Volume 23 Number 19
                       Produced: Wed Feb 14 22:56:41 1996

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Admin Detention
         [Joseph Steinberg]
Administrative Detention in Israel
         [Carl & Adina Sherer]
Haredi and Dati
         [Schwartz Adam]
Once a Year Blessings
         [Mechael Kanovsky]
Right to Die
         [Shmuel Himelstein]
Twins and More
         [Steve White]
Twins in Tanach
         [Elana  Fine]


From: Joseph Steinberg <steinber@...>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 08:52:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Admin Detention

:I did not bring up the issue of Pikuach Nefesh, Carl Sherer did.  And I
:oppose administrative detention irregardless of the nationality of the

I also oppose it regardless of nationality; however, there remains a
fundamental legal difference between locking up a Palestinian and a Jew
which everyone seems to forget. Palestinians in the occupied lands are a
MILITARILY OCCUPIED PEOPLE. This means that by international convention
they are subject to military law. This means that they are not given the
democractic freedoms of Israelis. This means that the British laws
allowing 'Administrative Detention' can be applied to them. Israelis in
the territories have been granted FULL DEMOCRATIC FREEDOMS. This means
that it is probably illegal for the government to apply the laws of
administrative detention to them. The British did not use admin. deten.
to arrest CITIZENS...

This all is the legal issue. Morally, the whole concept is wrong...


From: Carl & Adina Sherer <sherer@...>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 23:54:18 +0200
Subject: Administrative Detention in Israel

I'd like to address some of the recent discussions regarding
administrative detention in Israel.  I'm happy to report that Shmuel
Cytryn, who generated much of the discussion on this list, was released
from jail on Friday according to Kol Israel.  Nevertheless, Rabbi Arye
Friedman remains in prison despite offering to leave the country
permanently if he is released from jail.  Reports over the net (the only
place where such news is regularly reported) indicate that Rabbi
Friedman is suffering from serious health problems.  I believe for this
and other reasons that the discussion is still relevant.

I think it's important to understand at the outset what administrative
detention is.  In Volume 22 #93 Warren Burstein asked regarding Shmuel
Cytryn that maybe there is a possibility that the government of Israel
has a valid reason for holding him.  The implication of the question is
that the government has probable cause for holding Mr. Cytryn until
trial.  Sadly, this is not what administrative detention indicates.
Administrative detention is carried out by an order by an army commander
stating that the detainee is a "danger".  It requires no formal charges.
The detainee is never told why he is held.  He is never charged with any
crime.  And while some administrative detentions have restricted the
detainees' freedom of movement, others have been out and out jailed (in
Mr. Cytryn's case in solitary confinement).  While the detainee may
eventually have the right to go before a judge (in Cytryn's case the
term was shortened from three months to two), that "hearing" has very
little relationship to what Americans would consider due process of law.
The accused and his attorney (assuming he has been allowed to meet with
an attorney) have no right to see the evidence or respond to it.  The
evidence may or may not exist, and if it does exist it could be nothing
but innuendo from a disgruntled former co-worker or neighbor.  All of
this to protect "national security".  As one who came of age during
Watergate, I tend to look askance at "national security" claims.  I
suspect that the reason Cytryn's sentence was nevertheless shortened was
pressure from the US and other governments (when I called the embassy in
Tel Aviv to speak with the consular officer *everyone* knew who Shmuel
Cytryn was and his assistant indicated that they had received *many*
phone calls on his behalf).

In Volume 23 #02, Shmuel Himselstein wrote: 
> May I remind readers that there have been at least two
>Jewish underground organizations whose avowed purpose was to blow up the
>Al Aqsa mosque. Ignoring the Halachic/Aggadic implications ("the third
>Temple will be built with fire"), there is no doubt in my mind - and I
>would assume in the minds of most of us - that such an act would have
>brought about a major war between Israel and the Muslim countries. Would
>it be improper to use administrative detention against members of such
>an underground just because they are Jews? Common sense would appear to
>me to say that such an approach would be absurd.

In light of what I have written above, my answer would be that I would
oppose the use of administrative detention.  If someone commits a crime,
arrest them, charge them and convict them, but don't lock them up
without trial.

Shmuel went on to write 
>In his ruling, Justice Barak pointed out - as had been
>published in the Israeli press weeks ago - that that individual had been
>found to have fourteen full magazines of bullets in his home. The
>quantity involved certainly seems to be far beyond the amount a person
>needs for personal protection. 

If this was the case, then why wasn't he charged with that crime and
tried for it? Why wasn't he given an opportunity to view the evidence?
Why wasn't his lawyer given an opportunity to view the evidence?

Furthermore, the individual involved had
>been a member of the JDL and then of Kach, 

What does this prove - that he has right wing political views? Do we
have thought police in Israel? Why is belonging to an organization
sufficient to deny a person his liberty? This sounds to me like the
Smith Act in the UInited States in the '50's (the Act prohibited
membership in the Communist party and was one of the chief
manifestations of the McCarthy era).

and had evidently been
>involved in attacks against Palestinians. 

Name one.  I don't recall hearing any attack cited anywhere and I don't
believe that there was any such attack.  If there was he should and
would have been charged with committing the attack.

Thus the court felt that in
>the precarious situation at present, the administrative detention was

Which precarious situation might that be? We lawyers have a saying -
hard cases make bad law.  I don't care how precarious the situation is
(and I think it's a lot less precarious than our so-called leaders make
it out to be); I don't think it justifies locking people up without
charges, without the opportunity to consult with a lawyer, and without
the right to a speedy trial.  I think that's the minimum that a
democracy owes its citizens.  And I think that Halacha would regard
anything less than that as Halanas HaDin (dragging out a judgment).

In the same issue, Rabbi Michael Broyde writes: 
>I do not believe as a matter of normative halacha that a
>person who is arrested by the legal authorties and who are properly
>detain people for crimes is covered by this halacha.  Thus, a Jew who is
>arrested for robbing a bank is not covered by the obligation of pidyon

I think as a matter of normative Halacha Rabbi Broyde is correct, but
where there is evidence of a prisoner's being mistreated (Cytryn had a
broken leg and pleaded for days to be taken to a hospital.  When he
finally was taken to a hospital it turned out that the cast on the leg
had been wrapped too tight cutting off the circulation) combined with
the Halanas HaDin I described above, then I think there is an issue of
pidyon shvuyim involved.  I think we have a duty to see to our fellow
Jews not being mistreated in prison regardles of who the responsible
government is.

Other posters have questioned the propriety of administrative detention
for Arabs.  I am opposed to *all* administrative detentions.  However,
in keeping with Chazal's edict of "aniyei ircha kodmim" (the poor of
your city come first), I find it more important to speak out against
injustices against fellow Jews than those against other groups.

Lastly, the thing I find most annoying about the whole administrative
detention is the feeling I cannot escape that it is being used as a
political tool against those who disagree with the government.  It is
this that I find most repugnant.

-- Carl Sherer
Carl and Adina Sherer


From: Schwartz Adam <adams@...>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 15:08:24 +0200
Subject: Haredi and Dati

Just a comment on a small piece of what Carl Sherer wrote in  Vol. 23  #03:

>what makes the poster think that the datiim (or for that
>matter the charedim) who serve in the army are viewed any differently by
>secular Israelis than those who don't? From comments I've heard there is
>just as much resentment among chilonim for the Hesder boys (who do about
>a year and a half of army service sandwiched between three and a half
>years of learning) as there is for the charedim who don't do the army at
>all.  Not to mention all the dati women who don't do the army.

(just for the record: not all 'datiim' do hesder.  many do the regular
army service.  Before joining up, some learn for a year or 2 at a
'Mechinah' yeshiva specifically designed to prepare them halakhically
ie, what is permitted and prohibited during battle, shabbat in the army,
etc.  I have no idea what percentage goes through each program.)

My experience seems to differ with Carl's.  Granted I've only been
working in Israel for 5 months.  However, during the many conversations
I've had with my coworkers - 98% of whom are secular (I work in Haifa),
I've heard very different views regarding 'datiim' and 'haredim'.

Since most secular people don't know about self-labeling haredim who
serve in the army, ALL secular israelis i've spoken to DEFINE datiim as
army servers and haredim as nonservers.  Sometimes they are lumped
together, but sometimes they're not.  Some secularists i've spoken to -
to be sure a biased sample (they all work in high tech) - value the
societal contribution made by the datiim.  They don't see the
contribution made by haredim.

Here are some of the comments I've heard from people who are self
declared hiloniim.  PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE ARE NOT MY VIEWS, just those
i've heard at work and during my commute.  mail-jewish doesn't seem to
cater to secular israelis so all we'll ever have are 2nd hand reports on
this forum.

Personally, I wasn't surprised by any of the comments I heard, saddened
but not surprised.  I assume most religious jews living in Israel have
heard all this before, but perhaps not to their face.

1.) hesdernikim are contemptible because they only serve a short time in the
    army but haredim are beneath contempt. they don't serve at all.  And
    it doesn't make a difference that they aren't wanted.  They
    shouldn't raise their kids in a way which renders them useless to
    the army.

2.) dati leumi are the worst because they possess another political agenda.
    they are all little 'Yigal Amir's waiting to pounce.  They kill in
    the name of heaven, whereas haredim just close down theaters, bus
    lines, and stone cars (all nonlethal activity)

3.) datiim are some of the best soldiers in the army.  the two dati guys in
    my unit were examples for the rest of us.

4.) Views of the datiim regarding the peace accords may be worth something and
    may be heard because their children also die in wars.  The haredim
    have no right to say anything because they think their blood is

I obviously don't know if these views are held by the majority of
israel's irreligious population, which is estimated to be ~70%.  These
might be the views of a small minority, but i don't think so.

I just wanted to tell others that not everyone shares Carl's experience
with secular Israelis.  sometimes they express resentment for all
religious people, but occasionally they express less resentment for
'datiim'.  sometimes the hiloniim even seem to respect datiim who serve
in the army.



From: <KANOVSKY@...> (Mechael Kanovsky)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 12:02:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Once a Year Blessings

Some time ago someone posted a question about five blessings (berachot)
that one says only once every year. Last night at the daf yomi shiur
(zevachim page 37) Rashi brings down one that we did not mention. This
is the berachah that one says when he eats the korban pesach (al achilat
korban shel pesach).  hopefuly we will start saying this bracha this
year and every year.
 mechael kanovsky


From: Shmuel Himelstein <himelstein@...>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 07:52:12 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Right to Die

Under guidelines just issued by the Israeli Ministry of Health, as
published in the Jerusalem Post of February 13, 1996, guidelines were
issued for the treatment of terminally ill patients who wish to refuse
treatment which would "prolong their life but harm their dignity."

These recommendations do not support either active or passive
euthanasia, but do allow a patient to opt out of the use of "heroic"
measures to save his or her life.

Before agreeing to this request by patients, the staff must be convinced
that the patient is "irreversibly terminal and that no treatment can
save his or her life." This fact must be agreed upon by two doctors "who
are not connected to each other," at least one of whom must be a
department head.

The actual decision to withhold treatment must be made by three doctors,
including the hospital director or a department head in the particular

           Shmuel Himelstein


From: <StevenJ81@...> (Steve White)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 11:09:47 -0500
Subject: Twins and More

In #16 Al Silberman writes:

>In Bereishis Rabbah 22:
>"R' Yehoshua Ben Korcha said two went up to bed and seven descended; Cain
>and his twin sister and Abel and his two twin sisters."

Meaning Abel and his sisters were triplets, or that they were quints, or
Steve White


From: Elana  Fine <ef91@...>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 17:01:47 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Twins in Tanach

In regard to Gedaliah Freidenberg's question posted on Feb. 5 concerning
a mention of twin daughters in Tanach, there is a Rashi by Benyamin's
birth that he was born with twin sisters. ie he was a triplet.  
Elana Fine


End of Volume 23 Issue 19