Volume 32 Number 94
                 Produced: Sun Jul 16 11:02:45 US/Eastern 2000

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Attacks against non-Orthodox
         [Saul Davis]
Double standard:
         [Kenneth H. Ryesky, Esq.]
Lying in PRayer
         [Russell Hendel]
         [David and Toby Curwin]
Nahem: Correction and suggestion
         [Sheri & Seth Kadish]
A "New" concept for the Aliyah discussion
         [Moshe Feldman]
Rav Tzvi Yehudah Kook and Rav Feinstein on Nachem
         [Yael Levine Katz]
Uganda (3)
         [Tszvi Klugerman, Edward Ehrlich, Yisrael Medad]


From: Saul Davis <sdavis@...>
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 23:17:29 +0300
Subject: Attacks against non-Orthodox

Michael Horowitz wrote: "It should be noted that the attack on the
Masorti temple in Jerusalem was condemned by all corners of the Orthodox
world.  There is no justification for this type of terrorism in

Personally I did not hear any condemnation at all, let alone from "all
corners". Furthermore, recently non-kosher meat shops have been
attacked, similarly with no reaction from rabbinical authorities. Does
the frum community condone this violence? If silence is to agree (TB
Yavamoth 87b et al) then it seems that the various misguided (and
presumably orthodox) people who carry out these attacks have rabbinical
compliance and thus will not stop. I thought that we founded the Jewish
State and came to live here, inter alia, to be free of such occurrences
as the vandalising of synagogues, desecrating Jewish graves (E. Ben
Yehuda's for example) and other hateful acts.

[Similar point raised by: Yisrael Medad <isrmedia@...>


From: Kenneth H. Ryesky, Esq. <khresq@...>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 16:10:35 -0400
Subject: Double standard:

Re this thread on acts of arson, allegedly perpetuated by religious
Jewish individuals upon fellow Jews who happen to have rejected portions
of traditional Jewish teachings (Mail.Jewish, issue 32:89):

There seems to be a double standard here.

Imprimis, those acts of arson are to be condemned without regard to the
religious practices of the perpetuators or the victims, and indeed, ARE
in fact being so condemned from all quarters of the frum community, as
well they should be.

Nevertheless, certain secular and non-religious Jewish leaders and media
are purveying the false message that those incendiary acts are
supported, aided and abetted by frum Jewish leaders, if not the entire
frum Jewish community.

If the same standard were to be applied to all segments of the Jewish
community, then why are all members of the so-called "Reform Movement"
not being held accountable for the homicide allegedly committed by a
certain "Reform rabbi" in Southern New Jersey who is now being held on a
capital murder charge?  [And as for the contention that the prisoner,
albeit incarcerated, is innocent until proven guilty, there is much more
compelling evidence of his involvement in the murder than there is of
some unidentified individuals' involement in the arson.]

The fact is that the frum community and leadership do not support the
incendiarism any more than the "Reform" Jewish community and leadership
support the homicide.  To the contrary, everyone is appalled by and
condemns all of those hostile acts.

This double standard should be pointed out to those who would hold all
frum Jews responsible for the firebombings and book-burnings perpetuated
upon others.

Kenneth H. Ryesky, Esq.
P.O. Box 926, East Northport, NY  11731
631/266-5854 (vox), 631/266-3198 (fax)
E-mail:  <khresq@...>


From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:24:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: Lying in PRayer

A short comment about lying in prayer. I heard that some people(Rabbi
Goren?) advocated changing the "blessing of the new moon" prayer that
says "Just as I dance but CANNOT TOUCH THE MOON" (In light of the
astronauts landing on the moon it was suggested this be changed).

Thus we see that change is OK if the statement in the prayer is
blatantly false.

By contrast the Nachem prayer makes SUBJECTIVE statements which are not
blatantly false. Sure things are better now for Jerusalem. But lets face
it, alot of powerful forces want us to give it back--it is still
dangerous to walk in certain parts of Jerusalem, and we have an Arab
Mosque on our Temple. It therefore is ADMISSABLE to say that "Jerusalem
is still in ruins".

If anything we COULD change the prayer (to everyones satisfaction) but
NOT by omission. We could simply say "God, EVEN THOUGH WE NOW HAVE OUR
OWN STATE NEVERTHELESS comfort us...for Jerusalem is still--FOR ALL

In other words we can change the prayer by ADDING phrases without taking
anything away.


Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA
Moderator Rashi is Simple
Surfing the Talmudic Sea


From: David and Toby Curwin <curwin@...>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:53:18 +0300
Subject: Nachem

Bill Bernstein <bbernst@...> wrote: 
> Compared with a city that has a bikkurim ritual like the one 
> described in the mishna, the Jerusalem of today really would be like a
> garbage heap. 

As might be imagined the above sentence really disturbed me. But instead
of returning to the comparison of the sin of the spies to today's
reality (as has been done before on the list), I'll ask a simpler
question. How does the above approach fit in with the line from the
hagada: "If He would have taken us into the land of Israel, but not have
built us the Temple, it would have been enough." That isn't to say that
we don't want the Temple, but that we have to be grateful for what we

I also think that in the situation where the same individuals are
arguing against the halachic need to make aliya (even under the amazing
circumstances of our times) are telling us that without the Temple,
Jerusalem is a "garbage heap" (chas v'shalom) we should remember the
following Rashi: "A redeemer will come to Tzion" As long as Tzion
remains desolate -- the Redeemer will not come" (Commentary on Yishayahu

Andrew Klafter <andrew.klafter@...> wrote:
> Why not simply concentrate on the current state of Har HaBayis when saying
> these words?

And another poster (sorry, I don't have the quote) said that
Yerushalayim only refers to the Old City.

As far as Har HaBayit, from what I have learned, Nachem was written
after the Bar Kochba rebellion, not after the destruction of the
Temple. It was a response to the Roman ban of Jews living in Jerusalem,
which in the past 50, and certainly in the past 30 years has been truly

As to the Old City, why should the walls built by a 16th century Sultan
determine the halachic boundaries of Jerusalem? I believe there are even
midrashim that say that Jerusalem will get bigger and bigger.

David Curwin
Kvutzat Yavne, Israel


From: Sheri & Seth Kadish <skadish@...>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 06:51:53 +0300
Subject: Nahem: Correction and suggestion

A slight correction: My reference to the Mabit said chapter "41".  The
entire reference should have read:

4) Mabit, Beit Elokim, Sha`ar ha-Yesodot, chps. 38, *61* (16th century)

And now a suggestion which may prove of practical use, especially since
Tisha be-Av is just around the corner:

A number of posters brought up alternative versions that have been written
for Nahem.  Among them were:
1) The version that appeared in an early edition of the Rosenfeld Kinnot
2) A version by the late Professor E. E. Urbach of blessed memory
3) A version used in the religious kibbutz movement or in Kvutzat Yavneh.
4) A possible version by Rav Gorern??

Would it be to much to ask for people with easy access to these various
versions to post them, so that they will become available to all?  Then
the rest of us could compare them for the sake of study, or even use
them if we (or our LORs) see fit to do so.  I have no idea how to go
about posting them in Hebrew letters.  But since the text is so short
anyway, perhaps they could simply be typed up in transliteration and
sent to mail-Jewish? 

[If done, I will start a new page on the home page and add all of them
there. Mod.]

Thanks in advance,
Seth (Avi) Kadish


From: Moshe Feldman <MFeldman@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 14:43:21 -0400 
Subject: Re: A "New" concept for the Aliyah discussion

Carl Sherer wrote on June 8:
> Moving to Eretz Yisrael is a mitzva kiyumis. No one will give 
> you lashes
> if you don't go. Nevertheless, if the opportunity presents itself, you
> do not avoid it; instead you fulfill the mitzva by going to Eretz
> Yisrael. The "opportunity presenting itself" may not come without some
> degree of monetary sacrifice, just like putting up a Mezuzah is not a
> mitzva we fulfill without monetary sacrifice. 

Does this mean that we should treat Aliyah like any other Mitzvat Aseh and
expend no more than one-fifth (chomesh) of our assets performing the

If yes, this leads to the following questions: (1) Does the cost of a
"lift" (i.e., new appliances, furniture, etc. bought in order to
maximize the one-time benefits given to Olim to bring these appliances,
etc.) car, and costs incurred count towards the one-fifth, since if you
were not making Aliyah you would not incur these expenditures in order
to maintain your standard of living that you enjoy in Chutz Laaretz?
(2) Does the fact that you will earn less in Israel (m'nee'at re'vach)
count towards the one-fifth?  (Of course, in certain fields such as
computers, after you factor in the savings in the education of your
children, this is not the case.)

Can anyone suggest analogies to other mitzvot with regard to the issue of

Kol tuv,
Moshe Feldman


From: Yael Levine Katz <ylkpk@...>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:04:31 +0200
Subject: Rav Tzvi Yehudah Kook and Rav Feinstein on Nachem

In Mail-Jewish Volume 7, Number 50, from 1993, Dov Bloom mentioned that
Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook was asked immediately after the Six-Day War whether
Nachem should be changed, replying that no change should be introduced,
since the primary desolation "we bemoan is that of the Beit Hamikdash
and that is of course still desolate".  Can anyone point to a precise
written source?

Additionally, in the same posting it is stated that Rav Moshe Feinstein
is supposed to have replyed concerning Nachem saying that two phrases
pertaining to the desolation of Yerushalayim seem untrue, and one should
omit them, so as not to say a lie in tefillah.  Might anyone have
further info on this opinion of Rav Feinstein?

Yael Levine Katz


From: Tszvi Klugerman <Klugerman@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 10:28:00 EDT
Subject: Uganda

I recall from my perusing of history that Uganda was an option offered
to Herzl by the British as an immediate fix for the pressing problem of
Jewish refugees from Russia.  It was looked at by the Zionist Congress
and was passed by a significant margin. Herzl advocated the Uganda plan
becuase he felt that it would be a good starting point for Jews to
experience self government and it would help the resettlement of the
numerous Jewish refugees. It was only a starting point not a permanent

The major arguement against the Uganda plan as a temporary solution to
the above problems was that it would take the focus away from Israel
proper and that would affect the fundraising and general Jewish support
for the goal of Israel as the Jewish homeland.

A legend has it that after the vote was taken, those opposed to the
Uganda plan went outside the Congress chamber and sat down and recited
some of the Zion poems of Rabbi Judah Halevi. Herzl was informed of this
demonstration and went outside to meet with the dissenters. After a long
discussion Herzl entered the Congress the next day and declared "Im
eshkachcech Yerushalayim ... ""and that killed the Uganda plan

The next year the COngress passed the anti Uganda resolution.

tszvi klugerman

From: Edward Ehrlich <eehrlich@...>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 00:15:21 +0300
Subject: Uganda

Z'ev Scherman <zscherman@...> wrote:

> In 1903 (I seem to recall -- I can't look this up now) the Zionists
> agreed to Uganda, pending investigation.  When the investigators had
> travelled there and had seen the woefully substandard conditions, the
> next Zionist congress voted the proposal down.  It was less an
> ideological matter than a practical matter.

Actually the objects to Uganda were ideological and NOT practical.
Herzl supported temporarily accepting Uganda as a solution to the
desperate situation of the Jews in Czarist Russia.  While he was
supported by the majority of delegates, the Russian Jews themselves,
headed by the man who would eventually become the first President of the
Jewish State, Haim Weizzman rejected Uganda as an even temporary haven.

Robert Sherer <ERSherer@...> wrote:
>    3. What would have happened to the Jews, (a bunch of "white Europeans")
> when Idi Amin took power after World War II?

The Uganda of 1903 was not the same geographical area as Uganda today
and I believe is located in the current state of Nigeria.

The Zionists from Ben Gurion to Jabotinski, secular and shomeir mitzvot
had deep feelings for Eretz Yisrael.  After all, they were nationalists,
and nationalists are not indifferent about their homeland.

Ed Ehrlich <eehrlich@...>
Jerusalem, Israel

From: Yisrael Medad <isrmedia@...>
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 01:44:06 +0300
Subject: Uganda

a) the original political thinking on Uganda was the need for an
immediate place of escape due to renewed Russian pogroms (funnily
enough, something akin to the SLA fighters fleeing to Israel but hoping
to go somewhere else or even eventually return to Lebanon)

b) although it was voted to send a delegation, the Russian delegation
broke away and sat outside the hall causing Herzl to come to them and
make the pledge of "Im Eshkachech".


End of Volume 32 Issue 94