An acquaintance once confided that he had a stone fragment from the Kosel in his possession. He said archaeologists were excavating near the Kosel area and uncovered numerous stone fragments during the dig. Because the team was only interested in the larger stones, my friend was permitted to take one of the smaller pieces. While there was no concrete proof, so to speak, that this specific fragment originated from the Kosel or the surrounding walls of the Har HaBayis, it was a distinct possibility. Was he actually permitted to keep it?
A short detour brings us to a surprisingly relevant illustration. A Massachusetts man named Mark received an alarming letter from Bank of America regarding his mortgage: “The loan is in serious default because the required payments have not been made... You have the right to cure the default. To cure the default, on or before February 4, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP must receive the amount of $0.00...”
You read that correctly. The bank threatened foreclosure on his home unless he paid... absolutely nothing. Mark’s credit score plummeted as a result. Frustrated, he reached out to a local news channel to demand answers. Bank of America eventually contacted him to explain that the notice was generated by an electronic glitch, even throwing in a $150 gift card for his trouble.
Had Mark owed $1,000, the solution would have been straightforward: pay the bill. But because he owed $0, he was powerless to fix the system; he couldn’t make a payment that didn’t exist. In a bizarre twist of administrative bureaucracy, a substantial debt would have been far easier to satisfy than a non-existent one.
This quirk of logic nicely mirrors a fascinating line of reasoning in the Gemara. (And if it doesn’t, it was a fun story anyway.)
Sanctity in Limbo
The Gemara in Maseches Bechoros discusses a consecrated animal that develops a mum (a disfiguring blemish), rendering it unfit to be offered on the Altar. The animal enters a state of halachic limbo: its inherent kedushah prevents it from being slaughtered for personal consumption, yet its physical blemish prevents it from being brought as a sacrifice.
The Torah provides a clear solution: the animal is redeemed. Its sanctity transfers to the redemption money, which is then used to purchase a valid sacrifice, and the original animal becomes permitted for secular use and consumption.
The Gemara (Bechoros 15b) then introduces a fascinating edge case: What happens if a consecrated, blemished animal conceives while still sacred but gives birth after its mother has already been redeemed?
The redemption performed on the mother successfully removes most of the sacred status from the unborn fetus. However, the newborn offspring still retains a faint vestige of kedushah. The Gemara concludes that this newborn becomes trapped in a state of permanent limbo with no possible remedy:
1. It cannot be used for secular purposes because of its residual sanctity.
2. It cannot be brought on the Altar because it lacks the high-level sanctity required for a sacrifice.
3. Crucially, it cannot be redeemed, because its remaining sanctity is considered too minor and negligible to undergo a formal act of redemption.
Counterintuitively, the very fact that the offspring’s sanctity is so minor works against it. A higher level of sanctity can be removed through redemption, whereas a trace amount cannot. As a result, the animal remains forbidden forever for both sacred and secular use.
The Status of Kosel Stones
Returning to our Kosel fragment: Rashi (Avodah Zarah 52b) notes that when idolaters breached the Bais HaMikdash, its sacred vessels became profaned and lost their kedushah. Based on this Rashi, one might argue that when the Bais HaMikdash was destroyed, its stones similarly lost their sanctity, meaning my friend’s fragment could be kept.
However, the Rogatchover Gaon (Tzofnas Paneach, Hilchos Terumos 1:5) disagrees with this line of reasoning. He explains that Rashi’s rule applied only to the First Bais HaMikdash, which possessed a supreme level of sanctity. By contrast, the Second Bais HaMikdash had a lesser degree of kedushah, and precisely because its level of sanctity was lower, it could not be profaned in the same manner. Much like the fetus in Bechoros, an object with a minor or altered degree of sanctity can sometimes be harder to desacralize than one with maximum sanctity.
Independent of the Rogatchover’s analysis, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, Yoreh De’ah 2:141) demonstrates that Rashi’s principle cannot be used to permit keeping a Kosel stone, citing two main reasons:
• Limited Scope: The Gemara refers specifically to gold and silver vessels that were looted for immediate personal use by the conquerors. It does not imply a blanket, automatic loss of sanctity for all physical components of the Temple structure. Rav Moshe cites a proof from Maseches Megillah (11b) regarding King Belshazzar, who possessed looted Temple vessels that had sat in storage. Belshazzar knew those vessels retained their full sanctity; he only dared to use them for his feast when he mistakenly calculated that the 70 years of exile had passed without the Bais HaMikdash being rebuilt.
• The Kosel Was Never Overrun: Non-Jews never gained absolute dominion over the Western Wall to destroy or desecrate it. Midrash Rabbah explicitly states that Hashem swore the Kosel would never be destroyed and that the Shechinah would never depart from it. Whatever Rashi in Avodah Zarah is describing, it cannot apply to the Kosel.
The Danger of Personal Benefit
Rav Moshe adds that even if someone were to mistakenly assume that Kosel stones lost their intrinsic kedushah, it would still be strictly forbidden to use them for personal purposes. It is fundamentally inappropriate for an item that once served the Al-mighty to be downgraded to serve man.
Could one argue that simply displaying a Kosel fragment on a shelf as a keepsake does not constitute a violation of me’ilah (unlawful benefit from consecrated property)?
Rav Moshe rules unequivocally that it does. Displaying a Kosel fragment like a trophy or antique yields personal pleasure and pride, the very definition of deriving personal benefit from sacred material.
In the end, a well-known posek advised my friend to throw his Kosel fragment into the ocean or another deep body of water. Because it is forbidden to derive any benefit from the stone, it is far safer to dispose of it permanently than to leave an item in one’s home that could easily lead to a severe Biblical prohibition.
Note regarding the article that appeared in the Succos edition: This author was informed that Rav Shlomo Miller, shlita, advised against drinking Jacu (bird) coffee. He would presumably advise against civet and black ivory coffee as well.
Maggid shiur and Rebbe at Yeshiva Ateres Shimon in Far Rockaway. He leads the Daf Yomi chaburah at Eitz Chayim of Dogwood Park in West Hempstead, and writes “Delving into the Daf” each week for The Jewish Home.
