I found it remarkable that Rabbi Yair Hoffmann, writing comfortably from Chutz La’Aretz, chose to challenge a towering Torah figure like HaRav Shmuel Eliyahu shlit”a — a baki be’chol haTorah kula, a widely respected posek throughout Israel, a member of the Moetzes HaRabbanut HaRashit, and the Chief Rabbi of Tzfas.
The controversy centers on Rav Eliyahu’s suggestion that Israel establish a Beis HaKnesses on Har HaBayit.
But this idea is hardly unprecedented. There was a functioning synagogue on Har HaBayit for centuries during the Byzantine period in the 5th and 6th centuries. Rabbi Berel Wein z”l even devoted an entire lecture to this historical fact. So while Rabbi Hoffmann’s “Open Letter” is written respectfully, his arguments miss the mark on several levels.
Rabbi Hoffmann offers two reasons to oppose building a shul:
Lifnei Iver
Pikuach Nefesh and the value of Jewish life
His primary concern is Pikuach Nefesh — the fear that Arabs may respond violently. But this raises an obvious question: If violence is the metric, what “provocation” triggered the October 7 massacre, the largest slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust? The answer is clear: Arabs do not need a pretext to kill Jews. Their hatred is not conditional on Jewish actions.
More importantly, if there truly is an issur d’Oraisa of Lifnei Iver, why would one need a second argument at all? And if entering certain areas of Har HaBayit carries a potential chiyuv kareis, isn’t that alone sufficient?
The fact that Rabbi Hoffmann leans so heavily on the Pikuach Nefesh argument suggests that even he does not believe the Lifnei Iver claim stands on solid ground.
Another point, why is it that Chutz Le'aarerz Rabbanim are so concerned of Arabs rioting? We have a poisik living in Israel and he thinks we should establish a Jewish presence on the Har Habayit, despite Arab threats!
Before we get to Rabbi Hoffman's letter, I want to copy and paste some letters to Rav Hoffman, rebutting his entire premise!
To summarize Yair Hoffman’s arguments as I understood them: A) An establishment of beis hakneses even in the mutar areas of har habais CAN cause a spillage of people to the osur areas which can cause issur koreis on the mass scale c”v. B) Doing something that the islamonazis consider unacceptable can cause loss of Jewish lives chas vesholom.
Why I disagree with both:
A) A possibility of something bad is not a reason to avoid doing something good. The obvious solution is to learn the relevant halachos and to enforce these halachos as necessary.
After all, we don’t spend an entire shabos lying in bed out of fear of violating hilchos shabos and getting issur koreis c”v — instead we learn hilchos shabos and spend our shabosim besimcha while avoiding all the isurim. Making a salad on shabos CAN violate a few avos melacha, but we make salads without violating — because we learn exactly what we are allowed and not allowed to do. We eat matza throughout Pesach even not during seder, even though there CAN be a remote possiblity that a matza is a chometz — because we are makpid on afiyas matzos and we make sure that kashrus of matzos is impeccable.
Same can and should be done on har habais. The relevant halachos can be publicized. Maps of mutar and osur areas can be publicized. Friendly rabanut-employed attendants can be stationed throughout and guide people where to go and where not to go. This is not an opportunity for issur — this is an opportunity for increasing kovod shamaim by educating yiden about mitzvois, the very definition of Kidush Hashem.
B) The islamonazis don’t need any additional reasons to try to kill us c”v. They are already doing their best at their highest capacity.
Read their homicidal koran and learn their homicidal history. Our very existence drives them mad.
Our taking back of the holiest site in Judaism is not going to make a homicidal maniac into a more homicidal maniac, same as an already pregnant woman can never become more pregnant. Some phenomena can have only two possible states — either on or off switch — and quantity is not applicable. The islamonazis homicidal switch has been turned on since the 7th century, and any stories of Jews thriving in Islamic countries have the following three explanations, in any combination: greatly exaggerated, the government was weak and needed the Jewish help in various areas, the Islamism was only nominal.
Accuracy Matters
Rabbi Hoffman – I want to thank you for the respectful tone of your letter. I happen to strongly disagree with it, but appreciate that it is coming from a place of concern and caring, rather than being a political polemic masquerading as “Psak”.
As to the issue of danger to Jewish lives – according to Rav Shmuel, there is currently an active Mitzva of Kibush – and by its very nature, Kibush entails danger to life. There’s also his view that it is important to show ownership of ALL of Eretz Yisrael, and that that’s the greatest form of deterence from attacks over the long term – veyir’u osecha kol amei ha’aretz, veyar’u mipanecha. You and others of the Chareidi religious persuasion may disagree with Rav Shmuel on this, but your arguments will not sway Rav Shmuel – since you’re coming from a completely different religious world view on what areas of Halacha are relevant b’zman hazeh. You are arguing from a place of Chareidism, which views Galus – even while being physically present in Eretz Yisrael – as currently being the correct place for a Jew. He is coming from a place of Aschalta d’Ge’ula, where proud Jews are reclaiming their heritage here in Eretz Yisrael.
I write the above with the greatest respect
Read letter from Rav Hoffman after the break
An Open Letter to HaRav Shmuel Eliyahu shlita Regarding His Call for a Synagogue on the Temple Mount
It was with great interest that this author read the recent remarks of HaRav Shmuel Eliyahu shlita, Chief Rabbi of Tzfas and member of the Mo’etzes HaRabbanus HaRashis, calling upon the Prime Minister and government ministers to advance the establishment of a beis knesses on Har HaBayis. The yearning expressed in those remarks — that after two millennia of galus the time has come to reassert a Jewish presence on the holiest place on earth — is a yearning that beats in the heart of every ma’amin.
It is precisely because the matter is so weighty, however, that the proposal must be examined with care. With the utmost respect for HaRav Eliyahu shlita and for the memory of his father, the late Rishon LeTzion HaRav Mordechai Eliyahu zt”l, it is respectfully submitted that the call to establish a beis knesses on Har HaBayis at this time is both unwise and halachically problematic. Two considerations support that conclusion.
The First Consideration: Lifnei Iver Under All Three Approaches
In the sugyos that deal with Lifnei Iver there is a well-known apparent contradiction. The Gemara in Nedarim 62a relates that Rav Ashi had an avah, a forest, which he sold to an avodah zarah fire-temple, and when asked about Lifnei Iver he responded that most of the wood would be used for ordinary heating rather than for avodah zarah. The Ran explains that this is permitted because of the principle of tliya — that whenever it is possible to assume a permitted purpose, even where that possibility is statistically or factually dubious, we do so. The Ran’s view is cited by the TaZ in Yoreh Deah 151, and the Chasam Sofer in his teshuvah (YD #9) develops the concept at length.
On the other hand, the Gemara in Bava Metzia 75b indicates that it is a violation of Lifnei Iver to lend money without witnesses, and a similar indication appears in Bava Metzia 5b — suggesting that wherever a strong likelihood of violation exists, Lifnei Iver applies.
Three approaches have been advanced to resolve the contradiction: That of the Tosfos Anshei Shaim, that of the Tzitz Eliezer, and that of lbc”l Rav Dovid Feinstein zt”l.
The first, the approach of the Hagahos Tosfos Anshei Shem in Mishnayos Shevi’is 5:7 and of the TaZ in YD 151, is that whenever there is a greater probability of violation than of non-violation, we do not assume a permitted purpose and Lifnei Iver applies. This is also the approach taken by HaRav Yitzchak Zilberstein shlita.
The second approach, found in the Tzitz Eliezer (vol. IV, 5:3), is that the Talmudic cases that forbid where the violation is more likely are speaking of a rabbinic Lifnei Iver only.
The third approach is that of HaRav Dovid Feinstein zt”l, recorded in this author’s sefer on Lifnei Iver, “Misguiding the Perplexed,” p. 97: that wherever the action being performed will directly lead to a violation on the part of the recipient, and without it the recipient would not have had the desire or opportunity to transgress, Lifnei Iver applies — and this is also offered as a possibility by the Tzitz Eliezer.
Under each of these three approaches, the establishment of a beis knesses on Har HaBayis would constitute a biblical violation of Lifnei Iver.
HaRav Eliyahu shlita invokes the pesak of his father, HaRav Mordechai Eliyahu zt”l, who ruled that a beis knesses may be established in areas permitted for ascent according to halacha. With deep reverence for that pesak, the difficulty is not with the halachic siting of the structure itself but with its inevitable consequences. A beis knesses on Har HaBayis, by its very nature as a destination of national and religious significance, would draw enormous numbers of Jews — including the overwhelming majority who lack the halachic training, the proper preparation of tevilah, and the precise knowledge of the boundaries necessary to confine themselves to the permitted areas. The kares-bearing prohibitions of entering the makom haMikdash and the azaros b’tumah — the gravest prohibitions in this entire parashah — would not be a remote possibility but a statistical near-certainty.
Under the approach of the Hagahos Tosfos Anshei Shem and the TaZ, where the question is whether violation is more likely than non-violation, the answer here is unmistakable: the probability of widespread violation by the masses who would come is overwhelming.
Under the approach of HaRav Dovid Feinstein zt”l, the connection is even more direct — the very existence of a beis knesses on the Har is precisely what would draw Jews to a place where, absent that beis knesses, the vast majority would never venture. Even under the most lenient of the three approaches, which classifies certain cases of doubt as rabbinic, this is not a case of doubt; this is a case of foreseeable and predictable mass violation.
It must also be said that the pesak of HaRav Mordechai Eliyahu zt”l, permitting a beis knesses in halachically permitted areas, was issued as a theoretical halachic determination about siting. It is a separate question — and one that the call before us does not adequately address — whether the practical establishment of such a beis knesses today, given who would come, in what state of preparation, and to what areas they would inevitably wander, passes the test of Lifnei Iver under any of the three approaches above. It does not.
The Second Consideration: Pikuach Nefesh and the Value of Jewish Life
Independent of the Lifnei Iver analysis stands a second, equally weighty consideration: the foreseeable cost in Jewish lives.
The history of the past several decades has made it tragically clear that even the most modest changes to the status quo on Har HaBayis — a visit by a public figure, an expanded hour of access, a rumor of altered arrangements — have repeatedly served as the trigger for waves of violence in which Jews have been murdered, rachmana litzlan. The establishment of an actual beis knesses on the Har would not be a modest change. It would be perceived throughout the Muslim world as a transformation of the most volatile site in the Middle East, and the security implications, by the consistent assessment of every relevant Israeli professional body, would include mass casualties — in Yerushalayim, throughout Eretz Yisrael, and very likely against Jewish communities abroad.
The Torah’s directives on this point are numerous and explicit. The verse in Parashas Ki Seitzei discussing hashavas aveidah is extended by the Gemara in Sanhedrin 73a to the obligation to save another’s life — v’hasheivoso lo. There is the negative mitzvah of lo sa’amod al dam rei’echa, not standing idly by your brother’s blood (Vayikra 19:16, Shulchan Aruch C.M. 426:1). The She’iltos, based on the Gemara in Bava Metzia, derives from v’chai achicha imach a full obligation to save others, which the Netziv rules applies even where some personal risk is involved. The Ramban in Toras HaAdam understands v’ahavta l’rei’acha kamocha as a directive to save our peers from danger. And overarching all of these is the mitzvas asei of v’nishmartem me’od l’nafshoseichem — the fundamental Torah obligation to guard Jewish life.
We must also make sure that we not allow misinformation, wishful thinking, or political pressure to shape decisions on which Jewish lives depend. When a proposed action carries with it the predictable consequence of Jewish blood being spilled — not as a remote contingency but as the considered assessment of those charged with protecting the tzibbur — these mitzvos do not stand silent. Chamira sakanta me’isura. Jewish life is precious beyond measure, and a kehillah that yearns for the Beis HaMikdash must yearn for it in a way that does not, chas v’shalom, hasten the death of Jews.
Concluding Thoughts
None of the above diminishes the longing for the binyan Beis HaMikdash that animates the words of HaRav Eliyahu shlita. That longing is the longing of Klal Yisrael, and it is the longing of every one of us who davens three times a day for its restoration. The question is whether the proposed step would bring that day closer or push it further away — and whether, in the interim, it would draw thousands into kares-bearing violations and cost Jewish lives.
For the reasons set forth above, the call to establish a beis knesses on Har HaBayis at this time is both unwise as a matter of hashkafah and policy, and halachically problematic under each of the recognized approaches to Lifnei Iver. The Beis HaMikdash will be rebuilt. May we be zocheh to see it bimheirah b’yameinu. Until then, the path forward must honor both the kedushah of the makom and the kedushah of every Jewish neshamah.
No comments:
Post a Comment