Q I am disturbed by the refusal of some religious Jews to stand for the siren on Yom Hazikaron (Israel Memorial Day). Someone told me it is forbidden to do so. If this is so, why doesn't the rabbinate come out against it? If not, shouldn't all religious Jews stand? A Those who say it is forbidden to stand for the minute of silence on Yom Hazikaron claim it is a problem of chukot hagoyim (following practices of gentile nations). Indeed, the practice was learned from non-Jews, and there is such a prohibition, which is learned from Vayikra 18:2. However, we have not found a published p'sak that rules that it is forbidden and explains why (it is possible that one exists). Furthermore, based on the classical sources on the subject, it is difficult to forbid the practice on halachic grounds. There is an apparent contradiction between two gemarot on the parameters of chukot hagoyim. There was a practice of both Jews and non-Jew to burn objects after their king's death. The gemarot agree the practice is permitted, but give different reasons. Avoda Zara 11a says that the activity does not fall under the category of chuka, but is an act of chashivuta (showing importance). Sanhedrin 52b says that it is a chuka but is permitted only because there is a pasuk (Yirmiya 34:5) that makes it a Jewish practice before a non-Jewish one. Tosafot (Avoda Zara 11a) explains that these gemarot are complementary. The chuka of Avoda Zara refers to a practice connected to idol worship proper. In such a case, a preceding Jewish source for the custom is insufficient. But, says the gemara, the burning was not an idolatrous act. Sanhedrin refers to a general, gentile process, which is permitted only if there is a Jewish precedent. We need to define what counts as a chuka, because if we go to an extreme, we would have to forbid all sorts of things, such as wearing a suit and tie (see Igrot Moshe YD I, 81 who explains why this is not so). The Maharik (88) explains that practices that are initiated by non-Jews for logical reasons and are not negative in nature are not considered chukot at all. The Rama (YD 178:1) paskens like the Maharik, as do a predominant majority of poskim (see Maharam Shick YD 165, Yabia Omer III, YD 24, and many others), despite the GRA's (YD 178:7) protestations. (See Rav Y. Henkin's article in Techumin IV, where he tries to prove that the GRA would agree in our case.) It is not always simple to apply the rules to contemporary situations. For example, in three teshuvot, Rav Moshe Feinstein z.t.l. wrestles from different perspectives with the issue of whether elements of the American Thanksgiving holiday are chukot hagoyim (Igrot Moshe YD IV, 12 deals with the contradiction). But in our case, the Maharik's requirements are clearly met. Anyone who has experienced standing at the siren as the whole country stops everything together, silently contemplating the sacrifice and contribution of the fallen kedoshim, knows how effective a remembrance it is. It is, thus, fully logical and permitted. So why can't we all agree? Some within the religious community frown upon almost anything that symbolizes the Israeli government or general society. Although we share many of their complaints, our approach is to be thank- ful to Hashem and to the people who have sacrificed to enable all the good that comes with our Jewish State. While it is a chillul Hashem not to stand (all the more so, in public), publicizing the phenomenon, which applies to a minor- ity of the religious community, makes more chillul Hashem. We feel that one most effectively deals with conflicts among our people with love, not, for example, by yelling, "Shabbos!" For the sake of consistency and a desire to make things better, not worse, we urge that this disagreement be handled with love and understanding, not mud-slinging.
Ask the Rabbi Q&A is part of Hemdat Yamim, the weekly
parsha sheet published by Eretz Hemdah. You can read this section or the
entire Hemdat Yamim at www.ou.org or
www.eretzhemdah.org.
And/or you can receive Hemdat Yamim by email weekly, by sending an email
to eretzhem@netvision.net.il
with the message: Join Hemdatya –Please leave the subject blank. Ask the
Vebbe Rebbe is partially funded by the Jewish Agency for Israel R’ Moshe Ze’ev, the rav of the town, summoned the miser to see him. The man defended himself against R’ Moshe Ze’ev’s sharp criticism: “The Torah states, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ and I can assure you that I myself, don’t eat anymore than I give these poor people.”
“While you might have learned once”, said R’ Moshe Ze’ev,
“you evidently overlooked something in your studies. The Gemara tells us
that the angels asked Hashem why He favors the Jewish people over the
other nations. Hashem replied, ‘How can I not favor them? I commanded
them, “You shall eat and be satisfied and bless Hashem”, but they are more
string- ent upon themselves and thank Me, without being satiated, after
eating only an olive-sized piece of bread’. Why does the Gemara state that
they are stringent upon themselves? Could it not state simply, ‘they are
stringent?’ This teaches us that a person can be stringent only upon
himself, but when it comes to feeding the poor, he has to give them enough
so that they can ‘eat and be satisfied.’”
It is unfortunate that our greatest
experts are those who know, not what should be done, but what has or what
should have been done. - From A Candle by Day by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein In Kiddushin 37a, we learn that in Eretz Yisrael orlah is forbidden by Torah law, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael the prohibition is halachah L’Moshe miSinai, i.e., a law that has no Scriptural basis, but according to tradition, was given to Moshe orally at the same time as the written Torah. This accounts for the difference regarding safek orlah. Chazal propose two reasons for the different status of orlah inside and outside of Eretz Yisrael. They first suggest that the Scriptural law of orlah applies only in Eretz Yisrael because the relevant Torah section opens with the words, "When you come to the land and plant…." (Vayikra 19:23). Chazal, how- ever, reject that explanation, pointing out that the mitzvot of tefillin and firstborn domestic animals are also introduced with those words, and yet they apply even in chutz la'aretz. They then propose that since orlah is a chovat karka, "an obligation of the land," the prohibition has particular significance in Eretz Yisrael. The Or HaChaim sees the pasuk in Vayikra as bringing together three distinct mitzvot: the duty of Aliya to Eretz Yisrael, the duty to plant fruit trees in Eretz Yisrael, and the duty to observe the mitzva of orlah. He then suggests that we may understand the fruit trees as a metaphor for talmidei chachamim, the verse implying that Torah study is best in Eretz Yisrael.
Thus, the mitzva of orlah, like many other mitzvot, has
special import and meaning in Eretz Yisrael. Other mitzvot can be done
only in Eretz Yisrael. We have a choice. We can perform our mitzvot in a
"limited" way in chutz la'aretz or strive to observe them in the optimal
manner in Eretz Yisrael. Which option shall we choose? - Chaya Passow,
Yerushalayim • TORAH THOUGHTS as contributed by Aloh Naaleh members for
publication in the Orthodox Union's 'Torah Insights', a weekly Torah
publication on Parshat Ha'Shavuah This calling affects every aspect of our consciousness, our actions, our speech, and our thoughts. We must not worship idols, we must not gossip, and we must not hate our brother in our heart. Moreover, we must do righteous deeds; we must love our neighbors as ourselves. Most significantly we need to be wary of those more subtle behaviors such as deceit, denial of obliga- tions, and gains sought through flattery, which the Torah incorpo- rates into its moral teachings. It seems that one thing leads to another (Rashi, Vayikra 19:11), for it is written: "You shall not steal, you shall not deny falsely, and you shall not lie to one another. You shall not swear falsely by My Name, thereby desecrating the name of your G-d - I am Hashem". Shabbat Shalom, Menachem Persoff [The Parshat K'doshim Homepage]
|
