Volume 22 Number 05
                       Produced: Wed Nov 15 23:13:52 1995

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Aggadic Quotes about Ye'ush (Despair)
         [Mordechai Kamenetzky]
Brit Milah
         [Edwin Frankel]
Carrying your tallit home on Shabbat
         [Steve White]
Eruv on SHabbat and Private Property
         [Gershon Dubin]
Finding a Rabbi
         [David Riceman]
Hachana (preparation)
         [Ari Shapiro]
Haftorah for Shvuot in Israel
         [Carl Sherer]
HTC's Likutei Peshatim
Judaism vs. Christianity
         [Shmuel Himelstein]
Teffilin worn in the Midbar
         [Israel Rosenfeld]
Telekinetic Actions
         [Akiva Miller]
Translated Phrases (2)
         [Eric Jaron Stieglitz, Steve White]
Worlds Creation Date
         [Binyomin Segal]


From: <ATERES@...> (Mordechai Kamenetzky)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 19:17:34 -0500
Subject: Aggadic Quotes about Ye'ush (Despair)

In a message dated 95-11-14 23:43:44 EST, you write:
>Does anyone have any aggadic quotes about ye'ush (despair)? I remember
>hearing of some by R' Nachman of Breslav or R' Yisrael Salant. One that
>I heard, but don't remember the source was: "Despair is a good friend of
>the yetzer ha'ra (evil inclination)." Anyone recognize that?

I never heard that but once heard a variation on the Sugya of "Yaiush
Sheloh MiDaas" in the name of the Kotzker Rebbe. "Those who despair are
those with no Daas"



From: <frankele@...> (Edwin Frankel)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 07:46:42 -0100
Subject: Brit Milah

>Shmuel Himelstein writes:
>> This morning's Torah reading about Avraham's brit mila reminded me that
>> years ago I had read somewhere that studies have shown that the
>> newborn's blood clotting mechanism is not yet truly developed, and only
>> on the eighth day (!) is it finally so. Would anyone have any more
>> information on this?

I have difficulty with this.  After all halacha also binds us to circumcise
the children of an eved knaani (non_Jewish slave) at 3 days of life.

Ed Frankel


From: <StevenJ81@...> (Steve White)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 22:25:39 -0500
Subject: Carrying your tallit home on Shabbat

Ari Shapiro writes in #97:

>The prohibition of hachana (preparation) is to do an action that you
>don't need for Shabbos but for after Shabbos. If moving an object around
>your house is preparing for after Shabbos it is prohibited.  The SSK
>(Shemiras Shabbos K'Hilchasa) (chapter 28, 81) gives the following
>distinction. He says (from R' Auerbach) that anything that is not a
>tircha(takes no effort) and is done without thinking is not called
>hachana.  Therefore taking your keys is permitted because it takes no
>effort and is something done without thinking, when you leave you take
>your keys. Taking a siddur to daven Maariv on the other hand while it
>takes no effort it is not something done without thinking and therefore

But "crp_chips" stated in the same issue that carrying one's tallit home
after Musaf is not permitted.  Why?  I don't see why it would be muktze --
it's a beged (garment), which you _might_ wish to use later on Shabbat.
 Therefore, only hachana can be a reason.  Suppose this is something you
don't think much about -- you simply always take your tallis home after
shul, as easily as you take your keys when you go out.  (Taking your
tallis takes a little thought, but in my case, so does taking keys; I at
least have to go get them.)  So would that be a problem?

Alternatively, assuming there is a problem, if one absolutely,
positively needed to have one's tallit at home the second Shabbat ended
-- say, he had to leave immediately to travel somewhere to do a mitzva,
and could not me in shul for ma'ariv -- would one then _have_ to wear
the tallit home, so that it was used permissably after shul?

Steve White


From: <gershon.dubin@...> (Gershon Dubin)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 23:37:00 -0500
Subject: Eruv on SHabbat and Private Property

> In general, my understanding of an 'eruv' is that it DOES NOT ipso
> facto make carrying permitted. Only carrying under certain parameters
> is permitted, since the 'eruv' does not make a real `rishus hayachid`.

	   Pardon me for jumping into this thread without having seen
the beginning but how is a domain with an eruv different than a rishus
hayachid [private, individual property - Mod.].  It is my impression
that there is no difference.  If so carrying for no reason at all would
be permitted as it is in a rishus hayachid.


From: ulysses!<dr@...> (David Riceman)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 08:46:15 EST
Subject: Finding a Rabbi

  Rumors have reached me that Mr. Amir did consult a rabbi before
murdering Mr. Rabin.  This reminded me of an old question to which
I have never found a satisfactory answer: How is a normal person
to distinguish between a competent posek and an incompetent posek?
I suspect Mr. Amir's rumored posek of worse than mere incompetence,
but how should Mr. Amir have known.  Or, a more normal situation,
I have recently moved to a new town.  How am I to decide where to ask

David Riceman


From: <m-as4153@...> (Ari Shapiro)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 18:32:23 EST
Subject: Hachana (preparation)

<Hmmm, since it is not allowed to carry a tallis home from shul after
<Musaf at first glance I would say that you wouldn't be allowed to carry
<the key.

According to the SSK (chapter 28, 81) based on R'Auerbach that anything
that is not a tircha(takes no effort) and is done without thinking is
not called hachana. Therefore taking your talis home is permitted.

Ari Shapiro


From: <adina@...> (Carl Sherer)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 2:02:54 IST
Subject: Haftorah for Shvuot in Israel

Louis Rayman writes:
> Its the Israelis who have to
> contend with loosing a day of yomtov (in Israel on Shovuos, you have to
> do all the stuff that in chutz la'aretz we postpone till the second day:
> Megillas Rus, the piyut that many shuls recite before the haftorah, and
> yizkor.  Makes for a VERY long davening, esp if you've been up all
> night), 

Actually for those of us who daven at the Kotel, it's a bit easier to
stay awake for that long davening.  There are almost no seats :-)
But the real reason I wrote is to comment on the Haftorah.  Our Haftorah
on Shvuot is Yechezkel 1 and therefore we don't say the piyut (I assume
you were referring to Yatziv Pisgam) at all because it goes with the
Haftorah in Chabakuk which is read on the second day in Chu"l.

-- Carl Sherer
	Adina and Carl Sherer
		You can reach us both at:


From: <ssmlhtc@...> (Library.HTC)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 11:59 CST
Subject: HTC's Likutei Peshatim

One of your previous digests mentions Likutei Peshatim published by the
Hebrew Theological College.  It is available on line via a list.  If you
would like to subscribe send a message to:


SUB likpeshat  your_name

If you have any questions address them to me at:<ssmlhtc@...> 

It is of special interest to those who live or previously lived in Chicago.

Daniel Stuhlman
Hebrew Theological College Library
Skokie, IL  60077   708-674-7750


From: Shmuel Himelstein <himelstein@...>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 05:34:18 GMT
Subject: Judaism vs. Christianity

On another forum, I saw a beautiful idea, propounded by Prof. Yeshayahu
Leibowitz, za"l, and related to Parashat VaYera.

Prof. Leibowitz notes that Christianity is anthropocentric, with man as
the center of everything, while Judaism is theocentric, with God at the

He illustrates this beautifully. The Christian scriptures have a verse
to the effect that God so loved the world that He gave us His only son.
In Judaism we have the case of Avraham, who so loved God that he was
willing to give Him his only son.

           Shmuel Himelstein
22 Shear Yashuv Street, Jerusalem 97280, Israel
    Phone: 972-2-864712: Fax: 972-2-862041
   EMail address: <himelstein@...>


From: <iir@...> (Israel Rosenfeld)
Date: Tue,  14 Nov 95 18:01 +0200
Subject: Re: Teffilin worn in the Midbar

Some time ago someone asked about Teffilin worn after Parshat Boh (which
contains the mitzvah of Teffilin) but before Parshat Ve'eschanan and
Ekev (which contain two parshiot found in Teffilin).

Rabbi Peretz of Ezrat Torah, Jerusalem told me the answer given by the
Lubavitcher Rebbe ZT"L.

I quote:
Shemot 13:16 Rashi: Uletotafot -
    Tefillin, and because they have four BATIM ...
Devarim 6:8 Rashi: Letotafot -
    ... because of the number of PARSHIOT ...

The Rebbe ZT"L infers from Rashi that Teffilin always had four BATIM but
only as of Devarim did they also get four PARSHIOT.



From: <Keeves@...> (Akiva Miller)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 22:09:23 -0500
Subject: Telekinetic Actions

Stan Tenen asked in MJ 21:95:
>I recall asking a rabbi friend
>if it was permitted to use "psychic" action to do things on Shabbos that
>are not permitted.  If it were possible, could I will an electric light
>to come on without touching the physical switch without desecrating
>Shabbos?  The answer was no.  So, I ask here, does it matter if these
>rabbis acted "psychically" in intending Yitzhak Rabin's death or is it
>no different (in terms of responsibility) than if they had pulled the
>trigger - particularly if they were certain in their own minds that the
>curse would work?  (I am not saying that I believe in the efficacy of
>"curses".)  If it is no different, what is the proper halachic response?

I was at a shiur several years ago where Rav Tendler explained several
issues regarding euthanasia. One of the points he made was this:
Although even the slightest action done to shorten a person's life
constitutes murder, it is still allowed for a person to pray that a
certain person (either oneself or someone else). Rav Tendler brought
several cases and examples, and in all of them, the motive behind the
prayer was to put and end to the ill person's pain and suffering; I do
not know if other motives would also be allowed.

The reason I bring this, is to suggest a clarification to Stan's
posting.  Namely, that a distinction must be drawn between a prayer, by
which one is asking *HaShem* to end that person's life, and an action,
however intangible, by which a *person* ends the victims life. I suspect
that a curse may fall on either side of this line, depending on the
precise wording and nature of the curse.

By the way, the incident of which Stan speaks was reported on Oct 17 in
MailJewish, vol 21, number 67.

Akiva Miller


From: Eric Jaron Stieglitz <ephraim@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 20:12:03 -0500
Subject: Translated Phrases

Interesting post to mail-Jewish. You bring up some fascinating points.

  I will ask, however, that you and the moderator please be aware that
not everybody on the list has a Yeshiva background, which means that
certain "phrases" which people take for granted as Universally understood
are not. Obviously, I know the basic terms such as halakha, Hashem, 
bracha, etc., but in the following line:

> relatively benign civil disobedience.  Now halachically, civil
> disobedience (which violates "dina d'malchuta dina") was not usually

  I don't know what this means. Could you please clarify? (And could the
moderator please translate things like this in future postings?) Thanks!

Just to clarify my previous e-mail, I'm not suggesting that people not
put Hebrew/Aramaic phrases in their postings, I'm just asking that people
be sure to translate them. That way, those of us without a good background
can learn from it.

Here's another one:

"dan l'kaf z'chut"


["dina d'malchuta dina" = The law of the land is law. Mod.]

From: <StevenJ81@...> (Steve White)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 23:53:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Translated Phrases

It's one of the cardinal rules of mail-jewish to translate such phrases.  I'm
sorry I didn't, and when our moderator (Avi Feldblum) sees his copy of this,
I feel confident he'll feel sorry about it, too.  I guess the reason I didn't
translate these is that "dina d'malchuta dina" was discussed extensively on
the list in the last few weeks, so I (incorrectly) assumed that people were
up on that one.  Just goes to show that you should never take anything for
granted.  (...including that most people on the list have a yeshiva
background.  I don't.)


"Dina d'malchuta dina":  The law of the land is the law (Aramaic -- my Hebrew
is not grammatically wonderful, but it would be something like "Din Hamalchut
hadin") -- that is, halacha generally enforces the law of the duly
constituted government of the land, provided that it is not in direct
conflict with the halacha itself.  Note that historically the "duly
constituted government" was normally a non-Jewish one.  Jewishly, in a
_kingdom_ -- that is, a Davidic kingdom -- the king is completely bound by,
and rules according to, halacha, so "dina d'malchuta dina" is a tautology.
 What some of the latest postings on this subject have concerned are:  If
there is a "duly constituted government" in Israel which is Jewish, but not
halachic, does "dina d'malchuta dina" apply?  I'd say the majority say yes,
but some people seem to hold that a non-halachic Jewish government in Israel
is by definition "not duly consitituted," and therefore, one might not be
bound by it.  This has important ramifications in how observant Jews should
relate to laws of the Israeli government.

"Dan l'kaf z'chut" -- Judge meritoriously (from Pirkei Avot) -- that is, if
there is a situation where one is uncertain whether an
action/thought/whatever was meritorious, as long as there is any (reasonable)
possibility, one should assume meritoriously.  Thus, in context, did Rabin do
teshuva over the _Altalena_ incident?   Dan l'kaf z'chut would say, assume
that he did do teshuva.

Hope this helps.
Steve White


From: <bsegal@...> (Binyomin Segal)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 22:29:31 -0600
Subject: Worlds Creation Date

 * From: Mottel Gutnick <MOTTEL@...>

 * (By the way, it seems to me that this observance follows the dictum of
 * R. Joshua that the world was created in Nisan, whereas our Rosh Hashanah
 * liturgy seems to uphold the view of R. Eliezer, that the world was
 * created in Tishri -- anyone care to comment on this?)

from memory - but sources can be found if need be

I believe tosfos makes essentially this observation - he (they) describes
that both are true ie that in tishrei hashem planned and in nissan He

Rabbi A Kaplan ztl points this all out in an article that - as i recall -
is reprinted in one of his books.



End of Volume 22 Issue 5