Volume 37 Number 81
Produced: Wed Dec 4 5:20:20 US/Eastern 2002
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Confiscation of Property by a Teacher
[David and Toby Curwin]
The Ethicist responds
[Shalom Carmy]
Hanukkah away from home (4)
[Carl Singer, Yehonatan and Randy Chipman, David Waxman, David
Maslow]
New York Times article about the Orthodox farmer
[Ed Greenberg]
Randy Cohen, the "Ethicist"
[Art Werschulz]
Selling Chametz (was Pruzbul as legal fiction?) (5)
[Gershon Dubin, David Waxman, Ira L. Jacobson, David Waxman,
Ira L. Jacobson]
Shabbos in Israel
[Harold Greenberg]
Speaking on Phone when it is Shabbat on one side
[Yaakov Fogelman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David and Toby Curwin <tobyndave@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:10:46 +0200
Subject: Re: Confiscation of Property by a Teacher
In Crossroads Vol III (the English version of the Hebrew journal
Techumin), there is an article dealing with this subject by Rav Yehuda
Herzl Henkin (an occasional contributor to mail-jewish). There is also a
critique of Rav Henkin's article by Rav Uri Dasberg, the editor of the
journal.
David Curwin
Efrat, Israel
<tobyndave@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@...>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:20:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: The Ethicist responds
> Jewish law does not say that women are untouchable; it disapproves of a
> behavior. It's also significant that it does so in an equal manner. Both
> men and women are instructed not to engage in affectionate physical
> contact with members of the opposite sex to whom they are not married.
>
> My point is that since the law is egalitarian in nature, I don't think
> it's fair to claim gender discrimination, as Randy Cohen suggests.
In private correspondence the Ethicist acknowledges that the reason
negia is prohibited is based on sexual modesty. He insists that this
does not make a difference. Since religious concepts of sexual modesty
are responsible for behavior that violates egalitarian principles, it
should not be condoned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <CARLSINGER@...> (Carl Singer)
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 06:14:03 EST
Subject: Re: Hanukkah away from home
What is the halakhah regarding a person in such a situation.
The man and his wife will be in a Jerusalem Hotel from a couple of
days before Hanoukah. When Hanoukah begins on Friday night this
couple will not be permitted to light a Menorah in their room as
per hotel regulations. There will be no one back home that will
be lighting for this couple to rely upon.
Should they make the berakhah of Shehehiyanou upon seeing any
menorah lit on the streets of Jerusalem or rather wait till they
return home in the middle of the holiday to begin lighting and say
all the berakhot at that time?
Thank you,
Joseph Mosseri
I guess a more basic question is how / why does one get oneself into
this situation -- or how does one circumvent (find alternatives.) This
is not an unforseen emergency, but apparently a pre-planned situation.
Perhaps you can find a household nearby that will let you light, etc.
Kol Tov
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yehonatan and Randy Chipman <yonarand@...>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:32:01 +0200
Subject: Re: Hanukkah away from home
Any hotel in Israel will have space set aside for anyone who wishes to
do so to light Hanukkah candles in the lobby or near the entrance to the
dining hall. Since the main purpose of the mitzvah is pirsumei nisa,
publicizing the miracle, lighting candles in a public section of the
building that serves as ones temporary lodging should be a proper
fulfillment. I see no reason not to light candles with a brakha as
usual.
Yehonatan Chipman,
Jerusalem
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Waxman <yitz99@...>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 16:22:17 -0800
Subject: Re: Hanukkah away from home
If they're going to be in Jerusalem, then it won't be a problem to find
a competent authority to answer the question.
On a practical level, they can ask the manager if the hotel has a
designated public area for Chankah lighting. A public area would also
offer the advantage of greater public visibility (persumei ness).
Perhaps you should also remind the couple to use at least one big candle
for Friday night that will continue to burn 30 minutes after sundown.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Maslow <maslowd@...>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 08:26:27 -0500
Subject: Hanukkah away from home
The problem raised, of not being able to light the menorah while staying
in a hotel, is much less of an issue in Jerusalem than in the Diaspora.
I have been in Israel on Hanukah several times, and most hotels make
provision for menorah lighting in the lobby or other designated safe
place.
The question of how to fulfill the brachot (blessings) is more of an
issue in an American hotel that does not focus on Jewish clientele.
David E. Maslow
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ed Greenberg <edg@...>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:01:29 -0800
Subject: Re: New York Times article about the Orthodox farmer
>>From the New York Times article about the Orthodox farmer:
> All members will work, at least part time, for the farm. They plan to
> grow produce, make maple syrup and raise sheep, goats, chickens and cows.
> (Cows will be milked by gentiles on Saturdays because the Talmud forbids
> Jews from milking on the Sabbath, but the Lubavitchers do not want
> unmilked cows to be in pain.)
Is this typical of religious farming practice? What if there are no
non-jews?
How does one avoid animal abuse while maintaining the shabbat?
I assume that one may FEED one's animals?
</edg>
Ed Greenberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Art Werschulz <agw@...>
Subject: Re: Randy Cohen, the "Ethicist"
Andy Goldfinger <Andy.Goldfinger@...> writes:
> I think there is an important point that is being missed here.
> It is true that this is a case of a man choosing not to shake hands
> with a woman, but if the genders were reversed the same refusal
> would have taken place. That is, an Orthodox woman would have
> chosen not to shake hands with a man. Would this make the man
> "second class?" I think not. There is complete symmetry here.
> Offense is in the mind of the beholder.
I was always taught that a gentleman doesn't extend his hand to a lady
(for the purposes of a handshake); it's always the lady who extends her
hand to the gentleman. So properly speaking, said reverse scenario
shouldn't come up.
Art Werschulz (8-{)} "Metaphors be with you." -- bumper sticker
GCS/M (GAT): d? -p+ c++ l u+(-) e--- m* s n+ h f g+ w+ t++ r- y?
Internet: <agw@...><a href="http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~agw/">WWW</a>
ATTnet: Columbia U. (212) 939-7061, Fordham U. (212) 636-6325
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 19:00:56 GMT
Subject: Selling Chametz (was Pruzbul as legal fiction?)
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
<<I wonder how it is possible to get rid of the hametz balu`a, absorbed
in the dishes, pots and pans and so forth without selling the hametz.>>
Bitul.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Waxman <yitz99@...>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 15:51:36 -0800
Subject: Re: Selling Chametz (was Pruzbul as legal fiction?)
I wonder how it is possible to get rid of the hametz balu`a,
absorbed in the dishes, pots and pans and so forth without selling
the hametz. If one does not get rid of these, then he has not
solved the problem of owning hametz on Pessah, it seems to me.
Can anyone comment?
1. chametz balu`a is not considered b`eiyn, and thus does not incur the
Rabbinic penalty of 'chametz sheavar alav hapesach'. This is my own
'chop'. If someone can confirm or deny it with a published tshuva, I'd
like to see it.
2. Some contracts stipulate to sell said absorbed chametz, but not the
pots that they are absorbed into (we don't want the bother of taking
them to the mikvah after Pesach).
IMOHO, it is hard to take #2 seriously.
Btw, it is a common hidur / chumra to remove all chametz b'eiyn from the
house and to rely upon the sale only for hesfed m`ruba (like your single
malt scotch).
Along the same lines, the sale of Chametz prior to Pesach is not
meant to be a legal fiction at all, and the Jew selling it must be
willing to deliver all the Chametz to the non-Jew who bought it if
the non-Jew pays the market value of the Chametz.
A couple of notable incidents:
1. The duty free shop at BG airport had a compliance problem with
refraining from selling (the non_Jew's) whiskey during Pesach. The rav
declined to 'sell' their chametz in subsequent years as the sale was
clearly not valid.
2. The Israeli army offered humanitarian relief to some starving
Africans one Pesach. They were inclined to break into the stock of
chametz, and ship it to Africa. The chief military Rabbi told them to
help themselves, but it would be forbidden for any Jew to eat any
remaining chametz items afterwards. The army backed down and sent matza
and other kosher l'pesach food items.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 22:54:40 +0200
Subject: Re: Selling Chametz (was Pruzbul as legal fiction?)
2. Some contracts stipulate to sell said absorbed chametz,
but not the pots that they are absorbed into (we don't want
the bother of taking them to the mikvah after Pesach).
Actually, Lubavitch sells even the implements that have absorbed the
hametz, and they do not need to immerse them afterwards.
Btw, it is a common hidur / chumra to remove all chametz
b'eiyn from the house and to rely upon the sale only for
hesfed m`ruba (like your single malt scotch).
Then when they recite the blessing `al bi`ur hametz, they have to
exercise special care to avoid a berakha levatala.
The sequence of bi`ur and bittul, and the difference between the bittul
in the evening and in the morning, come to mind as important in this
regard.
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Waxman <yitz99@...>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 16:10:07 -0800
Subject: Re: Selling Chametz (was Pruzbul as legal fiction?)
Then when they recite the blessing `al bi`ur hametz, they
have to exercise special care to avoid a berakha levatala.
Actually, the two issues are not connected as far as I understand. The
process of 'bi`ur chametz' goes on the search and destruction of chametz,
not the sale.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 17:09:57 +0200
Subject: Re: Selling Chametz (was Pruzbul as legal fiction?)
Actually, the two issues are not connected as far as I
understand. The process of 'bi`ur chametz' goes on the
search and destruction of chametz, not the sale.
Of course, but if they are not selling any hametz then they must nullify
what they have and burn what they had, but in the proper sequence,
because then, in principle, nothing remains.
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:<laser@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harold Greenberg <harold.greenberg@...>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:56:45 +0200
Subject: Shabbos in Israel
The writer says-
"I am an immigration lawyer and I have a lot of clients in Israel.
<snip>
since it is Shabbos for them."
It seems to me that in addition to being concerned about Israeli Jews
speaking on the telephone on Shabbos, we should also be concerned about
Israeli Jews leaving Eretz Yisrael to live in golus. I understand that
there is a mitzvah - not to leave.
Zvi Greenberg
Eilat, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yaakov Fogelman <top@...>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 14:04:44 +0200
Subject: Speaking on Phone when it is Shabbat on one side
<Aronio@...> asks about speaking to non-observant clients in Israel on
the phone, when it is already Shabbat there. I would that it might
depend on whether the alleged issur is making the phone connection or
speaking on the phone or both; if it is only making the connection, that
has already happened and there may be no issur in just talking, tho he
could not initiate the connection to Israel on their Shabbat; this would
be a good forum to review, according to the latest scientific knowledge,
just what, if anything, is indeed wrong with using the phone on shabbat-
I do not believe that any significant heat or light are created, to
subsume it under the category of aish. The Rov once noted that the
Chazan Ish clearly did not have a proper understanding of electricity in
his tshuvot on electricity on Shabbat. To the best of my knowledge, no
Torah or talmudic source speaks of telephones and electricity!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 37 Issue 81
