HaRav Nissim Karelitz' beis din in Bnei Brak rejected
a petition that Machon Hamikdash and its head, Rabbi Yisrael
Ariel, filed in response to an opinion piece published in the
Hebrew edition of Yated Ne'eman.
The article, which appeared in the Al Haperek column,
was written following several extreme remarks by Rabbi Ariel
on the subject of ascending the Temple Mount. Shortly after
Shavuos Maran HaRav Eliashiv shlita arrived at the
Kosel Maarovi and, in a conversation with HaRav Shmuel
Rabinowitz, the rov of the Kosel, asked that he resume
posting a guard at the entrance to the Temple Mount area to
warn Jews not to draw near the place that all poskim,
past and present, say Jews are forbidden to enter.
In a broadcasted interview, Rabbi Ariel was asked his opinion
on the move and he replied, "The trend reflected here
perpetuates the Diaspora and gives the [Temple] Mount to the
Arabs . . . This is what talmidei chachomim call
`returning the crown to its pedestal?' This should embarrass
every Jew listening . . . Not only should a guard not be
posted there, but the rabbonim should be the first to go in
and take control of the [Temple] Mount . . . This is part of
the trend toward perpetuating the Diaspora and the
Destruction . . . This is a very grave failure in Am
Yisroel and in Eretz Yisroel since the Destruction
of the Second Temple and there is no greater shame or
disgrace to the Torah, Eretz Yisroel [and] the
Temple."
At the request of the rabbonim of Yated Ne'eman's
Vaada Ruchanit, a piercing article was published, exposing
another of the Machon Hamikdash publications calling for a
departure from accepted practices. Titled Siddur Hamikdash
Le'eim Ulebat, the siddur proposes substituting the
version of the Nacheim tefilloh used for generations
on Tisha B'Av with the version from the Talmud Yerushalmi,
saying it is better suited to today's reality. Rabbi
Ariel claims the phrasing of the current version, "Ha'ir
hachareivoh habezuyoh vehashomeimoh," fails to
acknowledge HaKodosh Boruch Hu's beneficence and thus
is akin to "speaking untruths before HaMokom."
When Yated Ne'eman published an editorial sharply
critical of Rabbi Ariel's remarks against the prohibition
against ascending the Temple Mount and also exposing the
nature of those publications that make their way into
chareidi homes, Machon Hamikdash filed a libel and damages
suit against the Yated Ne'eman board, the Vaada
Ruchanit and the writer of the article. The case was heard by
HaRav Karelitz, HaRav Yaakov Edelstein and HaRav Y.
Berger.
In a hearing held on 21 Tammuz, Machon Hamikdash Director
Rabbi Y. Glick claimed that the institute sustained enormous
financial damage following the publication of the article. He
said that since the article appeared the institute's books
and other publications are no longer purchased at bookstores
in chareidi areas and the weekly leaflet distributed in
chareidi botei knesses has been removed from many
botei knesses in Elad, Kiryat Sefer, Bnei Brak and
other chareidi population centers. Speaking before the
beis din Rabbi Ariel said he had merely expressed his
halachic opinion on the issue of ascending the Temple
Mount, and that his seforim are worthy of entering any
chareidi home, and that warning the chareidi public not to
allow his works in their homes was unjustified.
The beis din praised the Yated Ne'eman article
and rejected the petition. According to the ruling on 28
Tammuz, since the role of Yated Ne'eman is to
publicize the Torah-based worldview and the opinions of
gedolei Torah the newspaper conducted itself properly
and fulfilled its mission.
Furthermore the beis din determined that Yated
Ne'eman has the right to warn against the institute's
publications that conflict the Torah-based worldview. The
beis din also noted "Rabbi Ariel, in both the past and
the present, has not acted in accordance with poskei
hador."
In the light of all this, the beis din determined that
there is no basis for any claim of libel or for damages.
