their own purposes.

Another factor which leads me to doubt the presence of the Temple vessels in Rome is the fact that Rome has been sacked since the vessels would have arrived there. In fact, the city has been sacked several times:

It was sacked in 410 by the Visigoths
It was sacked again in 455 by the Vandals
It was sacked yet again in 546 by the Goths
And yet again in 846 by Arabs
And again in 1084 by the Normans
And yet again in 1527 by the Holy Roman Empire

I would find it very hard to believe that even if the pagan Romans held on to the gold and silver of the Temple that it would have survived the three barbarian sacks of 410-546 and the latter sackings as well.

Am I wrong? Is there some reason to really suspect that the Vatican is still holding on to the treasures of the Second Temple and that they survived the multiple sacks of Rome? Or is the general perception in the Orthodox Jewish world incorrect and there is little, if any chance, that the Vatican still has these treasures today?

The Wolf

* I once had a rebbe in high school who postulated the silly idea that there was a Talmud Bavli for every mesechta of Shas -- except that the ones that are lost today are actually sitting in a Vatican library somewhere. How the Romans managed to "steal" documents that did not exist until hundreds of years later in another part of the world was not quite explained to us.

Shimshon, Terrorism and History

Elliot Resnick of the Jewish Press blog posted today on Terrorism and Shimshon (Samson). In it, he makes note of the fact that the Victoria Philharmonic Choir portrays Samson as a terrorist and a suicide "bomber."

His end conclusion is that yes, Shimshon was a terrorist and that terrorism is not evil - merely a tactic of war. As he states in his post:

But terrorism per se is not evil. It is a tactic of war, just as shooting guns is a tactic of war.

Of course, he fails to make the distinction that in war, one is usually shooting guns at other people who are shooting at you too. Terrorism deliberately targets those who *aren't* shooting at you.

Personally, I find his conclusion that terrorism isn't evil very troubling. How anyone today can not see the targeting of innocents as evil is simply beyond me. Stating that terrorism is simply a legitimate tactic of war only serves to turn real terrorists into legitimate freedom fighters.

So, then, how does one reconcile Samson's actions with the idea that terrorism is evil? Is the Victoria Philharmonic correct?

Personally, I think that the VP is making the mistake of judging historical characters by today's standards. People do not exist in a vacuum - they are a product of their environments. The ideas and norms of Shimshon's day helped shape the person he was. Were he living today, he would no doubt have been a very different person.

A similar idea can be expressed about Abraham Lincoln, one of the most celebrated presidents in the history of the United States. Aside from George Washington, I don't think any other president has a more hallowed place in American history. And yet, although he was a radical in his day, most of his attitudes and ideas are definitely racist by today's standards. If you somehow plucked Lincoln from 1864 with a time machine and plopped him down in the United States in 2007, he could never be elected president. His ideas and attitudes regarding race are so out of touch with today's attitudes that he'd be branded a blatant racist.

However, that's not how we judge Lincoln. We don't judge him on the basis of today's attitudes, but on the basis of the attitudes that were prevalent in his day. Likewise with Shimshon -- he can only be judged based on what someone from his day would have been expected to do. He cannot be judged on the basis of what is good or evil today. To judge him (or any historical personage) in that light is simply unfair and wrong.

So, does that mean that terrorism was OK in his day and unacceptable now? The answer is an unqualified yes. Standards of behavior in everyday interactions and war change as time progresses. Back in his day, a general who conquers a city would usually enslave the young inhabitants, rape the women and kill all the men. That was considered normal back then and was expected of almost any general. A military leader who does this today would (rightly) be placed on trial for war crimes. So, too, with Shimshon's actions. What was acceptable in warfare then is not acceptable now - and there is no need to "defend" Shimshon's actions by stating that terrorism is not evil.

The Wolf

UPDATE: (6:25PM) -- it looks like they took down the post, but you can find it here.