Perhaps the Police Will Hit Those That Ascend the Temple Mount
Letters to The Rabbi of the Old City [Jerusalem], Rabbi Avigdor Neventzal,
[May He be Granted Many Good and Additional Years] on the Matter of The Temple
Mount And His Reaction
Letter 7
With the Assistance of Heaven
To the Honorable Rabbi Neventzal, Shlit”a,I did not merit to understand the honorable Rabbi’s response
to my last letter. The honorable Rabbi wrote:
I do not believe that
ascending the Temple Mount will prevent the division of Jerusalem. Perhaps,
heaven forbid it will bring joint cooperation between our Police department
and their forces to hit those that pray and ascend. So, it is not clear to
me, in my humble opinion, that this will prevent dangers to life. Perhaps,
heaven forbid the opposite is true.
· If we ascend the Mount based on the rules of the
Police and we don’t even pray there, why should we suspect that the Police
will hit?
· Perhaps the honorable Rabbi holds that isolated
individuals will pray there against the will of the Police, and in order
to save them from being beaten one should prevent them from going. Now one
should ask, if the Poskim permit the use of an automobile even though according
to the statistics a certain percentage of the drivers etc. will die in accidents,
and we even permit traveling in Judea and Samaria even though there is a
possibility of a terror attack, therefore why should we act differently in
our case? If for the sake of earning a living and even more for the sake
of saving others or for conquest, the Sages of blessed memory, permitted
us to enter into a dangerous situation, why should we act differently in
our case {of ascending the Temple Mount}.
· Perhaps the honorable Rabbi holds that not just
an isolated individual, in an isolated case is in a situation of danger,
heaven forbid, on the Temple Mount, but rather, there are wicked men in the
Police department who intentionally at the very outset want to kill a mass
number of people on the Temple Mount, either directly or indirectly in order
to gain some political benefit from all the killing? Let us assume for a
moment that there is reason to fear this. Nevertheless if there is someone
who holds that the more likely or greater danger to himself or the public
is the division of part of Jerusalem to the control of terrorists and
that ascending the Mount will prevent this, how can we forbid his activity?
Behold in the Mishna Brura on O.C. 329:6, wrote that when there is a danger
to a border city, it is permitted and a mitzva to go out for battle on the
Sabbath in order to protect the wheat stubble and straw of the city.
Now even though when the soldier comes to
protect the border city, he might die, nevertheless, the sages of blessed
memory permitted this. Either because, not reacting is even more dangerous
to everyone or because they permitted an individual to endanger himself to
save the public to a certain degree.
In Techumin, Volume 26 in an article by Rabbi Yitzchak Shapira
and Yosi Elitzur more information was brought about endangering oneself for
the sake of saving the masses. Now here is a translated quote:
Concerning the obligation of the individual
to bear in the burden with the community and to prevent any danger from befalling
it – one should learn from the power of the community to force an individual
to build a gateway and a door to a courtyard, and so too, a defensive wall,
or strong doors with a door bolt [B.B. 7b]. And as a general principle, the
public and its representatives have power over the individual, even to take
his life; and similarly, Rambam ruled [Hilchot Sanhedrin 24:4]:
“The court should provide lashes to someone who is not guilty of an offense
that requires lashes and it should kill someone who is not guilty of an offense
that requires the death penalty, not for the sake of transgressing the words
of Torah, but rather to make a protective fence for the Torah”. From here
is the power of the king to force his citizens to go out for war for the
sake of the general public, even though, it is clear that there is no war
without casualties on both sides. And so too, Rambam ruled [Hilchot Melachim
4:1-5]: “And he (the king) sends throughout the border of Israel and he takes
warriors and soldiers from the nation, and he makes them soldiers for his
chariots and horsemen… and so too he forces those who are fit to be officers
and appoints them as officers over thousands and officers over fifty”…
It is of the ability of the king
and the representatives of the public to therefore force {individuals} to
go out for war, and not just against human enemies, but also to protect the
public from the forces of nature and similarly, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach
wrote [Minchat Shlomo part II 82:12] : “When the public is being pursued
by bears and lions that one needs to fight against them and expel them –
it is possible that besides that it is considered, the saving of lives and
incumbent upon every individual to desecrate the Sabbath or do similar things
to save, it is possible that is also considered like a war for the sake of
a mitzva; and even though we don’t have a king or a {fully powered halachic}
court – the administrators of the city can force and endanger the lives of
individuals in a similar manner to that which pertains to war (even in such
a manner, that the individual wouldn’t be obligated due to the law of saving
lives). And on page 248, the authors brought more on the subject of endangerment
for the sake of saving: “in the responsa of Shvut-Yaakov (part 3, siman 75)
he explained the rule is true also for a righteous doctor who
was uncertain if he should undertake a certain medical procedure that might
possibly quicken the end of a life of a sick person [for example, a
dangerous operation] however, if it succeeds, it would save the long-term
life of that person (recovery from a severe sickness). It turns out that
it is permissible for a person to risk his life in order to save him from
a bigger and more certain danger…There are implications for this principle outside of the medical arena. For
example: it is permissible for a person who is stuck in the desert and who
is going to die from thirst to join a convoy that plans to cross the desert,
even if there is a doubt whether during the course of the journey, the men
of the convoy might kill him.
Now on
page 250 the words of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach are brought [part II,
83:12] :
Also a war against disease that threatens peoples’ lives, is also comparable
to a war for the sake of a mitzva. And if we would have merited that all
was done in accordance with the opinion of Torah scholars, it is possible
that the court would see the need to test medicines, as a war for the sake
of a mitzva of saving lives. Therefore, in our days, even though it is not
done in accordance with the opinion of Torah scholars, nevertheless, since
it in any case is done through big experts and with much carefulness, it
is reasonable to say that there isn’t a prohibition to volunteer for this.
{end of quote of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach}.Rabbi Yitzchak Shapira and Yosi Elitzur
established that it is not possible to say that the permission for medical
trials is just when the person undergoing the trial, himself benefits. For
if that was the case, the permission would have had to be because of the
issue of the temporary life span of the individual vs. long term living and
not because of his connection to the public. The comparison to a war for
the sake of a mitzva, teaches us that here we are dealing with a benefit
for the public, even if the individual will die in the meantime, as was explained
previously in regard to war. {till here is the quote from Techumin}.
In my previous letter, I also recounted the precedent
of Yehoyada the Cohain [II Kings chapter 11] that for the sake of saving
lives, permitted a child and a woman to hide in the house of G-d for six
years. Now if Yehoyada had accepted the reasoning of the honorable Rabbi,
he would have had to disallow this. For even though there was danger to the
child, on the other hand there was a danger that the Police force of Ataliah
would kill the cohanim [Temple Priests] because they helped an enemy [if
they would have discovered the child and the woman hiding in the Temple Sanctuary
{Heichal}].
However we have to conclude that Yehoyada agreed to save them, either because it was
for the benefit of the public, for the child was the King from the
house of David, or because the danger of not hiding was more likely or apparent than the danger that stems from
aiding an enemy of the regime.
Topic 19:
Rabbi Kook Explains Why Daniel Was Allowed To Risk His Life When He Openly Prayed Against The Wish Of The Government
Also the very essence of relying on evaluations of what
really saves lives is difficult for me when dealing with the subject of praying
on the Temple Mount.
Is it not so, that in the book of Daniel, chapter 6, we
learn that when the kingdom decreed a decree against praying, Daniel continued
to pray openly, despite the danger of the government and in the end he indeed
was tossed into the lion’s den {as punishment}.
Rabbi Kook explained to us in Mishpat Cohain, Teshuva
148, page 354, why Daniel was permitted to put himself in danger.
“However in the case of Daniel
the matter was considered as being in the time of a decree against Judaism
[my addition: which overrides the mitzva to preserve lives]. And regarding
the combination of personal gratification together with the decree to cause
one to break a part of Judaism, one should not say, that we go after the
more distant reason that caused the King who wishes to force change to decree
his decree. For the matter is simple, that for all evil kingdoms that decreed
decrees over Israel against following the Torah of G-d, the main factor in
their eyes and their hearts was for their own profit, for the sake of having
their kingdom spread more, which was linked to the strength of their nonsensical,
multitude of idols, and this is well known to all who know the workings of
history. Now the basic foundation was for their own benefit, yet nevertheless
since they found that their own benefit demands the abrogation of religious
law in the role of an official abrogation of religious law, that it to say
not just to fulfill some individual action in which they may reap benefit
from it, rather the reason comes from the abrogation of a law of the Torah,
the forgetting or the nullification of the law, in a general or in a specific
way [regarding certain details of the law] in accordance to what they saw
fit according to their needs, for it was like thorns in their eyes and considered
to be damaging, in their opinion, to the completion of their kingdom, while
Israel retains with all strength the holy religion, this is definitely to
be considered a decree against the Jewish religion”.
Also according to different explanations that explain
the reason behind the self-sacrifice of Daniel, most of them are also applicable
to the subject of prayer on the Temple Mount in our times with Talit and
Tefillin.
With Blessings
Shlomo Scheinman
Rabbi Neventzal’s response:
“I don’t see any value in a
new edition of the events of Amona on the Temple Mount”.
With the Honor of the Torah
The Youth Among the sons of Levi
Avigdor Neventzal
Issues Involving The Ascent To The Temple Mount – An Exchange Of Letters Between S. Scheinman and Rabbi Avigdor Neventzal
| Visit the Temple Institute! |  |
| Tekhelet Has Been Rediscovered ! For more information on how to get Tekhelet and why you should wear it, GO TO: http://www.tekhelet.com
|