July 4, 2008 2:45 am at 2:45 am #587885
Does one tear kri’ah when he sees yerushalayim b’zman hazeh?July 6, 2008 12:30 pm at 12:30 pm #620951RBS_gimmelParticipant
yes, one has to, and don’t let those tziyonim tell you otherwise.
a quick look over the walls will reveal that that are R”L churches and mosques in Ihr Hakodesh, and how dare one think that just because “it’s in our hands” then the city is no longer destroyed.
?? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ??????July 7, 2008 6:13 pm at 6:13 pm #620952JosephParticipant
kitzur_dot_net – Just a technical note: its not yet in our hands.July 7, 2008 7:37 pm at 7:37 pm #620953Feif UnParticipant
Ask your Rav. Most people who post here are not poskim, although they might like to think they are.July 24, 2008 8:49 am at 8:49 am #620954RBS_gimmelParticipant
josephf: I’m referring to the remarks of the prominent figure who, following the June 1967 Israeli capture of the Old City, said: “?? ???? ??????”.July 24, 2008 3:57 pm at 3:57 pm #620955JosephParticipant
kitzur_dot_net: Ich farshtay 🙂July 24, 2008 4:08 pm at 4:08 pm #620956
i believe the din is that you are obligated to tear Kriah, upon seeing (or coming within a certain proximity, im not sure which) the Kosel, not Yerushalaim. this is only after not having been there after a certain length of time (i think, a month).
obviously ask a Talmid Chochum.August 27, 2008 3:42 pm at 3:42 pm #620958
Just to post tha which i have seen r’nevenztal wrote to tear kriah
the chazon ish paskened you are yotze with one kriah on har habayis
r’ hershel shechter says you do not have to (the shiur which i heard he was not clear mentioning both tzdadim but l;choira favoring not to)
and i read b’shem r’ zevin (editor in chief of encylopedia talmudis) not to
Ithink r’ tzvi yehudah also paskened not to tear kriah on yerushalayim
it seems k”a lo pligi on har habayis you should.
what i dont understand is why i certainly never heard of someone tearing on arei yehuda.August 27, 2008 6:56 pm at 6:56 pm #620959
I find it sad that of all the posts, none of them sent the poor letter writer to any primary sources.
1. Moed Katan 26a
2. Rambam Hilchos Taaniyos 5:16
3. Shulchan Aruch OH:561
Now you can ask your posek
One post in particular had the mindlessness to give halachic advice which included such pearls as “I believe”, “I’m not sure”, “and “I think”. On a different topic he paskened from his “feelings”. To this person, if you are ignorant, don’t advertise it.August 28, 2008 2:15 pm at 2:15 pm #620960
blue shirt, thanks for sincere wish to help me, however, i was asking specifically in this case because there are special factors involved I.E. that yidden do have political control over yerushalayim and in effect there would no longer be the chiyuv to tear kriahAugust 28, 2008 3:16 pm at 3:16 pm #620961
that wasnt very nice
its perfectly appropriate on a forum to express ones thoughts and feelings. afterwords i wrote: “obviously ask a Talmid Chochum”
as far as expressing my feelings on the techeles issue, i thought some people might find it interesting. afterwords i wrote: “obviously i am not suggesting what the Halachah is based on this
apparently you are irritated by my posts, im sorry.August 28, 2008 3:43 pm at 3:43 pm #620962
i also want to thank you
this is the first time in my life ive been insulted and embarrased publicly (albeit via a screen name)
it was somewhat painful, but gave me a chance to work on not bearing a grudge and being maaver al midosav.
ive been looking forward to such an opportunity for a long time.
thank youAugust 28, 2008 4:18 pm at 4:18 pm #620963
I publicly apologize for embarassing you and ask for your forgiveness.August 28, 2008 4:30 pm at 4:30 pm #620964
You are correct, there are many poskim who claim there is no obligation to tear kriah because we do have political sovereignty over Yerushalayim. As you see from the posts, there is a serious difference of opinion as to what degree of control is necessary to negate the obligation of kriah. Almost unavoidably, this argument quickly deteriorates into a highly unproductive pro-zionist vs. anti-zionist argument.
Of the poskim you cited, the most interesting one is that of the Chazon Ish (I have not seen this psak for myself, I rely on you). This would explain why I rarely see someone in or near yerushalayim having torn kriah.August 28, 2008 8:48 pm at 8:48 pm #620965Yanky55Member
To kitzur: Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook Zt”l dared think just that. Oh…sorry, his opinion doesn’t count. He was a tziyoni. You obviously know more than any tziyoni.August 29, 2008 2:16 pm at 2:16 pm #620966
the internet doesnt have the Shmirah provided by seeing anothers face.
its all too easy to start typing away without thinking of the power and longevity of your words.September 2, 2008 9:48 am at 9:48 am #620967
Thank you feivel. Ok, let’s get back to the topic. In my opinion, the act of kriah is the physical act (ma’aseh)corresponding to the emotional anguish of seeing Har Habayis bechurbonoh. The emotional feeling is expressed in the act of tearing one’s clothes. If one is not in anguish, or let’s stretch a little and say is absolutely thrilled to be in Yerushalayim for the first (or second or more) time, and is naturally enthralled by the kosel and the view etc…, then the act of kriah loses it’s emotional partner. This is not to say necessarily that it is meaningless or that the mitzvah without the proper kavanah is worthless. However, the intent of the act is really the major aspect of the mitzvah and the ma’aseh is only the expression of it.
I heard from a reliable source (I choose to omit some names, I do not have their permission)that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l once was asked about kriah on a niftar (not a relative)during a period of time when kriah is not supposed to be done. The person asking told Reb Shlomo Zalman that he did not tear on that day, should he do it at a later date. The answer was no. On a later date the intense anguish that would require kriah is no longer there and therefore no “delayed kriah” is indicated. This idea is is similar to what I wrote above.
What we see is that the various opinions on the chiyuv kriah nowadays can all be understood depending on how much one views the chiyuv as relating to one’s anguish when one sees Har Habayis bizman hazeh. Since we undoubtedly have a certain degree of control, and one can claim that Yerushalayim is not totally bechurbonoh, then maybe there is no chiyuv, the anguish is not paramount in one’s feelings. However, if one maintains that the chiyuv kriah is independent of one’s feelings, and/or that as long as there is no beis hamikdash then yerushalyim is bechurbonoh, then the chiyuv kriah still exists.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.