Talk:Western Wall

Wouldn't it make more sense to have one article about the wall that covers all names and reasons for holiness? --Brion

Probably. I didn't want to just move it, in case Ed had some actual reason for using the Arabic name in an English context. Vicki Rosenzweig

I am trying to give Arabic names some prominence, as English-speaking Arabs tend to use the Arabic names for various things and places. By the way, I think "Wailing Wall" refers only to a short segment of a much longer wall. I don't have time to finish up tonight -- sorry. --Ed Poor

I've merged the two under "Western Wall", with a note of all three names. Vicki Rosenzweig

I have placed the history of the Wall in broader perspective. The Jewish and Israeli view is important as they are the ones who have shaped its aura and who control the Wall having held sway over it tightly since 1967.User:IZAK

Unfortunately, I lost about 6 paragraphs due to an edit conflict. IZAK, there are remains of all four walls (the southern wall excavations are a major archeological park), Jews have not always prayed at the Western Wall--they prayed at the Eastern Wall during Byzantine times. Maimonides gives evidence of a synagogue on the Temple Mount itself, i.e., not all rabbinic authorities agree that access to all parts of the Temple Mount is forbidden to Jews. The Western Wall was built by Herod less than a century before the Temple's destruction. The Wall as we know it contains at least three different eras of construction, including the 19th century. "Fateful and cataclysmic" is hardly a POV way to describe the encounter between Jews and Muslims. Etc. Etc. Etc. Danny

1)The entire area of the wall is actually buried in high mounds of civilizational debris. If you could keep digging down all the way, obviously the remnants of all the nearby walls should be there deep down under.2)The fact remains that Jews HAVE prayed in that tight area. After the Byzantines came the Moslems and they deliberately built cemeteries and bricked up the gates on the Southern side efectively barring Jews from there. But Jewish tradition thru-out the ages only focuses on the Western Wall nevertheless.3)Temple Mount can also refer to wider circumferences, so that areas removed from the place of the Even Shesiya, the Holy Foundation Stone, could theoretically be used. However, Maimonides himself never lived in Israel, having died in Egypt, and his postulates remain theoretical in the sense that no major rabbinic authority in Modern times has allowed Jews onto the mount itself, especially since no-one knows wher the exact spot of the spiritually of-limits Holy Of Holies actually is nowadays.4)Herod CONTRIBUTED to the HEIGHT of the Wall, the original foundations go many yards deeper, maybe up to 30 yards below the ground. So Herod's 'wall' rides piggy-back and is in effect an extension of the original wall down below.5)Since the history of the Jewish Temples stretches back over 2,500 years, one can safely assume that there is much that we have yet to learn about the wall and how many layers and eras of construction lie below.6)Well, the Arab(Islamic)- Israeli(Jewish) ongoing wars especially in modern times are very fateful since there is always the specter of a larger imbroglio leading to Armegedon.In 1973, the USSR was ready to attack Israel in defense of its Arab clients who were defeated by the Israelis, and was forced to back down after Nixon declared the highest state of US military alert.The current intifada was sparked by the failure to achieve a settlement including serious issues regarding the Temple Mount.It is fateful and cataclysmic indeed, not an understatement.Thanks for the feedback.User:IZAK

Point by point:

1. Certainly, if you keep digging, you would find remains. I am saying that remains still exist that were never covered. For example, the southeastern corner of the Old City is part of that same Temple wall as the Kotel. Similarly, the 3 arches in the southern wall excavation. At the far corner of the southwestern wall, we have grafitti from the time of Julian the Apostate indicating that it was an area of Jewish worship.
2. Contemporary Jewish tradition of the past few centuries focuses on the Western Wall. In Byzantine/Muslim periods, other areas were considered sacred.
3. Maimonides visited Jerusalem on his way to Egypt and described the synagogue in a letter. As for rabbinic authorities, you are basing yourself on a Kaftor va-Ferach which mistakenly claims that the Wall is part of the Temple proper. Very, very few Jews hold by that today. The outer fringe of the Temple Mount on all four sides is considered Herod's addition (see Mishnah Middot) and does not have the same sanctity as the rest of the area. In other words, you do not need ashes of a red heifer to go up there--immersion in a mikvah is sufficient. It may not be done, but the possibility exists (without even getting into a debate over whether tum'ah hutra be-tzibbur [ritual impurity is permitted if the masses of Jews are ritually impure] or not). For a contemporary religious authority, former Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren wrote extensively on this. The area surrounding al-Aqsa is almost certainly in these additions (rubo ba-darom: quoting from memory but that's essentially what the Mishnah says).
4. Yes, we have a lot to learn, but the wall itself is Herodian, and what lies below is Herodian (see above: Middot). We have done excavations. You can even see the results in the tunnel, up to the bedrock. No First Temple remains. If anything does remain from the First Temple, it is within the Haram as-Sharif compound, where no digging is permitted by the Waqf. The original wall down below is still Herodian.
5. The Arab-Israeli (and not Jewish) conflict is a relatively modern phenomenon, going back about 120 years. While I believe that the Temple Mount is one of the most volatile areas in the world, it wasn't always like that.

By the way, the two major monuments on the Temple Mount are Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa. Danny

Thanks.

1. "south eastern corner of the old city"..? Well how far does one really go? No doubt any nook and cranny in the "Old City" can somehow be tied in with older structures.It is safe to assume that over the centuries successive waves of Jews kept their eyes on the most vital area, being the Western wall since it is mentioned in the classical texts of Judaism.

No. You are mixing up so many things. The Temple Mount is a compound in the Old City. It runs along the eastern edge, above the Kidron Valley, and the walls of the Temple Mount form part of the walls of the Old city. The southeatern corner of the Temple Mount is the southeastern corner of the Old City. The walls are Herodian, with Byzantine, Abbasid, Mameluk, and Ottoman additions. Nevertheless, the Herodian walls are clearly visible and have been since Herod built them. Actually, some of the stones are even earlier. You can go see them if you want. There is even a crack in the wall, where the masonry stops and starts again. This indicates Herod's additions to the area that was originally part of the Temple Mount. It has nothing to do with nooks and crannies in the Old City. My challenge to you would be to see how far back those classical texts go. What are the talmudic references, for example, to the Western Wall. Good luck finding them. Jews pray facing the Temple Mount and the site of the Holy of Holies, not the Western Wall. While I happen not to like the politics of the people that run it, you can even go on a tour of the Temple Mount tunnels to see the remainder of the walls that were covered over. They will tell you that the holiest site there is site opposite the Holy of Holies.

1. Being that the entire Temple Mount, Har HaBayit, is holy ground, so it is reasonable to assume that over the years Jews prayed ther from differnt directions. After all, by extension of this concept, Jews to the North of Jerusalem face South. Jews of the South face North, when praying.But the fact remains that the Westtern Wall retained the dominant devotions of the Jews, even in the diaspora.

It may be reasonable to assume, but it is incorrect. In fact, it was an innovation of Shneur Zalman of Liady (18th century) in the Tanya and he also speaks of the Temple Mount. Never did the Western Wall the focus of Jewish devotion. The Temple Mount was a focus for directing prayer, not the wall. It's a gemara: "In Jerusalem, pray toward the Temple Mount, on the Temple Mount, pray toward the Temple, in the Temple pray toward the Holy of Holies, in the Holy of Holy, direct your devotion to the throne of God situated between the cherubim." No mention of the Western Wall there.

1. No-one but Rav Goren accepted what Rav Goren had to say.But the point is moot. Basically the Moslems kept the Jews off the mount, sometimes on pain of death due to the Islamic holiness of the place. No rabbis that i know of sanction/ed going onto the Temple mount by Jews without it being part of a greater messianic redemption.

Wrong again. Goren based his work on previous scholars and opinions. Plenty of rabbis that I know of do sanction prayers in certain areas. Again, I am not supportive of this personally (but for other reasons), but the facts are that rabbis did and do sanction it. Read Goren's responsa for sources.

1. The references to a western wall relate to the Roman conquest, and Herod was part of the Roman period. His work on the Temple is actually praised by the rabbis even tho he personally was repugnant to the Jewish people.Babylonia's destruction is wrapped in even greater unknowns.

No they do not. Herod was on the cusp of the Hasmonean period and the Roman period. I have no idea what you are talking about regarding the destruction of the First Temple. Again, the sources do not confirm what you are saying.

1. From the time of Mohammed there were already fights with the Jews of Mecca and Medina which had large Jewish populations. They like many others of the years of Moslem conquest were put to the sword. Yes there were periods of calm, but ther has always been an Isalamic struggle with Jews and Judaism, which then extends into recent times and forms the basis of the Israel- Arab struggle.

Sorry, but this is a combination of fact and pure bullshit. When Omar ibn al-Khattab's armies took Jerusalem (and it is a matter of debate whether he was actually present), many of the soldiers were Jewish mercenaries. Muhammad did have disagreements with the Jews of Mecca and Medina (and Yathrib, but we won't even go there), but there were also times of very prosperous cooperation. There is no Islamic struggle with Jews and Judaism since the founding of Islam. Maimonides flourished in Egypt. The Golden Age of Spain occured under Muslim rule. The Gaonim thrived under the caliphs of Baghdad. Hey, according to one source, which I question too, Omar actually offered to rebuild the Temple for his Jewish subjects after taking Jerusalem--but then again, I also question the story of his meeting with Sophronius at the Holy Sepulchre. It's an interesting story, the source of the Mosque of Omar bit below, but it is certainly questionable.

P.S. yes, thanks, It is called Al Aqsa, but people also refer to the general area as the Mosque of Omar inclusive of all Islamic shrines on the Temple mount. User:IZAK

They are wrong. Actually, you are wrong. The Temple Mount is Haram as-Sharif. Al-Aqsa has nothing to do with the Mosque of Omar. Some people call the Dome of the Rock the Mosque of Omar, but it neither dates from Omar nor is it a mosque (it is now, but historically it was not). The Mosque of Omar is behind the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. You can reach it by the western entrance to the courtyard. It is behind the Greek Orthodox Gethsemane (the one in the Old City by the CotHS, not the one on the Mount of Olives). IZAK, I spent a good seven years living in the Old City. I guided tours there, I helped design two museums there, I wrote a book about it. This argument is silly. Danny

No, yo are wrong. It was not part of the Temple (and spare me the Kaftor VaFerach, who was obviously wrong, or else no one would be allowed up to teh Western Wall). It was part of the retaining wall holding the landfill in place. It is an addition by Herod. Furthermore, it was not the only place believed to survive. In Byzantine times Jews prayed by the Southern Wall and the Eastern Wall on Tisha BeAv since they were not allowed into the city. Maimonides may have even described a synagogue on the Temple Mount itself that he prayed in (I have some problems with the text, but it is generally accepted.) The question really is, when did the Wall gain such prominence? (I would also ask why--after all, Leibovitch did call it the Diskotel and was not a big fan.) Danny 01:03, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have editted the section on permitted/forbidden access to areas of the Temple Mount trying for both better English and somewhat more accurate protrayal of the situation. Please help. OneVoice 15:08, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A recent interpretation suggests that the Western Wall is not a surviving wall of the temple?

A recent interpretation by whom? Jayjg 15:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's been a month but we still didn't get an answer on the question posed by Jayjg. I suspect either original research or a provocation here, since (1) Jerusalem is a hilly city (2) the Temple Mount is being called here by a name that came into being more than 600 years after the events, and (3) The Occam's razor. I am moving the para in question to talk:

• Temple or Roman fortress? A recent interpretation suggests that the Western Wall is not a surviving wall of the temple. Titus clearly states that the entire city was to be leveled, save for three towers; however, in the enthusiasm typical of the Roman army, even these were destroyed. Neither Titus nor Josephus mention the formidable Haram esh-Sharif, and nor is there any indication that the Romans disturbed it. It has been proposed that the reason they paid it no attention was that it was not considered part of Jerusalem at the time, instead being a Roman fortress. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)