Volume 37 Number 43
                 Produced: Sun Oct 20  7:55:44 US/Eastern 2002

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

All Toraitic Laws are Eternal
         [Russell J Hendel]
Ben Eretz Yisrael and Yom Tov Sheini
         [Tzadik Vanderhoof]
Eshet Kohen
         [Stephen Phillips]
L'cha Dodi and Kale Adon
         [Ariel Cohen]
Marit Eiyin
         [Perry Zamek]
Men vs. Women Carrying in Eiruv (2)
         [Ari Trachtenberg, David Waxman]
Travel on (or close to) Shabbat & Yom Tov
         [Shalom Ozarowski]
Va'yhi or Va'yehiyu
         [Michael Feldstein]
Request: Looking for Ba'al Koreh
         [Chaya Gurwitz]


From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 17:03:41 -0400
Subject: All Toraitic Laws are Eternal

David Cohen in v37n27 gives 4 instances of Toraitic laws not meant to be

First of all the phrase FOR ALL GENERATIONS occurs several times in the
Torah showing that its laws were meant for all generations. As Malbim
brilliantly points out this phrase-FOR ALL GENERATIONS--is particularly
said in Temple-related commandments just to emphasize that EVEN when the
temple doesnt exist nevertheless such laws as the prohibition of eating
blood still applies.

Let me now address the 4 instances & respond to them:

1) Several discussants have already posted showing that Rambam DID
believe in the restitution of the sacrifices

(2) Slavery is a response to a court convicted theft by someone who cant
repay the theft. It is an alternative to prison. I think most people
studying Jewish Slavery Laws vs Modern Prison Practice would agree that
Jewish Slavery is more humane and should be kept

(3) A well known talmudic statement points out that there NEVER was a
case of the Rebellious son (No parent would try & kill their newly
turned teenage son for robbing them). Rav Hirsch in an essay points out
that the reason the Rebellious son was placed in the Torah even though
it will never occur is because it is possible to infer all guidelines
for proper parenting from it(See this beautiful essay for details).

4) Yes,it is true that Chazal allowed the oral law to be written
down--but that was in response to the terrorism of the Roman
empire. When "rome" is defeated by King MEssiah we shall go back to
learning properly (Oral law will be oral)

Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.RashiYomi.com/

To: <mail-jewish@...>

From: Tzadik Vanderhoof <tzadikv@...>
Subject: Re: Ben Eretz Yisrael and Yom Tov Sheini

>on the last day of Succot/Pessach in chutz l'aretz... and Israeli does
>not need to keep the day as Yom Tov, but he or she can only do things
>in private.
>Rachel Swirsky

Be careful... that is a machlokes.  Some opinions hold that the
"Isreali" (actually better to say "Ben Eretz Yisrael", as the issue is
one of residence, not citizenship) must keep all halachos of Chutz
La'Aretz on the second day of Yom Tov, when it comes to malacha, *even
in private*.  The only difference for him (according to this opinion) is
that he davens according to the day in Eretz Yisrael and puts on
tefillin in private, if applicable.


From: Stephen Phillips <stephenp@...>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 18:42 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: Eshet Kohen

> From: <ROSELANDOW@...> (Rose Landowne)
> > From: Aryeh A. Frimer <frimea@...>
> > What's the status of a pregnant Eshet Kohen at a beit kevarot,
> > especially now where the gender of the Fetus can be ascertained?
> The minhag is for pregnant women not to go anyway.  

And in some communities the minhag is that women don't attend funerals
altogether, although this doesn't apply to visiting a beis kevoros

Also, my son-in-law, who is a Kohen, told me that his mother visits her
parents' kevoros.

Stephen Phillips.


From: Ariel Cohen <robin@...>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:40:11 +0100
Subject: L'cha Dodi and Kale Adon

Alan Friedenberg asks:

>Why do some shules sing L'cha Dodi and Kale Adon, while others repeat
>the verses after the chazon sings/chants them?  Is there something in
>Halacha about this, or is it mearly preference and/or minhag?

I cannot tell you where the minhag originates but, with regard to
switching from the latter to the former minhag, Rav Soloveitchik is
quoted by Rav Shechter in Nefesh Ha'Rav (p162) as advising against
it. The reason the Rav gives is that, when Aanim Zemiros (or Kel Odon)
are sung line by line line by the Chazon and repeated by the
congregation, it has the status of a Dovor ShebiKedushoh (and one should
stand?) whereas, when sung by the whole congregation from beginning to
end, this status is lost.

Rav Shechter notes that in his opinion, this would not apply to Lecho
Dodi as there is never any application of a Dovor ShebiKedushoh status
to Lecho Dodi. This is because a Dovor ShebiKedushoh must also be
'praising Hashem'.

Rav Shechter also adds that the Rav seems to have sourced this point
(that a DSbK must be said line by line) from Reb Chayyim with regard to
the Shirah (see the sefer 'Shai LeTorah; Beshalach).

Ariel Cohen


From: Perry Zamek <jerusalem@...>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 11:09:38 +0200
Subject: Marit Eiyin

In mail-jewish Vol. 37 #36, Rachel Swirsky wrote:
>My husband learned from Rabbi Jacobi here in Toronto that there are most
>certainly things that are not allowed on Shabbat because of Marat Eiyen.
>One very common example is that one may not leave clothes in the washing
>machine or dryer over Shabbat because someone might see it and think it
>was done on Shabbat.  This is a fairly strict level of Marat Eiyen as it
>is in ones own home and is (presumably) cut off over Shabbat (even the
>washing machine itself is generally closed and not likely to be opened
>over Shabbat... it is very likely that there is no way that anyone could
>know whether or not there was something in there.)  <snipped>

This framing of the issue of Marit Eiyin is rather difficult, because it
presupposes that the "beholder" will assume the worst possible

To take Rachel's example: I may not leave laundry in the dryer over
Shabbat, since someone who sees it there might assume that the laundry
was washed on Shabbat.

Why might that be the assumption? Is there not a specific requirement to
be "dan lekaf zechut" (judge towards the favorable side). In this case,
should the beholder not assume that the laundry was washed and dried
prior to Shabbat, and simply left there for any one of a number of
reasons? Doesn't "dan lekaf zechut" require us to assume, in the absence
of specific evidence to the contrary, that our fellow-Jew is not acting

Perhaps the issue of Marit Eiyin is more like the following: I may not
do X, so that the average (read, non-learned) Jew should not conclude
that Y (which is similar to X) is permitted. In the present example,
perhaps I may not remove laundry from an outdoor clothesline, because a
Jew who might be passing may assume that doing laundry on Shabbat is
permitted (and he is not aware that the laundry was washed and hung
prior to Shabbat).

I simply raise the question.



From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Subject: Re: Men vs. Women Carrying in Eiruv

Your comment on chumrot vs. all of G-d's commandments reminded me of an
incident from my graduate school days.  A certain rabbi had come down
from one of the larger nearby cities to give a shiur [lesson] during the
ten days of repentance (between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur).  During
the shiur, he described the customs of this period, including the custom
to adopt extra chumrot [stringencies] during this time.  I asked the
rabbi why people adopt extra chumrot when most people have enough
trouble following the basic halacha...should not people concentrate
instead on following halacha more carefully (rather than more
stringently).  His answer, loosely paraphrased, was that it is easier to
be more stringent than it is to be more careful...and therein lies the

Kol tuv,
Ari Trachtenberg,                                      Boston University
http://people.bu.edu/trachten                    mailto:<trachten@...>

From: David Waxman <yitz99@...>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 00:35:21 +0200
Subject: Re: Men vs. Women Carrying in Eiruv

> So the husband who is a Baal Nefesh does not wish to use the Eruv. He is
> choshesh (concerned) as to the meuta (minority) of opinions regarding
> the validity of eruvim in metropolitan areas. He is concerned that in
> absolute terms theirs might be the correct opinions.

Eliyahu's comments might lead one to believe that the lenient opinion
which allows communities to erect eruvim in metropolitan areas is
normative, while the strict opinion tends towards the extreme.

I'm not telling anyone what to do, but I can't resist adding some bits
of information here.

The strict opinion is based on the fact that a community can only erect
an eruv in a 'karmaliet' and not a 'rishut harabim'.  The Shulchan Aruch
(SA) defines a 'reshut harabim' in orech chayim, ch. 345/7.  The basic
definition would include most metropolitan areas that have boulevards
wider than 16 cubits (about 10 yards or 9 meters).  So how are these
metropolitan eruvim possible?  The SA goes on with a 'yeish omrim' to
say that any area that does not have 600,000 travelers pass by daily is
not a 'reishut harabim'.  As very few areas (such as times square in NY)
meet this criteria, the other areas are then defined as a 'karmaliet'
and thus lend themselves to an eruv.

The mishna brura (MB) in comment #23 points out that the SA seems to
side with the strict definition as he brings the leniency in a 'yeish
omrim'.  The 'beur halacha' does a head count of the Rishonim who come
out even on the issue.  Even if we accept the 600,000 condition, note
#24 of the MB amends this condition to refer to residents as opposed to
travelers.  Indeed, many metropolitan areas do have 600k residents.

Furthermore, there are additional complications that need to be dealt
with: Can the eruv rely on 'surot hapetach' (wires hanging from poles),
or does it need solid walls?  How do we handle the gentiles and
non-observant Jews within the eruv?

If I made the eruv issue cloudier for anyone, than I have succeeded in
my purpose in writing this.  Eliyahu is certainly correct in that 'its
not easy to be a Baal Nefesh in the real world', and that everything
needs to be balanced together.  Perhaps a genuine 'baal nefesh' would
rely on an eruv under one set of circumstances and be strict under
another.  My point is that no one should think that the eruv issue is
easy one way or the other.

For the record, both my wife and I rely on our local eruv as our Rav
deems it to be reliable. In my parent's community, the local Rav
recommended against relying on it.



From: <Shalomoz@...> (Shalom Ozarowski)
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 00:51:29 EDT
Subject: Re: Travel on (or close to) Shabbat & Yom Tov

Nachman Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
> This open up another thread: where are the the t'chumim in today's
> society, with one city spilling on another? In NYC, for example, is the
> (western) t'chum at the Hudson? Or someplace in New Jersey?

I found the various posts on getting stuck before shabbat very
interesting, and have been meaning to post about this for a while now:

a couple of years ago, we had an ncsy (youth) shabbaton in lakewood.
when the buses- coming from long island- got stuck in the worst traffic
imaginable (among other complications), we found ourselves in a similar
situation.  already almost an hour before shabbat we were still not
getting anywhere, and had a feeling we wouldnt make it in time.  We kept
going down the highway (i think its the garden state) but were not
really near any area with a frum jewish community or anything.  about a
half hour or so before shkia, knowing we would be stuck either way, we
called up 2 rabbanim (one of them being my father :) ) to pasken what we
should do.  they both responded that- as long as the driver is not
Jewish- we should keep going.

[note the difference between this scenario with a bus full of only
jewish kids vs. the train/shabbat elevator, where it is going anyway-
apparently there wasn't a problem of the goy doing melacha for us here?
i guess a shvut for us was better than the alternative in this case.]  i
don't recall what they said about the t'chum issue, & i'm not sure that
entire area is inhabited (i thus second nachman yaakov's question).

we eventually arrived at the shul approximately an hour after shabbat
had started (and received a few puzzled looks from bachurim from the
yeshiva!).  regarding muktza we packed everyone's stuff together and
left it on the bus, and brought the rest of our stuff into the shul
(relying on the eiruv).  it was quite the memorable shabbaton, i just
hope it never happens again.

just thought i'd raise some similar food for thought, kol tuv
shalom ozarowski


From: Michael Feldstein <mfeldstein@...>
Subject: Va'yhi or Va'yehiyu

During the last two weeks of Torah readings, I noticed that the text--in
describing the life span of various individuals--alternates between
"vay'hi y'mai" and va'yehiyu y'mai".  Grammatically, it's probably more
proper to use the plural, since y'mai is plural.  Is there any rhyme or
reason as to why the singular (va'yehi) is used in some cases and the
plural (va'yehiyu) in other cases?

Michael Feldstein
Stamford, CT


From: Chaya Gurwitz <gurwitz@...>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:44:10 -0400
Subject: Request: Looking for Ba'al Koreh

Ba'al Koreh wanted for Orthodox shul in Manhattan (Upper East Side)

Please call: (212) 249-0766


End of Volume 37 Issue 43