Volume 22 Number 06
                       Produced: Wed Nov 15 23:51:28 1995

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Can we trade land for peace?
         [Yechezkal-Shimon Gutfreund]
Giving Land Away
         [Warren Burstein]
Giving of Land and Milchemet Mitzvah
         [Mechael Kanovsky]
Lo Hamaisim Yehalelu
         [David Katzenstein]
Messiah and land of Israel
         [Howard Joseph]
Rabin ?Z"l? and our responsibility
         [David Guberman]
Rabin and Jewish religion
         [Arnie Kuzmack]
Rabin Funeral
         [Roger Kingsley]
Shir shel Shalom
         [Eliezer Diamond]
The Murder and terminology
         [Zvi Weiss  ]
za"l as opposed to o"h
         [Shmuel Himelstein]


From: Yechezkal-Shimon Gutfreund <sgutfreund@...>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 12:35:42 -0500
Subject: Can we trade land for peace?

                        Can we trade land for peace?

Many people approach this issue by focusing on the land and territory of
Israel. While, it is certainly true that all of the land of Israel is
holy, the Rebbe said that issue of "land for peace" is not an issue that
has so much to do with land but rather with preserving Jewish lives,
regardless of location. The Shulchan Orech states:

     Non-Jews that lay siege to Jewish cities: If their intent was
     financial gain, the Shabbos laws should not be violated because of
     them. If their intent was Jewish lives, or if they lay siege
     without any stated intention, or if their is a sense (chush) that
     they are coming for Jewish lives, even before they come - and are
     only still organizing themselves, then it is a mitzvah to go out
     and attack them with weapons of war and violate the Shabbos laws.
     And if it is a city located near a border - even if they are only
     demanding hay or straw, we attack them and violate the Shabbos,
     lest the conquer the city, and because of that conquest it is then
     easier for them to conquer the rest of the land.

     There are those that say, that at this time, when we dwell among
     non-Jews who are murders and slayers, that even if they come only
     for financial gain, we violate the Shabbos. Because, if the Jews
     do not allow them to plunder and pillage, they will kill us. And
     it is a chazakah (decree, or in this context: "a given") that no
     one stands-by idly - when his money is being stolen. Thus, a thief
     coming to steal, will worry whether his victim will kill him, so
     the thief comes from the outset with an intention to kill first.
     So also, in this case [where we are dealing with only financial
     attacks] we violate the Shabbos [to defend ourselves].
     Nevertheless, everything is according to the context. But an
     individual that comes to take money, we allow him to take as much
     as he wants, and we do not violate the Shabbos, for this is a case
     of financial loss only.

     Shulchan Orech HaRav 329:6,7. And almost the same wording can be
     found in the Shulchan Orech of R. Karo, and also in the Mishna
     Bruria. See also Eruvin 45a including the Rashi. The Rambam adds:

     It is a mitzvah for every member of the Jewish people who can come
     [to their assistance] to go out and aid their brethren who are
     under siege and save them from the gentiles [although it is the]
     Shabbos. It is forbidden to wait until Saturday night.

     After they have saved their brethren, they may return home with
     their weapons on the Shabbos, so that a dangerous situation will
     not be created in the future.

     Rambam, Mishna Torah, Hilchot Shabbos, 2:23.

 From this we see a couple of things:

   * The issue is not land, per. se - it is the saving of Jewish lives.
   * Issue of saving Jewish lives is not dependent on location, and applies
     everywhere and for all time.
   * Relatively minor land or evey monentary demands, such as straw or hay,
     under the threat of physical attack, are considered a case of saving
     Jewish lives.
   * In issues of saving Jewish lives we do not stop and calculate or
     estimate what the risk is, we are required to assume the worst scenario
     and act accordingly.

It should be obvious that since it is a mitzvot to aid our brethren, we
should not do actions that the Shulchan Orech states would endanger our
brethren. Of course, we must work with our fellow Jews, and do this in a
peaceable manner, for "the ways of the Torah are peaceful". With a peaceful,
patient and understanding approach, certainly HaShem will aid us and help us
to accomplish His will. However, we must be clear, certain, and confident,
and this can only occur when we act according to the guidance of the
Shulchan Orech, and the teachings of our Rabbis.


From: <warren@...> (Warren Burstein)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 07:16:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Giving Land Away

Mordechai Perlman writes:
>	Are there any Torah Jews who are in favour of the land giving?
>My question is addressed to them.  Since we all believe in the coming of
>Moshiach as a reality, not just a legend, chas v'shalom, if Israel gives
>land to the Arabs, is it given only until that time in history?  After
>all, we know that the entire land as promised to Avrohom will be K'lal
>Yisroel's possession at that time.  Therefore, it stands to reason that
>we are only giving it to them as a temporary lease, so to say.  And in
>that case, do we not have a duty, as Torah abiding Jews, to inform the
>leasees of this?

I could ask the same question of Jews who would support peace with any
of Israel's neighbors even if no change of borders is involved.  I
believe that each of the neighboring countries contains some part of the
land promised to Avraham.  Lebanon certainly does.

So, were Lebanon to express a desire for peace in exchange for no land,
could we sign a treaty recognizing the border, or would it be necessary
to inform them that at least part of their contry is eventually going to
be ours?

Lastly, "in favor of the land giving" is a misrepresentation of the
position of the left (religious and secular) as much as "opposed to
peace" is a misrepresentation of the position of the right (ditto).

 |warren@         an Anglo-Saxon." -- Stuart Schoffman
/ nysernet.org


From: <KANOVSKY@...> (Mechael Kanovsky)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 11:55:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Giving of Land and Milchemet Mitzvah

There are three things that a jew is suposed to give up his life and not
do those three things. The three things are murdering, idol worshiping
and adultery along with other forbiden sexual relations. HOWEVER there
is annother mitzvah that does not fall on the individual but on the
jewish populace as a whole that they have to give up their life for, and
that mitzvah is "milchemet mitzvah" i.e. going out to war in order to
capture the land of Israel. That being the case I don't see how giving
land (not giving BACK) to the goyim can be justified on the account that
it will save lives even if we knew that for a certanty.
 mechael kanovsky


From: <DavidK6235@...> (David Katzenstein)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 21:24:49 -0500
Subject: Lo Hamaisim Yehalelu

Shiela Tanenbaum's question about the meaning of 'lo hamaisim
yehalelu...'  was well answered in a taped lecture I once heard. The rov
suggested the questioned phrase tells us we will not be able to praise
HaShem after we die, i.e. we should use the opportunity presented in day
to day life to recognize HaShem's goodness and praise Him for it. After
all, that's why we say Hallel!  The posuk continues in that vein,
'v'anachnu nevorech...' but we (can during our lifetime) bless HaShem
(recognize his goodness)


From: Howard Joseph <HJOSEPH@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 06:44:16 +0000 (HELP)
Subject: Messiah and land of Israel

We will either get the land back entirely when Messiah comes, or we will
be told that in the interests of messianic harmony in the world we must 
now share it with others.
Howard Joseph


From: <dguberman@...> (David Guberman)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 17:16:08 GMT
Subject: Re: Rabin ?Z"l? and our responsibility

     On Tue, 14 Nov 1995, Mordechai Perlman wrote, in part:
>  Rabin Z"l?  Why Z"l?  . . . I would expect that one would
> use the moderate "Alav Hashalom".

      Rav Amital's Address to the Har Etzion Beit Midrash is entitled
"On the Assassination of Prime Minister Rabin Z"L."  In his address to a
joint meeting of the National Religious Party and Meimad, Rav Amital

          We must put an end to the notion that the
          non-religious community is bereft of any values,
          and that anyone who supports the peace process is
          weakening the Jewish character of the State.
          Claims that Rabin, z"l, Peres and Barak lack
          Jewish or Zionist values--and that Bibi and Raful
          are better Zionists or Jews--are baseless.

     David A. Guberman                  <dguberman@...>


From: Arnie Kuzmack <kuzmack@...>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 13:44:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Rabin and Jewish religion

Among much else, Rabbi Himelstein wrote:

> (Another article, by Yossi Ben Aharon, mentions that one Rosh
> Hashanah, when he was the ambassador in the US, Rabin went to a
> Conservative synagogue. When he returned, he said that if he ever became
> religious, he would want to be Orthodox).

The community-wide memorial service in Washington was held in that
Conservative synaggue.  The Rabbi of the synagogue gave a hesped [eulogy]
which included personal remininscences of Rabin z"l.  It seems that Rabin
and his family were members there, and his son was bar-mitzvah there.  I
was surprised to learn that Rabin frequently read Torah on Shabbat morning
and on one occasion found an error in the scroll. 

Arnie Kuzmack


From: Roger Kingsley <rogerk@...>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 95 00:46:08 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Rabin Funeral

Since this one keeps coming up, I would just point out that the Army 
Rabbinate almost certainly does provide mourners with a pointed 
version of the kaddish.  My own theory is based on the 
observation that the sort of mistakes made (mainly confusion 
between Tsere and Patach) would be typical of someone who uses 
reading glasses and was caught out without them.
Someone reading from a totally unpointed version, and being 
unfamiliar with Aramaic, would have been in a worse mess.
But this is only a theory.
Roger Kingsley


From: <eldiamond@...> (Eliezer Diamond)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 13:09:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Shir shel Shalom

May I humbly suggest that Yechazkal-Shimnon Gutfreund has a tin ear when
it comes to poetry. The Shir shel Shalom is not a doctrinnal statement.
Its point is that in life as we experience it when people die they are
gone permanently, and that many people die as a resulf of war. The song
is also saying that praying for peace is not enough; we must boldly seek
it, "sing the song of peace". I am curious as to how Mr. Guttfreund
deals with a verse that is part of our Hallel, "The dead cannot praise
God, nor any who go down into silence" (Tehillim 115:17) Or would he
suggest that this verse was smuggled into the Tanakh by forerunnners of
Shalom Achshav? To paraphrase Mr. Gutfreund, I fear for us when there
are those who read the words of those with whom they disagree so
ungenerously and so uncomprehendingly.

Eliezer Diamond


From: Zvi Weiss		 <weissz@...>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 13:36:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: The Murder and terminology

I have noticed since the Rabin Crime that people have referred to him as 
Z"L.  Given that Rabin was certainly not religious, was willing to have 
virulent and overt anti-religious personages in his cabinet -- I must ask 
whether it is correct to use such a term.  The fact is that Rabin's 
education minister *allegedly* stated that he would prefer that his 
descendants be NOT JEWISH rather than be observant.  I od not recall 
heairng any particular reprimand from the PM as to the appropriateness of 
such a comment by a minister responsible for the education of future 
citizens.  I did not see any effort by Rabin to insist that members of 
his cabinet tone down anti-religious rhetoric as a condition for 
Given that, why the "canonization" here?  Not long ago, there was a brief 
article in the "D'var Torah" sheet that comes from "MTA" (YU's boys' H.S. 
in Manhattan) which discussed the usage of terms such as Z"L, etc.  It 
was clear that these terms were meant for Tzadikkim and IMHO, Rabin was 
NOT a Tzaddik.
Similarly, in at least one post, I saw a reference to the murderer with 
the addition of "Shem Reshaim Yirkav" -- I believe that a shaila must be 
asked before using such an apellation for a fellow Jew -- esp. one still 
alive.  I certainly agree that this person did a horrible thing, creatd a 
monstrous chillul hashem, did untold damage to the frum community which 
is now collectively labeled by the Left (as if they need an excuse for 
besmirching the Frum community)... but the term ShR"Y is reserved for 
truly evil people and I do not think that this stupid mixed up person was 



From: Shmuel Himelstein <himelstein@...>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 11:24:40 GMT
Subject: za"l as opposed to o"h

I have a feeling that the debate about whether to use "za"l" ("zichrono
livracha" - "may his memory be a blessing" or "o"h" ("alav hashalom" -
"peace upon him") in regard to Prime Minister Rabin is really an
academic one, overlooking one important element:

In the Golah (diaspora) religious Jews make this distinction between
righteous Jews ("za"l") and others ("o"h"). Common usage in Israel - as
used consistently for anyone dead, is "za"l". Thus, a victim of a car
accident, or for that matter, a person who has died of natural causes,
is generally referred to on radio and TV as "za"l," regardless of who
that person was.

Thus, to an Israeli, anything less than "za"l" in reference to a person
who is dead would be considered insulting to that person's memory.

I hope that clears the air.

           Shmuel Himelstein
22 Shear Yashuv Street, Jerusalem 97280, Israel
    Phone: 972-2-864712: Fax: 972-2-862041
   EMail address: <himelstein@...>


End of Volume 22 Issue 6