Status of stones that fell out of the Kotel

Question

On the day after Tisha B'Av 5778 a 400Kg (estimated) stone fell off the Kotel.

It was subsequently moved - for safekeeping - close to the Gate of the Moors, a.k.a. the Mughrabi Gate.

Meanwhile, the Rabbi of the Kotel, Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitch, is figuring out its Halachic status.

I am wondering what the sides of the debate are. We already discussed Plants growing out of the Kotel and the accepted answer states that they should not be picked because [leaving them lying around] adds to the feeling of despair.

That would actually point to not moving the stone, but I assume it was moved for safety reasons, and to prevent tourists from picking off chips for souvenirs.

Now that it's been moved, would it have any Halachic special status?

• It was part of the Western retaining wall of the Temple Mount, and not actually part of the Bet HaMikdash as such.
• OTOH, we do treat the Kotel as if it has a special holiness, so maybe from a Minhag aspect, (if it's not a Din) it should have some special status.

But I can't find any specific related Halachot. Sources welcome!

Answer 1

This article quotes Rav Yitzchak Herzog (Heichal Yitzchak OC 18). I do not have access to this source to confirm the accuracy of the following discussion, so take this with a grain of salt until it can be confirmed.

• The Meiri (Kiryas Sefer, Hil. Beis HaBechirah, ch. 5) writes that the entire Har HaBayis has Kedushah. Since the Rambam (Hil. Karban Pesach 9:1) writes (regarding the walls of the house in which a Chaburah eats their Pesach) that the walls are considered a part of the space within them, the author of the article argues that the retaining wall of the Har HaBayis (of which the Kosel is a part) should similarly be part of the Har HaBayis.
• The problem is that a large part of the Kosel was added by Moses Montefiore in the 19th Century. This was long after the use of the Har HaBayis, and therefore, those stones are not endowed with the same Kedushah as the ones placed when the Har HaBayis was actually in use.
• R’ Moshe Feinstein (YD 4:63) holds that there is a prohibition of not only Me’ilah (making personal use of property of the Beis HaMikdash) but also “Lo Sa’asun Kein LaHashem Elokeichem” (we are enjoined to destroy idols and all objects that are associated with their worship, and we are further enjoined not to do so unto Hashem).

All of this only helps when the stone is on the wall, though. What about when the stone has already fallen off? This seems to be a machlokes Achronim. (I am not clear if this part of the article is still quoting Rav Herzog or not.)

• The Magen Avraham (OC 152:6) quotes the Maharam Padua (§65) that the prohibition of taking a stone of the shul (or, apparently, any holy place) is only when it is connected to the ground. The Machatzis HaShekel (no source provided) explains that this is because just like the commandment to destroy idolatrous alters is only when they are connected to the ground, so, too, the prohibition against doing so to holy objects is only when they are connected to the ground. According to these views, it would be permissible to make use of this stone.
• On the other hand, the Chasam Sofer (in his responsa, OC 32) says that the Magen Avraham’s words are astonishing, as they seem to contradict the Gemara (Makkos 22a) which states that one who uses wood from the Mikdash to cook is in violation of Lo Sa’asun Kein - but nobody cooks with wood that’s still attached! Rather, he says, the Maharam Padua must have been referring to vessels inside the Shul rather than a part of the Shul itself. It’s clear from this Chasam Sofer that his opinion was that even when it’s disconnected from the ground it’s still forbidden. (The article doesn’t attempt to defend the Maharam Padua.)