Volume 21 Number 85
Produced: Mon Nov 6 23:36:25 1995
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Avoiding Customs/Duties and Halacha
[Aharon Manne]
Brain Teasers
[Eli Turkel]
Ezer K'negdo
[Zvi Weiss]
Hachnosas Orchim
[Anonymous]
Kashrus of Shellac
[Moshe Rappoport]
Maariv Siddur for Motzi Shabbat
[Rose Landowne]
Shabbat Hot Plate and psak shopping
[David Charlap]
Shabbat Hotplate
[Ari Shapiro]
Shabbos Meal
[Mordechai Kamenetzky]
Siddur for Motzai Shabbat Maariv
[Steve White]
Tune for hashem hashem kel rachum
[Steve White]
Tzelaphchad's estate (Vol. 21 #69)
[Aaron Gross]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <manne@...> (Aharon Manne)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 95 12:11:15 PDT
Subject: Avoiding Customs/Duties and Halacha
Another consideration seems to apply to the question of import duties as
stealing. A friend of mine quoted R. David Haim HaLevi as having
described software piracy in terms of "hassagat g'vul" (illegal
annexation of property) rather than stealing. To qualify as stealing in
under halakha, it seems that there must be a physical object involved
("heftza be'ayin"). By the same token, avoiding import duties could not
qualify as stealing. All this is strictly academic, of course. I can't
imagine any responsible authority saying that the the State of Israel
qualifies as the kind of regime under which it is permissible to avoid
the tax collectors ("lignov et hamekhess"). A while back MJ published a
eulogy for R. Shlomo Zalman (z"l) by R. Aharon Liechtenstein. One of my
favorite passages there describes R. Shlomo Zalman's incredulous
reaction to the possibility of an observant Jew failing to pay his
taxes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@...>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 19:03:05 +0200
Subject: Brain Teasers
Another interesting book with questions for each day is "Ve-im
To-mar" by Rav David Cohen. My version is 1982 (actually 5742) and says
distributed by Mesorah publications. It is in Hebrew.
<turkel@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@...>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 11:16:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Ezer K'negdo
It is unfortunate that the legitimate query about multiple
interpretations of Torah is used as an opoportunity to attack the concepts
of "Da'at Torah" -- and, possibly, provide people with ammunition not to
follow the words of Rabbonim -- because the listener will feel that s/he
"knows better"..
The real approach here is that the Torah lends itself to a multiplicity
of intepretations -- within certain parameters. This is what "70 faces
of Torah" refers to or the allusion in the Gemara of one who sees "those
being Metaher and those being Metameh " -- and not knowing who to follow...
What is far more interesting would be to understand HOW these
commentaries arrived at their particular understanding rather than simply
dismissing the matter of "Da'at Torah" as an illusion.
One *possible* approach is that the Torah recognizes that Human "cultural
mores" can and do change --because we are human, interact with other
people, etc. The Torah provides understanding and guidance REGARDLESS of
the particular social mores... In a society where women have NO
equality, the Torah provides a perspective in line with (and, I believe,
*limiting*) that viewpoint. In a society where we are more
"egalitarian", the Torah provides guidelines for that "cultural more" --
again shaping it for us -- this means that regardless of the culture that
we are in, we can ALWAYS find our way to being a Nation of G-d.. Lest
anyone wonder that the Torah may have different rules based upon human
nature, I would mention the Netziv's comment by the rules of "King" --
that there is a Mitzva to appoint a king -- but *only when the peple are
in a state of mind prepared to accept a monarchy*... As long as the
people do not WANT that form of government, there is no acting obligation
to appoint a king... I would suggest that a similar mechanism is at work
here.
Of course, the danger is that one will take the interpretation suitable
for ANOTHER cultural more and use IT in *our* cultural more with
disruptive and counterproductive results... For this we need guidance --
not from people who lived years ago but rather from the Rabbnical Leaders
of *our time* -- This would also explain the Talmudic statement "Yiftach
ib his generation is like Samuel in *his* generation" -- that it is not
only a matter of the merit of the generation (a meritorious generation
gets more saintly leaders) -- but that a generations mores can only be
interpreted by the leader(s) living in THOSE times rather than someone
from the Past.
--Zvi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anonymous
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 95 10:15:15 EST
Subject: Hachnosas Orchim
>1. Is it correct to say that the imposition is one of time and
>attention rather than cost? this being since shabbat is the time
>when families spend time together and catch up on much-needed rest.
Most mitzvos have "costs" associated with them, be it time, effort,
and/or money. If one has the attitude that the "cost" of a mitzvah is
an imposition then it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Remember
it's Hashem who provides the resources to cover these costs.
More than actual rest, I believe Shabbos is a time of learning and an
opportunity to get close to G-d. And what better way to "learn", i.e.
teach one's family than to live the mitzvos such as that of hachnosos
orchim.
>2. Do hosts think that their guests are appreciative? Should they be
>offering to help out w/ the dishes after shabbat etc.?
We host people on a regular basis, singles, baalei teshuva, new couples
and families. It runs the gamut. Almost all have basic courtesy and
will bring a gift and say thank you. In general the single women seem
more attuned to helping out in the kitchen. Which is nice, but we
really don't expect our guests to do K.P. duty. We actually have one
regular who cleans up better than we do!
>3. Do people think that BTs and singles should spend shabbat among
>themselves more?
Regarding BT's, being one myself I don't know exactly what this means.
First of all everyone is, or at least should be, a BT. Once a person
has attained a basic level of orthodoxy (ooh! let's have a discussion to
define what that means!) his BTness becomes irrelevant, unless he makes
it relevant. I've been told that one is not even permitted to ask if
someone is a BT.
I was never really single (I got married upon graduating college), but I
sense that there may need to be more sensitivity (and we're guilty of
this) when singles and families are together. Families can get very
caught up in talking about family issues, kids, schools, pediatricians,
etc. And I think these conversations can be very difficult (or at least
boring) for some singles.
There is one issue which my wife and I sometimes have trouble with. I
know when you do a mitzvah you should not expect anything in return.
However, it would be nice if just once in a while a single person would
invite us for a meal. I'm not talking about college students. I'm
talking about single people with jobs and homes, people who often will
make large shabbos meals for groups of other singles, people who we have
invited to our shabbos table dozens of times, people who have felt
comfortable calling us Friday afternoon for a shabbos meal (and we like
it that way). It's not a big deal. Maybe someone could help sensitize
us as to why this is so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Moshe Rappoport <mer@...>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 18:20:51 +0100
Subject: Kashrus of Shellac
If you look at the labels on the wooden cartons that are used for fresh
fruits in the USA, you will see that certain fruits are coated with
shellac. (I think there is some new legal labeling law which requires
the packers to list all the ingredients.)
If this shellac is indeed made from beetles raised expressly for this
purpose (the insects have a waxy covering that makes them waterproof),
the fruits must, according to some Rabbonim, be cleansed with a scouring
agent before consumption.
For some reason, this issue has not received much public notice.
I too would be interested in knowing, whether there are Poskim who rule
that the fruits can be eaten as is.
Moshe Rappoport
IBM Zurich Research Laboratory - Saeumerstrasse 4
CH-8803 Rueschlikon/Switzerland
Tel. +41-1-7248-424 Fax. +41-1-724-0904
email: <mer@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <ROSELANDOW@...> (Rose Landowne)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 12:23:13 -0500
Subject: Maariv Siddur for Motzi Shabbat
In answer to Jay Denkberg about bringing a sidur on shabbat to shul for
maariv afterwards, why not plan on getting there a few minutes early and use
the sidur for saying some Tehillim or learning something from it?
Rose Landowne
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <david@...> (David Charlap)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 95 10:33:08 EST
Subject: Shabbat Hot Plate and psak shopping
Jay Denkberg <73472.2162@...> writes:
>I have an Israeli Shabbat Hot Plate (no on/off switch). When it's on it
>definetly gets to hot for me to touch. (I belive this is the definition
>of yad soledes bo)
>A Rav where I live has told me that I am allowed to put cooked food not
>in liquid on the hot plate during shabbat.
>Is this correct ???
> From what I understand from reading Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata (SSK), I
>should not be allowed to do this. As I understand it I could put any
>cooked food on the hot plate BEFORE Shabbat started, but not after.
Is it only me or are others also disturbed by questions like this?
Jay, why don't you ask the rav who gave you the psak? How can people on
this list know what your rav has in mind?
Jay is not the first person to ask questions like this. It seems that
this is a widespread problem. Orthodox Jews everywhere will only listen
to rabbis who make things stricter. They can have a rabbi in whom
they've trusted for years and years, and as soon as that rabbi tells
them the halacha is more lenient than they expected, they immediately
begin searching for other sources and ignore their rabbi.
I don't understand this attitude at all. If you don't trust your rabbi
when he gives a lenient ruling, why in the world do you trust him when
he gives a strict ruling? And if you trust him with a strict ruling,
why do you seek out ways to prove him wrong when he gives a lenient one?
And if you don't trust him for either, then why are you asking him
halachic questions in the first place?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <m-as4153@...> (Ari Shapiro)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 95 21:38:53 EST
Subject: Shabbat Hotplate
<Can someone please let me know if my understanding of SSK is correct.
You are correct in you understanding of the SSK. However, other Poskim
disagree. Rabbi Willig (in an article published in Beis Yitzchak) allows
this (putting back cooked food on Shabbos) because it is not the normal
way to cook. Also, the Artscroll book 'The Shabbos Kitchen' also allows
this for the same reason.
Ari Shapiro
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <ATERES@...> (Mordechai Kamenetzky)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 20:10:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Shabbos Meal
> He also said that we have
>cholent at lunch for this reason -- so there is something special and
>hot at lunch which makes it distinct from Friday night.
>Does anyone know the source of this idea? Is there a philosophical
>reason behind it?
The reason for Cholent is or anything hot is L'hotzie from the Tzedokim
who banned any fire in the home on Shabbos. We therefore eat foods
"Shelohn" ie. that "stayed over" night while being warmed
Mordechai Kamenetzky
<Ateres@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <StevenJ81@...> (Steve White)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 22:21:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Siddur for Motzai Shabbat Maariv
In v21#31 Jay Denkberg writes:
>I know you can not prepare on Shabbat for after Shabbat. However, is
>one allowed to carry (within an eruv, of course) a siddur to shul for
>the sole pupose of davening Motzei Shabbat Maariv only. Mincha was
>already said earlier in the day.
>To add to the problem (perhaps) this is an "early" minyan that davens
>exactly as shabbat ends, so you have to get to shul before shabbat
>ends. The shul does not have it's own siddurim. (actually its not even a
>shul it's a street corner, but that's another story)
I suppose one way to look at this is that we actually formally end
Shabbat by saying Ata Honantanu (or v'Todienu on Yom Tov), but begin
davening ma'ariv some time before that. Since we are actually using the
siddur while we are personally still in Shabbat, then we ought to be
able to carry it.
Also, one can always simply learn from a Siddur at any time. That line
of reasoning probably protects one from having a problem on Motzei
Shabbat Tisha B'Av even if one carries an Eichah or Kinot that don't
have ma'ariv published within.
Steve White
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <StevenJ81@...> (Steve White)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 21:58:04 -0500
Subject: Tune for hashem hashem kel rachum
In 21/82 Eli Turkel writes:
> I have been told that the tune for hashem hashem kel rachum etc. (13
>middot) sung before taking out the Torah on YomTov is based on a
>Gregorian chant. Can the musicologists on the list verify this one?
Well, the problem is "based on." It really seems like a garden variety
minor key melody to me. But could it be "based on" a chant, manipulated
into a form that modern voices can sing more easily? I don't see why
not; it would be hard to prove or disprove that either way.
Steve White
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <aaron.g@...> (Aaron Gross)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 18:36:08 -0700
Subject: Re: Tzelaphchad's estate (Vol. 21 #69)
>
[deletia]
>... As motivation
>for why the obligation may be only rabbinic, Rashi says that women did
>not receive an inheritance in the land of Israel, so a blessing "for the
>good land that G-d has given you" does not apply to them, and even the
>daughters of tzelafchad only received their father's portion of land.
What happened to the rest of Tzelaphchad's estate (non-real estate)?
And if Tzelaphchad's daughters had had only daughters and had had husbands
whose deaths preceded their own, wouldn't Tzelaphchad's granddaughter's
inherit (subject to marrying within Dan, as did their mothers) portions of
Tzelaphchad's portion?
Aaron Gross (<aaron.g@...>)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 21 Issue 85