The Gemara (Mo’eid Katan 26a) teaches that one must tear keri’ah (rend one’s garment) upon seeing39. See, for example, Teshuvot Igrot Moshe (Choshen Mishpat 2:73:5) and Rav Yigal Shafran’s essay in Techumin (14:333-351). the ruins of three sites: Judean cities (Arei Yehudah), Jerusalem, and the Beit Hamikdash (Holy Temple).40. The Gemara thoroughly discusses the laws of circumcision on Shabbat in the nineteenth chapter of Shabbat. In this chapter, we review this issue’s classical sources and explore its application to each of the three locations in light of Israel’s miraculous military victories in 1948 and 1967.
Judean Cities – Modern Applications
The Tur (Orach Chaim 561) writes that one must rend his garments upon seeing “cities of Israel” in ruins. Rav Yosef Karo (Beit Yosef ad loc.) notes, however, that the Gemara mentions only cities in Judea, so the Tur’s reference to cities from anywhere in the Land of Israel is not specific.41. The Gemara derives this principle from the verse “And the Jewish people shall guard Shabbat” (Shemot 31:16). Rashi (s.v. Veshamru) explains that “guarding” any particular Shabbat includes ensuring that future Shabbatot will also be observed. (The same Hebrew word - “lishmor” - means both “to guard” and “to observe.”)
Although this reason implies that we may save only a Jew’s life on Shabbat in order that he will observe future Shabbatot, the Biur Halachah (329 s.v. Ela) writes that in practice one should violate Shabbat even to save a Jew who clearly will not observe Shabbat in the future (see, also, Halichot Olam 4:226 and Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 2:34:39 and 40). Indeed, Rav Karo rules in the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 561:1) that the obligation applies exclusively to Judean cities.42. See, for example, Eruvin 69b and Chulin 5a. Rav Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky (Eretz Yisrael 22:1) believes that only ruined cities in Judea require keri’ah, but not areas where no Jewish city ever stood.43. The issue of violating Shabbat to save Jews from spiritual danger is very complex in practice. See Rav Shaul Yisraeli’s essay in Techumin (2:27-34) and Prof. Nachum Rakover’s essay in Techumin (17:25-34). Also see Teshuvot Vehanhagot (4:38 of the Rav Chaim Soloveitchik section), where Rav Moshe Shternbuch records a tradition that Rav Chaim Soloveitchik would violate Shabbat himself in order to save Jewish children from the draft, because the non-Jewish army would compel them to abandon Judaism.
Rav Hershel Schachter (B’ikvei Hatzon p. 105)44. It is important to note that despite Rav Shlomo Zalman’s position, Rav Neuwirth nonetheless concedes that one should call the non-observant Jewish doctor if he is a bigger expert in the case at hand (32:45). Also see Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 2:34:35, where Rav Shlomo Zalman rules that an observant doctor may not switch a Shabbat shift with a non-observant Jewish colleague, as the latter violates Shabbat due to his apathy towards it rather than violating Shabbat for the express purpose of saving a life. Presumably, one who does not accept Rav Shlomo Zalman’s position would actually prefer to have non-observant Jews take the Shabbat shifts, since they would otherwise violate Shabbat for no valid reason. As we discuss later in this chapter, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:79) adopts such a position. Also see Teshuvot Vehanhagot (3:309). discusses whether the Halachah requires keri’ah only upon seeing Judean cities, as opposed to other Israeli cities, due to Judea’s political stature or her religious sanctity. The Bach (O.C. 561) writes that Judean cities are more “important” than the rest of Israel. He further comments that Judean cities are considered “destroyed” even when Jews continue to live in them, so long as non-Jews govern them.45. As support for his view, Rav Shlomo Zalman cites the Beit Halevi’s commentary to Shemot 2:25. The Beit Halevi claims that one who commits a sin accidentally or under coercion, such as desecrating Shabbat, receives gentler treatment than a deliberate sinner only if one would not have willingly committed the same sin. However, one who would have committed the same act without any duress is viewed as a sinner regardless of the circumstances under which he actually does it. Rav Hershel Schachter (personal communication to Rav Ezra Frazer) questioned whether the Beit Halevi’s idea applies in the case of a non-observant doctor. Rav Schachter argued that the Beit Halevi's concern applies when one would have done this specific act anyway, such as a non-observant Jew who planned to drive to a specific place on Shabbat, and someone then forced him at gunpoint to drive to that same place. In such a case, the non-observant Jew would be considered a deliberate sinner, despite the fact that he was coerced to drive, because he intended to do the very same act of driving even before he was threatened. By contrast, a non-observant doctor is driving to a particular emergency only for the purpose of saving a life. Thus, even if the doctor might have driven elsewhere on Shabbat had he not been called to this emergency, the driving that he now does to the patient’s home or to the hospital is for the purpose of piku’ach nefesh. Rav Schachter thus interprets the special “importance” that the Bach attributes to Judean cities as their political significance. Since Judea includes Jerusalem, which served as the capital city during the First and Second Temple Periods, tearing upon seeing Judea’s ruins mourns the loss of Jewish political sovereignty.
Alternatively, one could view this keri’ah as grieving the desecration of a holy region. Although we generally do not view Judea as holier than the rest of Eretz Yisrael, the Gemara does single out Judea in one case. While discussing several laws of the Jewish calendar, the Gemara (Sanhedrin 11b) states that the Sanhedrin (Supreme Religious Court) must convene in Judea, as opposed to elsewhere in Israel, if it wishes to add a leap month to the Jewish year. The Gemara explains that Judea is “the residence of the Shechinah (Divine Presence).” Although no early sources explicitly link keri’ah to this law regarding leap years, the Levush (O.C. 561:1) does write that Judean cities warrant keri’ah “because they are near Jerusalem.” Rav Moshe Shapiro (Har Hakodesh, p. 1) suggests that the higher level of holiness of Judea stems from its physical proximity to the Holy City, the same holiness implied by the Talmudic passage in Sanhedrin regarding the calendar. Indeed, the Ramban, in a celebrated letter describing his travels in Eretz Yisrael (in the mid-thirteenth century), notes that “the greater the sanctity of a place, the more profound is its desolation; Jerusalem is more desolate than anywhere else, and Judea more so than the Galilee” (Kitvei Haramban 1:368).
Nowadays, Jews maintain sovereign control over much of Judea, but the Beit Hamikdash remains in ruins. Hence, Rav Schachter suggests that the obligation to tear keri’ah upon seeing Judea depends on the two possible understandings of its purpose. If the obligation to tear keri’ah for Judean cities flows from their religious sanctity, then Rav Schachter argues that we must continue tearing until the Beit Hamikdash is rebuilt. Since the Gemara explains that the religious sanctity derives from Judea being “the residence of the Shechinah,” we must continue to mourn Judea’s destruction until the Shechinah returns to its home on the Temple Mount.
According to the Bach, however, it follows that one should not tear upon seeing Judean cities today. As we have already mentioned, the Bach rules that one should even tear upon Judean cities inhabited by Jews so long as non-Jews maintain sovereign control over their location. Requiring keri’ah under such circumstances implies that sovereignty determines a city’s status, so Israeli control over Judean cities should thus negate the need for keri’ah.46. The Ra’avad agrees that the Halachah should follow Rabah, because Rabah was Rava’s teacher. However, the Ra’avad’s text was apparently reversed, so he believed that Rabah ruled that the fisherman desecrated Shabbat (see Magid Mishneh, ad loc.). Based on this logic, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, O.C. 5:37:1) and Rav Shlomo Yosef Zevin (Hamo’adim Bahalachah 2:442)479. Although the Ra’avad disagrees with the Rambam, Rav Zalman Nechemia asserts that the Rambam’s opinion better corresponds to other halachic concepts and should thus be followed (p. 182). rule that we do not tear upon seeing Judean cities following their liberation by the Israeli army.480. For more on the topic of summoning a non-observant doctor on Shabbat, see Rav Eliyahu Schlesinger’s essay in Techumin 21:189-192 and Rav Shlomo Min-Hahar’s responsum (published in Techumin 22:85). Rav Schachter notes that the Halachah follows the Bach’s reasoning, rather than the approach that links keri’ah to Judea’s religious sanctity, as the Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 561:1) cites only the Bach’s opinion.491. See Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer (22:23) regarding violating Shabbat in order to save someone from blindness. Indeed, common practice among virtually all observant circles today is not to tear upon seeing Judean cities, such as Beersheba.502. Rav Moshe permits the use of a mercury thermometer to measure fever on Shabbat (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 1:128), as does Rav Ovadia Yosef (Halichot Olam 4:194-196). Rav Ovadia similarly permits measuring one’s blood pressure with mechanical (non-electronic) equipment, as caring for one’s health constitutes a mitzvah, and measuring for the purpose of a mitzvah is permitted on Shabbat (see Shulchan Aruch, O.C. 306:7 and Mishnah Berurah 306:36). Rav Ovadia notes that some authorities do, however, prohibit shaking the thermometer in order to lower the mercury (see Teshuvot Sheivet Halevi 1:61:2), but he challenges their reasoning and cites many poskim who permit lowering the mercury. For further support of the view that one may use a thermometer on Shabbat, see Halachah Urefu’ah (1:113-115). Of course, these authorities all address mercury thermometers, which do not use electricity and are not digital.
Rav Schachter remarks that some have criticized this approach, arguing that we must tear keri’ah until a Jewish government that operates completely in accordance with Halachah controls Judea.513. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 1:11) argues that using electric appliances does not violate Shabbat on a Biblical level unless a filament is heated until it glows (Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky, Teshuvot Achiezer 3:60, seems to agree). Rav Yehuda Amital (personal communication), Rav David Cohen of Brooklyn, New York (personal communication), Rav Moshe Heinemann (in a lecture to a Young Israel rabbinical convention), Rav Shlomo Levy (personal communication) and Rav Hershel Schachter (in a lecture to the Rabbinical Council of America) have reported that this position is generally accepted. Rav Schachter (note 10) rejects their argument, noting that during the First Temple Period there was no obligation to tear when seeing Judean cities even though many of the Jewish kings worshiped idols. One could present a similar argument regarding the Second Temple Period, when many of the Hasmonean rulers practiced Sadduceean Judaism and persecuted Torah scholars, yet nobody tore keri’ah for the Judean cities under Hasmonean rule.
Judean Cities Controlled by the Palestinian Authority
In May 2000, I asked both Rav Hershel Schachter and Rav Yehuda Henkin whether one must tear keri’ah upon seeing Judean cities that are regrettably controlled by the Palestinian Authority, such as Bethlehem.524. See Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah 32:11 for many examples of ailments that warrant desecrating Shabbat. Rav Schachter replied that one should tear upon these cities, as the existence of Jewish sovereignty over an area determines its status regarding keri’ah. Following Operation Defensive Shield (in 2002), when the Israeli army began a policy of re-entering Palestinian-controlled cities when necessary to fight terror, Rav Schachter told Rav Ezra Frazer that he believes the obligation to tear keri’ah remains in effect even while Israeli troops temporarily control a Judean city, for they do not actually govern it.535. In the above example, the Gemara addresses the psychological well-being of a woman who also faces a physical danger (childbirth). Also see Rav Yisrael Rozen’s and Rav Mordechai Goodman’s essays in Techumin (23:73-88 and 24:359-369) regarding whether social workers and family members may travel on Shabbat to the site of a terrorist attack in order to cope with the attack’s tremendous psychological impact. Rav Henkin, though, argued that one should not tear keri’ah upon seeing these cities, as he deems it illogical to refrain from tearing keri’ah upon seeing Jerusalem while tearing when seeing a Judean city.546. Also see Teshuvot Yabia Omer (O.C. 10:29). While the poskim whom we cite in this chapter address the patient’s emotional well-being, it is important to note that one must also assess whether the patient would face physical danger by entering the hospital unaccompanied. In a busy hospital, a patient might need an advocate to ensure that the hospital staff does not neglect him. One should consult a competent rabbi for guidance regarding this question.
It should be noted, though, that many visitors to Israel do not actually face the question of whether to tear a complete keri’ah upon seeing autonomous Palestinian-controlled cities. Often, tourists visit the Kotel (Western Wall) soon after arriving in Israel, while they only later travel near Judean cities. Tearing keri’ah upon seeing the Temple’s ruins, which they perform near the Kotel, absolves the obligation to tear a complete557. Rav Moshe notes that his case is less straightforward than the Gemara’s case. In the Gemara’s case, the blind woman has good reason to fear the darkness. Although she cannot see even in the light, she worries that the midwife will encounter difficulty delivering the baby in the dark. By contrast, Rav Moshe writes that the woman does not have any serious reason to fear riding to the hospital alone. Nevertheless, Rav Moshe concludes that we should not make such fine distinctions in matters of life and death. Thus, while we might think that the fear of traveling alone to the hospital is unfounded, a woman who experiences this fear may be accompanied by her husband. keri’ah for Jerusalem or other Judean cities (Shulchan Aruch, O.C. 561:2-3). Similarly, Rav Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky (Eretz Yisrael 22:1), writing in the early 1950’s,568. See, for example, Tosafot (Shabbat 128b s.v. Ka Mashma Lan), who distinguish between the impact of emotional stress on a woman during childbirth (which is presumed to be quite severe) and the effects of only partially feeding an ill individual on Yom Kippur. records that in his time people would not tear keri’ah for Judean cities. In defense of this practice, he notes that it was possible to enter Jerusalem only from the west, so one would not encounter any other Judean cities before first seeing Jerusalem and tearing keri’ah there.
Hebron
Interestingly, the Chida (Birkei Yosef 561:1) notes that the common practice in his time was not to tear upon seeing the city of Hebron.579. See Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 328:17) and Mishnah Berurah (328:47). He writes that some justified this custom on the grounds that Hebron served as an ir miklat (city of refuge for those who negligently caused others to die, see Bemidbar 32 and Yehoshua 20). The cities of refuge belonged to the tribe of Levi, so, despite Hebron’s location in Judea, it is technically a Levite city, rather than a Judean one. The Chida, though, cites and agrees with those who consider this technicality a “weak” basis to excuse people from tearing upon seeing Hebron. Rav Schachter (B’ikvei Hatzon pp. 105-106) explains that even if Hebron does not meet the technical definition of a Judean city, its geographic location nevertheless places it near the seat of ancient Jewish governments. Since we accept the Bach’s claim that keri’ah over Judean cities mourns the loss of Jewish political authority, any destroyed city in that region warrants keri’ah, regardless of whether the tribe of Judah technically owned it.580. See Teshuvot Har Tzvi (Y.D. 233), Teshuvot Igrot Moshe (O.C. 1:132), and Contemporary Halakhic Problems (1:137-138).
It should be noted that in the situation regarding which Rav Schachter issued his ruling, all of the traveling occurred within the techum (the area within which one is permitted to walk on Shabbat and Yom Tov). Rav Schachter rendered his decision only in regard to the questions of asking a non-Jew to drive a car and riding in the car on Shabbat and Yom Tov. For further discussion of this issue, see Rav Shlomo Wahrman’s letter to me that we have included in the introduction to this book.
Tearing upon Seeing Jerusalem
Halachic authorities debate whether Israel’s liberation of Jerusalem in 1967 exempts us from tearing keri’ah upon seeing the ancient city of Jerusalem. Many poskim believe that the obligation to tear keri’ah has ceased now that Jews maintain control over Jerusalem. They contend that the obligation to tear upon seeing Jerusalem derives from the loss of Jerusalem as the political capital of a Jewish government. Thus, now that a Jewish government once again controls Jerusalem, the obligation to tear keri’ah no longer applies.59. For additional sources on this topic, see Teshuvot Yabia Omer (vol. 1 Orach Chaim 22).
Rav Schachter (B’ikvei Hatzon pp. 107-108) recounts that Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik disagreed, asserting that the obligation to tear upon seeing Jerusalem applies even after 1967.60. The Gemara and Rishonim distinguish between hutrah and dechuyah in several contexts. For example, the Gemara discusses the difference regarding the nature of the permission, in certain circumstances, to offer sacrifices despite the presence of tumah (ritual impurity). Rav Nachman and Rav Sheishet (Yoma 6b) debate whether offering sacrifices despite the impurity is unreservedly permissible (tumah hutrah betzibur) or the allowance is of a limited nature (tumah dechuyah betzibur). Rashi (s.v. dechuyah) explains that the opinion that maintains that the impurity is dechuyah requires doing anything possible to minimize offering sacrifices in such a state. A possible ramification is how hard one must search for ritually pure Kohanim (priests), despite the fact that, if necessary, even impure Kohanim could bring the sacrifices (also see Encyclopedia Talmudit 19:578-579). Rav Soloveitchik argues that the obligation to tear flows from Jerusalem’s status as an extension of the Beit HaMikdash, as the Mishnah (Keilim 1:6-9) implies when it delineates ten levels of holiness within Eretz Yisrael. As an expression of Jerusalem’s unique holiness, the Mishnah cites the law that one may not eat certain sacrifices and tithes (kodashim kalim and ma’aser sheini) outside the city limits. Rav Soloveitchik extrapolates from this Mishnah that Jerusalem functions as an extension of the Beit Hamikdash, where sacrifices are brought, and this role grants the city its sanctity. Another proof to this assertion is that the Tanach (Bible) sometimes refers to Jerusalem as “before Hashem,” and elsewhere the Tanach employs the same term for the Beit Hamikdash.61. The Beit Yosef (O.C. 328 and Shulchan Aruch, O.C. 328:12) interprets this term as referring to adults, rather than children. The Taz (328:5) disagrees, asserting that term means respected Torah scholars, and the Gemara is teaching that scholars should make a point of desecrating Shabbat themselves in life-threatening cases so that everyone else will learn to emulate their behavior. Describing both places with identical terminology indicates that Jerusalem’s lofty status is intertwined with that of the Beit Hamikdash. Accordingly, Rav Soloveitchik believes that just as we must continue tearing keri’ah upon seeing the site of the Beit Hamikdash until its restoration, so too must we still tear upon seeing Jerusalem, Jewish sovereignty notwithstanding.
Poskim have not yet reached a consensus regarding whether keri’ah for Jerusalem stems from the city’s role as our political capital (hence eliminating the need for keri’ah nowadays) or its holiness and bond with the Beit Hamikdash. In practice, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe, O.C. 4:70:11) rules not to tear upon seeing Jerusalem. Although Rav Soloveitchik and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 1:73) disagree, Rav Schachter notes that common practice follows Rav Moshe’s position.62. It should be emphasized, though, that under normal circumstances the Mishnah (Shabbat 121a) explicitly prohibits asking a child to violate Shabbat on behalf of adults. Rav Schachter explains that when poskim dispute a law of mourning, we normally follow the lenient opinion (halachah k’divrei hameikel b’aveil).63. See Teshuvot Yabia Omer (vol. 8 O.C. 37:12), who explains the Shulchan Aruch’s view in this manner.
As another practical approach to the dispute regarding keri’ah for Jerusalem, Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Mo’adim Uzmanim 5:348 note 2) suggests that when tearing keri’ah over the loss of the Beit Hamikdash one should also have Jerusalem’s destruction in mind. Moreover, he adds that tearing one’s clothes for no reason violates the Biblical prohibition against needless destruction (bal tashchit).646. The Gemara presents a case where the lone branch contains more dates (three) than the other two branches combined in order to teach that it is better to cut the lone branch even when this act detaches more dates than two acts of cutting one date each. In technical terms, this means that minimizing ribui ma’aseh (a greater number of acts) is preferable to minimizing ribui shiur (a greater number of fruits). Thus, acting stringently regarding the rabbinic obligation to tear upon seeing Jerusalem risks transgressing a Biblical prohibition.65. Even permitted melachot may not be done under all circumstances on Yom Tov. For a brief English summary of the parameters, see Rav Simcha Bunim Cohen’s Laws of Yom Tov (pp. 17-22).
Tearing Upon Seeing the Site of the Beit Hamikdash
Virtually all poskim require tearing keri’ah upon seeing the makom hamikdash even nowadays.66. See Yoma 83a, which teaches that one whose life depends on eating forbidden foods should first eat those that entail less severe prohibitions. The Mabit (Kiryat Sefer, Maachalot Asurot 14:16) claims that on a Biblical level one need not be concerned about the level of a food’s prohibition when it can save a life, so the Gemara requires seeking the lightest prohibition only on a rabbinic level. His understanding would allow one to argue that eating prohibited foods is hutrah in life-threatening situations, so on a Biblical level, the Halachah even permits violating a more severe prohibition than is absolutely necessary. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 1:7:1) cites many authorities who disagree with the Mabit and view the Gemara in Yoma as speaking on a Biblical level. Interestingly, the Rif omits this passage from the Gemara, leading some to believe that he considers all prohibitions to be hutrah in the face of piku’ach nefesh (see Teshuvot Yabia Omer, vol. 8 O.C. 37:12). Rav Schachter cites Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik as explaining that tearing at the makom hamikdash mourns the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash itself, as opposed to the loss of Jewish sovereignty over the area. Thus, until we rebuild the Beit Hamikdash, the obligation to tear keri’ah at its location remains binding. Indeed, common practice among virtually all observant circles follows his view.
Rav Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky (Eretz Yisrael 22:7) writes that at first glance it would appear that the obligation to tear one’s clothes over the makom hamikdash should commence only if one sees the actual ground of the Temple Courtyard ruins. He notes, however, that the Bach (O.C. 561) and the Pe’at Hashulchan (3:2) record the practice to tear as soon as one sees the Dome of the Rock. Rav Tukachinsky explains that although the Dome of the Rock is not technically a part of the Temple’s ruins, seeing a mosque on the Temple Mount nonetheless warrants keri’ah because it powerfully conveys the lack of a Jewish Temple on that location. Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Teshuvot Vehanhagot 1:331) also notes that in fact people generally tear keri’ah upon seeing the Dome of the Rock even if they do not see the actual ground upon which the Beit Hamikdash once stood. Although Rav Shternbuch comments that this practice has an acceptable halachic basis, he adds that he personally goes to a building that overlooks the Temple Mount in order to see the precise spot of the churban, and only then does he tear his clothes (also see Mo’adim Uzmanim 7:211).
Conclusion
The obligation to tear keri’ah over Judean cities, Jerusalem, and the site of the Beit Hamikdash reflects our deep religious and nationalistic connections to Eretz Yisrael throughout Jewish history. It also expresses our longing for a time when the Beit Hamikdash will be rebuilt and these laws will no longer apply.