Topic 8: Tunnels Underneath 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 4
    With the Assistance of Heaven
    To the Honorable Rabbi Neventzal, Shlit"a
    
    On the subject of what the honorable Rabbi wrote "that the tunnels of the Temple Mount were not sanctified" that this only applies to the tunnels that were there at the time of David, which were purposely not sanctified. However the rest of the tunnels have holiness within them, for David sanctified the floor till the deepest point of the earth.
    I will not deny that there are some important Achronim that hold this view. However, I have some proofs on behalf of the position of the Achronim who do not wish to differentiate between old and new tunnels.
    1] Rambam who is a poseik, who has to define his words wrote plainly in Hilchot Beit Habechira, that the tunnels were not sanctified and did not differentiate between new and old tunnels.
    2] Tosafot to Pesachim 67B wrote [words starting with The Tunnels Were Not Sanctified]:
    Now if you will question, behold it has been said in the second chapter of Zevachim [page 24] that if a stone is uprooted and he stood in its place, what is the law etc. and the Gemara concludes that forever it is simple that David when he sanctified, he sanctified it to the deepest point in the earth.
    Now one can reply that in chapter Keitzad Tzolin (later on page 86) we conclude that Rabbi Yochanan said, when do we say that {that the Tunnels were not sanctified} when they are opened towards non-holy areas, however, when opened to the Holy they are Holy. {end of quote}
    Now if in reality new tunnels {after the time of David} are sanctified, Tosafot should have answered, that all is holy except what David intentionally left as non-holy at the time of sanctification.
    Rather it is implied by Tosafot that also new tunnels were not sanctified and just because it has an opening towards the sanctified area, does the ground underneath the stones of the floor of the sanctified courtyard [which has a similar status as that of a tunnel] obtain sanctified status.
    3 Many of the Rishonim [Rashi, Rabbi Ovadia of Bartenura, Rambam {according to Tosafot Yom Tov}, Meiri, Tosafot in the name of the Arukh and more, said that the Parve Chamber was dug by a person that lived in the days of the Second Temple [ and not in the time of David ]. Now on the roof of the Parve Chamber, was the mikva, in which the Cohain Gadol immersed himself during Yom Kippur and this mikva was in the sanctified courtyard.
    Now Tosafot explained in a number of places [see for example, Tosafot to Yoma 31A starting with the words: "And all of them are in the Holy, on top of the Parve Chamber."] that even though the upper stories were not sanctified, however, the tunnels that are built under the sanctified area [and opened only to the non-holy areas] which have roofs that are equal to the floor of the sanctified courtyard, the contents [of these tunnels] are non-holy while their roofs are holy; therefore the Cohanim immersed themselves on the roof of the Parve Chamber.
    That is to say that  new tunnels also were not sanctified.
    Now if you  want to say, nevertheless, that the new tunnels were indeed sanctified, because David sanctified the ground to the deepest point in the earth, this viewpoint however, applies only to the sanctified courtyard, but in regards to the rest of the Mount, there David did not sanctify to the deepest part of the earth. See for example, Minchat Chinuch, Mitzva 362:3.
    And also the Avnei Nezer wrote at length to Yoreh Deah, Siman 454, Siman Katan 5 and onwards that the tunnels under the Temple Mount Area certainly don't have holiness, see there.
    And Tzitz Eliezer brought from the book Magid Mereishit, that the custom was that women and children in the past went in all the tunnels in the Temple Mount even those that were under the sanctified courtyard, as long as they had another opening not in the sanctified courtyard.
    Now one should ask for someone who is willing to be lenient in the matter of the tunnels, specifically when they are only under the Temple Mount but not under the sanctified courtyard, how can we establish the border between the regular Temple Mount area and the sanctified courtyard?
    One can answer, that there are areas that definitely have the status as being part of the Temple Mount area and not the sanctified area, for the Temple Mount [outside of the  sanctified area] its majority was in the south, second to this in size from east, etc. That is to say that after we deduct from the 500-cubit space of the Temple Mount the width of the sanctified courtyard from north to south and similar the length from east to west, a majority of what is left over is at the south and east.
    And now I will bring the word of the Magid Mereishit, in full as printed in the responsa of Tzitz Eliezer part 10, siman 1:
Now when I came to here,( I must note, Let it be built and established speedily in our days, Amen,) I entered into the foundations which David built, which are in the ground of the Temple Mount by means of winding tunnels; that the place there was very narrow without the  option to turn to the side; now I saw there a window that was there for the Gentiles in that place that they call Midrash Shlomo, and I held that the tunnels were not sanctified, even those that were in the area of the sanctified courtyard and it is permitted for all men to go there for their status of holiness in not like the status of the sanctified courtyard. Afterwards, I started to have a doubt. For behold it was said that when Rabbi Yochanan ruled that the tunnels were not sanctified, this refers to tunnels that are open to the Temple Mount, but those opened to the sanctified courtyard, behold they are holy with a sanctify like the sanctified courtyard for we go after the entrance as stated in Keitzad Tzolin etc. ; and we say in chapter 2 of Zevachim regarding a stone that was uprooted and he stood in its place and performed the sacrificial service, that it is simple that David when he sanctified, he sanctified to the deepest point in the earth. We can deduce from this, that all the ground of the sanctified area is holy and if this is so, then the tunnel has the status of chambers that are built in the holy with an entrance both to the Holy areas and non-Holy, which are considered as having the status of being Holy.
    But it appears that this is not so, for if it were true, that Rabbi Yochanan only holds the tunnels not to be holy when they were only open to the Temple Mount without any opening to the sanctified area at all, if so why specify the tunnels? For even the chambers [lishkot in Hebrew]  themselves that are built above in the sanctified courtyard if they are open to the non-holy areas, their contents are not holy and why are the chambers stronger more than the tunnels, but rather, certainly the tunnels even if they have an opening to the sanctified courtyard were not sanctified, which is not the case by the {ground floor} chambers. And that, what was said, that David when he sanctified, he sanctified to the deepest point in the earth, one can push this aside, by saying the intention is that if they would lower the surface level of the sanctified courtyard to a point beneath in order to transform it to the status of the sanctified courtyard, then it would indeed be holy with the sanctity of the sanctified courtyard, like the case of the floor stone which was uprooted and {the cohain} stood in its place, that this spot has the holy status as if the floor stone was still there; however, whenever the ground above is paved with floor stones, namely, the {normal} sanctified courtyard {is present} then what is beneath is completely non-holy, except when it is open to the sanctified area exclusively, for David didn't sanctify the ground beneath, except to transform it into the status of a sanctified courtyard { when needed, if the old surface was missing}.
    After these word, the Magid Mereishit brings a number of opinions that explain things not according to his views, and pushes their words aside and summarizes the legal ruling and writes:
    It has come into our hands that the tunnels were not sanctified at all, not even with the holiness of the Temple Mount, if they have an opening towards it, for only what was above was sanctified and not underground; however when they are opened by the sanctified courtyard alone they are sanctified, but not because they are underneath the sanctified courtyard but rather by virtue of the entrance that is located there, for all that is opened to the sanctified courtyard is as the courtyard, but if open both to the non holy and the sanctified courtyard the contents are not holy and they are not compared to chambers [on the ground floor] that are built in the sanctified area and open to both {holy and non-holy}, rather they are comparable to {ground floor) chambers built in the non-holy that are open both to the holy and non-holy, whose contents are absolutely, not holy, because even the holiness of the Temple Mount is lacking in the tunnels, and it is permissible to enter into the earthen tunnels beneath the sanctified courtyard, for even if they were open to the sanctified area, there contents would be non-holy. And it is an every day occurrence that all the assembly, men, women and children enter the foundations of the Temple, for there, there is a pathway of tunnels that is underneath the ground of the Temple, and no one ever raised an objection, even those that are careful not to enter the Temple Mount. But rather only if someone were to enter deep inside, one should be wary about the tunnels that are built in the sanctified area and open to the sanctified area, for they are holy {end of quote}.
    Behold the opinion of Magid Mereishit differs from that of the Radbaz, and he holds that for all practical purposes the ground beneath the sanctified courtyard is not presently holy to the deepest point of the earth. And that which David sanctified to the deepest point of the earth, was just in a situation where we would dig and reveal it to the open air; however as long as it is covered above with a stone floor, all that which is beneath, including tunnels, does not yet have holy status and is completely non-holy. And out of this conclusion he holds also that all tunnels below that have an entrance to the non-holy have the status of non-holy even if they also have an additional entrance at the holy, being comparable to ground floor chambers built in the non-holy that have openings both to the holy and non-holy whose contents are completely non-holy and just if they are only open to the sanctified courtyard, their contents are holy, for all that is open to the sanctified courtyard is like the sanctified courtyard. (end of the citation of Tzitz Eliezer)
    
Another precedent that testifies that there is no difficulty to allow the general public to visit the tunnels in the Temple Mount, I found in Maalin Bakodesh, Volume 9, page 177. The article dealt with the tunnel that they discovered in the excavations by the Kotel, underneath the Temple Mount:
    "Two complete hours, I spent with the Rishon Letzion, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Shlit"a, that was accompanied by one of the well-known judges to deal with the question of both the tunnel, and eastern excavations. It was concluded to permit abundant entrance into the hall, mentioned earlier  and also to open all the entrance . Similarly to build a synagogue and to set an ark for Torah scrolls etc., and in regards to excavations I dealt with him over this halachic matter in depth and discussed the holiness status of the tunnels. And he requested that I summarize my ideas in writing....
    I also had a long conversation with Rabbi Shlomo Goren, Shlit"a who also visited the place and I informed him of what I had discussed with the Rishon Letzion. He responded that it was clear to him that it was permitted to dig. In any case I demanded that a uniform position be expressed by both of them, which would be established without awakening an intense ideological debate from any side... [till here are the words of Rabbi Getz,  who formerly had supervision over the area of the Kotel]".
Topic 9: Proof That The Strict Opinion of the Tzitz Eliezer Concerning The Area Between The Wall Of The Old City And The Temple Mount Was Not Accepted As Halacha
    Regarding the strict ruling that the honorable Rabbi had mentioned in the name of Tzitz Eliezer, not to draw near to all the area south of the Temple Mount, until the wall of the Old City, I have a strong proof that this strict ruling was not accepted as halacha. For the Tzitz Eliezer wrote that he based this strict ruling upon the words of a sage, who is called [after his writings, by the nickname] Aderet Eliyahu [ Rabbi Riki]. This Rabbi looked at the stones around what is called the Shaar Rachamim [Mercy Gate] and he wished to prove from the stones that he found there, that the cubit used for Holy purposes was 1.66 times greater in size than a non-holy cubit.
    Now even though one can provide other explanations to what this sage saw there, as Rabbi Shmuel Weingarten elaborated upon this, nevertheless the Tzitz Eliezer wrote that in accordance to the large cubit of the author of Aderet Eliyahu, one can grant justification for the above-mentioned strict ruling.
    Now what is the proof that his strict ruling was not accepted by the great sages of the generation? For it is well known that the overwhelming majority of the Poskim of our days, permit menstruant women and men who have not purified themselves from an emission, to visit the Western Wall {Kotel}. And it is well known that the overwhelming majority of Poskim permit menstruant women and men who have not purified themselves from an emission to travel on the road that is located after the eastern wall of the Temple Mount. Now since the large cubit of the author of Aderet Eliyahu is at least 48 centimeters times 1.66 that is to say at least 80 centimeters [and perhaps more] ; and since the Temple Mount was 500 cubits by 500 cubits. Then out of necessity there must be a distance of at least 400 meters [80 centimeters times 500] in order that we might even entertain the possibility that the strict ruling of the Tzitz Eliezer is correct. However, the distance between the two points is less than this, therefore, behold we have testimony that his strict ruling was not accepted as halacha.
    The honorable Rabbi also wrote to me that "I do not believe that there is any contribution to saving lives by having unarmed people ascend the Temple Mount; perhaps it will just add dangers".
    Now since I know that the honorable Rabbi supports redeeming property in regions that the Arabs are holding in East Jerusalem, I wish to understand the difference by which the honorable Rabbi, justifies the arrival of "the unarmed" to those regions but not to the Temple Mount.
    Furthermore in the book, Ish Al Hachoma, [Man on the Defensive Wall] we learn that Rabbi Sonnenfeld [who was unarmed] and if I remember correctly also Rabbi Kook took care specifically to go by the more dangerous pathways so as not to give the Arabs the feeling that they had succeeded to chase us away by means of murder. The implication is that the law of conquest and defense is applicable also to those who are unarmed.
Topic 10: The Three Oaths
    Now perhaps the foundation of the differentiation is what I heard in the name of some of the students of Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook. That on the subject of the Temple their viewpoint is similar to the Satmar viewpoint in contrast to the rest of the land of Israel {where they differ with Satmar}. And their source to make this differentiation stems from the Vilna Gaon who held the matter of " three oaths" applies specifically to the building of the Temple [see Otzrote Hagra Ubait Midrasho of Rabbi Tzuriel page 62, where he brings in the name of the Vilna Gaon to Tikunei Hazohar page 157 "we have an oath [the three oaths, as a wall] not to build the Temple".
    I do not accept this differentiation for a number of reasons.
    I will quote from Rabbi Kahane: 'We have to understand that in a practical way, the "three oaths" are really only two for Israel and one for the nations of the world; and I suspect that few are those, who rely on the words of the Gemara, who really in fact saw this section of the Talmud inside or learned it. Now this is a quote of the Gemara: "These three oaths, what are they for? One, that Israel does not rise up like a wall [Rashi: in unison, with a strong hand]. And one that the Holy One Blessed Be He adjured Israel not to rebel against the nations of the world; and one that the Holy One Blessed Be He made the nations of the world swear that they would not subjugate Israel too harshly". In the midrash it was said (Shir Hashirim Rabba 2:1[7]) "Rabbi Yosi Bar Chanina said: there are two oaths here, one for Israel and one for the nations of the world. Israel swore not to rebel against the yoke of the nations [Rabbi Yosi Bar Chanina sees the two oaths of Israel in the Gemara, Tractate Ketuvot - as one for all practical purposes] and he swore to the kingdoms that they would not harden their yoke against Israel. For if they harden their yoke against Israel, they cause the time of the end, to arrive outside of its time'.
    That is to say that one oath is dependent on the fulfillment of the other oath.
    Who is to say that we have already reached the time of the nullification of the three oaths due to too much oppression from the Gentiles?
    Since in the past I heard that members of Neteurei Karta were extolling the virtues of Rabbi Y. Bardaki and his Rabbi and Father in-law was Rabbi Yisrael of Shklov (author of Peat Hashulchan, and one of the founders of the old Yishuv), I will specifically bring from the words of Rabbi Yisrael of Shklov.
    The quote, G-d willing, is from what I found in the book, Geula B'derech Hateva page 9, by the religious historian, Aryeh Morgenstern, and his source is - Yaari, Igrote Eretz Yisrael [the letters of the land of Israel] page 352.
    Now here are the words of Rabbi Yisrael of Shklov: "... Now if he was a bit incensed on account of the sin of his nation, they [the Gentiles] added more than this ... their harsh yoke and the harshness of the subjugation, and they transgressed their oath that G-d our L-rd had administered to them that they should not increase the harshness of the subjugation of Israel so as not to hasten the time of the end..."
    Now also the Rabbi of  Rabbi Yisrael of Shklov, namely, the Vilna Gaon in his second commentary to Shir Hashirim, chapter 2 verse 7 wrote similar to this.
    Now this is a quote of the Vilna Gaon: "Now the matter is as our sages of blessed of memory said, three oaths, the Holy One Blessed Be He adjured, etc. That they should not bring the time of end near by their torture of Israel... and he asks [of the Gentiles] not to force the time of the end until he wants it by virtue of love itself, as stated in the midrash of Bechukotai, it is a parable to a king that swore to throw a giant rock on his son and afterwards regretted it and grinded it into small pieces, [ to throw it ] in order to fulfill his oath. {end of quote}
Now another proof that according to the Vilna Gaon "I adjure you O daughters of Jerusalem" applies to the nations I found in the second commentary of the Vilna Gaon to Shir Hashirim 3:10 "the midst of it, being inlaid with love from the daughters of the Jerusalem - that all the nations are called the daughters of Jerusalem."
    Also Rabbi Shlomo Kluger and Rabbi  Hillel Kolemayer (a disciple of the Chatam Sofer) established that the 3 oaths are like a package deal. That nullification of the oath by the Gentiles also nullifies our oath (see Hatekufa Hagdola of Rabbi Menachem Kasher, page 570, for sources).

    In the book Otzrote Hagra Ubait Midrasho page 62 on the topic of the Temple, the author brought from the book Hagaon Hachasid page 247 "And the Genius Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin said in the name of the Vilna Gaon: "If we will act like the Maapilim and offer up just once on the Temple Mount the Tamid sacrifice, behold that this already will be the redemption:".
    That is to say, that seemingly, either the time of the nullification of the three oaths has already arrived in the matter of the Temple or that at least for the Temple Mount and the offering of sacrifices, the time of the nullification of the oaths has already arrived.
    Regarding what the honorable Rabbi brought up in one of the letters, "to our embarrassment and our disgrace, the government has already conceded the Temple Mount in the accord with Hussein". Even though this is correct, however, it still is not black and white, neither in our eyes, nor in the eyes of the nations of the world to what extent we conceded to them. A very small concession or a very great concession, and it is within our ability still to set the appropriate commentary to the accord. Was it not so,  that on paper also the decree of Haman was very difficult for us. However, by means of commentary and lack of practical fulfillment of Haman's decree because of Mordechai, the decree was transformed into a document that wasn't relevant.
Topic 11: The Ascent of Unarmed Citizens Causes Armed Policemen To Ascend
    And all that I wrote previously I just need as a type of introduction for the main presumption of the honorable Rabbi that we should relate to the ascent of unarmed citizens to the Temple Mount, as an ascent only of the unarmed, over this I have a strong question.
    For behold in the book Hatzava Kihalacha [ the army in accordance to the Halacha ] of Rabbi Kaufman, he established [ that regarding the rule, that in accordance with the expert, we desecrate the Sabbath for the sake of saving lives] These matters are valid as far as the assertion of military experts on purely military matters. In contrast, an assertion based on political considerations and evaluations of international diplomacy are outside the area of their expertise". In your name was brought the comment: "Also the observance of Sabbath etc. is not always in the field of expertise of the experts of the army, but nevertheless, we are sometimes forced to rely upon their evaluation of the situation while we are lacking another authority, and we are in this, in the aspect of "G-d has put me into the hand of one I can not stand up against".
    Now if this is so, if the Minister of the Police, Tzachi Hanegbi, [until just a few months ago] asserted that increasing the number of Jews that ascend the Mount strengthens the control of Israel over the territory and causes an increase of police men on the Mount [ and one must stress that the police do have weapons ] and to quote him, on the matter "This thing it is understood, strengthens the intensity of our claim for sovereignty on the Mount, if in the future there will be practical negotiations to establish a political arrangement"; if so, why doesn't this  assertion obligate us according to the viewpoint of the honorable Rabbi?
    Now even if the honorable Rabbi does not believe the words of Tzachi Hanegbi that the ascent of more citizens to the Mount determines the number of armed policemen on the Mount, one can bring a proof from the actions of the police at every large demonstration of Jews in every place in the land, for our eyes see that continually, there are many policemen at these protests. Therefore it is almost definite that if the citizens would organize a big protest on the Mount, that the Police would come.
    In addition Rabbi Kaufman wrote in his book, page 162, halacha 20 "it is permissible to desecrate the Sabbath also for activities that help to save, only indirectly, if without these activities, it is probable that the effectiveness of the acts of saving would be diminished.
    For example:
    "It is permitted to bring on the Sabbath mattresses or sleeping bags to soldiers who are participating in battle against the enemy, if according to the commander the reduced sleep [by not having these objects] would diminish their ability to fight".
    Furthermore it is brought in this book, page 163 halacha 26:
    "It is mitzva to desecrate the Sabbath to take out equipment from the quartermaster's store in order to perform acts of saving lives; while the quartermaster doesn't allow the removal of equipment without a signature on the necessary form - it is permitted to sign for the equipment on the Sabbath (it is clear that we should attempt to persuade the quartermaster to waive this requirement or to suggest an object of collateral. However, if the quartermaster was not persuaded, one should try to sign with the left hand and by scribbling alone, where there are no actual letters, printed)”. {end of quote}
    Since Rabbi Elbaum told me that he spoke with the heads of the Police, and they warned him that if a sufficient quantity of Jews did not ascend, they wouldn't have the ability to "waste" so many policemen [who are armed] for a long period of time on the Temple Mount, behold the rule should seemingly be the same as the rule of the man who has to sign on the Sabbath in order to take out equipment to save lives on the Sabbath from the quartermaster. And see a similar ruling to this in Shmirat Shabbat Kehilchata chapter 32 Halacha 55.
    One should add that Rabbi Avraham Kook, who is the strong base for all those that oppose ascending the Temple Mount, also agreed that it is a mitzva to desecrate the Sabbath [ and the same applies to ascending the Mount ] in order to force the government to performs acts that save lives. For according to the guide in the Museum of the House of Rabbi Kook, Rabbi Kook phoned the secretary of the British Mandate on the Sabbath when news arrived of the pogrom in Hebron of 5689. He requested that the British official would order the police to fire on the rioters and to defend the Jews.
    Further one should add that it is brought in the book, Hatorah Hamisamachat, on the life of  Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, pages 168-169 that the Rabbi ruled, that when there is a low probability to save lives, one has to differentiate between the individual and the general public, and here I will quote:
    An Intelligence Officer turned to Rabbi Farbshtein - that served then as a judge - on a question related to his military role. Now he in turn felt he needed the broad shoulders of Rabbi Auerbach for this issue; an intelligence unit of the army had succeeded in breaking into the communication network of the enemy and to decipher the code by which they transferred information. The soldier made the claim to his superior officers, that since the deciphering involved forbidden Sabbath labors, upon him was the obligation on Sabbath just to decipher communications that appeared to have a high probability as being connected to Israel; while a communication of that enemy country to a small African country could wait till after the Sabbath to be deciphered. However, his commanding officers refused, by claiming that just after deciphering the communication, could one establish if it had some connection to Israel.
    In a precedent setting ruling, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ruled:
    That when there is a very low probability of saving lives, one has to differentiate between the individual and the general public. Regarding the individual, it is possible that if the probability is very low [of being able to save] we would not permit the desecration of the Sabbath; however, for the general public, this same low probability would push aside the Sabbath. For an individual person, for example, it would be considered reasonable and allowable to perform an act that has a 1 in 10000 risk to life; yet a leader that performs an act that endangers his nation with such odds - would be considered definitely as irresponsible in his actions! With the same risk of danger, there is a greater weight placed [on behalf of safety] when dealing with an entire nation. Therefore the Rabbi ruled, that the soldier is obligated to decipher every communication on the Sabbath, for we are dealing with the security of the entire state.
    Now one should ask, after the Former Minister of Police asserted that ascent to the Temple Mount determines how many policemen there will be there and asserts that it determines whether we hand over or don't hand over the territory to the enemy, is there not at least a chance of 1 in 10000 that he is right? Or perhaps the honorable Rabbi is not as strict in the laws dealing with saving of lives as Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ZT"L was?
    One should also ask if the honorable Rabbi is afraid to start such a new innovation on the Temple Mount, does the honorable Rabbi at least support ascent to the Mount as part of the civil guard? That is to say, if there were elements of the police department, that in order to reduce the burden of guarding the mountain were willing to have many civilians volunteer to guard with weapons there, would the honorable Rabbi agree to this?
Topic 12: Regarding the Ascent of the Rabbis To The Temple Mount During the Six Day War:
    Regarding the ascent of the Rabbis during the six day war:
    The viewpoint of Rabbi Shlomo Goren is brought in Tzipia, volume 3 pages 5 to 7 "that not withstanding the normal halachic limitations regarding the Temple Mount during days when all is proper, in the condition that has come to be, where there is a fear of the loss of Jewish sovereignty on the Temple Mount, and the presence of Jews on the Temple Mount in this period strengthens our sovereignty there, and all the more so the public visits of members of the Knesset on the Temple Mount, certainly shows to the whole world that the Temple Mount is under the sovereignty of Israel.
    In this situation and for this purpose not just is it permitted, but rather a holy mitzva placed upon us to enter the Temple Mount, in order to strengthen our rights and our control and Israel sovereignty".
    According to Hatzofe newspaper of the date the third of Sivan 5627 page 2 under the title the first two hours at the Kotel, it was Rabbi Goren who was loyal to his viewpoint that brought the important Rabbis to the Temple Mount during the war. And here I will quote:
    The Chief Rabbi turned to one of the religious soldiers of Yeshivat Mercaz Harav and asked him to travel and immediately bring to the Kotel Rabbi David Hacohain (the Nazir) and Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook. At 12:05 the first citizens started to arrive by the Kotel and prayed there Mincha Gadola.
    From the Hatzofe newspaper dated the first of Sivan 5627 we learn that the only safe way to get to the Kotel and return home afterwards was by means of the Temple Mount.
    The reporter A. Vilner on page 2 recounts "With a trembling of holiness we passed by yesterday the Omer Mosque, that stands upon our Temple, being careful not to near the Mosque itself with its Golden Dome, out of fear of entering the place of the Temple, and we neared the Kotel from a different path than the one we took in 5707, the time we visited the last time....
    This time we went the short way, by way of the plaza of the Omer Mosque without being endangered...
    At the end of the Kotel a youth lifts himself and breaks the sign that the Jordanians put in English and Arabic "Al Buraq" named on account of the horse of Mohammed. We return by way of the plaza of the Omer Mosque..".

    Now on page 7 of the same newspaper we learn that: "2 were killed on their way to the Kotel" [this seems to be referring to 2 that tried to reach the Kotel not by the pathway of the Temple Mount] for there it is explained that "two Israelis were killed two days earlier from sniper shots, when they tried to past over the lines towards the Old City". and Rabbi Yisrael Ariel's son, Rabbi Azariah, explained to me that on the 28th of Iyar all agree that because of fear of snipers etc., all-important citizens that reached the Kotel at that time had to both go and return by means of the path on the Temple Mount.
   One must stress that it is implied from the sources that I have, that Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook arrived hours earlier before some of the citizens and Rabbis of Israel arrived at the Kotel. And if he really opposed them going through the Temple Mount, he would have had to inform them and protest and certainly not return by means of the Temple Mount to his home, rather he should have waited at the Kotel till the end of the conquest.
    One should stress what Rabbi Azariah Ariel wrote in Iturei Cohanim that also the Chief Rabbis came on their own initiative after Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook arrived, therefore it is difficult to claim that all were surprised at one time, together. And he quotes his father who was a witness to all this:
    My father, May He be Granted Many Good and Additional Years, said in his words as a firsthand witness. He participated in the war in the framework of a platoon that was attached to the command brigade, that was placed on the Temple Mount. He met the Chief Rabbis in the afternoon hours [each one at a different time, when they were without any escort. It seems that they gave each one of them separately a ride until the Lion's Gate and from there they went onwards by foot, alone.] He escorted each one of them some distance from the north of the Temple Mount to the length of the western side, and when he separated from them, they went on alone to the direction of Mugrabim Gate and the descent to the Kotel. Rabbi Unterman ZT"L also asked how do we go here? (My father, May He be Granted Many Good and Additional Years, does not definitely recall, whether the question was Halachic, or Geographical or Security related).
    In the same article he also brought proofs and sources that the Chief Rabbis were at the Kotel and if so also on the Temple Mount on the 28th of Iyar. Among them is a recording that was broadcast by Kol Yisrael, in the 7:00 morning edition, Hatzofe newspaper, Sefer Shana Shana (a periodical produced by Heichal Shlomo in 5728) in the summary of the events of 5727 page 270, the book of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel - 70 years towards its foundation, part 3, diary of the Rabbinate page 1387, the archives of Rabbi Nissim, Sefer Toldot Min Hahar El Ha'am - the history of Rabbi Nissim by Shaul Meizlish and Professor Meir Binayahu, page 26, Shaar Haarayot, by Yisrael Harel and Mota Gur, page 164, Sefer Hamilchama Al Yerushalayim by Moshe Natan page 336.
    I also read afterwards that even the Member of Knesset, Rabbi Menachem Porush of the Agudat Yisrael party, received explicit permission to go by means of the Temple Mount pathway, although I did not hear what was the reasoning behind this or who was his Rabbi.
    And perhaps his Rabbi held like Rabbi Y.M. Tukotzinski [Ir Hakodesh Vihamikdash, part 5] that there is a way to build a synagogue for prayer on the Temple Mount in our times. And see more of his words to permit ascent to the Mount until the section of Chail, in Sefer Eretz Yisrael, page 71.

Topic 13:     An appendix: The Identification of the Even Hashtia by Sefer Har Hamor of Rabbi Yosi Pelee

    "This identification is based on the assertion that the rock within the Dome of the Rock is the "Even Hashtia", whose head was revealed in the midst of the Holy of Holies in the Temple.
    This fact is based on the continuous and long tradition that was accepted throughout all the generations as a simple matter without any controversy about it, both in our sources and in Gentile sources. And so did the travelers to the land of Israel note in all times, such as described for example, by the disciple of the Ramban more than 700 years ago - "Around the Even Shtia the Kings of Ishmael built a very magnificent structure and made it into a place of prayer. And they built on the top of this structure a very beautiful dome. And the structure is on the Holy of Holies and the Heichal {Temple Sanctuary}" (Masa'ot Eretz Yisrael, page 53 {the letters of the land of Israel})....
    Regarding the tradition that identifies the Even Shtia, we continue to rely in a simple way upon the many Poskim till our day. As we have brought it as a simple matter, see Bach to O.C. 561, Binyan Tzion, siman 2, Chatam Sofer, Yoreh Deah 236, The Chafetz Chaim in Likutei Halachot, Zevachim 55b and more".
{Translators note: Ha in Hebrew stands for the word the, so a reference to Even Shtia and Even Hashtia are the same.}

With Blessings,
Shlomo Scheinman
Rabbi Neventzal's Response
  ********* 
Bs"D H' P'
  "And No Man Shall Desire Your Land"
  The Holy City of Jerusalem, Let it be Built and be Established Well Speedily  In Our Days

Shalom and blessing to the honorable R. Shlomo Scheinman, Shlit"a!
A] It is the manner of the Rambam to copy the Gemara. And what the Gemara didn't explain, he too usually doesn't explain.
B] Every place that we dig, behold it is open towards the Holy as the place itself and underneath the stone of which Tosafot talked about.
C] It needs further investigation in my humble opinion to push away the words of the Radbaz.
D] The opinion of Rabbi Riki is a lone opinion and it seems to me that no one finds a need to take it into account.
E] Rabbi Sonnenfeld didn't ascend unarmed to the Temple Mount to conquer it.
F] The ascent of citizens who immersed in a mikva and removed their shoes, causes the ascent of policemen that did not immerse, nor remove their shoes. This is not nearing the redemption, rather it is heaven forbid, a reason to exile us from our land, as is the desire of Sharon and Abu Mazen.
    The Youthful of 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
1 Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and Others Permitted the Ascent to the Temple Mount
2 The 500 cubit by 500 cubit Proof against Tuvia Sagiv
3 Ascending the Temple Mount for the Sake of Saving Lives
4 Rabbi Moshe Feinstein didn't tell us to rely upon the government to save us from Murderers and did not say that we should avoid prohibitions by sitting at home.
5 Jews Enter the El-Aska Mosque to Save the Ramban Synagogue
6 The Thing which Saved the Jews of Jerusalem from the same type of Destruction that came to the Jews of Hebron in 5689 [secular year 1929]
7 Tzachi Hanegbi Testifies that Ascending the Temple Mount Strengthens Our Control
8 Tunnels underneath the Temple Mount and more on Saving Live - letter 4
9 Proof That The Strict Opinion of the Tzitz Eliezer Concerning The Area Between The Wall Of The Old City And The Temple Mount Was Not Accepted As Halacha
10 The Three Oaths
11 The Ascent of Unarmed Citizens Causes Armed Policemen To Ascend
12 Regarding the Ascent of the Rabbis To The Temple Mount During the Six Day War
13 The Identification of the Even Hashtia by Sefer Har Hamor of Rabbi Yosi Pelee
14 Entering New Tunnels On the Temple Mount
15 Ascending the Temple Mount for the Sake of Conquest
16 Do we have to Worry that our Ascent to the Temple Mount Causes the Ascent of Policemen that did not Immerse in a Mikva
17 Rabbi Kook's Position
18 Perhaps the Police Will Hit Those That Ascend the Temple Mount
19 Rabbi Kook Explains Why Daniel Was Allowed To Risk His Life When He Openly Prayed Against The Wish Of The Government
To Return to the Home Page of www.600000men.com
Movies And More At www.600000men.com
Topic of Movie
 right click on link and choose Save Target As to download in wmv format
 right click on link and choose Save Target As to download in asf format
 double click on link to see in slideshow format online
Movie: Location of the Temple on the Temple Mount
In particular the movie refutes Tuvia Sagiv's southern theory.
wmv movie link
slideshow link
 1
Movie: Location of the Temple on the Temple Mount part 2
In particular this movie refutes Asher Kaufman's northern theory.
wmv movie link
 asf movie link
2
Movie: Location of the Temple on the Temple Mount part 3
In particular this movie refutes Rabbi Shlomo Goren's western theory.
wmv movie link
 asf movie link
3
Movie: The Temple Mount and the Size of the Cubit
 wmv movie link
 asf movie link
4
Movie: The Settlement of Elei Sinai
Two Months Before The Expulsion [Disengagement]

 wmv movie link

5
For The Hebrew Version of this Web Site - Go To http://www.600000men.com/hebrew/default.htm
For More About the Temple - www.hamikdash.com
Ohr Leah
Generous food packages to dozens of destitute Jewish families every month