Volume 30 Number 88 Produced: Fri Jan 14 5:17:45 US/Eastern 2000 Subjects Discussed In This Issue: Authenticity of the Letters of the Torah [Joseph Tabory] Aveylut and being Shliach Tzibur on Shabbat (2) [Gilad J. Gevaryahu, Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer] Collect Phone calls [Akiva Miller] Difference between Univ Research and Kollel support [Russell Hendel] Easing into Shabbos [Zev Sero] Praying with Avaryonim (Sinners) [Joseph Geretz] Source of Phrase [Bernard Katz] State of Israel Bonds (2) [Frank Silbermann, Jeanette Friedman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Tabory <taborj@...> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 04:00:29 +0200 Subject: Authenticity of the Letters of the Torah 1. It is true that in modern sifrei torah there are only two disagreements about the actual text. Nevertheless, even one causes a problem. 2. In ancient times, there is more evidence for problems with the text. the classic statement is that of the talmud and other sources which stated that Ezra had variant texts which he conflated in his own way to produce the modern torah. 3. This does not have to be a doctrinaire issue. I refer to the statement of Rabbi Noah Weinberg, in book callled Faith and Fundamentals, an explanation of the thirteen principles of the Rambam. In his discussion ot the principle that the torah will never be changed, he explains that this does not include a belief that there have not been changes in the letters due to the process of transmission Joseph Tabory Department of Talmud, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 59200, Israel tel. at office: (972) 3-5318593 email: mailto:<taborj@...> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gilad J. Gevaryahu <Gevaryahu@...> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:27:06 EST Subject: Aveylut and being Shliach Tzibur on Shabbat Ari Golman asks: "I am in aveylut for my father and find one restriction mystifying: not be allowed to be a shliach tzibur on Shabbat and Yom Tov. [Why?]" This is an Ashkenazi minhag; on the other hand Sepharadim (that I know) do not hold by this, and the chiyuvim do act as shatzi"m (shelichei tzubbur) on Shabbatot. Gilad J. Gevaryahu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer <frimea@...> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 17:02:38 +0200 Subject: Re: Aveylut and being Shliach Tzibur on Shabbat Because the Aveil Davens for the Amud regularly, it is a sign of aveilut for him - and on Shabbat there should be no public morning. [Same response from Jeff <NJGabbai@...>. Mod.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Akiva Miller <kgmiller@...> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:46:57 -0500 Subject: Collect Phone calls Someone wrote, in MJ 30:79, <<< When I was in yeshiva, we were told not to play the Collect call game in which we call home collect, having a deal with our parents that they'd call back after refusing the call. My question is, What form of genivah is that? Are you stealing money by using the phone system in a manner they did not intend? Or, is it Genivas daas, pretending that you did intend to make the call for the operator that helped you? >>> This is a reasonable question. If the Chofetz Chaim saw fit to detail exactly which mitzvos are violated with Lashon Hara, we can certainly investigate the precise parameters of other obvious sins. It seems to me that The Collect Call Game, when a human operator is involved, violates both forms of geneiva (stealing), Geneivas Mamon (financial theft) and Geneivas Daas (deception), just as Chaim suggested. Financial Theft, it seems to me, applies in every conceivable variation of this procedure. No matter how you work it, one is directly operating various wires and switches in the phone system, getting real hanaah from the phone system, and is doing so with deliberate intent to avoid paying for those services. <<< Would the fact that services like 1-800 Collect do not use a human operator to process the calls make a difference? >>> I imagine that it would remove the Deception, but Theft Of Services still remains, no? <<< Would there be a halachik difference if, on occasion, my little brother answered the phone not understanding the game and accepted the call eliminating the inevitability of refusal? >>> I think it would make a difference. The cases where my brother accepts the call are somewhat similar to cases where my brother reminds me to pay for the object which I had intended to shoplift. I think these examples are similar to one who purchases an appliance of some kind, fully intending on returning it after a few days of use, merely pretending to be dissatisfied with it, relying on the store's "No Questions Asked" return policy. It is one thing to be genuinely dissatisfied with a purchase -- even if only slightly so -- but quite another to take advantage of a liberal return policy, with deliberate intent to defraud. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...> Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 21:33:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Difference between Univ Research and Kollel support The discussion on Kollel continues. Someone asked the difference between 'getting paid for doing university research' and 'getting paid for learning torah'. Isn't this a legitimate business activity these days. I actually asked this question once during shiur to Rabbi Soloveitchick. His response was that University research has 'no Kedusha' and therefore it is permissable to take money for Torah. I have tried to understand the underlying prohibitions in more basic categories. Perhaps the following has some value. In a profession there are 'standards' 'hierarchies' and 'ways of doing things'. I for example cannot train people to be electrical engineers--I am not qualified. If I did so train them and something happened I could be sued. Furthermore the professional leaders may have set 'quotas' on how many engineers they want per year--this would then inhibit certain people from coming after the threshold. But these 3 things---standards, lawsuits, quotas--are exactly what we DON'T want in Talmud Torah. Let us go over each of them separately STANDARDS: Of course we want standards in halachah. But not in Talmud Torah. If a person loves Gematrias, or a certain Midrash or an obscure seder of Mishnah then he should feel free to learn it, teach it, or enter into chevrutha. We do NOT want him attacked because he is not using the 'standard' learning tools. We want to encourage all learning. QUOTAS: We never want a situation where the Rabbonim say 'we have too may people in the Rabbinate--let us upgrade standards to lower the flow in' LAWSUITS: Of course, we want posayks to be responsible for what they are doing. But we want the general public to be able to learn without fear of reprisal. The goal of talmud torah is the PROCESS of learning not the RESULT. If a person wants to add a chumash and rashi shiur then whether that person is Dr Leibowitz or John Doe (and not explaining every Rashi properly) we want to encourage the learning process and activity itself. I feel that it is for this reason that it is prohibited to take money for Torah---it discourages an atmosphere of 'standards', 'quotas' and 'lawsuits'--it encourages an atmosphere where anyone can set up a shiur and pursue things according to their own understanding. (Again: Psak halachah is an exception). I hope this insight helps Russell Hendel; Phd ASA; Math; Towson Univ Moderator Rashi iS Simple; http://www.shamash.org/rashi/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Zev Sero <Zev@...> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:53:59 -0500 Subject: Re: Easing into Shabbos Carl Singer <CARLSINGER@...> writes: >With the possible exception of when she was confined to a hospital bed >in labor, my wife follows her mother's and grandmothers'.... tradition >of having the Shabbos Table set Thursday night, before retiring. My grandmother AH had the same custom. My father often points out an often-overlooked Rambam, where he rules that if a person is running in the street and does damage, then if it's on Friday he is not responsible, because he had the right to run - i.e. it's normal for people to run on Friday, and bystanders can be expected to take the appropriate care. What's interesting is the reason the Rambam gives for it being OK to run on Friday. One would expect the reason to be very simple - there is a lot that must be done for Shabbat, and it must all get done before Shabbat comes in, so of course people are in a hurry. But the Rambam doesn't say that a person hurries in order to prepare for Shabbat; he says that a person hurries in order not to enter Shabbat while busy. IOW, the Rambam holds that there is a positive obligation to enter Shabbat in a state of mind where one is not busy, all ones work having already been done, and that it's for this reason that a normal person can be expected to hurry on Friday. Zev Sero Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day; <zsero@...> set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Ankh-Morpork proverb ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Geretz <jgeretz@...> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 21:22:11 -0500 Subject: Praying with Avaryonim (Sinners) Our Yom Kippur prayers commence with the declaration that by G-d's consent, and by the consent of the congregation, we are permitting ourselves to pray with Avaryonim (sinners). I'd like to examine this. We have two basic options. 1) This declaration is an empty declaration and there is no difference between Yom Kippur and the rest of the year. (Not an option I'd be comfortable with.) 2) There is some difference between the rest of the year and Yom Kippur, in regards to praying with sinners. For this latter option, we again have two sub-options, to explain the difference between the rest of the year and Yom Kippur. 2a) All year round, we are not even permitted to pray with Avaryonim. If an Avaryon wishes to join we either induce him to leave or we leave ourselves, and form the minyan elsewhere. This is an extremely strict interperetation. I'm proposing it mainly for the purpose of eliminating it outright, see Mishna Berura Laws of Tefilla Siman 90, Os 22, where the MB discusses the importance of praying with the Tzibbur he states: and even if there are among them sinners, he should not refrain from praying with them. (Although please note, it's not clear from the MB's words whether the sinners are necessary in order to complete the count of 10 for the minyan. I'd have to assume that this is NOT the case (e.g. the minyan does not depend on the sinners) in order to leave room for option 2b below. 2b) All year round, we are not permitted to count Avaryonim for a Minyan. On Yom Kippur (for whatever reason, perhaps because the day itself effects attonment) we do count an Avaryon for a Minyan. I can't think of any more standard options. So the bottom line, unless you want to vote for option 1, and render this declaration an empty declaration, or vote for option 2a and go against the Mishne Berura, it seems to me that the only option left is 2b, that during the year, an Avaryon can not be counted for a minyan. Now, I did think up a 'non-standard' option: Just like the Kol Nidrei itself, covers the entire year ahead of us (MiYom Kippurim Zeh Ad Yom HaKippurim Haba Aleinu L'Tova), so too, this declaration of permission to pray with Avaryonim covers the entire year ahead of us, so that ultimately, there is no difference between Yom Kippur and the rest of the year. So then you'd be able to say that you can always count an Avaryon for a minyan. I'm not sure that I buy this. Ultimately, we can discuss who exactly qualifies as an Avaryon, but before we get to that, can we agree on the basis for the discussion? Which is it, option 1, 2a, 2b or 3? Kol Tuv, Yossi Geretz (<jgeretz@...>) Focal Point Solutions, Inc. (www.FPSNow.com) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bernard Katz <bkatz@...> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 06:55:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Source of Phrase I assume that the custom according to which the congregation rises and exclaims, "Chazak chazak v'nitchazeik" at the end of the reading of each of the books of the Chumash is universal among both Sephardim and Ashkenazim. Does anyone know the source of the phrase and of the custom? Do we know, eg, when it was started? Bernard Katz ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...> Date: Sun, 9 Jan 100 17:51:35 -0600 (CST) Subject: State of Israel Bonds I presume that the motivation for selling Israel Bonds, rather than, say, requesting contributions to the Israeli government, is that the U.S. government does not consider donations to foreign states to be tax deductible. By buying Israel Bonds with an interest rate a bit below the market rate, not only does Israel pay less interest on its foreign debt, but one's contribution is in the form of a reduced income. As with deductible contributions one is contributing with pre-tax money. /Frank Silbermann <fs@...> www.jpfo.org/askrabbi.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeanette Friedman <FriedmanJ@...> Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 23:29:31 EST Subject: State of Israel Bonds This is not a change. Israel Bonds were never charity. They were always investments. That is the point, you know. That it is not charity. Investments in Israel Bonds were the seed monies for the birth of a nation. The bonds do pay interest, and always have, much as do U.S. Savings Bonds. << This change in marketing style may be a reflection of an overall diminishing emotional connection to Eretz Yisrael (in the complete Jewish spectrum) or simply a response to the general bull market where every cent must be given a cost/benefit analysis to see where it will be more profitable so we're not left behind the Jonses. Should we be concerned about the possible blurring of the lines between Cheshbonot Shel Mitzva and, to quote the words of the zemer, "Chafatzecha Asurin, Ve'gam LaChashov Cheshbonot"? >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 30 Issue 88