Volume 14 Number 74
Produced: Sun Aug 14 22:49:09 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Cheating
[David Charlap]
Chicken & Milk
[Hillel Eli Markowitz]
Climbing the Fence vs. Stealing a Candy Bar
[Sam Juni]
Conference on Shabbat (2)
[Steve Roth, Dr. Jeremy Schiff]
Pyrex
[Jay Bailey]
Sneaking into a Ballgame
[Ezra Dabbah]
Stealing
[Danny Skaist]
Theft of Services
[Michael Broyde]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <david@...> (David Charlap)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 16:22:01 -0400
Subject: Cheating
Ezra Dabbah <ny001134@...> writes:
>David Charlap claims in v14#65 that a jew can behave immorally if no
>one sees him doing it or knows about it. (This was in regard to not
>paying for cable).
I made no such statement.
I first said that in this case, nobody is injured, damaged, or
otherwise impacted by the action. I asked if this makes a difference.
(The cable company is broadcasting into your house whether or not you
hook a TV up to the line.) The odds of getting caught have nothing to
do with the points I raised.
I said that I do not know, and that the issue is not cut & dry. I never
said such behavior is OK. As a matter of fact, I mentioned two similar
scenarios whose rulings would shed some light on the matter.
>Davids claim is that those signals are being sent out anyway. Does
>that mean you can sneak on an airplane, that plane is going to its
>destination anyway?
This isn't the same thing. Your presence on the plane adds weight and
costs the airline money. And you deprive the airline of a seat that
they could give to a paying customer.
>Or a movie or a ballgame or a yeshiva classroom or a .......
Similarly, here you take up space that would otherwise have been given
to a paying customer. You are causing the target of your actions to
lose money.
The cable TV issue is very different, because you do not cause the cable
company to lose money in any way. (If you can think of a way, let me
know.)
Once again, let me make it very clear that I never said such behavior
was OK. I said that the matter is neither obvious nor simple, and that
I would need more information to make a clear decision.
Finally, let me restate one of the similar examples I posted:
You move into a new house. You have bought the house, and it is
understood that the former owner (we'll call him "X") has removed
anything he didn't want sold with the house. Upon moving in, you
discover some furnature that was rented (from "Y"). What is your
obligation here? Should you contact "Y"? Should you contact "X"?
Should you do nothing, assuming that "X" should contact "Y"? Are you
allowed to use this furnature until "Y" comes to claim it? Etc.
Remember, I'm not asking what you would do, or what you think sounds
like a good idea. I'm asking what your OBLIGATION here is, and that's
very different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <HEM@...> (Hillel Eli Markowitz)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 1994 03:49:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Chicken & Milk
> From: <TAXRELIEF@...> (Winston Weilheimer)
> In this discussion of meat and milk, I have a question. Can someone
> describe the process of seething a chicken in the milk of it's mother?
> Nu.. so how come chicken is not parve?
There is a discussion of this in the gemoro on the first mishna of Perek
8 of maseches chulin [kol habasar], page 104 amud 1 and the top of amud
2. There is a machlokes whether it is a torah law or not. In either
case, as best as I can make out, even if it is a torah law, it is so
that one doesn't make a mistake and come to mix meat and milk.
However, it appears that Abaya says that it is a takana.
I remember a discussion that it is forbidden to use "milk of almonds"
with meat unless almonds are floating in it so noone thinks it is real
milk being eaten with meat.
I also remember seeing an agada that a town followed the ruling of (I
think it was Rav Eliezer but I am not sure) and ate a dish made out of
the head of a (peacock?) in milk and nothing bad happened to it. I
don't remember where it was though. I believe it was part of the
discussion of when a community can continue to follow a "daas yachid"
(individual's opinion) and when they have to shift over and follow the
majority.
| Hillel Eli Markowitz | Im ain ani li, mi li? |
| <H.E.Markowitz@...> | V'ahavta L'raiecha kamocha |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sam Juni <JUNI@...>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 13:12:50 -0400
Subject: Climbing the Fence vs. Stealing a Candy Bar
In recent discussions of "Zeh Ne'hena V'ze Lo Chosar" (enjoying
another's services without causing any loss to the owner), a point was
made that one who watches the game and would never pay admission, is in
fact not harming the "owner" any loss. This is then contrasted to
stealing a candy bar, where the owner loses item value. I have two
comments.
1. What is the moral implication for the case where there are no
buyers for candy bars, and the stock is sure to go to the trash,
will that qualify as "enjoying services without causing monetary
loss"?
2. What is it about setting up a game that makes the organizer the
"owner" of the "game"? A "game" is an intangible. One can easily
relate to the owning of bats, balls, a filed, or even owning the
"players", but how does one own a "game" vis-a-vis precluding
others from seeing it?
Dr. Sam Juni Fax (212) 995-3474
New York University Tel (212) 998-5548
400 East
New York, N.Y. 10003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rot8@...> (Steve Roth)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 16:22:22 -0400
Subject: Conference on Shabbat
>Last year a friend of mine who is in medicine asked a well known rabbi in
>New York if he can attend a course from Thursday through Sunday. He told
>him that is was ok to attend on Sabbath. Of course he walked to the
>course and didn't take notes. He did not even ask anybody else to take
>notes. I am not sure exactly why this rabbi said it is mutar. I know
>other Rabbis say it is asur.
I agree with Avi. I have never asked a posek, and have just not gone. I
am not sure why it should be mutar to go. Beside all the practical
problems (carrying an ID tag, getting through electronic doors, etc) it
would seem to be a problem of uvda d'chol (involvement in weekday
activities on Shabbos, which should be asur). Most medical conferencs
nowadays have tapes, so you won't miss anything anyway. As for
presenting papers or giving lectures, it is generally possible to get
the speaking date changed to Sunday since most conferences go for two
days or more. (This is the approach I have used when invited to
speak-it's never been a problem). If not, I cannot see how one could
present a paper at a large meeting without using a microphone or slides
(no one ever gets up, at least at Anesthesia meetings, without a bunch
of slides to show). A few years ago, Dr Fred Rosner wrote an article in
J Contemp Society and Halacha about this, saying that Reb Moshe said it
was OK to go a medical convention on Shabbos in order to keep up with
the latest advances, etc. That may have been so years ago, but with all
the tapes and written materials available now, I wonder if it still
applies.
Steve Roth,MD
Assoc Prof Anesthesia&Crit Care
Univ Chicago
312-702-4549
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <schiff@...> ( Dr. Jeremy Schiff)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 94 15:08:59 +0200
Subject: Conference on Shabbat
On the issue of attending/giving papers at conferences on Shabbat.....
with all due respect to those who have expressed opinions to the
contrary, you shouldn't do it!!!
Without entering any formal discussion of what is the "spirit of
Shabbat", whatever it is, it doesn't allow you to go and do on Shabbat
the same as you did on Friday and you will do on Sunday. And if you're
going to argue back to me that there is no such thing as the spirit of
Shabbat beyond the ethos that arises as a result of the type of work
specifically prohibited on Shabbat, viz. the 39 melachot, there is an
issur miderabanan (rabbinical issur) on "uvdin dechol" (work that you
would do during the week). What constitutes uvdin dechol may well be
determined by who you are: it might be fine for me to read a book about
occupational therapy and for my wife to read a math book, but vice-versa
is out by virtue of our respective professions.
Somebody is going to reply to this that they are approaching a tenure
review and badly need to give a specific paper on a Shabbat, or just to
be seen at some crucial session at some conference. Please CYLOR.
Assuming there is no violation of one of the 39 melachot, there's plenty
of grounds for a one-off exception. But if you do do this, you should be
honest about the "one-off"ness of it.
Jeremy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <bailey@...> (Jay Bailey)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 12:38:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Pyrex
I read an article about it last week; general consensus is that it is
not the same as glass, as the pourous properties are different. Pyrex
should be kept separate for meat and milk and cannot be kashered (I
believe it's "stuck" between being like "cheres", that is, too "porous",
and metal, which is not)...I will track down the ref. and submit on
Monday.
Jay Bailey
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Dabbah <ny001134@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 94 11:17:02 -0500
Subject: Sneaking into a Ballgame
I can't believe that people can rationalize sneaking as a halachik
"heter". Jay Bailey asks in mj v14#72 what is the distinction between
sneaking a candy bar and sneaking into a ballgame. (Since he believes
you take nothing from the owner).
I think the first thing you must understand is the concept of *non-
tangible assets*. When someone wants to buy into a business, he usually
puts up cash. The accounting transaction is debit cash and credit his
capital account. If a person has no cash and the current owners know his
value to the company the transaction would be debit goodwill credit his
capital account. Goodwill is an asset. You can't touch it but it is an
asset to the company. This is called a *non-tangible asset*.
When Reggie Jackson left the Yankees to play with the California Angels,
part of his contract was based on how many people he could draw to the
stadium. The owners of the ballclub invested money in him just like the
candy store owner does in candy and they wait for a return on investment.
If you do not pay for your admission ticket you are *directly* stealing
from the ballplayer and the owners.
Ezra Dabbah
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: DANNY%<ILNCRD@...> (Danny Skaist)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 1994 05:48:57 -0400
Subject: Stealing
>Ezra Dabbah
>that those signals are being sent out anyway. Does that mean you can
>sneak on an airplane, that plane is going to its destination anyway?
>Or a movie or a ballgame or a yeshiva classroom or a .......
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That strikes a familiar note. Didn't Hillel listen to a shiur from the
roof, in the snow, because he didn't have the price of admission ?
danny
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Broyde <RELMB@...>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 10:04:38 -0400
Subject: Theft of Services
A number of people challenged my halachic assertion regarding a stealing
into a stadium to watch a baseball game; they sought sources for my
assertion that theft of services that are ze nehene veze lo chasar is
prohibited. Indeed, one person remarked that "gut feeling is not a
basis for deciding halacho. A reference to shulchan Oruch is more
convincing." Indeeed, I strongly agree, and provided such references in
my previous sent posting concerning cable television, which I referred
to in the posting about the baseball game. It is clear from Shulchan
Aruch CM 363:5-6 that halacha views the theft of services that a person
normally seeks to sell, but which you are taking without consent of the
merchant as prohibited, and liable for damages. The classical example
of this found in the rishonim is when I sleep in your hotel room without
paying rent, and you did not have any other tenant to rent it to. At a
certain level no damages were suffered. This is rejected clearly by CM
363:5-6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 14 Issue 74
