Timeline for Status of stones that fell out of the Kotel
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 29, 2018 at 8:25 | vote | accept | Danny Schoemann | ||
| Jul 26, 2018 at 14:49 | comment | added | DonielF | @DoubleAA So we pasken like ר׳ נחמן then. I wonder, then, whether when it’s still attached it would be a debate between R’ Moshe and R’ Herzog: according to R’ Moshe, it would depend on inherent Kedushah and would therefore be permissible (and all the more so when it fell off), while according to R’ Herzog, it would depend on whether the inside was being used for Divrei Kedushah and would therefore be impermissible (and the machlokes Achronim would apply after it fell off). | |
| Jul 26, 2018 at 14:46 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @DonielF The Rambam writes that even in the times of Ezra they couldn't do the process. They just did a "Zekher" to the real process. (So all the more so Herod.) | |
| Jul 26, 2018 at 14:22 | comment | added | DonielF | @DoubleAA Do we pasken like ר׳ הונא or ר׳ נחמן? Do we need all of those, or just one? Certainly we can still do שיר even if we don’t have anything else on the list. | |
| Jul 26, 2018 at 13:59 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @danny was the ceremony performed by Herod? אין מוסיפין על העיר ועל העזרות אלא במלך ונביא ואורים ותומים וסנהדרין של שבעים ואחד ובשתי תודות ובשיר Did he have all those? | |
| Jul 26, 2018 at 13:58 | comment | added | Danny Schoemann | @DoubleAA - why? what's the difference? The Mishna describes the ceremony used to sanctify an addition... so why the limit? | |
| Jul 26, 2018 at 13:58 | comment | added | DonielF | The stones would remain assur, yes, but I think that’s because לא תדבק מאומה מן החרם, which is a completely different issur, unrelated to לא תעשון כן. | |
| Jul 26, 2018 at 13:57 | comment | added | Danny Schoemann | I emailed him: You mention the מ"א about shuls, and you assume his conclusion can be extended to the Har haBayis. The מ"א and the מ"ה that you quote are discussing destroying shuls (and idols). Only applicable when they are attached. But A. Z. pieces remain forbidden even after they are broken off. You no longer have a Mitzvah to destroy it, as per the מ"ה but it retains its issur, surely? (Unless you get a goy to do bitul.) Similarly, the stones of the Har haBayis retain the מעילה prohibition even if you claim there's no issue destroying them, Reb Moshe seems to make this rather clear. | |
| Jul 26, 2018 at 13:55 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | @danny Herod's addition didn't have holiness. Only the original 500*500 Ammah has holiness | |
| Jul 26, 2018 at 13:27 | comment | added | Danny Schoemann | So, back to our question: The stone that fell off is apparently (so I read) part of Herod's addition. So it would seemingly be included in the Rambam's Issur of Har Habayis. So even after it fell off, its Issur of Me'ila remains, from what I gather from the Igros Moshe, which starts on hebrewbooks.org/… - - BTW: I think that the Magen Avraham doesn't apply here, as Reb Moshe seems to prove at length; a shul and the Mikdash have different Dinim, and the stones of the Mikdash and its extension the Har haBayis retain their Kedusha. | |
| Jul 26, 2018 at 12:51 | history | answered | DonielF | CC BY-SA 4.0 |