Volume 30 Number 84
Produced: Wed Jan 12 6:22:03 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Bat Mitzvah
[Daniel Mehlman]
Easing into Shabbos (3)
[Sheldon Meth, David Steinberg, A.J.Gilboa]
Eating in a Supermarket (2)
[Josh Backon, Joseph Geretz]
Giving Non-Kosher Food to Non-Jews
[Alan Cooper]
How to Both Learn and Work all Day (2)
[Josh Hoexter, Gershon Dubin]
Ibn Ezra
[Eli Turkel]
Kollel (4)
[Gershon Dubin, Eli Turkel, Tszvi Klugerman, Joseph Geretz]
Philathropy & Fraud
[Anonymous]
Tallis Under the Chuppah
[Samson Bechhofer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Mehlman <Danmim@...>
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 13:34:40 EST
Subject: Re: Bat Mitzvah
Any information to receive or buy this book zevet habat in New York.
please reply!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon Meth <SHELDON.Z.METH@...>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:16:48 -0500
Subject: Easing into Shabbos
<<In v30n75, Carl Singer writes: "Nonetheless, Fridays tend to be hectic
especially during the winter (short day) months and moreso when company
is expected.">>
Actually, it seems that Fridays are hectic no matter if the day is short
or long. I have heard that it is brought down in seforim that the Satan
has shelitah [dominion] on Erev Shabbos before the zman, to tseshter
[disturb] the going into Shabbos, and hence the Shabbos menuchah itself.
The Satan's meddling in specific things is usually an indication that
they are valuable spiritually.
-Sheldon Meth
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Steinberg <djs@...>
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 21:10:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Easing into Shabbos
I recall that that the Rav ztzal, in one of his Tshuva Droshos went into
a moving aside about the difference between today's Jews and the shtetl
Jew. He said that while there are Shomer Shabbos Jews now, once upon a
time there were Erev Shabbos Yidden: the sanctity and excitement of
shabbos already transformed them on Friday.
[Note: I think that the book put out by listmember Arnie Lustiger in
which he transcribed and annotated several of the Rav's drashot
contained that Tshuva Drosha. Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: A.J.Gilboa <bfgilboa@...>
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 12:04:47 -0800
Subject: Re: Easing into Shabbos
Concerning Carl Singer's post -
In this connection, I believe that the Shulhan `Aruch requires that the
man of the house actively participate in Shabbat preparations, even if
it is only sharpening the kitchen knives or arranging the wicks (and
oil) for nerot shabbat. I seem to remember that even "talmide hachamim"
are required to stop their studies in order to participate actively in
hachanot shabbat.
Can someone supply the sources?
[While I would hesitate to call this a source here, considering the
recent discussions on Maase Rav, I can attest to having seen my
grandfather zt"l stop his learning every Friday to go and prepare the
candles for my grandmother o"h to light. Mod.]
Yosef Gilboa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Josh Backon <BACKON@...>
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 20:21 +0200
Subject: Re: Eating in a Supermarket
I suggest that simply picking up the item in the supermarket is *not* a
kinyan. Only paying for the item at the supermarket checkout counter
would be the acceptable kinyan "situmta" since only this method is the
law of the land and binding.
Josh Backon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Geretz <jgeretz@...>
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 15:23:23 -0500
Subject: Eating in a Supermarket
Akiva Miller wrote:
> It never dawned on me that the act of picking up
> an item (with intention > to buy it) would constitute
> a kinyan, even prior to my placing it in my shopping
> cart.
I don't think that simply picking up the item makes it yours. Can you
walk into my house and just pick something up and take ownership of it?
Not unless you managed to remove it from my domain, in which case you'd
acquire it, but it would be stealing. Similarly, in a supermarket, I
don't assume that the owners have intention to grant ownership to the
customer, until the customer purchase pays for it. (At most, the placing
of an item in your cart gives the customer a precedence, over other
customers, to subsequently purchase that item.) So simply picking it up,
or even placing it in in your cart, should not constitute a transfer of
ownership.
> 2) What happens when I put an item in my cart,
> and then the package breaks, ruining the food?
> Who did it belong to at that point, and whose
> loss is it?
I don't think that the question of who it belongs to should be relevant
to who is responsible for the damange. The Gemara Bava Kama is full of
circumstances of Mazik, one who damages another person's property. You
don't need to own something in order to bear the responsibility for
damaging it. On the contrary, if you damage someone else's property,
through your own fault, you're liable to pay for the
damages. (Practically, speaking many groceries may waive the damages for
breakage, but that's their perogative.)
Kol Tuv,
Joseph Geretz
(<jgeretz@...>)
Focal Point Solutions, Inc.
(www.FPSNow.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Cooper <amcooper@...>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 09:11:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Giving Non-Kosher Food to Non-Jews
The recent discussion of a gift of non-kosher wine to a non-Jew called
to mind an interesting practice that has developed in our neck of the
suburbs. Around Thanksgiving and Molad-time, a local grocery chain
offers free frozen turkeys (treyf, of course) to customers who have
accumulated a certain amount in grocery receipts. These turkeys are
gratefully received by a local food bank. Is there anything wrong with
kashrut-observing Jews picking up their free turkeys in order to
transfer them to the food bank? (It is safe to assume, in this case,
that the food bank has no Jewish clients.)
Alan Cooper
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Josh Hoexter <hoexter@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 14:28:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: How to Both Learn and Work all Day
> From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
> In my article, TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF TORAH, AOJS VOL III-IV (reprints
> available upon email request with an address) I suggested (based on
> a Rav Hirsch) that the Messianic goal is to COMBINE both these goals.
What is the source?
> In a similar manner a surgeon can review 'the laws of ritual
> slaughtering' while doing surgery,
With all due respect while your surgeon may have a sharper knife :) I
would prefer one that concentrated on the surgery!!! I also wonder about
your hardware store worker who may be unaware of a customer or not
working to his full capacity while he's thinking about tumah and
taharah, or the high school teacher who is not devoting full attention
to his students.
I thought that the advantage of manual labor was specifically that one
can concentrate on Torah even while working? All of your examples have
jobs that require them to concentrate on the task at hand. Hopefully
they will act according to halachah but why are they reviewing unrelated
halachos while on the job?
Josh Hoexter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:10:14 -0500
Subject: How to Both Learn and Work all Day
<snip>
<<In this way I spend my entire day learning--some learning will be
intense while during my work hours I am 'randomly reviewing'. >>
This is not learning; it is living as a Jew. Even if a person
thinks in Torah all day while working, as described by the Nefesh
Hachaim Shaar Aleph, he is considered as someone who is doing derech
eretz.
<<In a similar manner a surgeon can review 'the laws of ritual
slaughtering' while doing surgery>>
I think it would be a public service if you publicized the name
of the surgeon who does so, so we can all avoid him <g<
[Similar comments and requests from several others. Mod.]
Gershon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@...>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 100 18:57:06 +0200 ("IST)
Subject: Ibn Ezra
> << From: Tszvi Klugerman <Klugerman@...>
> Regarding the Kollel issue I believe that the earliest patronage
> system , as the Kollel system is today, dates back to the turn of the
> first millenia under the system instituted by Shmuel Hanagid in Spain
> and followed by a number of wealthy Jews who undertook the support of
> certain gifted Scholar artists, such as Solomon Ibn Gabirol and Moshe
> Ibn Ezra. It should be noted that this patronage system was established
> to ensure that a gifted scholar or artisan would be able to pursue their
> talent and benefit others. >>
I thought that Ibn Ezra and Ibn Gabirol wrote poetry to support
themselves (as did Yehuda Halevi). Also Ibn Ezra was poor most of his
life and wandered the globe looking for better things even meeting
Rabbenu Tam.
Eli Turkel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:53:10 -0500
Subject: Kollel
> From: Stuart Wise <swise@...>
<snip>
<<(I understand that the practice in recent years is that bochurim at
Lakewood are forbidden to date for the first few months they're there;
can anyone confirm that?)>>
True; I believe it is four months. This is variously referred to
humoriously as being "in the freezer" or being "osur lavo bekohol"
Gershon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@...>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 100 18:53:07 +0200 ("IST)
Subject: Kollel
> First, Rena's comment that people should be encouraged to sit and learn
> -- since, she says, this is the "preferred activity" -- reminds me of
> the girls of some yeshivos who seemingly are programmed to believe that
> the only worthwhile boy to marry is one who is going to sit and learn
> and kollel. This attitude probably is more damaging than anything else
> in encouraging "non-learners" to become less observant.
In a recent Jewish Observer issue there were a number of interesting
letters from women. They argued against the husband sitting and learning
in a kollel. If the husband learns all day then the wife needs to go
out and work to support the family. This means that the mother is not
home to take care of the children. They suggested that a mother being
home all day (ie supported by her husband) was more important for the
yiddishkeit of the family then the husband learning all day long rather
than after hours.
Eli Turkel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tszvi Klugerman <Klugerman@...>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 19:35:31 EST
Subject: Re: Kollel
In mail-jewish Vol. 30 #71 Digest Joel Rich asks:
<< Just out of curiosity- does anyone know how this fits within the
timeframe where courts supported artists in the non-Jewish world?(ie was
this copied from the nonJews?) >>
very probably as Shmuel Hanagid was trying to get support for Jewish Scholars
after seeing the support organized by the Moslems in Granada for their own
artisans
tszvi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Geretz <jgeretz@...>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 22:54:45 -0500
Subject: Kollel
Stuart Wise wrote:
> (I understand that the practice in recent years is that bochurim
> at Lakewood are forbidden to date for the first few months they're
> there; can anyone confirm that?).
It's absolutely true, that no dating period is called 'being in the freezer'
:-). Actually, there are certain parameters, if one has already been dating
prior to entering Lakewood, they don't need to enter the 'freezer'. So there
is some truth to what you say, obviously this restriction was enacted as a
deterrence to something.
Kol Tuv,
Joseph Geretz
(<jgeretz@...>)
Focal Point Solutions, Inc.
(www.FPSNow.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anonymous
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 07:36:19 EST
Subject: Re: Philathropy & Fraud
<< Do you accept donations from those who profane the Sabbath in public?
What is the taint boundary line? >>
I think that's a mean spirited question -- there is no taint boundary
line -- the purpose isn't to judge people, how they live or how they
earn a living, but to determine whether it is appropriate to benefit
from their donation. When an obvious case arises their is a need to
steer clear.
Re: folks who "profane the Sabbath in public" -- the practical meaning
of which is not someone who eats a ham Sandwhich on the shule steps on
Yom Kippur or has written a scholarly treatise declaring themselves an
apostate, but someone who is not (no longer, or not yet) observant
(drives, works, etc. on Shabbos.) I can't Paskin for the Rosh Yeshiva,
and no one opens each yartzeit envelope and decides whether or not to
cash the $18 check within. But I do recall an issue when someone wanted
to make a substantial <name on a building> donation in memory of his
parents (who were Shabbos observers) yet he was not observant. There
are no simple answers.
ANONYMOUS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Samson Bechhofer <SBechhof@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:16:17 -0500
Subject: Tallis Under the Chuppah
Re. Rachel Smith's post on Hair Covering and German Customs (12/29/99) -
The German minhag is for the Tallis to be put over the bride and groom
before the Siddur Kiddushin and it remains over their heads until the
end of the Sheva Brochos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 30 Issue 84
