Volume 26 Number 85
Produced: Tue Jul 29 22:50:11 1997
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Bracha on New Garment
[Saul Mashbaum]
bracha on new garment
[Saul Mashbaum]
Income for Maaser
[Eric Jaron Stieglitz]
Ksuvim
[Gershon Dubin]
Mike Tyson and Pirkei Avos
[Akiva Miller]
Recording a phone conversation
[Joshua W. Burton]
Recording a phone conversation, Dina D'Malchusa
[Joseph Geretz]
Shomronim, Karites
[Menashe Elyashiv]
Taping Phone Conversations
[Russell Hendel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Saul Mashbaum <mshalom@...>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 11:41:02 GMT-2
Subject: Bracha on New Garment
R. Miller asked for the origin of the practice of making the bracha of
sheheheyanu when wearing, rather than purchasing, a new garment.
In Hilchot Rosh Hashana (OH 600:2), the Mechaber recommends having a new
fruit on the table on the second night of Rosh Hashana, to avoid the
dispute among the rishonim whether sheheheyanu is said on the second
night of Rosh Hashana.
To this the Rama adds that wearing a new garment also serves this
purpose.
The Magen Avraham notes the difficulty with this suggestion: why does
wearing a new garment help, if the bracha should be made when the
garment is purchased, not when first worn? He states that when the
garment purchased requires alteration, the bracha is made when the
garment is first worn. (See Machtzit Hashekel there, who clarifies the
Magen Avraham's comment). The Magen Avraham also makes a similar comment
in Hilchot Brachot, OH 223 (there too the language is difficult, but
this is apparently his intention - see the Aruch Hashulchan there).
Note that the suggestion to wear a new garment the second night of Rosh
Hashana to remove doubt about saying sheheheyanu appears in Hagahot
Maimoniot on the Rambam Hilchot Shabbat 29:23, in the name of the
Maharam MiRutenberg. Thus the Ashkenazic tradition to say shehecheyanu
when a new garment is worn, rather than purchased, is very old.
In passing, I would like to note that the poskim mention that it is
preferable for the baal tokea (shofar blower) to wear a new garment the
second day of Rosh Hashana to make the sheheheyanu he makes on shofar
blowing needed beyond doubt (although, according to Ashkenazic practice
at least, he makes the bracha even if he is not wearing a new
garment). I think most baalei tokea are not makpid (strict) on this. Can
any MJ readers enlighten me on this point?
Saul Mashbaum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Saul Mashbaum <mshalom@...>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 11:11:13 GMT-2
Subject: bracha on new garment
Regarding the bracha of sheheheyanu when wearing a new garment:
In Hilchot Rosh Hashana (OH 600:2), the Mechaber recommends having a new
fruit on the table on the second night of Rosh Hashana, to avoid the
dispute among the rishonim whether sheheheyanu is said on the second
night of Rosh Hashana.
To this the Rama adds that wearing a new garment also serves this
purpose.
The Magen Avraham notes the difficulty with this suggestion: why does
wearing a new garment help, if the bracha should be made when the
garment is purchased, not when first worn? He states that when the
garment purchased requires alteration, the bracha is made when the
garment is first worn. (See Machtzit Hashekel there, who clarifies the
Magen Avraham's comment). The Magen Avraham also makes a similar comment
in Hilchot Brachot, OH 223 (there too the language is difficult, but
this is apparently his intention - see the Aruch Hashulchan there).
Note that the suggestion to wear a new garment the second night of Rosh
Hashana to remove doubt about saying sheheheyanu appears in Hagahot
Maimoniot on the Rambam Hilchot Shabbat 29:23, in the name of the
Maharam MiRutenberg. Thus the Ashkenazic tradition to say shehecheyanu
when a new garment is worn, rather than purchased, is very old.
In passing, I would like to note that the poskim mention that it is
preferable for the baal tokea (shofar blower) to wear a new garment the
second day of Rosh Hashana to make the sheheheyanu he makes on shofar
blowing needed beyond doubt (although, according to Ashkenazic practice
at least, he makes the bracha even if he is not wearing a new
garment). I think most baalei tokea are not makpid (strict) on this. Can
any MJ readers enlighten me on this point?
Saul Mashbaum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eric Jaron Stieglitz <ephraim@...>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 10:28:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Income for Maaser
As I've read the discussion about whether or not Ma'aser should be
deducted before or after income tax, I'm curious how this could apply to
non-cash benefits. For my benefits package, I'm given health insurance,
life insurance, etc. as well as up to 45 free course credits per year.
1) This past year I used 12 credits of course benefits. If this had not been
part of my benefits package, I would have needed to pay over $7000.
Is this considered income for purposes of Ma'aser?
2) How about my health insurance? A certain amount is deducted (pre-tax)
from my paycheck each month for this, but my employer contributes three
times this amount.
Note that in each of these cases, if I didn't elect to take the
benefits, I would never see the money that went to pay for them --
either in cash or other benefits. For that matter, I'm officially
permitted to take up to 45 credits per year (worth around $30,000) but
this is virtually impossible since I work full time. Therefore, if this
does count as Ma'aser, should I consider the benefits that I *can* use
or the benefits that I *do* use?
Eric Jaron Stieglitz <ephraim@...>
Home: (212) 280-1152 Systems Manager
Work: (212) 854-8782 Civil Engineering, Columbia University
Fax : (212) 854-6267 http://www.ctr.columbia.edu/people/Eric.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <gershon.dubin@...> (Gershon Dubin)
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 00:43:39 EDT
Subject: Re: Ksuvim
>> Does anyone know of an instance (since the time of the Gra who, I
>> understand, had a set) of a set of ksuvim written on parchment like
>a
>> sefer torah?
>
>My father has a set - purchased in Washington Heights (NYC) about 40
>years ago. He uses all of them (except Eicha) each year when leining
>for his shul.
I guess my original question was not clear enough. I am **not**
referring to megilos, I have often read from megilos written on
parchment and am well aware of their existence, even prevalence in
certain circles. The question was meant for all other ksuvim,
including Tehilim, Iyov, Daniel, etc.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
http://pw2.netcom.com/~gdubin/lcs.htm
Aside
>from the ambiguity (which does one say during Pesach?
Your siddur may not have been clear, but the time for saying
this addition is until the first day of Pesach.
> I'm curious as to how and when it came about that a solar date
>(December 4 or 5) came into use in the siddur.
This has been discussed extensively on this list some time back
and you might want to look in the archives for the details. The long
and short of it is that the time is fixed based on the "tekufa" which is
a phenomenon of the solar year. In Israel, the date is 7 Cheshvan,
which is a lunar date. Both dates have their source in the Talmud.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kgmiller@...>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 21:44:49 -0500
Subject: Mike Tyson and Pirkei Avos
[Note: What Akiva wrote, and what he clarifies here below, are points
that I think are relavent to our mailing list. I have no interest in
getting involved in what kind of person Mike Tyson is and that he
clearly is NOT a role model for any of us or our children. I thought
that was clear from the original posting and I think is made clear
below. The CONCEPT of public and/or private apology is what is and
should be the issue of follow-ups to this article. Mod.]
Whoa! It seems that a LOT of people misunderstood my posting. What
happened was that I was trying to make my point withOUT going into
whether or not I personally believe that his apology was a sincere one.
The fact is, I do *not* think he really meant it, and of course he did
not write that speech himself, but that is really irrelevant to my
point.
My point is that his *words* were the *words* which a sincere person
*would* use, in sharp contrast to the blatantly fake apologies which we
see all the time. Like when the apology is part of the plea-bargain, how
sincere is that? Or when someone says publicly, "I apologize if I hurt
anyone" -- whaddaya mean "IF"? That's not an acknowledgement of guilt!
But Tyson's WORDS are an example for us all, even if he himself is a
#%;${+\^!*&.
I think that shalom in the world would be increased if people would
apologize more often, even when they don't really feel so bad about what
they did. First of all, the offended person would be less able to hold a
grudge if the offender apologized, and second, mouthing the words may
eventually have an effect upon the offender. But the apology has to at
least *sound* sincere for this to work. Read the news, or listen to
people in general, and see if you hear anything remotely similar to <<<
I expect the Nevada State Athletic Commission to hand down a severe
penalty and I am here today to say I will not fight it. >>> and then you
will have an inkling of how to apologize to those who think you hurt
them.
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joshua W. Burton <jburton@...>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 97 09:55:44 -0500
Subject: Recording a phone conversation
Joseph Geretz <JGeretz@...> writes:
> The real halachic question would involve the permissibility of
> *divulging* the contents of the phone conversation to a third party,
> irrespective of whether the conversation was taped or not. This is
> a standard shmiras haloshon question which has nothing to do with
> the taping of the conversation. If someone can think of a prohibition
> against taping the conversation and locking it in a safe for my
> own personal reference at a later time I'd be interested to hear it.
How about "dina d'malkhuta dina," in particular Title 18 of the US Code?
As long as the phone conversation takes place over a common carrier, you
do _not_ have the right (in the US) to tape it for your own use without
informing the other party that you are doing so. It's a felony, in
fact, and I think this creates at least an initial presumption of issur.
`Sure, I'll do the show...but \==============================================
don't mention the moon landing.' \ Joshua W Burton 847/677-3902 <jburton@...>
-- Neil Armstrong, to Letterman \============================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Geretz <JGeretz@...>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 20:10:06 -0400
Subject: Recording a phone conversation, Dina D'Malchusa
Sure, Dina D'malchusa notwithstanding, I'm curious as to any halachic
prohibition. Also you might want to check the statute on recording a
phone conversation. My admittedly casual recollection of the law is that
taping is permissible as long as *one* of the parties is aware that the
conversation is being taped.
Dina D'malchusa is usually applied in a monetary context where
governmental law is granted the authority to effect a monetary
obligation where no halachic obligation exists. Thus, the IRS imposes
monetary obligations on the citizens of this country. It is a halachic
requirement to fulfil these obligations because of dina
D'Malchusa. Similarly, if one is caught jaywalking, the local government
can impose a monetary obligation on the jaywalker and the jaywalker is
halachically required to pay because of Dina D'Malchusa. However, if one
jaywalks and does not get caught, has he violated the halacha? I'm not
sure about this.
Similarly, let us assume that U.S. law stipulates that one may not tape
a conversation without the consent of both parties. If I violate the
U.S. law and tape a conversation I might subsequently be fined damages
and would be bound by Halacha to pay because of Dina
D'Malchusa. However, if I tape a conversation and do not get caught,
have I violated the Halacha of Dina D'Malchusa?
Kol Tuv,
Yossi Geretz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <elyashm@...>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 08:48:39 +0300 (WET)
Subject: Shomronim, Karites
Shomronim are true non-Jews after Hazal found a golden yona [dove -
Mod.] in their mikdash. Karaim - some hold that they are also not Jews
but some hold that they are. See Harav O. Yosef in Yabei Omer part 8
Even Hazer #12. See also the book Mamad Haishi shel hakaraim by
M. Korinledy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rhendel@...> (Russell Hendel)
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 20:26:16 -0400
Subject: Taping Phone Conversations
I would just like to add some thoughts on taping ones own phone
conversations. Usually when I post I have a definite opinion. In this
case however I have some thoughts to prohibit it but am not certain.
My starting point is the Laws of Neighbors. The fact that I and my
neighbor each own our own property doesn't end there. There is a
mysterious "right to privacy". For example, we can force each other to
build a partition to prevent us from seeing each other (and this even
though we both own our own property).
Indeed, even if our two roofs our only "facing each other" across a
public avenue and the passerbys in the street can see us we can still
force each other to pay for partitions that prevent ourselves from
seeing each other if we use these roofs e.g. for laundry--the argument
being--"the passerbys see us occasionally and we see each other allthe
time".
Thus a concept of "privacy" exists which necessitates people abstaining
from otherwise permissable actions. In a similar manner it may be
understood that when I talk on a phone and produce a non permanant
conversation I don't want my privacy violated by having a permanant
record of it since it would cause me "the anxiety of my privacy being
violated".
To the argument: >>but it is your phone conversation --why can't you
record it>> I would answer...could you for example video a guest taking
a shower in your house (without his knowledge) on the grounds that it is
"your house" and that you intend either not to show it or to only show
it to members of the same sex. I think the point is that your guest
doesn't have to trust you on when you will use the tape(=privacy)
Incidentally there was actually a court case a few years ago:
One firm in Massachusetts was videotaping employees dressing (as part
of a drug surveillance program). One day one of the reals labelled
e.g. "Dressing room B-April 7th 1980" was found carelessly lying
around. This is how they discovered it. The union took them to court but
I don't know what happened (any lawyers out there remember the case--as
I indicated, the defense was that they were doing drug surveillance)
Russell Jay Hendel; RHendel @ mCs . Drexel .Edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 26 Issue 85