Volume 24 Number 66
                       Produced: Wed Jul 17  0:33:56 1996

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Being "yotze" on mistaken kiddush
         [David I. Cohen]
Bits and Pieces
         [Seth Magot]
Davening Errors
         [Warren Burstein]
Doing some new good thing 3 times---Is it a Neder or not?
         [Zvi Weiss]
Israeli economy and Yeshiva tuitions in America
         [L. Wolf]
Jews in the north
         [Claude Schochet]
Laundered Clothes-Nine Days
         [Yossie Abramson]
Mitzvat Yishuv Eretz Yisrael
         [Binyomin Segal]
Selling Land in Israel
         [Michael & Bonnie Rogovin]


From: <bdcohen@...> (David I. Cohen)
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 20:32:26 -0700
Subject: Being "yotze" on mistaken kiddush

A recent post discussed a mispronunciation of a word in the Shabbat 
morning kiddush, with the comment that the listener decided to not be 
"yotze" (fufill his obligation) with that kiddush. Can one decide to be 
"yotze" with another's kiddush and then change your mind in the middle? 
At what point, if ever, is it too late? 


From: <magot@...> (Seth Magot)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 09:53:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Bits and Pieces

	Over time some of the 'decorative' fringes (not Tzitzi) fall off
Tallit Gadols, also over time bits of leather come off the ends off
Tefillin straps.  What is the status of these bits and pieces?

Seth Magot


From: <warren@...> (Warren Burstein)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 21:24:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Davening Errors

Giving Hashem smicha is not as much chutzpah as the certificate of
kashrut in a restaurant in Queens, New York which says "Hamakom is
under the supervision of <kashrut organization>".


From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@...>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 09:56:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Doing some new good thing 3 times---Is it a Neder or not?

> From: <rhendel@...> (Russell Hendel)
> [Luntz V24 #60 ]mentions a friend who davened Maariv during Shivah calls
> for a week and found out she in effect had made a neder to always daven
> maariv. However based on Yoreh Dayah 214:1 and the Shach, I have 3
> heters for her not to see the Maariv as a neder. Since people frequently
> do "extra good things" I think this is a very relevant matter (are those
> people making a neder to do the good things forever. For example, does a
> person who goes to shule for a year to say Kaddish, obligate himself to
> always go to shule!?) I therefore list the 3 heters and invite
> discussion

In general, I do not understand.  EVEN IF there was a neder here, if 
the situation is such that (a) she did NOT fully comprehend the meaning 
of her actions and/or (b) she did not anticipate a reasonably forsee-able 
consequence, then she should have a basis for Hatarat Nedarim.  I am 
trying to understand why the original Rabbi in this case seemed almost to 
delight in leaving this woman "stuck"... Almost as if the Rabbi is 
"getting back" at that "uppity" woman who "dared" to daven...  I am sorry 
if that sounds harsh but given (a) the very real issues described above 
(such that it may not be a neder AT ALL) and (b) the very real grounds 
for considering Hatarat Nedarim, I find the original p'sak incomprehensible.



From: <ldwolf@...> (L. Wolf)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 96 17:42:12 PDT
Subject: Israeli economy and Yeshiva tuitions in America

 Reading the postings about 1.) the "booming" of the Israeli economy and 
2.) the impossibility of affording Yeshiva tuitions in America, I thought 
I'd add my two shekalim and suggest...you guessed it. Aliya! You'd be 
joining and helping the "booming" economy of Israel, getting almost free 
school tuition (yes, I know about book charges, etc. etc. but you certainly 
can't compare!) and and also having the great Zchut of observing Mitzvat 
Yishuv Eretz Yisrael and building for the future of Am Yisrael in Eretz 

 L. Wolf


From: Claude Schochet <claude@...>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 10:14:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Jews in the north

I believe that the only Jews actually residing north of the Arctic
circle live in northern Norway (near Trondheim?) and (while
living in Denmark) I was told that their p'sak (19th century,
I imagine) was to follow Oslo time. 


From: <yossie@...> (Yossie Abramson)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 22:12:57 EDT
Subject: Laundered Clothes-Nine Days

Before you can wear clothing that was laundered, you must wear it a
while, I was wondering if there is a time limit involved. If you have
clothes that were laundered 5 days ago, is that still considerd fresh?
Or is the fact that it was laundered and NOT WORN the issue?



From: <bsegal@...> (Binyomin Segal)
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 04:30:18 -0500
Subject: re: Mitzvat Yishuv Eretz Yisrael

Dahvid and Leah Wolf ask a good question:
 * One of the hardest questions I have to answer constantly from
 * non-observant Israelis in Israel is "Why do so many 'religious' Jews
 * live in Chutz L'Aretz?"  One of the answers I give is:"Ask them!"

 * So, I'm asking you...

And perhaps they add to the depth of the question when they add


They specifically point out that their question is _not_ a halachik one per se

 * We've all heard all the excuses and Heterim, but looking at the reality
 * of the Nisim and Nisyonot Hashem has blessed our generation with, isn't
 * it time we see a little more massive Yishuv HaAretz from our Torah
 * community?

They are asking a deep emotional question...how can a member of am
yisroel, who tries to connect with Hashem and His Torah not desire to
live in Eretz Yisroel?

It is a question that has been asked by every Torah scholar that ever
lived outside the Land of Israel. It was the motivation for countless
souls to live in abject poverty through the centuries. It is a question
that stirred no less prominent people than the Ramban, the Gr"a, the
Besht, and countless others who either went themselves or motivated
their students to go.

How can I, while living in the comforts of the United States, learn
_any_ Ramban.

It's not easy. Almost no day goes by when I don't hope of living in
Israel - under any circumstances. Though I admit to enjoying the
comforts of the US I believe that I do not keep myself here for that. I
could - I would - give up the 2 cars, computer, large apartment, etc to
live in the Holy city of Yerushalayim. That I'd do in a second. (And
should I perchance be weak for one moment - have no doubt - my wife
would insist on the move faster than I)

Perhaps a gemara can help illustrate. In Avoda Zara the gemara describes
the end of days when non-jews will be given the mitzva of sukka - and be
unable to perform the mitzva due to the weather conditions. The gemara
describes the non-jeww leaving the sukka and kicking it on his way out.
While the gemara seems clear that something the goy will do is worthy of
Hashem's ire - it is not particularly clear what that is. After all - in
inclement weather one is allowed to leave the sukka. One answer I have
seen is that when a Jew leaves a sukka he is sorry for the lost
opportunity - he does not kick the sukka.

Israel is Hashem's sukka - and we must all remember that. Even now it is
destroyed - but Hashem will rebuild His sukka. And we must not be
accused of ever kicking it. And of course that is what we mean when we


And so perhaps to restate Dahvid and Leah Wolf's question: Why is living
outside Israel not like kicking the sukka?

And the answer - because we're trying to help build the walls of that
very same sukka.

See there's a problem. I can not save only myself while others are
drowning all around me. I can not walk away from the countless souls who
barely know they are Jewish - and certainly know very little of what
that means. Who will teach the Assimilated Jews of America what it means
to be a Jew if not an orthodox community in the US. Go into Ohr Sameach
in Israel and see the bricks of that sukka that we are sending to you to
complete. Every year countless Jews in this country are reunited with
their Yiddishkeit - and it often starts with an encounter with an
Orthodox Jew - here in this country.

I could put it into a halachik perspective. In a case where 2 mitzvos
are in conflict for your time then there is a principle - ein maavirin
al hamitzvos (one does not pass over one mitzva to perform another ie
one takes the mitzva closer at hand first). Now is not the time to go
into halachik depth here on deciding exactly how this principle applies
(certainly it is not _always_ applicaple) - but I do believe that this
principle and its corrolary - osek bmitzva patur min hamitzva (one who
is performing one mitzva is exempt from others) do provide a significant
halachik requirement for _many_ (though not all) Orthodox Jews to remain
in the US.

But this is not only a halachik question - it is an emotional one as
well.  How can I bear to live outside Israel? It is not easy. But how
can I bear to leave?



From: Michael & Bonnie Rogovin <rogovin@...>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 23:23:10 -0500
Subject: Selling Land in Israel

Gershon Dubin wrote:

>> It is assur to sell land in Israel to an idolator.  That issur does
>> not apply to the non idolatrous non-Jew (Ger Toshav). 
> Idolators they are not, but Gerim Toshavim they are also not.
>They would need to accept the seven mitzvos of Bnei Noach and
>acknowledge the sovereignty of the Jews over the land.

        It is my understanding that this issur was considered during the
debate over the "heter mechira".  You also imply that the sale of land
during shmita is today universally accepted.  It is not.

Avraham Husarsky wrote on the same subject:

>it is fine that you want to be halachically correct on the issue but you
>are contradicting yourself with the above statements.  there may be no
>issur to sell land to a ger toshav, but a ger toshave is a
>non-idolatrous non-jewish resident of eretz yisrael who ACCEPTS JEWISH
>SOVEREIGNTY over the land.  so even if as you claim, that you can sell
>land to a ger toshav, giving away sovereignty over the land is a whole
>different ballgame.

For the following reasons, all based on my notes from Rabbi Saul
Berman's shiurim on the subject, I respectfully disagree with these
assertions.  First, there are two types of Ger Toshav, one a non-Jew who
petitions the Beit Din for this status, and must agree to several
conditions. (I assume this is what both Gerson and Avraham are referring
to) The term is also used to describe a non-idolatrous non-Jew, and this
is the context in which Rabbi Berman stated that the issur does not
apply to such a person. Nonetheless, accepting, arrguendo, that the
Palestinians are not gerei toshav, they are still not idolators, and the
issur still applies only to true idolators.

Gershon Dubin is correct that this issue was considered in relation to
heter mechira.  Indeed, it was rejected as a basis for arguing against
the heter for the reason that sales to non-idolatrous non-Jews are not
forbidden.  As I understand it, the opponents of the heter point to its
dependance on economic crisis which no longer exists.  I never claimed
that the heter was _universally_ accepted, merely that the claim that
there is an issur against sales to non- idolatrous non-Jews was
certainly open to serious dispute.  Besides, many who hold by the heter
(or are students of Rabbis who accept/accepted the heter) are the same
who argue that the issur applies.  Now that is a contradiction.

Finally, my arguments regarding the issue of sales vs. sovereignty are
not contradictory; they are arguments in the alternative.  I am a lawyer
and by training, I explore all possible angles on any issue.  The
question of the issur should be settled because it is considered
relevant by many authorities.  I was merely pointing out that one could
also view the issue in a completely different light, in which the sale
of land was not at issue and different halachic considerations would

There are many respectable authorities, notably Rav Amital, Rav
Lichtenstein and others (including I believe Rav Moshe) who have held
that it is permissible to give the land to non-Jews under certain
circumstances.  Once one gets into the debate over Pikuach Nefesh, one
delves into subjective views over which action endangers more lives and
one's political orientation is more significant than one's halachic view
(true on both sides of the debate).  Suffice it to say that I would
assert that only the government of Israel has the authority to make
those decisions (but that is the subject of another thread...)

Michael Rogovin


End of Volume 24 Issue 66