Volume 32 Number 37
                 Produced: Thu Jun  1  5:58:16 US/Eastern 2000

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Heter Mechirah
         [Joshua Hosseinof]
Israel = Mitzvah chiyuvis or kiyumis
         [Chaim Mateh]
Nachem in our times/ Honesty in prayer
         [David and Toby Curwin]
A New concept for aliyah discussion
         [Rabbi Tzvi Liker]
Out-of-Print Sifrei Kodesh
         [Sheri & Seth Kadish]
Renting of Garments
         [Yisrael Medad]
Tisha B'Av
         [Jonathan Groner]
Translation of Tikkun Layl Shavuot
         [Dan Young]
Yom Haatzmaut
         [Chaim Mateh]
Yom Ha'Atzmut / Yom Yerushalayim versus Tisha B'Av
         [Danny Skaist]
Yom Yerushalayim - Thursday or Friday
         [Jonathan Grodzinski]


From: Joshua Hosseinof <hosseino@...>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 13:19:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: re: Heter Mechirah

I heard a similar analogy between selling Chametz before pesach and the
heter mechirah for Shmittah, except this analogy was used to say that
you shouldn't rely on the heter mechirah.  Basically, we allow people to
sell their chametz for pesach because they would have a "hefsed merubah"
(big loss) if they had to destroy all their chametz ($50 bottles of
liquor especially).  Similarly, we allow the heter mechirah for the
kibbutzim because they would have a big loss if they could not sell
their produce from the shmittah year.  But, when I am a consumer in the
supermarket in Israel, I do not have a big loss if I have to pay
slightly more for produce that did not come from the heter mechirah.
Perhaps someone can calculate what their difference in supermarket
spending in Israel is between the shmittah year and the other years if
they buy non-heter mechirah produce.  I suspect that for most middle
class people, the price difference will not amount to a big loss.


From: Chaim Mateh <chaimm@...>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 23:56:12 +0300
Subject: Re: Israel = Mitzvah chiyuvis or kiyumis

In vol 32 #32, Roger Kingsley <rogerk@...> wrote:

<<This does leave open the question of whether a contrary view is
 possible.  One of the points I made is that, so far, posters have not
 quoted any halachic authorities to support it [that moving to Israel is
 not an obligatory Mitzvah (chiyuvis) but rather an optional Mitzvah

Rav Moshe Feinstein in his Igros Moshe (Even Hoezer 1, end of #102) says
exactly that, i.e., that moving to Israel is not a Mitzvah chiyuvis but
rather a Mitzvah kiyumis.  He compares it to the Mitzvah of Tzizis; if I
am not wearing a 4 cornered garment, then I am not obligated to wear
Tzizis.  But if I purposely (or not) put on a 4 cornered garment with
the required Tzizis, then I've done the Mitzvah.

Kol Tuv,


From: David and Toby Curwin <curwin@...>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 21:41:31 +0300
Subject: Nachem in our times/ Honesty in prayer

Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...> wrote:
> My question, similar to Mr. Burton's, is whether such a position is
> consistent with reciting the standard text of "Nachem" on Tisha B'Av:
> "... the city that is mournful, ruined, scorned, and desolate: mournful
> without her children, ruined without her abodes, scorned without her
> glory, and desolate without inhabitant.... For You, Hashem, with fire
> You consumed her and with fire You will rebuild her..."
> Yes, without her Temple, Yerushalayim does still mourn. But still, I
> can't see that the text can stand unchanged while Rav Moshe proclaims
> that she "has been rebuilt beautifully".

When I was in yeshiva, on Tisha B'Av they handed out a version of Nachem
that had the section from "ha ir ha'avelah ..." until "...al
chal'leihem" replaced with "ha ir ha'avelah m'maonot yisrael". (The rest
was unchanged).

I later saw an alternate insertion for Mincha on Tisha B'av --
Rachem. It was composed by the late esteemed Prof. Eprhaim Urbach, based
on the Yerushalmi (Brachot 4:3). It mentions "Yerushalayim, built up
from its destruction... settled from its desolation" It mentions those
who gave their lives for kiddush hashem and Yerushalayim. It thanks God
for redeeming the city, and prays for its peace.  This version appears
in the Tisha B'Av machzor put out by Kvutzat Yavne.

While this might seem difficult at first, as we are understandably
reluctant to change prayers and other customs that we have repeated for
generations, I think the principle of honesty in prayer can not be

This principle finds itself in a number of sources. Rav Imi (Yerushalmi
Brachot 1:1) describes someone who does not attach (the blessing of)
geula (redemption) to tefila (the Amida) like a friend of the king who
comes, knocks on the king's door. When the king comes out to see who it
is, the friend disappears, and then so does the king.  (This has obvious
connections to an even earlier source -- the story of the beloved in
Shir HaShirim).

Another source is the Kuzari, who describes those who everyday pray for
the return to Zion, but have no intention of making aliya as "the
chirping of nightingales". And Rav Yaakov Emden says that praying in the
direction of Eretz Yisrael, when one has the opportunity to move there
and does not, is of no help.

The principle here is that God wants all our prayers to be true, even
our requests.  There is probably no greater example of lack of gratitude
than to continue to pray for something God has already granted.

David Curwin
Kvutzat Yavne, Israel


From: Rabbi Tzvi Liker <liker@...>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 15:15:26 +2
Subject: Re: A New concept for aliyah discussion

I am new to the list, so this might be a repeat.

There is a small sefer called Mei'afar Kumi by Tzvi Glatt HY"D which is
devoted to the question of mitzvas yishuv E.Y..  (Tzvi HY"D was murdered
- along with 5 others - in Chevron.  32 of the Omer this year was his
20th Yahrtzeit.  He finished writing the book on Thursday night and was
killed the next night - Shabbos night.)

I think he discuses all the points raised, and has a whole chapter about
Rav Moshe's z"l position.  There is also a very important addendum by
Rav Avraham Shapira (former Rav Harashi and Rosh Yeshivat Mercaz Harav)
at the end of the sefer which discusses the question of chiyuv
vs. mitzva.

Rabbi Tzvi Liker
Kashrut Consultant
Derech Mitzpe Nevo 69/5 ; Ma'ale Adumim, Israel
T/F: +972 2 535 2610 ; MP: +972 52 380 194
email: <liker@...>


From: Sheri & Seth Kadish <skadish@...>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 18:54:19 +0300
Subject: Out-of-Print Sifrei Kodesh

I am looking for a dealer (in Israel) who can find out-of-print Sifrei
Kodesh titles, and resells them for reasonable prices.  Please respond

Seth (Avi) Kadish
Karmiel, Israel


From: Yisrael Medad <isrmedia@...>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 08:06:17 +0300
Subject: Renting of Garments

Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...> wrote in regard to tearing one's
garment when seeing desolate places in Eretz-Yisrael that

>Rav Moshe Feinstein...writes in Igros Moshe O"C 70:11:
>"It is reasonable that those who travel to Eretz Yisrael, even though we
>have still not yet been redeemed, from our many sins, they should not
>tear upon seeing Yerushalayim, since it has been rebuilt beautifully
>[b'nuyah l'tiferes] by the grace of Hashem, and in any case it is no
>longer under non-Jewish rule. The blessing should be said only upon
>seeing the place of the Temple, even if seeing it from a distance, and
>certainly when they come to the Wall. When they see those Cities of
>Yehudah which are under non-Jewish rule -- and likewise if part of
>Yerushalayim is under non-Jewish rule -- even if they are built nicely
>[nivnu yafeh], one must tear."

this element of the Halacha was rediscussed when, starting in May 1994,
portions of EY were transferred in accordance with the Oslo Accords to
non-Jewish rule and it was pointed out that the Mishnah Brura
specifically notes there OH 561, Note 2, on the words "in their state of
destruction" that: "even if Jews dwell there since the Ishmaelites are
ruling over them, that is termed 'destruction'".  The Shaa'rei Tshuva
notes that it is a custom not to include Hebron as a city to tear over
as it was an Ir Miklat (City of Refuge) which is different than Arei
Yehuda (Cities of Judea).

Yisrael Medad


From: Jonathan Groner <jgroner@...>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 17:16:17 -0400
Subject: Tisha B'Av

Regarding the comments of Robert Tolchin and others: A similar
expression came up a few years ago in an unusual context.

The novel "Primary Colors" was published, as many will recall,
anonymously. A great many political reporters were rumored to be its
author. I recall saying, correctly, that of those who had been named,
Joe Klein was probably the actual author. My reasoning was that
somewhere in the book--I don't have it here in front of me--a character
says something like, "It'll take from now until Tisha B'Av."

I figured this book had to be written by a Jew. (I also figured, for
entirely different reasons, that it had to be written by a man, and Joe
Klein was the only rumored author who was Jewish and male.)


From: Dan Young <danyoung@...>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 21:09:58 -0400
Subject: Translation of Tikkun Layl Shavuot

Can anyone point me to an English translation of Tikkun Layl Shavuot?

Dan Young


From: Chaim Mateh <chaimm@...>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 22:22:02 +0300
Subject: Re: Yom Haatzmaut

In vol 32 #34, David <curwin@...> wrote:
<< I don't think it [Hallel (with or without a blessing) on Yom
Ha'Atzmut and/or Yom Yerushalayim] is any more inconsistent than saying
Hallel on Chanuka>>

Did not the Anshe Knesses Hagdola decree that we say Hallel on Chanuka?
Did a similar Rabbinic body decree the same for Yom Haatzmaut?  Are
Rabbis empowered today to rule new days for Hallel saying?  Are they
empowered to change the Hallachot regarding mourning customs during
Sfiras Haomer (during which Yom Haatzmaut falls)?

<< We have an obligation to thank God for all redemptions, even ones
where we don't benefit now from the freedoms they achieved.>>

Why then was a Hallel holiday not decreed after Ezra returned to Eretz
Yisroel?  Then too, we got our own country, and even the Beis Hamikdosh.
Or when Shlomo built the 1st Beis Hamikdosh?

<< Certainly we are obliged to thank God for a redemption we currently
benefit from, and all the more so for a redemption on the level of the
current one we have been benefiting from over the last 100 years.>>

What redemption did we get 100 years ago?  That "redemption" has
continued for the past 100 years?!  Including the years 1939-1940?!  I
might agree with you that we did experience a redemption at the end of
WW2 in 1945.  Does anyone say Hallel on the day the war ended?  Yom
Haaztmaut is not only the day Ben-Gurion declared the State of Israel.
It's also the day that war broke out and many Jews were killed.  OTOH,
does anyone say Hallel on the day the fighting stopped, months after Yom

Are you referring to a physical redemption or a spiritual redemption?
In either case, when and where in Jewish history (besides Purim and
Chanuka) has it been ruled that we say Hallel (and all the other "chag"
trappings) on days of redemption?

Ezriel Krumbein <ezsurf@...> wrote: 

<<Hallel on Yom Ha'Atzmut and Yom Yerushalayim is to appreciate what
Hashem has given us.>>

We can and do appreciate what G-d gives us, every day of the year,
without saying Hallel.

<<Control over many of the Mekomos Hakedoshim.>>

And if and when, chass vesholom, the Israeli government loses complete
control over some/many of those Mekomos Hakdoshim, will the Hallel
sayers cease saying Hallel?

<<A center for Torah and Yiddiskiet The opportunity to fulfill mitzvot
hateluot baretz.>>

When was Hallel and chag decreed for these things when they occurred
during the past 3311 years?

Here in Israel, the generally accepted reason for saying Hallel on Yom
Haatzmaut (by those who do say it) is not saying thanks per se, but
rather as a recognition that there is somehow some holiness attached to
the concept of (even) a secular state in Israel.  In the Yom Haatzmaut
pamphlet put out by Machon Meir, is an article that is (in the words of
the author) "the concise words of Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook ZT"L as publicized
in his talks about Yom Haatzmaut, edited by Rav Shlomo Aviner Shlita".
The opening sentence is: We are to increase happiness (simcha) on Yom
Haatzmaut, on the return of the Shchina to Tzion with (when) the kingdom
return to Israel in the form of the State of Israel, even though
everything is not yet according to the Torah."

IOW, they claim that the Shchina returned to Eretz Yisrael on 5 Iyyar
 5708.  I find this very hard to believe.

Kol Tuv,
Rechovot, Israel
A Zionist in the sense of "ki mitzion tetzeh Torah" and ahavas Eretz Yisroel


From: Danny Skaist <danny@...>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 08:36:28 +0200
Subject: RE: Yom Ha'Atzmut / Yom Yerushalayim versus Tisha B'Av

<<David Curwin: I don't think it is any more inconsistent than saying
Hallel on Chanuka and fasting on Tisha B'Av. We have an obligation to
thank God for all redemptions, even ones where we don't benefit now from
the freedoms they achieved. >>

Note that "Al hanissim" for chanukah does not even mention the miracle
of the oil, only the redemption. But when we get to the gemorrah, the
question is "what is Chanukah? " and the answer given is "a flask of
oil", and then the story related to the flask.  The gemorrahs question
should be learned, "what is chanukah that is different from all the
other "redemption days" that it was not cancelled by the destruction of
the temple.



From: Jonathan Grodzinski <JGrodz@...>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 01:28:19 EDT
Subject: Re: Yom Yerushalayim - Thursday or Friday

In our shul (Ner Yisrael Hendon, London UK)the Gabbai announced that
although 28th Iyar is on Friday, since in Israel Yom Yerushalayim will
be celebrated one day early this year, we in our shul in London will do

My brother-in-law who lives in Petach Tikvah, says that this is
nonesense and that Yom Yerushalayim in Israel will be celebrated on 28th
Iyar namely Thursday evening/Friday

Clarification urgently required.

Jonathan Grodzinski (London UK)


End of Volume 32 Issue 37