Question:

I?m a little embarrassed to ask, I hope it will not be misinterpreted.
Well the thing is this:
I'm 19, I have a boyfriend and we are going to be married.
I love him very much
I trust him and his faith
I will always follow him.
I feel within me that there is a difference between my love for my man and my love for Hashem.
Obviously, I thank Hashem for everything He gave me,
Including my husband to be.
Yet, I would like to ask what the difference is between the two loves. I'm a little embarrassed over the comparison...
But can you clarify the issue, if possible.
Thanks in advance,
S.
Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear S., Our love for Hashem is greater than our love to anyone who is dear to us, for Hashem is the source of all life and all goodness that we and the whole world have. Therefore, there is no room for comparison, as you rightly felt. Nevertheless, there is a certain connection between true love and love of Hashem, in that every pure and true love has something of the love of Hashem within it, as it is Hashem who evokes this love and it is He who gives us the good that we love, as explained by Rabbi Kook of blessed memory. That is why we must keep each love in purity, for one is the surety of the other. All the best, Rav Zini

Question:

I am interested in studying physiotherapy next year and I wanted to know if there may be a Halachic problem in working in this profession. As you know, physiotherapy involves physical contact between therapist and patient, so there may be a problem with modesty if the patient is a male. Thank you.
Rav Zini’s Response:

There is no prohibition on learning this profession. The problems that you noted indeed exist, but there is no difference between this profession and any other are of medicine. All areas of medicine involve tasks that are not always simple, and the Halacha has determined that a professional is busy doing his job and is not involved in forbidden thoughts as he is carrying out his work. Also, have we no need of women physiotherapists for the benefit of women? Thus, I urge you to study and succeed in your studies. Just consult a Rav who will instruct you how to overcome all the difficult situations. Success and blessings, Rav Zini

Question:

I am specifically writing you, as a Rav who resides in Haifa, in order to ask if it is forbidden to visit the Bahai gardens or enter the golden dome. I'm new in the city.
Thank you and good tidings.
Rav Zini’s Response:

The Bahai temple is not an idolatry temple, so it is permitted to visit it. Best wishes and welcome to the city

Question:

Dear Rabbi,
I am the mother of a three year old child who frequents a non-religious kindergarten. There is a Mezuza at the entrance of the kindergarten, but there are no Mezuzut in the inner rooms. It should be noted that the children remain in the kindergarten until the afternoon hours (they usually take an afternoon nap in the kindergarten). Is this appropriate from a Halachic point of view? This is not the home of the children. Can I charge the kindergarten owners to place Mezuzut? If they refuse, am I allowed to purchase Mezuzut place then at the doors of the kindergarten rooms? Is it important to place a Mezuza in a kindergarten where the children are so young and do not understand its significance? Once more, I would like to emphasize that this is a non-religious kindergarten where all children come from secular homes, and I want to place Mezuzot in the rooms only if it is a Halachic duty ? I do not want to go according to the more stringent opinions. I apologize for the many questions. I will be happy if you could help me!

Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear A. It is obligatory to place Mezuzot in all of the Kindergarten?s rooms (except for the lavatories and the like0, whether the children understand it or not, but it is the kindergarten?s owners duty to do so, and not yours. However, I see no way in which you could oblige them to do so. You can ask them and pressure them to agree, and you can also try and convince them that they will merit blessings, plentitude and success. You can also add that from your point of view, it is very important for you that your son be in a place properly arranged according to Halacha. Perhaps they will be willing to be considerate and will also merit a Mitsvah. If they refuse, you can donate a Mezuza at your own expense, if you have the wherewithal to do so. Moreover, as to the concept ?non-religious? or ?secular?, please do not be tempted by such concepts thought up by evil persons who invented it to rip our people apart. Many of those who are stigmatized by this epithet are full of respect for the Torah and many Mitsvot. Wishing you a happy Chag, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini (Q&A taken from the Kipa website).

Question:

Hello,
Your honor has written in a recent article that ?something for which one sacrifices one?s life becomes sanctified?. Why is the sacrifice of life a sign of sanctity? The students of such as Leibowitz can also sacrifice their lives from some objectionable value! If a value is sacred because it is, what does sacrificing one?s life contribute to its definition as sacred?
Than you, Emmanuel.

Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear Emmanuel, I must comment that I am somewhat stunned by your question regarding the connection between the sacrifice of life and sanctity. As you well know, the entire Halachic precept of ?You shall allow yourself to be killed, rather than transgress?, which imposes the duty of self-sacrifice on each of us, in those circumstances that the Halacha has determined, is derived from the verse: ?And I shall be sanctified within the people of Israel?. This is the basis of the connection between sanctity and self sacrifice in as clear a way as possible! And have you forgotten that anyone who trespasses the holy of holies without permit must die (whether through divine intervention or otherwise), as can be seen from all of the Halachot relating to the Temple, etc. Have you forgotten what our Rabbis have determined regarding the eighteen laws established by Beit-Shamai, that even if Eliyahoo the Prophet should come, it will not be in his power to void them, for the sole reason that the people of Beit-Shamai sacrificed themselves in order to uphold them! And there are thousands such examples that I will indicate to you, G-d willing. As to the students of Leibowitz, I doubt their readiness to sacrifice themselves, as a great number of them have been tainted by his claims that all of the wars that we are involved in do not merit sacrifice. But even his students who are part of the ?Peace Now? movement, etc., who are willing to put up a struggle, consider it elementary that the thing for which they sacrifice themselves is sacred to them. Obviously, we do not old such sanctity sacred, because what we consider sacred is what G-d has deemed to be sacred, and that is what G-d did: He established the rule that every piece of ground conquered by ourselves becomes sacred. In any event, the principle I have formulated whereby everything that one sacrifices oneself for becomes sacred, remains unshaken (whether such sacrifice is only in the eyes of G-d, or people too). The only argument that may arise relates to the type of sanctity that may apply, and we have a clear answer in this respect. Wishing you a Good Shabbat, All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini

Question:

To the honored Rabbi Zini,
Is it possible, and should one relate to the State of Israel has having the significance of something sacred? If so, how can assign priority to our obligation to the holy land versus our obligations to the State?

Logically: the State is the vessel that enables us to achieve selfhood as a people and connection with our sacred land. Thus, even if at the moment, we have no had the merit to keep Gush Katif, our obligation to the State nevertheless remains a supreme obligation because only through it are we able to expect that our redemption be realized.

Respectfully,
A.

Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear A. First of all, your question is unclear. How could the concept of sanctity apply to the concept of a State (which is an entirely abstract concept)? It is a Torah obligation to establish the State of Israel, as plainly stated by all the Rabbis of our people, that our people have been commanded to uphold three Mitsvot on entering Israel, and one of them is to nominate a king, and a king constitutes political leadership, and there is no political leadership without a State. However, does the fact that the nomination of this leadership is a Mitsva, automatically make everything the leadership does into something sacred?! G-d forbid. When the State does things that coincide with G-d?s commandments, we say that they are things of Mitvah, and when it does things that go against G-d?s commandments, we say that they are a transgression and a crime (such as the crime of exiling Gush Katif or education that destroys fear of G-d, and many others such). It is a well known fact that many kings do not have a share in the World to Come!! And we have no better example than that set by Eliyahoo the prophet who on the one hand was willing to respect the evil Ahab by running before him over a long distance, as part of the dues owed a king, while at the same time he does not hesitate to call him: ?Enemy of Israel!!?. And as regards you statement that a State makes independence possible, you are right (though only partially so as all the heads of our State, almost without exception, have never freed themselves from enslavement to one nation or another, much as a slave loves its master and refuses to be freed), but it is not the State that enables our connection with our holy land. Jews have been sitting on this land without a State as well. The State only makes this possible with greater ease (although this obviously does not hold true in regard to Gush Katif). Our only supremen obligation is to Hashem. The state is a mitzvah, as we have said, and Mitsvot have to be observed. Especially, where one considers the words of all our great Rabbis, that ?there is no difference between this world and the days of the Messiah?, except for enslavement by the nations?. When the State was established we were freed from this enslavement, and this is the first stage in our redemption, and all the rest will come to pass in due time, G-d willing. All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini (Q&A taken from the Kipa website).

Question:

The Rav offered the people exiled from Gush Katif to come settle within the cities. It seems to me that the Rav ignored a certain problem. A great number of the people evicted are people of the land who specialize in agriculture, so that they are unsuited to city life. So it seems to me the Rav?s suggestion is inappropriate for them.
Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear R. I did not suggest that they settle within the cities, but rather that they settle within the people. City people can live in cities and farmers can continue with agriculture, in the vicinity of the cities. The article that I published is no more than an ideological suggestion in principle. However, in face to face conversations with the exiles of Gush Katif, I also suggested that they settle in agricultural settlements, and the like. In the meantime, there has been no response to my suggestions. I proposed that the people of Neve-Dekalim, who are educators and more used to city life, that they come to the city. I am expecting their answer as well. Respectfully, All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini

Question:

I often encounter friends who listen to anti-Zionist recordings by Rabbi -------. These people often also attack me for the sole reason that I am a declared Zionist:
1. This State is such a huge darkness that you think it is light.
2. Herzel was a heretic and wanted Jews to convert to Christianity.
3. Zionism is against the Halacha (you shall not immigrate to Israel en masse)

And many other claims against the State?
I do not know how to relate to these claims, because they are not just some anti-Zionist distanced from me, but rather people who try to influence our society from within, but distributing such recordings and films?
I have a number of questions in this regard:
1. How should I relate to such opinions and people? Do I have to address the issue seriously?
2. Is it allowed to tear apart these recordings? Or throw them into the trash? (by Rabbi ----)?
3. How can I respond to these questions?

With advance thanks and appreciation!
Gal
Bnei Brak.

Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear Gal, A general introduction is in order: You must know that it is always difficult to contend with those who spread slander (Leshon Harah). The evil eye of these student of Bil?am will always darken reality beyond all truth, and in fact does nothing more than reflect their own evil imaginings, whereas often they are not even aware that this is going on within them. I cannot give you the full answer you deserve within this limited space, so I will only present you with chapter headings? 1. As to the State. If it is but darkness, it seems that they have something to do with this state of affairs, in particular as elucidated at great length by the author of ?EM HABANIM SMEKHA? (The sons? mother is happy). This evil slander that they spread concerning anything that smells like nationalism, has already lead six million Jews to the gas chambers, as declared by the author of ?EM HABANIM SMEKHA?, and still they have not learned anything from it. If instead of their constant accusations they would have devoted even a tenth of the powers that they waste on slander and invest them in love of Israel, Keruv and Torah study, the moon would shine with the splendor of the sun, and the sun sevenfold, in the words of the prophet. Our great teacher Rabbi Kook of blessed memory has already taught us that the great righteous people, the Tsaddikim, do not speak out against evil, but add more love. The author of ?EM HABANIM SMEKHA? has already established that this is only a new version of the sin of the ten people who were sent out to spy our holy land. 2. It is slanderous to say that Herzl was a heretic. It is true that at a certain stage, in his search for a solution for the problem of the Jews, he thought that assimilation (and perhaps even conversion to Christianity) might prove a solution, but he quickly retracted this intention, so that one may consider him a Baal Teshuva. Thus, anyone who speaks out against him at this point is transgressing the severe prohibition of ?though shalt not speak evil against each other? (see Bava Kama, 58b): ?If he is a Baal Teshuva (who has repented his previous deeds), do not say to him: remember your first deeds?. And how much more serious the harm, when we consider that the person they are slandering is dead, and those who are cursing and speaking evil of him are sitting on this holy land, to some extent thanks to his endeavors, so that they are also ingrates. And G-d says of ingrates that He cannot suffer to exist with them in the same world, i.e., such a person is a heretic. 3. Zionism is not only not contrary to the Halach, as these ignoramuses would have it, but a Halachic obligation. One of the three commandments that we must keep on coming into Israel is ?to nominate a king? (see Rambam, Hilchot Melakhim, 1:31), and this kind is a political leaderships. Also the Torah commands us to come to Zion at all times, as established by the Nachmanides (Ramban) and subsequently by all the Rabbis of Israel, as state in the Ribash (section 101) and the Rashbats Responsa and the Rashabash Responsa (section 1 and 2) and thousands of other sages over the generations, some of whom are describe din my book: Erets Khemdatenu (Our Beloved Land). 4. There is no prohibition against destroying tapes that contain slander, and sometimes their destruction may be considered the eradication of evil from within our society. In conclusion: don?t waste your time on these people. Study a lot of Torah and you will have great benefits. For a more detailed response, read the books ?KOL HATOR?, ?EM HABANIM SMEKHA? and ?DERISHAT TSION?. All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini

Question:

To the honored Rabbi.
I would like to inquire regarding a point in your article ?Among Soldiers?, where you wrote: ?Thus, according to the law of the Torah, there is no room for consideration for the life others during a war that endangers us?.
I have two questions,
1) Is there no consideration for the general public? For example, if it is in our power to destroy an entire city with a single bomb (for example, an A-bomb) ? should we unhesitatingly do so? Or is there a certain measure in this respect (and what is that measure)?
2. Why do reservations ?endanger us?? How is this determined.
Thanking you in advance,
Powel.

Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear Powel, I assume that it is clear to you that my words were written following the fact that the IDF High Command sent hundreds of soldiers to certain death, and that it is ?only? by a miracle that a greater number of soldiers were not killed. This is the perspective within which my words are to be understood. As for you specific question, the rule is thus: we must do all that is within our power so that not a single hair should fall off the head of one of our brothers. Thus, I do not think that we should cast an A-Bomb on Lebanon, but if General Shkedi would have let his pseudo-moral considerations go and care only for the citizens and soldiers of the State of Israel, he would have instructed the Air Force to cast the bombs available in the IDF?s arsenal, which would have caused such tremendous damages that the fighting would immediately stop. The principle is this: We must adopt whatever step would end the war with a crushing and immediate victory, whenever we have such capability. And if indeed, one day there will be no choice but to cast an A-bomb ? and I fear, unfortunately, that such a day is not necessarily so far off ? we shall use it too. Even if we will not ?rush? to such a solution needlessly. Anyone of sane mind understands that the more crushing and severe the blow dealt an enemy, the more lives are saved, not just on our side, but on their side too, as evil people only understand strength and immediately submit to it. May G-dsave each and every one of our people from all troubles and woes and all harm, and protect them thanks to the merit of their sacred fathers. All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini

Question:

To the honored Rabbi.
One the one hand there are people who disengage from the State and say Selichot. On the other hand, there are some who disengage from the State and celebrate the idea of the State? have we gone out of our minds? In short, do we wave the flag this year?

Rav Zini’s Response:

Anyone who claims that the customs of Independence Day should be changed because of what happened in summer, is a total ignoramus. Can the thanks we give to G-d because of his miracles change because of evil persons or people who deny G-d?s providence? Is Chanuka to be cancelled because of the Hashmonai kings who held the reins of the kingdom after the sons of Matityahoo, each of whom was more evil than the next? I once heard an anti-Zionist scholar who was a complete ignoramus (there are such things!) who told an innocent young man: ?Look what happened after a hundred years of Zionism?! I intervened and responded: ?Look what happened less than twenty years after we came out of Egypt. According to your ignorant approach, it was a complete failure on the part of Moses our Rabbi, G-d forbid. Can the self-hate and the spiritual weakness increasingly spreading through our nation like a skin disease for the past thirteen years make us forget that the People of Israel are finally sitting on their land after two thousand years of torture and harsh edicts, and that we are no longer under the rule of non-Jews, but rather under Jewish rule, even if most of it is mortally spiritually sick? The Rambam has already determined in his Halachot for Hanuka that a perverted Jewish rule is better, even Herod?s rule is better, than the rule of non-Jews. As for the flag, it is not the main issue for us, but rather the fact that you can study Torah in the Land of Israel, learn a profession, protect your own life and also settle hour holy land. Thus, if you feel that it is difficult for you to hoist the flag, add an orange strip to it. We shall never forget or forgive the crime of Gush Katif?s deportation, but it cannot erase G-d?s miracles in establishing the State of Israel. We will add more Torah and awe of G-d at all times and in all places, G-d willing, and we will show Jews all over the world how Torah, faith and trust can conquer history. And as to those persons of little faith who change their minds because of crimes, it has been said at the beginning of the days of the Second Temple: ?Who mocks the day of minutiae?, and we shall therefore refuse to build our spiritual world according to the whims of a few weak-willed persons, whether they are non-religious or religious. Wishing you a happy Chag and praying for our complete spiritual redemption. All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini.

Question:

Shalom. I have two questions:
1. Are the boundaries of Israel well-defined or are they defined in such a way that when a place is conquered and most of the people are in favor of this conquest, this area becomes part of the land of Israel? If so, what are the boundaries that such conquest has defined?

2. Can you give me a few examples of Mitsvot that can only be kept in the land of Israel that are not related to the Temple and to agriculture. Is army service one of these?

Thank you very much,
All the best,
A.

Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear A. 1. In regard to the boundaries of the Land of Israel, the Great Eagle, the Rambam, has already established in his laws of contributions (Teroomot) Chap. 1, Halacha 32 that the Land of Israel intended by the Torah everywhere, is the land that was conquered by a king or judge or prophet of Israel in a way that was accepted by majority of the Israeli people, and this is called ?The conquest of the many. However, an individual person of Israel, or a family or a tribe, who went out and conquered a place for themselves, even if that place is part of the land given Abraham, this place is not called the Land of Israel as far as the keeping of all Mitsvot is concerned, and this is why Joshua and his court of law distributed all of the Land of Israel among the tribes, even though it wasn?t conquered yet. They did this so that the land will not be under individual conquest when each tribe succeeds in capturing its part?. According to this, all of the areas conquered by the IDF, a body that is lead by the Prime-Minister, whose considered a Judge according to the Halacha, must be considered part of the Land of Israel in all respects, and all of the Mitsvot dependent on the Land of Israel are to be kept there. Obviously, anyone who delivers such tracts of land into the hands of our enemies, is destroying our Holy Land and banishes the Shechina. 2. As regards the second question: Most of the Mitsvot mentioned in Deuteronomy are only valid in the land of Israel. For example: The nomination of a king, the setting up of a judicial system, declarations of war, and hence military service, all the laws related to the true prophet and the false prophet, the laws of the Sanhedrin, IR HANIDAKHAT (corrupted city), EGLA ARUFA (decapitated heifer), shelter cities, and countless others. All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini (Q&A taken from the Kipa website).

Question:

To the honored Rabbi.
I am a female soldier-teacher.
A few days ago, I was notified that I will be part of the array of female soldier-teachers who will be charged with receiving the children deported from Gush Katif, wherein my specific role will be to organize educational activities for the children.
I am considering refusing this mission, because on the one hand our task is purely educational and has nothing to do with the deportation. On the other hand, if I accept this mission, I will be part of the deportation system in an indirect way.
Another problem is my fear that if I refuse to do the job, the female soldier who will fill my place will not know how to handle the children as well as I do, and may even cause harm instead of good.

Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear Yael, If your role is only to treat these children, who are the victims of dictatorial decisions that are liable to temporarily separate them from their parents, it is obvious that it is a Mistva to treat them, and clearly it is better that the person treating them will be someone more identified with their parents, who will no doubt handle them with proper and appropriate sensitivity. It is therefore a Mitsva to treat them (of course, on condition that you are not required to directly uproot them from the arms of their parents). Wishing you Shabat Shalom Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini (Q&A taken from the Kipa website).

Question:

To the honored Rabbi.
This question is person and I apologize for this, but I feel that I must have an answer. Why do many of the rabbis in the religious-Zionist sector (including the honored Rabbi himself) dress like Haredim (Ultra-Orthodox). Is there any special reason for this. What is the Rav?s opinion in this matter in general ? for the Ultra Orthodox consider that the way their clothing differentiates them from the rest of the Israeli Nation who are following the laws of non-Jews, is a great ideal.

Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear D. I am happy that you are asking this question if it bothers you. However, as regards myself, personally, you are wrong. I do not wear Ultra-Orthodox attire, for I am very careful about not wearing black clothing for any reason, for the Talmud clearly states that black is the clothing of the excommunicated, the rejected, or G-d forbid, of mourning. In addition, black shoes are considered a symbol of the non-Jew. According to the Kabbala, it is completely forbidden to wear black on Shabat. So if you pay attention, you will see that all of my clothes are grayish-blue and never black, especially my hats that are always gray. I do all this intentionally, in order to avoid color that is inappropriate for the people of Israel. As for other religious-Zionist rabbis, it is not my role to answer in their place, but let us speak well of them: Unfortunately, most of the public is so mindless that if you teach Torah in black clothing, you will be considered a better teacher than someone who teaches Torah in regular clothing (this holds true for all of the public named religious, whether Ultra-Orthodox or religious-Zionist). It seems that the old proverb about the clothing makes the man, has a grain of truth in it, but in fact this is but a symptom of a low level of spiritual development. As to the laws of non-Jews, please look up the Responsa of the Maharik (I have no difficulty providing you with a hundred and twenty additional references) and you will see that the clothing we wear is not forbidden as clothing that distinguishe non-Jews. Quite to the contrary, one may raise objections toward the clothing most commonly worn in certain circles, for it is the clothing of Polish or Latvian rulers who murdered our forefathers, and the same difficulty obtains for the Jalabe has well. All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini (Q&A taken from the Kipa website).

Question:

To the honored Rabbi.
I heard a lecture related to the articles: ?why are most sons of TALMIDEI KHAKHAMIM (Torah scholars), are not TALMIDEI KHAKHAMIM, etc.?; ?A completely righteous person is a Tsadik (just person) son of a Tsadik, and an incomplete righteous person is a Tsadik son of a Rasha (bad person).
This indicates that the natural tendency of the son is to rebel against his father, and therefore the greatness of the complete Tsadik is that he is the son of the Tsadik and therefore goes against his nature, and this is the reason that most of the sons of TALMIDEI KHAKHAMIM are not TALMIDEI KHAKHAMIM.

Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear P. This claim according to which a son is opposed to his father is a claim drawn from Freudian Psychoanalysis, and as such has no source or place in a Jewish perspective. The first Jewish person, Avraham our father, was asked to show his willingness to bend his personal will before the will of G-d, even when it seemed to go against anything that reason or logic would indicate. This elevated and terrible test required that he involve his son in a seemingly impossible mission. The son, our father Itskhak, unhesitatingly assented, even though this demanded the ultimate sacrifice from him, and this not only lead him to his elevated level, but actually, the entire test is now solely ascribed to him: The Torah speaks of the ?Binding of Itskhak? not about the binding of Avraham Avinu. Can there be a moment in which the opposition between son and father can be sharper? Could there be a moment or scenario in which we would expect a confrontation between father and son, more than this moment? No. Yet, at no time do we distinguish even the slightest tendency to object to the words of the father. Our father Avraham only hints at G-d?s will to his son, and at that moment the son who should have expressed his objection places his unreserved trust in the father. Is there a greater connection between these two lofty souls, and without any tension of any kind between them?! The entire Christian idea that would have a person born of a mother without a father, is none but this Freudian idea that the son and the father cannot live in the same world, an idea that was brought to its extreme in this Christian conception. The entire Tanakh is the story of generations, as remarked by one great thinker. And the idea of generations signify how in Israel, generations are inter-connected rather than opposed to each other. An opposition between generations is something that characterizes the Gentiles more than us. Should I remind you that the rebellious son described in the Torah (?who does not obey his father and his mother?) is an abnormal situation according to the Jewish conception, such an anomalous state that the punishment of such a son is particularly severe?! As to the sons of TALMIDEI KHAKHAMIM not being such themselves, our sages have given many reasons for this in the tractate of Nedarim, please look up this issue there. However, anyone who is the progeny of a family of TALMIDEI KHAKHAMIM knows that these reasons only accompany another central point, which is that true TALMIDEI KHAKHAMIM spend their lives educating other people?s children and they do not have time to treat their own children. They therefore need help from above in order for G-d to bless them with sons who are TALMIDEI KHAKHAMIM, All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini

Question:

My name is Assaf and I am a Technion student. I began laying tefillin about a week ago, during the noon hours. I would like to feel the difference between a day on which I laid teffilin and a day that I didn?t lay teffilin. Are we supposed to feel any different in any case? If so, then how? I thank you for your answer.

Rav Zini’s Response:

The Rav?s answer: Dear Assaf, First I would like to congratulate you on your good and valiant decision to observe the Mitsvah of Teffilin. As to your question, it is a bit difficult to respond without exchanging a few words with you in regard to the reasons that brought you to this blessed decision. There is only one thing that I can say to you known: Once your clarify to yourself not only the reason for laying them, but also their significance, i.e., that their laying is not only a sign of Judaism but also a display of loyalty to the basic idea inherent in them, which is that from the moment that we left Egypt we became a free people in the full sense of the word, i.e., a people for whom no external force can dictate anything, but only the will of G-d ? then you will also feel the sanctity that applies to you when you lay them, and will feel a special proximity to G-d. From that moment on, you will also sense a distinct difference between a day in which you lay Tefillin, and days that you don?t (I hope, there will be no such days, and even if you are making your first steps in this area, it is recommended that such days be few). However, my response is obviously not complete, for there are days on which the laying of Tefillin is prohibited (such as Shabbat and Yom Tov), and no those days you will have to understand that sanctity is attained in other ways. G-d bless you and fortify you. All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini

Question:

Lately, there have been various publications against Rabbi Aviner. First I would like to ask: A. Is it true that Rabbi Eliyahoo and Rabbi Shapirah forbade Rabbi Aviner from determining the Halacha in matters of matrimony?
B. If so, then can you explain why. I know that Rabbi Aviner?s method is supported by Rabbi Weiss from the BADATS (the ultra-orthodox Beit Din), as well as Rabbi Tau?
C. Is it permitted to follow Rabbi Aviner?s Halachic determinations in other matters?
D. Are the rest of the publications about him, such as the website set up about him, permitted?
E. Should one address him with the title of ?Rabbi?.

Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear A. I have already written in this very website that all slander is hard and that one shouldn?t listen to such things. Please look up my response. Also, I would advise you to be involved in the Torah and in developing your awe for G-d rather in libel and the spilling of a Rabbi?s blood, and then you will be blessed with all that is good. Happy Chag, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini (Q&A taken from the Kipa website).

Question:

To the honored Rabbi Zini.
What does the Rabbi say about this website?
(I have omitted the name of the website in order to prevent the proliferation of slander).


Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear Y. There is a Torah prohibition against reading and looking at a website full of slander and libel against a Rabbi. Even when there are considerable differences of opinion, anyone who creates a website completely dedicated to the vilification of a Rabbi?s name indicates that he himself is of the sons of Croesus who did not dies in every generation. And in these days, on the eve of Rosh Hashana, he must urgently repent. Even if he does not agree with Rabbi Aviner in regard to his position vis a vis the expulsion from Gush Katif (I myself disagree with some of his opinions in this regard), this does not permit him to do such a vile deed that causes damage to KLAL ISRAEL and all Jews, G-d Forbid. Therefore, if this person fears for himself, he should quickly and immediately repent and ask both G-d and Rabbi Aviner for forgiveness. Blessing you with Shana Tova and Ketiva Vekhatima Tova Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini

Question:

Is there any proof that what is said in the Tanakh really happened? Perhaps it is only a book of fables? If so, I will be happy if the Rabbi can illuminate me and tell me what the proof is.
Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear N. If you want me to respond on this point, please tell me what your level of education is and what your background is, for only then will I be able to respond accordingly. All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini (Q&A taken from the Kipa website).

Question:

Why does one need a king?
King= brain, heart, liver. Redemption will come when people will be in a state of kingship, when the good mind to uphold a good thought will direct the heart, the source of emotion and the liver ? the executor.
Mind ? A good thought to carry out. The understanding that we are all one.
Heart ? A heart open with the emotion of love.
Liver ? Generates energy.

But if people will allow their emotions to manage them, and their emotions will influence their brain and kidneys, we will all be in the state of Lemekh.
And this is the state in which most people now find themselves today.
When a large number of people shall be aware that we are all one, and in a place of love, then it will be paradise on earth.
And if everyone will then be on the level of king ? why would we need a king.
A king is needed when the people are not adult, when they need someone to manage them.
In previous elections there were also people who claimed that we need a strong leader to save us, and who were ready to go back to dictatorial rule.
The previous kings of Israel also sinned, even David and Shelomo.
What was then ? was appropriate for that period.
We are now in a new age. You can?t clothe the new with the old.

And another, secondary question; Will the state in which a king rules over Israel also apply after the death of the Messiah?

Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear N. All of the concepts you mentioned are taken from the Book of Creation (Seffer Yetsira) and have been adapted by you or by the people who taught you, but in a very incorrect and incomplete way. Since such matters are not appropriate for discussion within a website, I will not address them here. I will only address a number of more important points now. Regarding the question why we need a king, the answer is clear and unshakable: because it is a Mitsva from the Torah, whenever we come to Israel, as established by the Rambam in his Halachot of Kings, and by all generations of Sages in Israel. As to your claim that only an immature nation requires a king. This is a characteristic Christian contention and constitutes part of the claims of Jesus. I therefore advise you to repent these words. I would assume that some ignoramus who considers himself a scholar, has placed these words in your mouth. What people say (especially during an election period) does not determine anything for a G-d fearing Jew. What really matters is that the Sages of Israel have so decided. Thus, the king must be a person of strong convictions, especially where a stubborn people such as us are concerned. But a king is not judged by his firmness or lack of it, but only by his deeds. A stern king who does G-d?s will, taking care of his people and country, will be considered a Tsaddik, while a king that transgresses G-d?s will shall be considered evil, even if he is very gentle about it. As for King David, please do not mention any sin. It is only the ignorant who spend their time in our generation trying to poke around David?s affairs, finding fault with this great man of our nation. It is enough that G-d called him ?David my slave?. So please don?t argue with G-d. Once thing is clear: He never sinned towards his people and faithfully filled his roles. And if you are asking about an actual king, then you should know that every current political leader of Israel is considered a king, as established by our Rabbis over the generations (and this is clear to anyone who studied even a modicum of Torah), as presented, for example in the response of the Rashba and others. We should therefore avoid such utterances as: ?What was then ? was appropriate for that period.? Please also immediately relinquish the Christian saying: ?We are now in a new age. You can?t clothe the new with the old.? Our Torah is a Torah of life, i.e., a Torah that can provide a response for each generation, and anyone who does not understand it, no less accept it, rejects the entire Torah, G-d forbid. As for the discussion regarding what is to come after the days of the Messiah, I recommend that you allowing him to live long and well, and we will only discuss the issue of ?the successor? after that. Wishing you a good Shabbat, All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini

Question:

Hello! More than 5 years ago, in the course of my army service, I loaned a book from the base library (from the education NCO). It was a novel ?Cane?s Mark? by Ram Oren. I happened to forget to return it before my discharge, and I now see no way to return the book there. What should I do now? Can I give the book to a second hand store (I don?t expect to get anything for it, I just want it out of my house)? Instead of the book, it seems to me more logical to donate some small some to the Association for the Soldier or something of that kind. It should be noted that the book has little value in any case.
Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear correspondent, First, I do not understand why the book can?t be sent to the base by mail? If this is not possible, the book may be made available to the public through a public library or some other such library that serves the public. By this you will have fulfilled your duty. All the best, Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini

Question:

Hello! I saw that among the few endorsements that the Rav introduced into the Tashbats? book on the Tractate of Avot, there was also one by Rabbi Kappakh, and I would like to ask why you chose Rabbi Kappakh in particular? I would like to know your opinion of Rabbi Kappakh and what do we have to learn from him. Are you his student and are Rabbi Kappakh?s books worth studying
Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear correspondent, First, the law of the Torah obliges me to reprimand you for having asked ?what do we have to learn from him?. I don?t know how well-versed you are in the Talmud, but if you said such a sentence knowingly, then you should know that the tractate of Sanhedrin (XC:) calls such a statement real heresy, for it says there: ?Who is a heretic? Rabbi Yosef said: such as those who say: ?of what use are the sages?. You must therefore immediately repent this expression, and if you spoke unknowingly then you have no sin. There is also an explicit Mishna in Avot, which states: ?who is the wise may? He that learns from everyone?, and if he who learns from every person is called wise, what then is a person incapable of learning from a sage?! And now, to the body of your question. Unfortunately, I only had the merit to become acquainted with the genius Rabbi Kapakh of blessed memory only towards the end of his days, but it was such a great joy to meet such a personality, who comes from a world seemingly different than that of my north-Africal ancestors, yet it soon became clear to both of us, to what extent the approach to the study of the Talmud, the Halacha, philosophy and more, is almost identical. We approached issues and Halachot with a like spirit and found much joy in our study which seemed as fresh as if just given from Mount Sinai, for they served as proof of the reliability of our ancestors? traditions, who thought the did not meet for thousands of years, they still handed us the same Torah, the seam living spirit, so clear, logical and lucid, with none of the droll witticism and would-be cleverness that are too often encountered in our provinces. I could write at great length of all the good and beautiful things shared by him and my ancestors, but this is not the place to do so. So I will only add that his personal behavior and his exemplar virtues were also amazingly like those that my ancestor?s always extolled. And as to what one may learn from his writings, which are the fruit of ceaseless Torah toil over dozens of years, we can say that he opened thousands of original sources and interpretations for students of the ?Great Eagle? (Maimonides), so that every person of wisdom should take years to study his great enterprise and extensive teachings. All the best, Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini

Question:

I am often invited to an event (a wedding, Bar-Mitsvah, etc.) by neighbors, colleagues or even relatives, regarding which I know in advance that the event will be similar to a discotheque in nature, or even worse. Women will come exposed, the DJ will play loud and licentious music, there will be mixed dancing and alcoholic beverages that only stoke the fire, so that the entire atmosphere will be such that a student of Torah has nothing to seek there. In addition, my very presence in such a place, where such deeds are being perpetrated can be interpreted as legitimizing what is going on there, even by default. I would like to ask the Rav, how to avoid such invitations? How can I explain to the person inviting met, who may be a close neighbor (next door) or a relative (sometimes ver close) or a colleague, that I cannot honor his with my presence because of the nature of the event? Even thought he honored me at my celebrations and those of my family? How can I explain that despite the fact that the even begins on a ?religious? note, for a Rav is conducting the Chupah, it is not a place for Mitvah-keeping Jew? And all this without offending the person who is inviting me or severing my ties with him, or even arousing hostility or hate.
Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear correspondent, The sages have already answered your question indirectly when they told us that ?a sage is seen and not seen?, i.e., he must be close enough to the public in order to influence the people, but not so close that the public may have a deleterious affect on his spiritual eminence. Obviously, these things do not pertain just to sages, but to every Jew who has risen to a higher spiritual level, and every keeper of Mitsvot who cares about both light and heavy commandments, who are most certainly on this level. Thus, for the sake of love and peace within the People of Israel, one should go there, but do so with great wisdom and caution. Here are my suggestions: 1. If it is a wedding, one should of-course participate in all the real and Kosher part, i.e., the Chuppah itself, and bless all concerned with good luck, so that they should know that I was there and participated in their festivity. One should not forget to bring a worthy present, so that they should know that you are truly happy in their happiness. Following this, one can remain there for sometime, in the most modest place available, and for a limited time, so long as there are no insufferable phenomena. Form the moment that such insufferable phenomena begin to occur, one may part from those present and apologize to the hosts that one can no longer delay. 2. After the days of festivity are over, one should meet the friends (acquaintances, neighbors, etc.) and gently explain what constrained us, and what spiritual, moral and ethical problems confront us at asuch moments. One should explain the internal struggle within us in such situations. A wise person would not wait for such occasions to endear his neighbor and invite him home in order to explain some of the ways of the Torah, truth, honesty and modesty, and all the rest of our Torah?s values, so that he may understand our limitation by himself when this is necessary. 3. If the matter under consideration is a Bar-Mitsvah or the like, then things ar even simpler. One can come and remain so long that everything is proper, or at least ?plausible?, and in that place one can take the initiative and ask to say a few words of Torah in honor of the event. I do not believe that anyone would refuse, and in this way a number of goals may be attained: The occasion will become a Mitsvah-meal, there will be more Torah in Israel and more honor for the occasion. Afterwards, one must leave the place if all the problematic phenomena that you noted above take place, and no one would be able to accuse you that you lack love for Israel. 4. As for the explanations that may be give, one should clarify all the concepts of modesty in Israel and their utmost importance even in a generation that has become distanced from them by force of the mass media would contaminate the very air with their monstrosities. This clarification may only be made in a place of Torah learning, in the presence of Torah learners who know how to stem the tide of cheap and base emotions and teach the people of Israel sanctity and purity. In the meantime, there is a whole booklet written by Rabbi Avraham Itschak Hochen Kook on this issue, and many other materials. All the best, Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini (Question taken from the Kipa website).

Question:

The question that I am about to raise is difficult, perhaps very difficult. My friends are preparing to set up a bonfire for Lag-Ba?Omer, just as we did last year. However they do not want one of the boy?s who participated last year to participate this year, because they no longer like him? and if fact, it is not everyone who is opposed to this boy but only one boy who is totally against it? and he is the one who has all the wood for burning, the food, everything! This boy who is to be left out has began making inquiries and as of now they told him that they are not doing the bonfire together, though in actual truth they are?. The problem is that they are afraid that he will find out! Are they wrong in what they are doing? Should the one who objects be persuaded to change his mind (although he threatened that he will not come if said boy is allowed to participate?) Please instruct me what I should do? I know that is not a regular question, but Lag-Ba?Omer is nearing? I expect your answer with trepidation.
A.

Rav Zini’s Response:

Anyone who hates another of Israel who did him no wrong, is transgressing the grave prohibition of ?Thou shall not hate your brother in your heart?. All of you are therefore charged with amending this distortion and not give in to the demands of a single sinner. Especially on the day of Lag-Ba?Omer, which is associated with the great Tana Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, whose entire life were devoted to the people of Israel, and is full of devotion to our nation. With great love, All the best, Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini (Question taken from the Kipa website).

Question:

To the honored Rabbi,
Something happened to me this morning that is bothering me from a number of aspects, and I would be happy if the Rav should cast light on this problem.
Every morning, I meet a poor person who asks for charity, and I usually give him between NIS 5 and NIS 15. He always complains: ?Why don?t you give more?? and I don?t respond because I don?t want to offend the poor man. This morning I was with my son, and I met him again and gave him NIS 5 (all the change I had on me at that moment), and then he complained again and this time asked me for a banknote. I responded (because he made me angry) that his behavior is abnormal. I give him everything I can and the situation is not easy, and he always complains.
Suddenly, he started to talk to me like a ?friend?, and during our conversation he asked me for my name and my son?s name, and I told him? and then he threatened to complain to G-d, and wished us both a ?good month??.
This made me even angrier, and I told him he will get nothing from me next time, and I went off.
I now have two questions:
1) What amends do I have to make? I feel very bad over what I said to the pauper and what he responded.
2) I want to continue giving him alms. Does what I said require Hatarat Nedarim (the releasing of vows) or not?



Rav Zini’s Response:

I understand you distress and concern, but you can be completely serene and calm. His words and threats are totally annulled and void, for there neither you nor your words have sinned. In addition, the manner and speech of this ?poor person? is ample evidence that he is not poor in money but in understanding and morals. I real pauper does not speak like this nor make threats against the person who is acting charitably towards him. And if he threatens the person who gives him charity then he is thankless, and the standing of a person who does not thank his benefactors, is like one who denies G-d. In addition to this, he is obviously full of false pride, in keeping with our Sages? admonition that ?one of the marks of rudeness is poverty (Shabbat 33a). Therefore, do not be concerned, have a good and blessed month, and happy holidays.

Question:

To the honored Rabbi,
I will formulate my question in a story:
A certain person collected ancient and important songs from elderly persons, some of whom passed away recently. He asked for these recordings from the children of the elderly people, in order to keep them on a disk, so that they may be better preserved than on a tape cassette.
He even managed to record them only a few days/weeks before they passed away. A few weeks later, after the demise of one of the elderly person, something quite strange in itself happened: A set of 7 disks was issued for sale, which included all those songs, without having received permission to publish them (certainly not commercially) from the family members of the singers.
(The publisher wrote on the disk cover, that all copying, photocopying, etc., of the disk contents is forbidden, and that anyone doing this is transgressing the strict prohibition of robbery for which there is no forgiveness).
According to the publisher, who by the way did not register his creation (according to his claim ?the production of the songs?, ?deletion of noises?, cost blood, sweat and tears) under any copyright protection, the families of the singers have no right to sue him or to say any word about him, as these recordings are the sole property of those who passed away, and not their families, and because most of them are no longer among the living, he is entitled to market it from profit and commercial ends even without their agreement.
One of the singers was a well-known Rabbi! The community and some of his family members did not agree to publish his picture nor his songs.

What is your opinion on this issue from a Halachic, behaviora and moral point of view.
As background information, as may be discerned from between the lines, I do not reject the option of issuing the disk in general, but what I see here that it was not done with the advance knowledge and consent of the owners of the material (i.e., dishonesty and unfairness). I stated my views to the publisher in a nice and respectable way, but he responded to my words with anger, and even added in a mocking tone: ?You Zionists!!!!??

Thank you and all the best,


Rav Zini’s Response:

Your question is difficult in its own right, but I am totally unable to answer it because it lacks too many details for me to make a decision. For example: Did the people who were being recorded known what the recorder will do with their songs in future? Perhaps they gave the person making the recording their consent to unreserved use of their recordings, including commercial usage? Are there other recordings of the same old people for publication that have been recorded by family members? If there are no other recordings, why did the family members not bother to record their ancestors and their traditions, and are only now aroused to ask for right? Is it possible that like in may communities, the inheritors allowed ancient traditions to be forgotten, and only now, when they?ve discovered that someone took care of them, even if he does it for financial reasons, they wake up, they remember the wealth that was in their father?s hands? Did the smell of money bring them to life? Even, in regard to the use of the Rav?s picture, one should examine the status of the Rav in the eyes of the public and the people, for this is not a simple matter. For example, does someone using the picture of Rav Kook of Blessed Memmory have to search for all of his inheritors in order to ask for permission or split profits? There are also many other questions that have to be dealt with before we can address this problem and give a clear Halachic answer. One thing is clear, and this that if the man abused the innocence of the recorded persons in order to make a profit, or did not bother to ask their permission to publish their songs, it goes without saying that his acts are very serious, especially where people of Torah are concerned. On the other hand, if the family allowed such valuable traditions to be lost, never bothered nor ever tried to publish the things so that they shall not be lost from Israel, they are the negligent ones, and it is not clear if the man is not savior and redeemer, even though he should have notified the descendents that he was going to publish things. As to the unbridled attack against the ?Zionists?, it is very difficult for me to address this issue on the even of Rosh Hashana, and especially as it denigrates a whole public in non-discriminating way, and coming from people, some of whose representatives did not hesitate about a year ago to claim that ?they have no problem stealing for the Torah!!?. Moreover, is it difficult to reject the claim of people who constantly claim that it is ?permitted to steal words of Torah?, and there is seemingly even an explicit Tossefta that supports this position (a position that will only be an expression of utter ignorance should it rely on this Tossefta), and this is not the place to write about this at length, especially in the days of Teshuva and Selichot. Denigrations never have an end, and the Shulkhan Arukh has determined that one does not have to forgive libel. I therefore prefer to wish everyone that they should repent whatever harm they caused, especially in these days of mercy and forgiveness, and that they should quickly go to a Torah court in this matter, in order to come clean in thought and action before G-d on the day of judgment. And both parties have transgressed in that they spoke against each other instead of going to a Rabbi who will instruct them in the law, and then they would have been righteous when they accepted the verdict. In the hope that the parties will do so as soon as possible, I hereby bless you with a good year and a good writing and signing.

Question:

To the honored Rabbi.
I wanted to ask where it is written that it is forbidden to daven beside pictures. (I mean pictures of Rabbanim ? indecent pictures are obviously forbidden).
Thanking you in advance.

Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear correspondent, Both our first and latter sages discuss this issue at length. They began with the words of the Or Zarua in the name of our Rabbi Eliyakim, and continued in the responses of our Rabbi Efraim and Maran, in the Beit Yosef (Yoreh Deah section 151), discussed this issue at great length. In any case, the prohibition only pertains when one davens facing such pictures, but if they are along the sides of the Beit-Knesset, there is no prohibition. Even when they are facing the person who is davening, not every picture is forbidden, and there is much to discuss in this matter, All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini

Question:

To the honored Rabbi, good noon!
The Gabbai (orderly) in the Beit Knesset where I daven has decided that during the summer days, the congregation will daven outside the Beit-Knesset, (in the yard). I wanted to ask the honored Rav if from a halachic point of view this is acceptable?

Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear correspondent, It is clearly prohibited to daven outside the Beit-Knesset, at the Beit-Knesset gate. But you did not explain, why the gabbaim made this strange decision? I assume there must have been some reason, (whether justified or not). Only when I receive your response, will I be able to respond clearly to your question. All the best, Rabbi Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini

Question:

To the honored Rabbi.
Is it allowed to bless the blessing of the trees on the Shabbat? What are the consideration one way or another? What should one do if one doesn?t find trees in a state of bloom? (i.e., that they?ve already gone past that stage). With the blessing of the Torah, R.B.

Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear R.B. The matter of saying the blessing of the trees on the Shabbat is in contention during the last generations. Some of our Rabbis have allowed it on the basis of Raba?s opinion in the tractate of Succa (37b), where the discussion indicates that there seems to be no fear that he may break off a piece of the tree. Others have forbidden it for a great number of reasons that are too many to detail here. In any event, two matters are clear: 1. Our ancestors have never made this blessing on a Shabbat, and in order to avoid all problems and doubts (and for other reasons too), they made this blessing on Khol Hamoed Succot. 2. In our generation, where people would have to move (Tiltul) there Siddur on Shabbat, where in the opinion of many of our Rabbis, the Eruv we have has no value for Sephardic Jews, why should we place the entire public under such concern. The entire reason that we do not blow the Shofar on the Shabbat is because we want to avoid the Tiltul of the Shofar, so anyone permitting the moving of Sidduring on Shabbat will also have to obligate the people of Israel to blow the Shofar on Shabbat (and the same holds true for the making of ?Tashlikh?). Although there are few who are strict in this matter (and this is not the place yet to volubly mention publicly mention in public the problem of Shabbat Titul, which must be considered and not added to, and the wise man will understand, for the public will not be able to withstand any extra edicts in this regard). As to the detailed sources, they will be sent to you personally, G-d willing. Only Torah scholars whose aim is to create unnecessary revolutions are seeking baseless reasons to ease the strictness of the prohibition and destroy the customs of entire communities. Therefore, one should not cause the public to make the blessing of the trees on a Shabbat, and as to someone who cannot find blooming trees, he is invited to come over to our place to make the blessing, we will, G-d willing, find him plenty of trees. The land of G-d is full of them. Wishing you a happy Chag. All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini

Question:

To the honored Rabbi.
1) Should the public stand or sit when they declare the beginning of a new month on Shabbat in Schul?
2) It is written in the Siddur ?Tefilat Hakhodesh? that on Purim and on the fast of Esther, one skips over the psalm of ?Beit Yaakov? and the psalm for that day, in order to say ?Lamnetseakh al Ayelet Hashakhar? (Psalem XXII), etc. Do the Jews of Algeria do the saem? Is this what they do in Jerusalem too on Purim (not on Shushan Purim) even though they reas the Megillah only the next day? Or do they say ?Beit Yaakov?, etc., like they do every day.
3) Should one allow a boy to read the entire Parasha (series), when he declares with his father that he does not keep the Torah and the Mitsvot?
4) Should one allow one of the congregants in Schul on Shabbat to say the psalms of the service along with the Schats (the leader of the service) when one knows that this congregant walks in the street without wearing a head covering?

In the blessing of the Torah
Shmuel.


Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear Shumuel, 1. It is the custom of Ashkenazi congregations in Erets Israel to stand, for reasons that I have given in an article on this subject (see Ets Erez, in print). But in Sephardic communities it is not customary to stand, and especially in North-African communities. 2. This was indeed our custom (in Algeria) on Purim, to say only Psalm XXII and not the day?s psalm. 3. It is my opinion that in Jerusalem one should only do so on Shushan Purim alone. 4. As regards a child who ?declares? that he does not keep the Torah and the Mitsvot, I do not understand the nature of this declaration. Does he not come to keep his Bar-Mitsvah and read the Torah ? then he is already keeping Mitsvot! And if what he means is that he does not keep all of the Mitsvot, well, it is a given that there are none who are totally just and do only good without sin, and many in our generation who would put up a front of saintliness and present themselves as the divinely devout, yet trample Torah and mitsvot and do not have the courage to admit their sins like this child does. Moreover, should we prevent him from carrying out a Mitsvah, just because he has transgressed?! Quit to the contrary, we should make use of the special solemnity of the Bar-Mitsvah ceremony in order to bring him closer with ties of love, as our ancestors used to do. Behavior that would reject people in situations like the one you described does not originate with us, but in the Christian world. Moreover, the reading of the Torah does not help some other person carry out his duty, but is rather the upholding of the regulations set up by Moses and by Ezrah that we should read the Torah. So the child is thus upholding another regulation laid down by our greatest profphets, and he should be blessed for wanting this and being happy with it. 5. There are very many Sephardic Jews who were completely G-d fearing and observant, yet for some reason or other walked with an exposed head in public places. It is of course to be regretted that in the Sacred Land there are still some who continue to fear to reveal to the world the deep faith that is in their hearts, and are therefore ashamed or afraid to place a yarmulkah on their heads. However, G-d forbid that we should reject such a person from reading psalms on the Shabbat. Quite the contrary, one should speak gently with him and say to him: See how the public respects you, why don?t you also make an effort and respect the public by covering your head in order to augment the respect for Heaven in the world and especially in our sacred land. If he accepts this, well and good, and if he doesn?t, one should certainly not prohibit him from reading, especially in view of the fact that many Torah authorities are of the opinion that covering the head at all times is more in the manner of Chassidut (Special devotions that are not obligatory). All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini

Question:

Hello,
Perhaps my question may sound a little silly and banal?.I wanted to know why one has to pary? I mean? G-d is a supreme being, right? He doesn?t need our prayers, and as far as I understand, in the time of the Bible, a person did not pray so many times a day, as the religious public is presently doing. And another thing, if the prayer repeats itself daily, is not just said without full intention, thus losing its significance?

Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear correspondent, Your question is very complex as the subject of prayer is so deep and wide. I will only present a few essentials here. Prayer is the most natural thing for anyone who feels close to G-d. Prayer comes from a desire to be near Hashem. This not something that Hashem needs but our own need in order in order to come closer to Him. And if our sages have established davening as a duty, this is not because it is not natural for us, but quite to the contrary, because life sometimes destroys its naturalness, and we therefore repeat it as a duty everyday. However, it is clear to any reasonable person that the entire purpose of davening is to lead us to pray with the proper intention. Wishing you happy Chag. All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini

Question:

To the honored Rabbi Zini
In his introduction to the book ?Marpeh Nefesh?, the Rav rights that the precise formulation is ?Has plenty of forgiveness for sinners?, where ?sinners? is spelled ?KHOTIM? (חוטאים) but in our texts it is written ?KHATAIM? (חטאים),i.e., ?sins?, without the extra vowel, but there is an added emphasis on the ?TET?, which signifies ?sinners?, as written by King David in Psalms CV; ?The sins shall pass form the land? where Rashi writes that sins=sinners, so why change our version? Shabbat shalom.


Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear correspondent, It is an ancient tradition of our fathers that one should not say ?KHATAIM? with an emphasis on the ?TET?, for reasons that I have explicated at length in my article on the falling of one?s enemy (Worlds in Unity No. 4), for this signifies people who lead the public into sin. G-d can forgive these people, but certainly not easily, and in particular because it is said that such a person is not given time to repent (Yoma, 85b, Sota 47a, and other places). Therefore, in consultation with my teachers and father, long may he live, I have preferred the version of our Rabbi Seadia Gaon. Nevertheless, I have no objection to your saying KHATAIM, so long as you do not emphasize the letter TET. All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini

Question:

To the honored Rabbi,
I am a Technion student and I work part time in parallel. Last week my father passed away and since then I and my brother (24, 28) are saying Kadish in schul every day. The burden thus imposed on both of us is very great. Each because of his own pursuits, and it is very important for us not to miss they saying of Kadish, so as not to denigrate the memory of our father of blessed memory. I wanted to know what are the duties that obligate us in the saying of the Kadish. Do we both have to say the Kadish in schul at all three services, or are there certain leniencies in filling this obligation (for example, that only one of us will say the Kadish, thus relieving the other of his duty, or perhaps just say the Kadish once or twice a day in schul, and the rest in solitary prayer (I will be very grateful if you would respond to my question as fast as possible).
With the blessing of health and longevity, S

Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear correspondent, First, may Hashem send you consolation for the great loss of your father, may you know no more sorrow. As for the saying of the Kadish, there is not need to wax verbose to describe the merit of the saying of the Kadish, which is not only an expression of respect towards the deceased, but also a great merit, especially when said by the sons of the deceased, as our Rabbis explained at great length in there teaching. Every occasion and every davening service offers an opportunity to say the Kadish for the elevation of the soul of the deceased. However, since you point out difficulties arising from the load imposed on you, this requires a face to face conversation, or at least a phone call, so that I can direct you properly, so I will ask you to either meet me, or at least, at this stage, send me your phone number or cell-phone number, so that I can call you back. All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini (Q&A taken from the Kipa website).

Question:

To the honored Rabbi.
I would like to know how I can grow stronger in my worship. Sometimes I?m not really focused in my davening, but I want to have the right intention? this leads to sadness.

Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear M. Certainly, every Jew has the ability to grow stronger in worship, and your very request indicates that within your heart there burns a fire of faith, and for this reason you are asking and expecting to be fortified thus. A number of steps are required in order to achieve this, including: 1. You must always remember that throughout our lives, Hashem is before us (as stated by the sages in the saying: I always see Hashem before me ? SHIVITI HASHEM LENEGDI TAMID), and our life is therefore guided by this deep inner connection of our soul with its creator. 2. It is not possible that there is nothing you need. So first and foremost pray for the things that you need and ask Hashem to fill your request, and G-d willing your prayer will be received. 3. Based on those same needs, you must learn that wall we have is a divine gift at every moment, and we therefore have to ask for everything at all times, and nothing is to be taken for granted. The divine blessing bestowed on us today in our land, should never be taken for granted. 4. Please devote some of your time to learn the significance of prayer from the words of the great sages of Israel, and you will certainly come to understand the greatness of prayer, such as the saying of Rabbi Kook of blessed memory that the soul always davens at every moment, and these are but a few of the guidelines that may be given. I hope they will help you and you will feel the pleasure of Hashem when you daven and also have the merit to see your prayers accepted with good-will. Wishing you a happy Chag All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini (Q&A taken from the Kipa website).

Question:

To the honored Rabbi.
(I urgently need an answer).
Question: I daven according to the Ashkenaz version in a schul of the Moroccan congregation (there is no Ashkenazi minyan close to my home). My father passed away to weeks ago and I began saying Kadish. Should I say Kadish in the usuall version used in that place (not the Ashkenazi version) so as not create separation?

Thank you very much!


Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear Roy, First, may Hashem send you consolation, and may you know no more sorrow. As to your question: According to the main provision of the halachic law you should say the Kadish that the public there is used to saying, precisely for the reason you said, not to create separation, and especially if the other people who daven with you are angered by a change from their usual custom. Only if it is difficult for you to do so, and they on their part are willing for you to say your own version, without this arousing a public controversy, then you may. However, this too is only on condition that you are the only one who is saying Kaddish, because if there are others, this will also exacerbate the problem from a halachic point of view. Wishing you a happy Chag Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini

Question:

To the honored Rabbi.
There is a question that has been bothering me a long time. In the blessings of Keriat Shema, there is an expression ?RETSON KONAM? in the Ashkenazi version, which may be translated as ?their buyer? in the singular, while the Sephardic Siddurim have ?RETSON KONEIHEM?, i.e. ?their buyers? in the plural. This version is consistent in all Siddurim I?ve looked through. What is the explanation for this? Thank you!

Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear correspondent, The original version to be found not only in Siddurim, but in the writings of all of our ancient sages, Geonim and Rishonim, Ashkenazim and Sepharadim, is ?RETSON KONEIHEM?. However, this version was changed about four hundred years ago by people who were afraid that this expression might imply pantheism, G-d forbid. So they changed the original version. The author of the Lekhem Mishneh has already directed severe criticism towards this change. Nevertheless, one may point to the good intention of those who made the change within the Christian world, where there was concern that the original version would be interpreted as relating to the Christian trinity, G-d forbid. All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini (Q&A taken from the Kipa website).

Question:

To the honored Rabbi.
When davening 18, does one bow at ?HATOV SHIMKHA VELEKHA NAEH LEHODOT?? And another question: When wearing shoes that have no laces or sole, such as slippers? what is the order of putting them on?

Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear correspondent, If your first question relates to bowing when saying the words ?HATOV SHIMKHA?etc.? then the answer is negative. There are only four places that one makes a bow when davening SHEMONEH-ESREH: During the first blessing, the second blessing, at MODIM and at the blessing of ?HATOV SHIMKHA?. However, in all four places, the bow is made when saying ?BARUKH? (or ?MODIM?), remaining bowed during the word ?ATA? and straightening up again when saying HASHEM?s name, in order to manifest the saying that HASHEM straightens those who are bent, as stated explicitly in the SHULKHAN ARUKH (Orach Khaim 113(7) on the basis of Berchaot 12b.). As to your second question, all of your turns should be to the right, because preference is given to the right, which expresses charity, as explained in Shabbat 61a. Therefore, when there are no laces, you put on the right shoe first. All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini (Q&A taken from the Kipa website).

Question:

To the honored Rabbi.
My question is this: We have 3 different Shakharit times in our Yeshuv:
5:30 ? If I go to this Minyan, I?m usually late so I start davening at ?YSHTABAKH??
6:00 ? I can?t get to this Minyan.
8:00 ? I say Korbanot before, and if necessary, I also add the ?SHEMA-ISRAEL? included there before ?HODOO?
When is it best for me to daven?
Thanking you in advance!

Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear correspondent, You did not explain why you can?t get to the Minyan of 6:00. Perhaps the reasons can influence my response. However, according to your description, it is better that you daven in the first Minyan, even if you only come to ?YSHTABAKH?, and when you arrive, direct your attention to carry out your duty as regards the blessing of ?YSHTABAKH? by hearing the blessing of the SHALIAKH TSIBUR (service leader), and then make up for the PESOOKEI DEZIMRA (psalms) you missed after finishing SHEMONEH ESREH, without blessing ?BARUKH SHEAMAR? and without blessing ?YSHTABAKH?, because it is forbidden to say these blessings after SHEMONEH ESREH. The other Minyan is very problematic because it is after the time of KERIAT SHEMA. All the best, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini (Q&A taken from the Kipa website).

Question:

To the honored Rabbi.
The commentators on the Shulkhan Arukh say that during Passover, one says only half the Hallel because we are not happy with the drowning of the Egyptians. But if we are not happy, then why do we say SHIRAT HAYAM every day, which expresses joy over the drowning of the Egyptians? And when we daven Maariv, we praise and thank Hashem and treat the Egyptians disrespectfully with such expressions as: ?you have drowned the evil ones?, etc. ?None of them were left, and this is why your beloved ones have praised you?, etc. and the same goes from the SHAKHARIT service and other services.

Rav Zini’s Response:

Dear correspondent, Unfortunately, there is no real basis for this explanation that claims we do not say the entire Hallel because the Egyptians drowned. Although a number of our sages have suggested this, but Tana?im and Amora?im reject this explanation completely, and especially the Talmud. Thus, your question is in fact inapplicable. Quite to the contrary, the very fact that we read SHIRAT HAYAM is decisive proof that this explanation regarding our unhappiness over the fall of our enemy has not basis, and in fact contradicts all of our prayers. I wrote a very long article on this issue, over dozens of pages, in order to prove to all that a non-Jewish odor is wafting over this explanation. Therefore, go eat the bread of the Mitsvot gladly and be happy before G-d this Chag, including the fact that he gave our haters their just deserts.

Question:

To the honored Rabbi.
When should a public that must daven early in the morning, before it is time to lay the Tefilin, because they must go out to work, say the blessing on Talit and Tefilin. And what will someone whose custom is to say the passage of ?KADESH LI KOL BEKHOR? after the laying of the Tefilin do?
Yoseph,

Rav Zini’s Response:

To our friend Yoseph, In the SHULKHAN ARUKH, ORAKH KHAIM 53 (3), Maran determined that ?one should not bless on the wrapping of the TSITSIT between the saying of PESUKEI DEZIMRA and YISHTABAKH, but rather between YISHTABAKH and YOTSER?. But the only reason he did so was that he saw in the KOLBO (section 5) ?The CHOZEN stands and wraps himself in TSITSIT and blesses ?ASHER KIDSHANOO BEMITSVOTAV VETSIVANOO LEHITATEF BETSITSIT? (who blessed us in his Mitsvot and commanded us to be wrapped in TSITSIT and goes before the arc and starts with YISHTABAKH?, and he commented on this words: ?I do not know what caused him to stop for the blessing of TSITSIT without need, and he should have said that he should bless on the wrapping of TSITSIT before BARUKH SHEAMAR?. But the Rambam has already established in his responsum PE?ER LADOR, section 147: ?that there is no prohibition on saying the blessing of TSITSIT and TEFILIN during the saying of the psalms, and that such an interruption in the PESUKEI DEZIMRA is not prohibited?. And even according to the other version of this responsum, as published by the MAKEN publishing house, the intention is the same, as anyone who has eyes in his head can see if he understand the words of our Rabbis in truth and does not forcibly twist them to what they don?t say in order to make them fit the desires of his heart. Maran the KHIDA also determined thus in the BIRKEI YOSEF (section 53) in the name of MAHARI ZEIN and MAHARI BINYAMIN (MAHARI ZEIN quotes him in a responsum in the book GINAT VERADIM on ORAKH KHAIM rule 1 section 51). There, the KHIDA forcefully rejects the word of MAHARA HALEVI (ibid, section 52), who wrote ?i.e., when he is forced by his needs?, and provided support for his words from the above mentioned verdict of the Rambabm in PEER HADOR. Therefore, because the RAMBAM and many AKHARONIM (later Rabbis) permit their laying during the PESUKEI DEZIMRA, it is better to do so in advance, in order to prevent the public from speaking between YISHTABAKH and YOTSER, and only if the SCHATS (service leader) wants to place them between YISHTABAKH and KADISH, he may rely on the words of MARAN in the SHULKHAN ARUKH. As to those who take additional actions upon themselves (MIDAT CHASSIDUT) to say ?KADESH LI KOL BEKHOR? after laying the TEFILIN every morning, they should not stop for this, neither between the saying of psalms nor certainly between YISHTABAKH and KADISH. If it is very important for them to be strict during such days as well, they may say this section at the end of their prayer when they are still wearing their Tefilin, or after KADISH TITKABAL if they are in a hurry. Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini

Question:

To the honored Rabbi.
I have a community abroad and from time to time, we miss one person to daven in a Minyan, but we have a child who has his wits about him (nine years old). Can we add him to the Minyan in retrospect.
Can you please provide me with the sources of the halachic determination?

Thank you,
All the best

Rav Zini’s Response:

To the honored Rabbi of the ____ community in Canada. May your good being expand, Because of the shortness of time, I am now responding briefly, and G-d willing I will write at greater length in the coming days. The addition of an underage congregant to make up a Minyan has been discussed at great length in the tractate of Berakhot 47b-48a, and there is an endless array of interpretations and halachic determinations. However, as regards the halacha, the RIBASH (section 451) has already been asked on this issue, and after presenting the opinions of those who are more strict in their verdict, he added: ?And in any case, even according to those who allow this for davening (he means Rabbeinu Tam, Ba?al Hamanhig and others), they require that he have his wits about him, that he knows for whom the blessing is begin said, and for whom we daven, and that he be nine or ten years old, as the Rabbi Alfasi wrote, or at least older than six. But anyone younger than six; even if he is sharp and knows for whom the blessing is said, and for whom we daven; does not count, for he is not even a young boy and he is like someone who does not have his wits about him. My loyal words, Yitskahk son of Rabbi Sheshet?. And Maran presented their words in the Beit Yosef (section 51), and the author of ORKHOT KHAIM (Hilchot Tefila, section 73) also wrote: ?It seems that one makes an annex from an under-aged boy in time of pressing need, such as when there is no Minyan in the town, and this is also the opinion of the RAABAD, ande many communities have done so, these are his words. And the KOLBO (end of section 11) also wrote so in the name of our Rabbi Perets, and in the glosses on the Mimonides chapter 5 of the Halachot regarding blessings (section 5) it also says thus. The ROSH too, (section 20) and the Mordekhi (section 172) have written in the name of Rabbeinu Hai Gaon that ?an under-age boy may be counted in a Minyan of ten? and Baal Hamanhig worte (in his halachot regarding the Minyan of ten men) ?since we accept according to Rabbi Yehushua ben-Levi that we can annex him to ten men, and this is the main way that we determine the Halacha, and so I have heard in the name of Rabbi Yaakov MK from France?. And the RAZA was even more extreme, as the author of Baal Hamanhig, Rabbi Zerakhia Halevy of blessed memory from Gironda writes that he has heard he permits the annexing of two under-aged boys to make up a Minyan of ten for davening, and he learned this from the words of the Talmud that state such a young boy may be made into annexes (in the plural) rather than just say annex (in the singular), so the intention must be two annexes. But the Baal Hamanhig could not agree with such a great leniency, and so he rejected his words and wrote: ?we shall not permit this?. And even though the geniuses of Soorah, Rav Sar Shalom Gaon and Rav Natronai and Rav Tsemakh and others, have been strict in this regard, and because of them, Maran wrote in the Shulkhan Arukh (section 53 sub-section 74) that ?there are some who allow the saying of sacred things in a Minyan of nine grown men with the annexing of a younger boy who is older than six and known whom one davens to, but their words were not accepted by the greatest Poskim?. All this is only from the outset, and without due reason, but when there is a great need, Maran himself explicitly states in his Beit Yosef (ibid) in the name of all said great Poskim, that one should be lenient in this regard. And this is what the RAMA wrote in his gloss: ?however, some have adopted the custom to be lenient when there is great need?. And even though he quotes the words of the Rosh, the Mordekhi and the Hagahot Maimoni, as his sources, all these three students of the MAHARAM base their words on Rabbeinu Hai Gaon, the Babilonyan and many others who side with him, as above. Therefore, it is not only the custom of Ashkenazi communities that we have before us, but also the opinion of all our greatest sages, headed by the RIBASH and the Hagahot Maimoni Chapter 9 of the Hilchot of Davening. They where only strict from the outset, but it is a simple conclusion that in times of need (which they did not discuss) one should annex an under-age boy who knows for whom the blessings are being said, to the Minyan of ten people for davening, especially in the Diaspora, in countries and places where it is very difficult to attain a Minyan, and without the under-age boy, the schul would be a place where the words of Rabbi Yokhanan (Berakhot 6b) would obtain: ?when Hashem comes to a schul and does not find ten men, he is immediately angry, for it is said (Isaia, 50): ?why did I come and no one is there, I called and none responds?. And any person of wisdom knows that the absence of a Minyan in small communities is the surest recipe for the extinction of such communities, G-d forbid and the mingling of Jews among the nations, until the name of Israel is no longer remembered, there, G-d Forbid. In practice, this was the regular custom all of the communities of Israel in North-Africa, and both ourselves and our fathers and forefathers have so determined the Halach in practice to add an under-age boy to the Minyan of ten in times of need, according to the words of all these great sages, and we did not consider the words of the later sages who wanted to be stricter in this, an all in order to avoid the problem of ?I will lay your sacred places to waste?. Your honor may therefore rely on them without fear, in actual Halachic practice. With the respect of the Torah, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini son of my father and teacher the honored Rabbi Meir Zini Shelita

Question:

To the honored Rabbi.
I have a community abroad and from time to time, we miss one person to daven in a Minyan, but we have a child who has his wits about him (nine years old). Can we add him to the Minyan in retrospect.
Can you please provide me with the sources of the halachic determination?

Thank you,
All the best

Rav Zini’s Response:

To the honored Rabbi of the ____ community in Canada. May your good being expand, Because of the shortness of time, I am now responding briefly, and G-d willing I will write at greater length in the coming days. The addition of an underage congregant to make up a Minyan has been discussed at great length in the tractate of Berakhot 47b-48a, and there is an endless array of interpretations and halachic determinations. However, as regards the halacha, the RIBASH (section 451) has already been asked on this issue, and after presenting the opinions of those who are more strict in their verdict, he added: ?And in any case, even according to those who allow this for davening (he means Rabbeinu Tam, Ba?al Hamanhig and others), they require that he have his wits about him, that he knows for whom the blessing is begin said, and for whom we daven, and that he be nine or ten years old, as the Rabbi Alfasi wrote, or at least older than six. But anyone younger than six; even if he is sharp and knows for whom the blessing is said, and for whom we daven; does not count, for he is not even a young boy and he is like someone who does not have his wits about him. My loyal words, Yitskahk son of Rabbi Sheshet?. And Maran presented their words in the Beit Yosef (section 51), and the author of ORKHOT KHAIM (Hilchot Tefila, section 73) also wrote: ?It seems that one makes an annex from an under-aged boy in time of pressing need, such as when there is no Minyan in the town, and this is also the opinion of the RAABAD, ande many communities have done so, these are his words. And the KOLBO (end of section 11) also wrote so in the name of our Rabbi Perets, and in the glosses on the Mimonides chapter 5 of the Halachot regarding blessings (section 5) it also says thus. The ROSH too, (section 20) and the Mordekhi (section 172) have written in the name of Rabbeinu Hai Gaon that ?an under-age boy may be counted in a Minyan of ten? and Baal Hamanhig worte (in his halachot regarding the Minyan of ten men) ?since we accept according to Rabbi Yehushua ben-Levi that we can annex him to ten men, and this is the main way that we determine the Halacha, and so I have heard in the name of Rabbi Yaakov MK from France?. And the RAZA was even more extreme, as the author of Baal Hamanhig, Rabbi Zerakhia Halevy of blessed memory from Gironda writes that he has heard he permits the annexing of two under-aged boys to make up a Minyan of ten for davening, and he learned this from the words of the Talmud that state such a young boy may be made into annexes (in the plural) rather than just say annex (in the singular), so the intention must be two annexes. But the Baal Hamanhig could not agree with such a great leniency, and so he rejected his words and wrote: ?we shall not permit this?. And even though the geniuses of Soorah, Rav Sar Shalom Gaon and Rav Natronai and Rav Tsemakh and others, have been strict in this regard, and because of them, Maran wrote in the Shulkhan Arukh (section 53 sub-section 74) that ?there are some who allow the saying of sacred things in a Minyan of nine grown men with the annexing of a younger boy who is older than six and known whom one davens to, but their words were not accepted by the greatest Poskim?. All this is only from the outset, and without due reason, but when there is a great need, Maran himself explicitly states in his Beit Yosef (ibid) in the name of all said great Poskim, that one should be lenient in this regard. And this is what the RAMA wrote in his gloss: ?however, some have adopted the custom to be lenient when there is great need?. And even though he quotes the words of the Rosh, the Mordekhi and the Hagahot Maimoni, as his sources, all these three students of the MAHARAM base their words on Rabbeinu Hai Gaon, the Babilonyan and many others who side with him, as above. Therefore, it is not only the custom of Ashkenazi communities that we have before us, but also the opinion of all our greatest sages, headed by the RIBASH and the Hagahot Maimoni Chapter 9 of the Hilchot of Davening. They where only strict from the outset, but it is a simple conclusion that in times of need (which they did not discuss) one should annex an under-age boy who knows for whom the blessings are being said, to the Minyan of ten people for davening, especially in the Diaspora, in countries and places where it is very difficult to attain a Minyan, and without the under-age boy, the schul would be a place where the words of Rabbi Yokhanan (Berakhot 6b) would obtain: ?when Hashem comes to a schul and does not find ten men, he is immediately angry, for it is said (Isaia, 50): ?why did I come and no one is there, I called and none responds?. And any person of wisdom knows that the absence of a Minyan in small communities is the surest recipe for the extinction of such communities, G-d forbid and the mingling of Jews among the nations, until the name of Israel is no longer remembered, there, G-d Forbid. In practice, this was the regular custom all of the communities of Israel in North-Africa, and both ourselves and our fathers and forefathers have so determined the Halach in practice to add an under-age boy to the Minyan of ten in times of need, according to the words of all these great sages, and we did not consider the words of the later sages who wanted to be stricter in this, an all in order to avoid the problem of ?I will lay your sacred places to waste?. Your honor may therefore rely on them without fear, in actual Halachic practice. With the respect of the Torah, Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini son of my father and teacher the honored Rabbi Meir Zini Shelita

Question:

Responsum by Rabbi Khananel Zini according to the instruction so the Yeshiva head long may he live.

Question: I have heard that a person who davens according to the format of Ashkenaz in a schul that davens in the format of Sepharad, should not say ?SHIR LAMALOT? as one should not say psalms at night, and that he should not say ?SHIR LAMALOT? before Maariv for the same reason. Is this the way one should act, that one should not separate oneself from the public?
Rav Zini’s Response:

Answer: The source for not learning written Torah at night (not just Psalem) is from the Kabbalah. This prohibition is neither from the Torah nor from our sages, and is not even a custom, but is only a custom according to the Kaballa for reasons that are kept secret. Therefore, as in any behavior that is based on Chassidut or on esoteric reasons, it is strictly prohibited for anyone who has not reached the appropriate level to act in such a way. Only when one has upheld all of ones duties in all areas of the Halacha, is one entitled to act according to this custom (and the same goes for all other acts of Chassidut), and anyone who has eyes in his head, known that the Sages of the Kabbalah are the very ones who added the saying of SHIR HAMAALOT during the Maariv prayer!!! This should suffice to show the ridiculousness of any general claim that would prohibit the saying of Psalms at night. Those Sages of the Kaballah did not fear this prohibition, and thus this prohibition has no basis, and one should not separate oneself from the public when they say this psalm during the Maariv prayer.

Question:

To the honored Rabbi Zini.
What is the Rav?s opinion regarding the study of Torah using the university method of studying unknown sources, versions, etc. I understand that the classic Yeshiva world objects to this, and I will be happy to also receive some references to resources on this issue.
Wishing the Rav a good year
M.

Rav Zini’s Response:

To our dear friend M., long may he live. Your question is a very serious one for the Internet. I will therefore only say a few short words on the issue. As is usually in cases of this sort, both supporters and opponents are right to some extent, and this is exactly the problem: only to some extent. The inspection of versions and any other material available to us today is the duty of any person who wishes to study Torah as it should be studied and get at the truth as far as we are able to do so. This is the way all of our great Rabbis have acted throughout the generations. However, this enterprise must be carried out by people who stand in deep awe of G-d, and whose care for the people of Israel is deeply ingrained within them. At every moment, they must be concerned within their hearts for the possibly negative implications of every innovation, be completely devoid of any desire for publicity, and above all filled with the sense that the best and most talented among us does not reach the heels of any of our great past Rabbis. As you well known, all of these traits are completely absent among academic researchers (if you remember the case of Bar-Ilan?s dean who allows himself to ridicule wise men from every podium and under every tree). In the eyes of most such academics, our sages are just human beings like any other human beings, and from that moment on, they are no longer worthy of inspecting the truth that we humbly seek with any integrity. Moreover, when they treat our sages thus, we know well what their status is in the eyes of the Torah (see the incident of Rabbi Pinchas son of Yair and his donkey). This is the point that concerns the classic world of Torah, which attempts to defend itself through resistance and objection. How can one escape this trap? There is only one way: This sensitive task may only be approached by rabbinical sages whose awe of G-d is greater than their wisdom, and the foremost sign of their identity is their attitude to the Sages of Israel of old. If they are willing to forsake their own opinions before the sanctity and purity of the sages (even if they are sometimes obliged to reach conclusions that somewhat differ), then they have a right to approach the sacred work with due care. One thing is clear: there is no way that this study may be undertaken by some arrogant graduates of certain Yeshivas or academic Talmud departments, who because of some title or other bestowed on them are sure that there have been no greater men on earth than them. The awe of G-d is expressed in utter humility. Wishing you the best of a blessed and good year, Blessing you with Shana Tova and Ketiva Vekhatima Tova Rabbi Eliyahoo Rachamim Zini

Question:

To the honored Rabbi Zini.
I am 15 years old and I study at a religious-Zionist high school. I study a page of Talmud every day, but I want to study more things (not related to the regular study framework). I would like the Rav?s advice on this. Thanks.


Rav Zini’s Response:

It is not simple to give advice without personal knowledge of the student. However, you should devote some time to the study of the Tanach, with special commentators such as the Malbim and the Radak. In the area of faith, it is recommended that you study books such as the Way of G-d by the Ramchal, and of course such books of virtue as Messilat Yesharim, if they are not too difficult for you, or more modern books in the areas of virtue and morality. Best of success in your studies (Question taken from the Kipa website).