In our current war, nearly fifty Israelis have already been killed, and more than a thousand have been wounded. In addition to this, more than a million citizens have been sitting for several weeks in bomb shelters, a nerve-wracking stay. Most of them are without a livelihood. A large portion of the residents of the North have fled their homes and scattered to all parts of the country, exiles and wanderers. Is it not out of wisdom to examine our actions, as the words of the Gemara say: “If a person sees sufferings coming upon him, he should examine his deeds”?

And they further said that the punishments of the Holy One, Blessed be He, are “measure for measure.” And this is not only to correct the past, but also to correct the future so that we do not repeat our foolishness, so that we do not continue on our insane path.

We will begin with the words of the commentary Ohr HaChaim on the Torah, on the verses:

“But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those whom you let remain of them shall be as pricks in your eyes and as thorns in your sides, and they shall harass you in the land wherein you dwell. And it shall come to pass [says Hashem] that as I thought to do unto them, I will do unto you!” (Numbers 33:55-56).

Ohr HaChaim comments:

“Meaning, not only will they hold onto a part of the land that you did not merit [to possess], but also a part that you [already] merited and settled in, and they will harass you over the part that you dwell in, saying: ‘Arise! Leave it!'” Until here are his words .

And see the end of the Ramban’s commentary on this verse; his language is extremely sharp, and even overly so. And when we return to examine the words of the verse, we see that Ohr HaChaim added nothing as homiletics or his own thoughts. Things are closely attached to the plain meaning of the text (Peshat). Meaning, this is written explicitly in the Torah.

We are permitted to leave in the Land only those gentiles who fulfill the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah, and accept the rule of Jews in their land.

Therefore, when our enemies from Lebanon fire rockets over the entire expanses of the Galilee, and cause that region of the country to be desolated of its inhabitants, is there no room to reflect that this is a punishment for our public because we remained silent at the expulsion of ten thousand Jews from their homes and their estate in Gush Katif, less than a year ago? After all, is this not similar to the Qassam shelling on the settlements of the area, without an appropriate response by the IDF, who practiced “restraint”? Indeed, the two situations are wonderfully similar. [This comment was published this week by the Bostoner Rebbe, Shlita]. For it is not enough that we did not expel our enemies from our land, but we expelled our brothers, and handed over parts of our land to our enemies. A thing that is in complete contradiction—the absolute opposite—of what the Torah commanded!

And it is impossible to defend oneself with a worn-out excuse: “What would it have availed if we had protested?” For in a similar situation, in Russia in the year 1990, ten thousand demonstrators held a sit-in strike in the Kremlin Square in Moscow, and did not move from there despite the tanks (the military force) that trampled and ran over and killed about twelve demonstrators. In the end, they overthrew the tyrannical regime. Because they stood their ground even though some of them were killed by the authorities. They were consistent in their outlook.

So it is here with us, when our tyrant (Sharon) fired ministers, and fired the Chief of Staff and also the head of the Shin Bet to force the acceptance of his opinion, and frightened members of his faction with threats—and we will not elaborate further on such despicable acts—the general public (meaning those who are not wearers of knitted yarmulkes) did not react, did not demonstrate…

…in front of the halls of the High Court of Justice (Bagatz), they did not grumble about it early and late on television and in the general press. They did not persist in a vigorous protest. Had they done so, perhaps they would have stopped the evil hand. (See Obadiah 1:11: “On the day that you stood aloof, on the day that strangers carried off his wealth, and foreigners entered his gates, etc., you too were like one of them!”).

But why should we complain about the past? What was, was. But to our regret, among the primary leaders of the Disengagement back then was PM Olmert. Also recently, just a few days before the outbreak of the current war, he declared in his audacity that “the Realignment (Hitkansut) is a finished fact and cannot be reversed.” Also his confidant, Minister Sheetrit, declares this week that we must quickly end our military operations in Lebanon in order to execute the Realignment. Meaning, these individuals “forgot nothing, and learned nothing.” They continue in their full heresy to despise this precious mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel.

Perhaps one can understand why they do not want to “conquer” the Land of Israel from the hands of the gentiles as commanded by the Torah, since they deny entirely the holiness of the Torah and its authority. But in a practical way and without connection to religion, at this time when the withdrawal from Gush Katif has proven that we placed a sword in the hand of our enemies to strike Sderot and Ashkelon (and who knows what else in the future?), do they not understand that the “Realignment” will bring only destruction and desolation upon Netanya and Ra’anana and more?

Why are about a million Jews in the Galilee suffering? This is a result of the weakness of mind of our prime ministers for the past six years. First, they withdrew from Lebanon (which Sharon at the time agreed to PM Barak doing so as a tactical step!). Afterwards, they remained silent in the face of the buildup of terrorist forces in southern Lebanon, even when from time to time they fired upon us. And at this time of trouble, do they still keep a criminal plan of “Realignment” in the drawer?

Therefore, it is upon all of us to make our voice heard, each person to his fellow, each person to his neighbor, each person to his staff of workers and to any interlocutor, to clarify and explain and declare, that such ways of thinking of Olmert and his colleagues are evil and corrupt, foolish and ruinous. And who knows how many troubles are destined to come because of their corruption? Until there is a public uproar, until the entire nation from one end of the land to its other end makes its word heard: “Thus far to the forces of destruction!”

“Who is wise? One who foresees the future.” We must learn from the wounds of the present. Perhaps we will gain wisdom thereby to be saved from what is destined to come.

Comment by Shlomo Moshe Scheinman: In an article that I wrote about the Heter Mechira, Rabbi Zuriel in his haskama seemed to have accepted the Chazon Ish (Shviit #24) definition of Ger Toshav. See there for details.

As a follow up to this article, see: Video: Refusing Orders by Menachem Gottlieb & Why David Believed that Uriah Was A Rebel Against the Kingdom?

Hamas Terrorists

Quote from https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/429706:
Captivity survivor Rom Braslavski spoke for the first time about the terror group’s attempts to convince him to convert to Islam in captivity, and his decision to draw closer to Judaism.”All day they talked to you about Muhammad, the Quran, ‘Come join us. You’re wrong and we’re right,'” Braslavski recounted in an interview with Channel 14. “They tried to convince me to convert to Islam many times.”

“At least 60% of the Jewish hostages converted to Islam in captivity. They said it was just a game. And I admit that I also considered it. But I told myself, ‘G-d in heaven is looking at you and knows everything. I will not play this game.’ I decided not only would I not convert to Islam, but I would touch on their sensitive issues.”

Describing his journey drawing closer to Judaism, he shared, “Before October 7, I wasn’t a person of faith. I didn’t keep Shabbat. I grew up in Neve Yaakov, which is a very haredi neighborhood, but I went against the current. My family is still like that to this day. On October 7, I fully returned to religion.”

According to accepted halachic rules, Rom Braslavski was right and the 60% were wrong.

To understand the reasons behind this statement, see the post: On the Issue of Kiddush Hashem – Accepting the Yishmaelite Religion is Like Accepting Idolatry
See also: Menachem Gottlieb’s Audio Shiur on Rambam, Islam, and Avoda Zara and Audios: On Rabbis Participating in Iftar / Ramadan Celebrations by Menachem Gottlieb

Picture by Lizzy Shaanan Pikiwiki Israel, CC BY 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=183686325

Terms of use: You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

A New Roof for the Tomb of the Patriarchs

After decades of hundreds of thousands of worshipers being forced to stand under a torn tarp in the rain, snow, and scorching sun, and 20 years of bureaucratic and political struggles—we finally did it!

This is an insane, world-class engineering project that closes a historic circle and restores our national pride.
The spirit of redemption is blowing through Hebron once again – we are the rightful owners!

*Watch the full story behind the incredible transformation of the Cave of Machpela.*
*Am Yisrael Chai! *
For more videos by Aryeh Gottlieb on Hebron, see: https://vilnagaon.org/hebron-redemption/

 

Here is the English translation of an article at https://60ribo.org.il/kotel/ posted on Thu, 23 June 2022 = 24th of Sivan, 5782

The Wailing Wall, Known by the Masses as the “Western Wall,” Is Not One of the Walls of the Temple Mount

Introduction

After receiving a recommendation from one of the most active rabbis regarding ascending the Temple Mount, who mentioned he heard that Rabbi Avraham Shapira (the Rosh Yeshiva of Mercaz HaRav and former Chief Rabbi of Israel) had begun to permit it, I asked Rabbi Shapira the following question:

I prefaced my question to Rabbi Shapira by noting that years ago, I asked one of the prominent rabbis at Mercaz HaRav whether I was permitted to ascend the Temple Mount, and he replied, “No.” However, now (during the Second Intifada), when Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem has severely deteriorated, perhaps in light of the situation, there is room to permit it now.

The Rabbi replied to me that indeed, if we knew the exact borders of the Temple Mount, it would be a mitzvah to ascend in order to strengthen the State of Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem. However, he added that he does not know where it is permitted and where it is forbidden to walk on the Temple Mount, and therefore he forbade me from going. Nevertheless, he defended those who do ascend, saying that apparently “they know.” Even so, he did not grant me permission to ask those who “do know,” but simply told me not to ascend.

Archeological and Halachic Evidence

Evidence published after Rabbi Shapira passed away proves that the Wailing Wall, known by the masses as the “Western Wall,” is not one of the actual walls of the Temple Mount. The Wailing Wall is an external retaining wall added by Herod (Hurdus) and his sons to expand the area of Mount Moriah. Certainly, one should not alter the measurement of the cubit (amah) or the location of the Temple based on measurements taken from the Wailing Wall (in contrast to the approach of Rabbi Shlomo Goren).

Many people find it difficult to accept the fact that the Western Wall is not one of the walls of the Temple Mount. This is because they misunderstood the words of the Midrash: “The Divine Presence (Shechinah) has never moved from the Western Wall.” The true intent of the Midrash is that the Shechinah never moved from the western wall of the Sanctuary (Heichal) or the western wall of the [original] Temple Mount.

This is the language of Midrash Tanchuma (Buber), Parashat Shemot, Siman 10:

Rabbi Acha said: The Shechinah never moves from the western wall of the Holy Temple, as it is said: “Behold, he stands behind our wall” (Song of Songs 2:9), That is “Hashem is in His holy Sanctuary.”

Shemot Rabbah (Shinan), Parshat Shemot, Parsha 2:

…And Rabbi Elazar said: The Shechinah never moved from within the Sanctuary… They said to him: Even though it is destroyed, The L-rd has not moved from there. Rabbi Acha said: The Shechinah never moves from the western wall, as it is said: “Behold, he stands behind our wall” (Song of Songs 2). “His eyes behold, His eyelids try the children of men” (Psalms 11).

Likewise, when Elisha ben Avuyah (“Acher”) explained to Rabbi Meir why he could not repent, he explained (Midrash Zutta – Kohelet {Ecclesiastes} (Buber), Chapter 7, Verse 8):

“Once I was riding a horse near the western wall of the Holy Temple, and I heard a prophetic echo (Bat Kol) emerging from the Holy of Holies, bursting forth and saying: ‘Return, faithless children (Yirmiyahu/Jeremiah 3:14), except for Elisha, who knew My power and rebelled against Me.’” (Note: Hearing is relative to a nearby location, meaning the western wall was adjacent to the Holy of Holies).

And so it is in Tanna Debei Eliyahu, Eliyahu Rabbah (Ish Shalom), Parsha 28:

Once, Rabbi Natan entered the Holy Temple and found it destroyed, with only one wall standing. He said, “What is the nature of this wall?” Someone said, “I will show you.” He took a ring and drove it into the wall, and that ring would move back and forth.

If the “Wailing Wall,” currently referred to as the “Western Wall,” were the only wall among the four Halachic walls of the Temple Mount to survive, we would expect its construction style to differ from the other walls. But this is not the case. Below, I have presented an image of the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount compound today. The style of the stones on the southern side is identical to the style on the western side.

 

 

 

 

 

In fact, it is specifically on the eastern side of the Temple Mount compound that one can find a construction style that deviates from the rest of the wall.

Here I will quote from Asher Grossberg’s article in Techumin:

 

According to the writings of Josephus Flavius, Herod did not rebuild the eastern wall. He writes (Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.7 [219-222]) that in the year 64, they asked Agrippas to renew the eastern portico to utilize accumulated funds and prevent unemployment among the 18,000 workers engaged in building the Temple. Agrippas feared he would not be able to complete the construction of the portico, which was built upon the eastern wall—”the work of King Solomon”—and therefore refused the request. It appears that neither the eastern wall nor the portico atop it were rebuilt in Herod’s days, meaning that the expansion of the Temple Mount in the east-west direction could only be done toward the west.

The eastern wall of the Temple Mount is indeed built in a different style than the other walls. Only its southernmost 32 meters—from the area known as “the joint” southward—are built in the style of the other walls, as well as its northern section, slightly north of the Mercy Gate. This is particularly prominent in the northeastern tower. At “the joint” located in the south of the wall, it is clearly visible how the Herodian layers lean upon the layers north of them; therefore, it is clear that the section north of “the joint” predates Herodian construction. The Herodian construction starting at “the joint” continues along the southern and western walls and ends at the northern part of the eastern wall. (End of quote).

It should be noted that although Josephus claimed the eastern wall was the work of Solomon, this is questionable for reasons I will present in my extended article (which is yet to be published). However, regarding the Wailing Wall, popularly known as the “Western Wall,” I am convinced it was not built by King Solomon’s men.

Additional Reasons to Reject the Identification of the Wailing Wall as the Temple Mount Wall

In my extended, unpublished article, I brought sources showing there was a restriction against expanding the Halachic Temple Mount beyond 500 cubits by 500 cubits. Furthermore, according to Mikdash David (Kodashim, Siman 27, Ot 1) and Ohr Sameach (Hilchot Beit HaBechira, Chapter 6, Halacha 10), the entire 500 by 500 cubits of the Temple Mount must sit on Mount Moriah. However, the southwestern part of the Temple Mount walls extends into the Tyropoeon Valley and is not on the bedrock of Mount Moriah. If so, this implies that the true western wall of the Temple Mount was further inward, as the stone style indicates that all the lower stones of the Wailing Wall were built more or less during the same period.

 

The section of the Wailing Wall (Western Wall) below the stick in the photo is the portion of the wall not built on Mount Moriah, but rather in the Tyropean Valley (according to topography experts). If so, it is highly unlikely that the Wailing Wall is actually the Halachic wall of the Temple Mount. I do not accept the excuse that perhaps, from the outset, they made part of the Wailing Wall for the sacred Temple Mount and part for secular purposes. It is highly improbable that sacred and secular uses would be mixed.

For a Halachic explanation of why it is difficult to accept a mixture of sacred and secular, see Maimonides (Rambam), Hilchot Beit HaBechira, Chapter 1, Halacha 20:

“All vessels must be made from their inception for sacred use. If they were initially made for an ordinary person (secular use), they may not be used for the Most High. Secular use is permitted with vessels intended for the Most High as long as they have not yet been used for the Most High; once they are used for the Most High, secular use is forbidden. Stones and beams originally hewn for a synagogue may not be used to build the Temple Mount.”

Aruch HaShulchan HeAtid, Hilchot Beit HaMikdash, Siman 4, Se’if 23:

23. And the fact that items made for secular use are invalid, even though we hold that “designation is of no consequence” (hazmana lav milta hi), this applies to the essence of sanctity itself, where designation is of consequence, and therefore requires intent. Furthermore, it is a disgrace to bring into the Temple something made for secular purposes. And regarding what he wrote—that stones and beams hewn initially for a synagogue may not be used to build the Temple Mount—the version in the Tosefta there reads “hewn for secular use.” However, the Rambam teaches us an even greater novelty: that even for a synagogue, they may not be brought to the Temple Mount, because it is vastly holier, and relative to the Temple Mount, even a synagogue is considered secular (Kessef Mishneh). Nonetheless, it is surprising why he changed the wording. It seems the Rambam holds that if the Tosefta meant strictly secular use, what novelty does it teach us that we wouldn’t already know from the previous rule? [The primary reason is the second one: due to disgrace. For if designation were of consequence here, why is it permitted to use it for secular purposes before it is used for the Most High, given that it was designated? Therefore, it must certainly be as I wrote].
    

    A Section of the Wailing Wall

It is implied from his words that it is a disgrace for a stone on the border of the 500 cubits of the Temple Mount on the western side to be used half for holy purposes and half for secular purposes.

Furthermore, it poses a difficulty because secular structures are forbidden to lean on a sacred stone, as written in Rambam, Hilchot Me’ilah, Chapter 8, Halacha 4:

Halacha 4

When building the Temple, they do not take wood and stones from consecrated property, nor do they construct the building with the intent that it is holy. Rather, they build everything from secular funds, as a decree lest someone benefits from the shadow of the building or leans on a stone or beam during the work. After the building is completed, they deconsecrate the sacred money onto the building. If the treasurers required wood for sacred use for that day alone, they could take it from sacred funds, since they would not remain for days, so we do not worry lest someone lean on them and commit sacrilege (Me’ilah).

And Shu”t Igrot Moshe, Yoreh Deah, Part 4, Siman 63 writes:

“And regarding the walls of the Temple Mount, this is the intent of the Rambam in Chapter 8 of Me’ilah, Halacha 4, where he wrote: ‘When building the Temple, they do not take wood and stones from consecrated property… rather they build everything from secular funds.'” (End of quote).

I have no explanation as to why Rabbi Feinstein, in a different responsa, did refer to the Wailing Wall as the wall of the Temple Mount.

Now perhaps one could counter that a valley adjacent to Mount Moriah is also defined as Mount Moriah. For in Rashi’s view, the Temple Mount in the future will expand to 3,000 cubits by 3,000 cubits, which, according to modern geography, includes areas outside of Mount Moriah. (This counter-argument explains why it might be possible to view the southwestern corner as the Temple Mount, but it does not resolve the issue of secular use mixed with sacred use on the other side of the Wailing Wall).

Archeological Discoveries and Historical Accounts

Coins from the Herodian dynasty were found in ritual baths (mikvaot) that were filled with dirt and stones underneath the wall. This indicates that the wall was built only a short time before the destruction of the Holy Temple, which aligns with the historical writings of Josephus Flavius.

In an article by the Israel Antiquities Authority published several years after Rabbi Shapira’s passing, it is written:

Building the Western Wall: Herod Started it, but Didn’t Finish (23/11/2011)

Prof. Ronny Reich of the University of Haifa and Eli Shukron of the Antiquities Authority: A ritual bath (mikveh) uncovered beneath the Western Wall of the Temple Mount indicates that the construction of the Western Wall of the Temple Mount was not completed during King Herod’s lifetime.Who built the walls of the Temple Mount? Any tour guide and any student familiar with the history of Jerusalem would immediately answer that it was Herod. However, in archaeological excavations alongside the ancient drainage channel of Jerusalem, an ancient ritual bath was recently discovered that challenges the accepted archaeological perception regarding Herod’s exclusive responsibility for the construction.

Recently, support and maintenance work was conducted on the paving of Jerusalem’s main street from 2,000 years ago, which was used by pilgrims ascending the Temple. This was part of a project to re-expose the drainage channel that ran beneath the street, stretching from the Siloam Pool in the City of David to the archaeological garden of Jerusalem near the Western Wall. The excavations are conducted at the site on behalf of the Antiquities Authority in cooperation with the Nature and Parks Authority and the East Jerusalem Development Company, funded by the Elad Association. They are managed by archaeologist Eli Shukron on behalf of the Antiquities Authority, with the assistance of Prof. Ronny Reich of Haifa University.

In the excavation beneath the paved street next to Robinson’s Arch, sections of the foundations of the Western Wall resting on bedrock were exposed—which also serves as the western foundation of ‘Robinson’s Arch’—a massive arch that carried a staircase leading from the main street of Jerusalem to the entrance of the Temple Mount compound.

According to Prof. Reich, “During the work, it became clear that within the natural rock, there are hewn remains of various installations, including water cisterns, ritual baths, and cellars. These belonged to a residential neighborhood that existed on the site before King Herod decided to expand the Temple Mount compound. The contemporary Jewish historian Josephus Flavius relates that Herod began the expansion project of the compound in the eighteenth year of his reign (22 BCE) and defines the expansion as ‘the greatest project humanity has ever heard of.‘

Once the expansion was decided upon, the area was expropriated, and the walls of the houses were removed down to the bedrock. The rock-hewn installations were filled with dirt and stones so that building could take place over them. When the corners of the Temple Mount were established and the placement of the first layer began, it turned out that one of the ritual baths was located exactly along the route of the Western Wall. The builders filled the mikveh with earth, placed three large flat stones on top of the earth, and built the first layer of the Wall over this filling.”

Sifting the dirt from inside the sealed mikveh yielded three clay lamps of the type common in the 1st century CE. Additionally, seventeen identifiable bronze coins were extracted during sifting. Dr. Donald Ariel, curator of coins at the Antiquities Authority, determined that the latest coins (four in total) were minted by the Roman procurator Valerius Gratus in the year 17/18 CE. This means that Robinson’s Arch, and perhaps a longer section of the Western Wall, were built after this year—meaning at least 20 years after Herod’s death (which occurred, according to popular belief, in 4 BCE).

This archaeological data illustrates the fact that the construction of the Temple Mount walls and Robinson’s Arch was a massive undertaking that spanned decades and was not completed in Herod’s lifetime.

This dramatic find corroborates the descriptions of Josephus Flavius, who reports that only in the days of King Agrippas II (Herod’s great-grandson) was the work completed, leaving eighteen thousand unemployed workers in Jerusalem upon its conclusion.

In conclusion: According to what is written in the article, it is clear that the Wailing Wall, referred to as the “Western Wall,” was not built in the days of Solomon, because it is highly improbable that a mikveh containing artifacts from the Herodian period would be found beneath a Halachic western wall of the Temple Mount. It only makes sense that the mikveh with the coins and Herodian-era artifacts was there because the Wailing Wall was built as part of Herod’s extension to reinforce and expand the Mount.

Yet Another Reason to Reject the Identification of the Wailing Wall as the Halachic Wall

As I have already noted in my extended, unpublished article, the eastern wall is not parallel to the Wailing Wall, and by any measure of the cubit (amah) that one chooses, it will not result in a square of 500 cubits by 500 cubits as required by the Kaftor VaFerach: “The Temple Mount is a perfect square surrounded by a wall, 500 cubits by 500 cubits. And in the words of Yechezkel (Ezekiel) the Prophet (40:17-19), the Temple Mount is called the Outer Courtyard, and the Azarah is called the Inner Courtyard.”

It is worth noting that in the Vilna Gaon’s (Gra) commentary on the Outer Courtyard of the future Temple (which is the Temple Mount according to the Kaftor VaFerach), we see that the 500 by 500 measurement is precise and does not include the walls of the Temple Mount. I also found this in the commentary Alei Tamar on Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot, Chapter 9, Halacha 5:

“And it must be said that the Temple Mount itself is called the King’s Gate… because it aligns with the Outer Courtyard of the future Temple, as written by the Rambam in Hilchot Beit HaBechira, Chapter 1, Halacha 4.”

Proof that the 500 cubits of the Temple Mount do not include the thickness of the wall comes from the Jerusalem Talmud, Pesachim, Chapter 7, Halacha 12:

“Rabbi Yochanan bar Madaya in the name of Rabbi Pinchas: From the fact that we see the Rabbis removing their sandals beneath the *aguf of the Temple Mount, this indicates they did not sanctify the area beneath the aguf of the Temple Mount.” This aguf area (or according to Rabbeinu Chananel, Pesachim81b, it is pronounced agaf) is located within the perimeter taken up by the thickness of the walls.

(* Google translates aguf as gatehouse, but I think that this is not precise, so I decided to write just a transliteration without an English translation.)

Korban HaEidah, Pesachim, Chapter 7, Halacha 12:

“From the fact that we see…” Since we see that the Sages place their sandals beneath the aguf of the Temple Mount—as it is forbidden to enter the Temple Mount with one’s sandals:

“This indicates…” Meaning that the aguf of the Temple Mount was not sanctified, and therefore they did not sanctify it so that shoes and sandals could be left there.

Pnei Moshe, Pesachim, Chapter 7, Halacha 12:

“Removing…” Stripping off their sandals and leaving them beneath the aguf of the Temple Mount when entering. If so, what does “this indicates they did not sanctify” mean? For we learned: “A person may not enter the Temple Mount with his staff and his sandals,” so it certainly does not possess the sanctity of the Temple Mount.

I have expanded slightly on this point to hint at some of the reasons why I also do not accept the approach of Rabbi Elkana Lior, Shlit”a, since according to his approach, one of the corners of the Temple Mount is at an angle of 91 degrees rather than 90 degrees, and Rabbi E. Lior also included the thickness of the walls in his calculation of the 500 cubits by 500 cubits.

If Our Wailing Wall Is Not the Western Wall That Was Never Destroyed, Where Is It?

In Rabbi Iddo Elba’s article, “The Obligation to Maintain Tradition – The Dome Is Built on the Site of the Temple,” on page 7, we learn:

The Christian Sozomen (Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Chapter 22) recounts that during the reign of Emperor Julian (363 CE), the emperor wanted to rebuild the Temple for the Jews, and “when they cleared the ruins of the previous building, they dug into the earth and cleared its foundations.” This implies he is speaking about uncovering the foundations of the previous building of the Jewish Temple.

Chrysostom, the Bishop of Constantinople (died 407 CE), refers to their tradition that J-man (of the Christian religion) stood on the site of the Temple and declared that “not one stone will be left upon another,” and wrote: “Not one stone will be left upon another—if so, how did [the remains of the Jewish Temple] remain?… Because he [J-man] said these words with the meaning, either that it would be abandoned [and not totally demolished], or he was speaking about the specific spot where he was standing. For there are places that were destroyed down to the foundation.”

His words prove that the existence of the Temple ruins even after Julian was so open and well-known that even the Bishop could not deny it, despite it being entirely inconvenient for him, forcing him to find forced explanations and say that at least some places were destroyed to the bedrock.

On page 6 of the same article, Rabbi Elba cited Ginzei HaGeonim, Bava Batra 60b, that when the [Muslims] extended their hand and conquered the Land of the Tzvi (Israel) from Edom (the Byzantines) and came to Jerusalem, there were men from the Children of Israel with them who showed them the site of the Temple… and they made stipulations with them that they would honor the Holy Temple from all defilement.

Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela – Visited the Land roughly 60 years after the Crusaders captured Jerusalem from the Muslims:

And this is what he wrote:

“And the Gate of Jehoshaphat (Yehoshafat) is in front of the Holy Temple which existed in ancient times. And there is the Templum Domini, which was the site of the Temple, and Umar ibn al-Khattab built a very large and beautiful dome over it, and no Gentile brings any idol or any image there, but they come only to recite their prayers. And in front of that place is the Western Wall, one of the walls that were in the Temple in the Holy of Holies, and they call it the Gate of Mercy, and there all the Jews come to pray before the wall in the courtyard.

And there in Jerusalem, at the house that belonged to Solomon, are the horse stables which Solomon built as a very strong structure of massive stones, the likes of which have not been seen in all the land.”

From the words of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, we see:

1. That in his time, they defined the Western Wall as one of the walls of the Holy of Holies, and not the Wailing Wall that we call the Western Wall today.
2. The Jews came very close to the western wall of the Holy of Holies (either because they held like the Ra’avad according to the Meiri’s interpretation, or they distanced themselves the minimal distance required by the Rambam to keep away from the camp of the Shechinah).
3. Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela assumed that the purpose of the giant stones he found in Jerusalem was to house Solomon’s horses. He did not know that their true purpose was to expand the Mount as a retaining wall built by Herod’s builders.

What I meant to say by this is that there is room to argue that Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela did not view the giant stones he found at the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount as the Halachic walls of the Temple Mount. Rather, he found an alternative explanation for why giant stones were there.

And what some of the Rishonim from other periods assumed—that the Wailing Wall is the Western Wall of the Temple Mount—was not based on a tradition, but on logical reasoning (sevara). They found no reason to move stones of such immense weight to Mount Moriah except for the purpose of separating the sanctity of Jerusalem from the sanctity of the Temple Mount. But today we know that the necessity was for a retaining wall to expand the Mount. Alternatively, they did not know that Herod possessed greater technological capability than King Solomon to move heavy stones, but such is the truth, just as in our generation we possess greater technological capability than all the generations before us.

I also reject the proposal that perhaps Herod rebuilt the Halachic Western Wall and made part of it sacred for the Temple Mount and part for secular needs. It makes no sense at all that he would create a chaotic mix of sacred and secular, and we find no mention in Chazal (the Sages) that Herod did such a thing. Furthermore, it is somewhat implied in Bava Batra 3b that Herod’s construction was done according to the will of the sage Baba ben Buta. And so it is written in Tractate Taanit, page 23a:

“And so we found in the days of Herod that they were engaged in the construction of the Holy Temple, and rain would fall at night. The next morning, the wind blew, the clouds dispersed, the sun shone, and the people went out to their work, and they knew that the work of Heaven was in their hands.”

Written by Shlomo Moshe Scheinman

 

An English Summary of Dr. Ben Ari’s Words on Parshat Balak and the Connection to the Hilltop Youth

1 The Uniqueness of Parshat Balak and Modern Relevance

• A Departure from the Core Narrative: Ben Ari notes that since Parshat Lech Lecha, the Torah focuses almost exclusively on the Nation of Israel. Parshat Balak is a rare exception—for three whole chapters, the Torah’s “camera” shifts to Moab, focusing on two non-Jewish figures: Balak (King of Moab) and Bilaam (the sorcerer from Aram).
• Contemporary Parallel : Ben Ari draws a direct line between the biblical narrative and recent events—specifically, the media narrative surrounding “settler violence” used to justify the administrative detention of Jewish residents.

2  The Sorcerer as a Modern Media Consultant

• Unconventional Warfare: Terrified by Israel’s decisive victory over Sihon the Amorite, Moab realizes they cannot defeat Israel through conventional military means. They resort to psychological warfare by hiring Bilaam to curse Israel.
• Redefining the “Curse“: Ben Ari explains that in modern terms, Bilaam the sorcerer was essentially an ancient media consultant and narrative engineer. His power lay not in cartoonish magic, but in his ability to shape public perception, delegitimize the enemy, and identify psychological vulnerabilities to make the opponent “light” or insignificant (the Hebrew root for curse, K-L-L, means to make light/empty).
• Historical Precedent (The Exodus Ship): He references how, prior to Israel’s founding, the British expelled the Holocaust refugees aboard the Exodus right in front of the UN’s UNSCOP committee. This shocking visual deeply moved public opinion, ultimately securing the votes for the Partition Plan. Shaping perception creates reality.
• The Danger of Words: Atrocities (such as those committed by the Nazis) never begin with gas chambers or physical actions; they always begin with words, incitement, and speeches—precisely like Bilaam’s rhetoric.

3 The Framing of “Settler Violence” and Administrative Detentions

• Manufacturing Consent: Ben Ari argues that the media and the defense establishment are currently fabricating a hyper-inflated narrative of “settler violence.”
• Ignoring the Victims: He protests how the media sweeps under the rug the recent murders of four Jews (including three young men and a 60-year-old family man), while ignoring the daily reality of stoning, shootings, and ambushes faced by Jewish residents.
• Justifying Draconian Measures: In his view, the relentless media focus on “settler violence” is designed to manufacture public legitimacy for administrative detentions of Jews. This allows the state to snatch youth from their homes and jail them without trial, judge, or visible evidence, using the Shin Bet’s “secret files” to mask politically motivated persecution born of media shaming.

4  Bilaam’s Flawed Character and the Dialogue with the Donkey

• A Corrupted Personality: According to Pirkei Avot, Bilaam possessed an “evil eye, a swollen soul (greed), and a haughty spirit.” He was a deeply egoistic, money-driven cynic who chose to see only the bad in everything.
• Utter Ingratitude: Ben Ari analyzes Bilaam’s interaction with his donkey. Bilaam repeatedly beats the animal when it halts before the angel. When the donkey miraculously speaks, asking: “Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden all your life until this day…?”, Bilaam’s true face is exposed. He is a man who sees only himself; the moment his personal objectives are stalled, he is willing to destroy even those who have served him loyally for years.

5  Israel’s Secret Strength and Bilaam’s Trap

• The Vulnerability G-d Shielded: When Bilaam attempts to curse Israel, G-d forces him to speak only the truth. In his blessings (“How goodly are your tents, O Jacob”), Bilaam identifies that Israel’s strength lies in its distinctiveness and moral isolation (“A people that dwells alone, not reckoned among the nations“), and in its strict adherence to family sanctity, modesty, and privacy (the doors of their tents did not face one another).
• The Destructive Counsel (The Sin of Shittim & Baal Peor): Realizing he cannot curse them from the outside, Bilaam deduces that Israel can only be defeated if they destroy their own moral shield. He advises Balak to entice the Israelite men with the daughters of Moab and lead them into the cult of Baal Peor—a worship rooted in total lawlessness, the erasure of boundaries, and the destruction of the family unit. Once Israel’s moral walls crumbled, the nation collapsed from within via a plague.

Conclusion and Message to the “Hilltop Heroes“

• Encouragement to the Pioneers: Ben Ari concludes with a passionate message to the pioneering youth and residents of Judea and Samaria: Do not be deterred by media shaming or administrative detentions. He compares them to Jacob the Patriarch, who endured the scorching heat of the day and the freezing frost of the night to protect his flock and the homeland against a predatory enemy. He calls them the true “anchors of Zionism” who safeguard the land of the ancestors, asserting that through their bravery, the redemption of Zion will be realized.

For those who wish to support the Hilltop Heroes in an active way, Press Here.

 

There is a story in the Torah of the “professional curser” Bilam (see the Book of Numbers). Seeing the Jews leave Egypt and march toward the “Promised Land”, get attacked and defeat a few groups along the way, King Balak of Midian decides on a new national defense strategy. Rather than direct confrontation with Israel, he hires Bilam to curse the Jews. Bilam, not wanting to admit that he’s just your run of the mill “bad mouther”, tells the king that he can only say what G-d tells him to. Appealing to G-d to help him curse Israel, Bilam is repeatedly told by G-d, “They are blessed.” Bilam three times attempts to curse Israel, but all that comes out of his mouth are more blessings.

In what traditionally has been a guiding national policy for the Jewish people, Bilam proclaims, “Hen Am Livadad Yish-kon, Uv’Goyim Lo Yit-Chashave” or “Behold! It is a nation that shall dwell alone, and shall not be counted among the nations.” (Numbers 23:9) Jews really don’t need to look beyond their own tradition for policy guidelines that warn not to get into “entangling alliances.” Traditional Jewish commentaries to these verses explain that the Jewish people get their strength and prosperity not from alliances with other nations and cultures, but from their single-minded adherence to their own unique Torah culture – Judaism – their single-minded worship of the G-d of Israel, their single-minded control over their own land and lives, and their single-minded defense of their own interests. In a nutshell, liberty, freedom and national independence.

Editor’s note: This was an excerpt from a larger article by Ariel Pasko at https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/331079?ssr=1?utm_source=whatsapp&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

I quoted the part that was more relevant to Parshat Balak.

1. The Initial Halachic Dilemma

• The speaker (in a Hebrew YouTube video) had been ascending the Temple Mount for two or three years.
• The Conflict with Authority: He discovered published pamphlets stating that his deeply revered spiritual mentor, Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, strongly opposed ascending the Mount. This created an immediate internal and halachic conflict for him.

2. The Face-to-Face Encounter

• Seeking Atonement: The speaker used the occasion of his son’s Chalekeh (3rd birthday haircutting ceremony) to approach Rabbi Eliyahu directly. Expecting a reprimand, he asked how he could atone for ascending the Temple Mount for the past 2–3 years against the Rabbi’s rumored stance.
• The Crucial Distinction (How vs. If): Instead of issuing a blanket ban, Rabbi Eliyahu asked a vital clarifying question: “How do you ascend?”

3. Strict Adherence to Halachic Protocols

The speaker explained that he does not ascend carelessly, but strictly follows traditional halachic boundaries:

• Performing ritual immersion (tevilah) beforehand.
• Avoiding leather footwear (walking barefoot or in non-leather shoes).
• Sticking strictly to the permitted halachic pathways (staying within the boundaries of the Camp of the Levites), a route heavily researched and established by figures like Rabbi Elbaum.

4. An Unexpected Blessing and Obligation

• The Rabbi’s Approving Reaction: Upon hearing that the speaker followed exact halachic protocols, Rabbi Eliyahu became deeply interested, clapped his hands, and enthusiastically told him: “Hazak U’Baruch (Strong and Blessed), you continue to ascend.”
• From Permission to Duty: While the speaker’s wife originally urged him to ask the Rabbi in hopes he would stop out of fear, the encounter had the opposite effect. The speaker notes that he no longer ascends merely as a personal choice, but feels a spiritual obligation (chovah) based on Rabbi Eliyahu’s direct directive. For this reason for more than two decades he has frequently visited the Temple Mount.

5. Disappointment with Contemporary Rabbinic Leadership

• Evasiveness of Other Sages: In the years since, the speaker has challenged various other prominent rabbis on the topic.
• “Filling Their Mouths with Water”: He expresses deep disappointment that many modern rabbinic authorities choose to remain silent or evasive, failing to provide clear, robust halachic arguments against ascending when proper purification and boundaries are maintained.

Editor’s comment: I believe both the pamphlet and the speaker in the Hebrew YouTube video from which I got this information for this post were telling the truth about Rabbi Eliyahu’s outlook on the Temple Mount.

I believe the pamphlet was directed towards the general audience and the answer to this speaker was based on a more precise knowledge of who was making an inquiry into the subject.

I remember on Election Day in Israel, one person asked Rabbi Eliyahu which party to vote for? He suggested a certain right-wing party that was running.

The questioner thought this was a general endorsement for everyone and made Rabbi Eliyahu’s opinion public.

Rabbi Eliyahu put out a clarification that his endorsement was specific for this particular person and for other people he might endorse a different particular party.

This answer might help us judge also some of the other rabbis, לכף זכות.

A translated excerpt from Rabbi Zuriel’s Otzrote Hatorah, Korach (1)

In summary: “Take fast hold of Mussar, let her not go; keep her; for she is thy life” (Proverbs 4:13). And they said concerning this: “A parable of one who is cast into the midst of the water, the captain extended the rope and said to him, ‘Hold this in your hand and do not let it go. For if you let it go, you have no life.’ Thus said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Israel: ‘Take fast hold of Mussar, let her not go'” (Bamidbar Rabbah, end of Parashat Shelach). And indeed, “fools despise wisdom and mussar” (Proverbs 1:7). The verse divides them into two, to teach us that there is a “wise man” like Korach, but his heart is consumed by jealousy and love of authority. And this is what Rabbi Yisrael Salanter answered when he was asked by someone what to study, since he was busy with his livelihood all day. When he asked a certain rabbi, he answered him to study only practical Halacha (law). But one Rosh Yeshiva answered him to study only Gemara, because that is the base of everything. And a rabbi wise in secrets answered him to study only Kabbalah, because that is the peak of the Torah’s loftiness. And another rabbi answered him to study only Scripture, because that is what we heard from Sinai from the mouth of Hashem. When they neglect ‘Mussar’, then there is no guarantee in the Torah itself that it will save a person from going down to the pit. And the Ramchal spoke much about this (in his introduction to “Mesillat Yesharim”). “Behold, the fear of Hashem, that is wisdom,” only it alone is wisdom, and the rest of the occupations of the Torah will not compare to it (see there for his proofs).

Summary of his video filmed on the Temple Mount by Gemini AI

The Core Thesis: The Wilderness “Educational Series”

Rabbi Wolfson identifies a distinct, interconnected narrative arc spanning three consecutive Torah portions: Beha’alotcha, Shelach, and Korach. This is not a random sequence of historical events, but rather a profound, divine “educational series” intended for all generations. Its purpose is to deeply root a fundamental truth within the Jewish heart: The Torah of Moses is eternal, divine, and absolute. It cannot be compared to, replaced by, or bypassed by anyone—not even by the greatest spiritual giants of a generation or the highest halachic institution, the Sanhedrin.

Breakdown by Torah Portion

1. Parashat Beha’alotcha: The Mistake of Miriam and Aaron (False Equivalence)

• The Transgression: Miriam and Aaron—who were immense righteous figures and prophets in their own right—erroneously misunderstand Moses’ unique status. They assume a level of spiritual equivalence, claiming, “Has the Lord spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well?”

• The Divine Response & Lesson: God reacts with anger, clarifying unequivocally that Moses is entirely different from any other prophet. While others receive visions in riddles, Moses speaks with God “mouth to mouth… and beholds the likeness of the Lord.”

• The Eternal Message: Moses cannot be compared to any other human being. His prophecy and his Torah occupy a singular, unassailable baseline.

2. Parashat Shelach: The Spies and the “Ma’apilim” (Human Logic vs. Moses’ Decree)

• The Transgression of the Spies: The spies were not simple sinners; they were the heads of the tribes, spiritual giants, and righteous leaders. According to the Zohar, they acted based on a “majority consensus” of the generation’s greatest minds and possessed complex, highly sophisticated theological calculations as to why it wasn’t the right time to enter Israel (e.g., calculations regarding the years of exile). Their mistake was believing their rationalizations could override God’s command given through Moses.

• The Mistake of the Ma’apilim: After the decree of the 40-year wandering, the people realize their sin and attempt to force their way into Israel (“We are here, and we will go up”). Moses explicitly tells them not to go because God is no longer with them in this endeavor. They defy him, ascend anyway, and are decimated.

• The Context of the Sanhedrin: Immediately following this story, the Torah introduces the laws of Par Ve’sa’ir (the communal sin offering brought when the Sanhedrin errs and mistakenly permits idolatry).

• The Eternal Message: The Sanhedrin and the leading sages represent the Oral Torah, but they are not the Torah itself. Even the highest court can make a mistake. The spies failed because they relied on their own logical “calculations” instead of surrendering to Moses’ word. Absolute loyalty to Moses means that if he says “go,” you go; if he says “stay,” you stay—regardless of human intellect or majorities.

3. Parashat Korach: The Ultimate Defiance (Accusing Moses of Personal Interest)

• The Transgression: Korach and the 250 leaders challenge the foundational authenticity of Moses and Aaron. They suspect that Moses’ appointments are politically driven—that he simply “arranged a nice setup for his family” (nepotism) rather than acting on divine command.

• The Divine Response: The truth is clarified in the most terrifyingly objective manner: the earth opens its mouth and swallows Korach and his assembly, proving once and for all that Moses acts solely as a direct conduit of God’s will.

Conclusion and Practical Application

The Rabbi concludes that the Jewish people are commanded to have absolute, unwavering loyalty to the Torah of Moses (comprising both the Written and Oral Torah as transmitted by the sages). Nothing supersedes or bypasses the Torah of Moses. To illustrate this absolute boundary, the Rabbi notes that if the Sanhedrin issues a ruling, but a Torah scholar knows with absolute certainty that they have erred against the true law of Moses, he is forbidden to follow them. The Torah of Moses remains the supreme, eternal compass for the Jewish nation.

Comment: After the death of Moshe Rabbeinu there is a different set of rules, regarding when can an individual defy the ruling of the Sanhedrin. One should not be quick to draw conclusions from this lecture how to react under today’s reality. See Likutei Halachot of the Chafetz Chaim on Horayot for more details.