Volume 37 Number 78
                 Produced: Tue Nov 12  1:06:06 US/Eastern 2002

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Confiscation of Property by a Teacher (3)
         [<EG718@...>, Josh Backon, Ezriel Krumbein]
Kiddush (2)
         [Tony Fiorino, Matthew Pearlman]
Marit Eiyin
         [David Waxman]
Nefilas Apayim
         [I Kasdan]
Rock Throwing (5)
         [Edward Ehrlich, Joel Rich, Batya Medad, Sid Gordon, Eli


From: <EG718@...>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 07:24:10 -0500
Subject: RE: Confiscation of Property by a Teacher

I remember that in certain classes of mine in high school, on the first
day of class, the teacher informed us that part of the condition for
being part of the class was not bringing food, and any food that would
be brought to class would be confiscated, and this would not be
considered stealing in any way because the teacher had stated this as a
condition for being in class, and coming to class thus indicated an
agreement to this deal. 


From: <BACKON@...> (Josh Backon)
Date: Thu,  7 Nov 2002 15:24 +0200
Subject: Re: Confiscation of Property by a Teacher

Although ordinarily, taking an item by force in public would violate the
issur of gezeila (Minchat Chinuch 229; Choshen Mishpat Siman 359), in
this case, the teacher, who has the din of a father (mashma from the
gemara in Makkot and YD 242:1 in the Taz), and can thus discipline (YD
245:10 "lo yakeh oto ha'melamed makat iyov..") the student and take away
an item for the sake of discipline. But the teacher is NOt permitted to
use the item he takes since this would be 'shoel shelo midaat'. (See
also Choshen Mishpat Siman 270).

Josh Backon

From: Ezriel Krumbein <ezsurf@...>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:02:59 -0800
Subject: Re: Confiscation of Property by a Teacher

There is an article on this topic by Rav Henkin in Techumin volume 8
page 186.  If I understand correctly he comes out against permanent
confiscation from students; however taking something for the length of a
class or for the whole day may be permissible.

Kol Tov


From: Tony Fiorino <tfiorino@...>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 00:01:16 -0500
Subject: RE: Kiddush

> Eitan Fiorino <tfiorino@...> wrote:
> > In discussing Kiddush customs, Zev Sero and Ben Katz mentioned the
> > concept that pouring wine into the guests cups prior to kiddush is more
> > hygenic/sanitary.  The hygenic aspect of distributing wine after having
> > drunk from the kiddush cup is secondary to halachic concerns.
> Of course.  Neither Ben nor I suggested differently.  After giving three
> reasons for distributing the wine before kiddush, I added "That it's also
> more hygenic can't hurt".  I don't know where Eitan got the idea that I
> (or Ben) were claiming that this was the (or even a) main consideration.

The original posting listed 2 customs observed by those making kiddush:
(1) make kiddush then distribute wine; and (2) distribute wine then make

Zev noted 3 advantages, in his view, of the second approach. He indeed
added that the second approach is more hygienic as part of his rationale
as to why that approach is preferable.  He questions why I think he
claimed that hygiene was one of his main considerations.

But I never wrote that Zev or Ben viewed the hygienic aspect as "the (or
even a) main consideration."  What I said was that the hygiene issue was
secondary to the halachic concerns, and in this case, the halachic
concern of interest was addressed by neither Zev nor Ben.  The concern
is over the use of wine that is pagum, an issue highly germaine to any
discussion of the distribution and drinking of kiddush wine and which I
discussed in my post.  The importance of the pagum issue in this
particular context is underscored by the fact that the act that renders
wine pagum (and halachically unsuitable for kiddush) is the very act
that raises the (non-halachic but perhaps nevertheless important)
hygiene concerns of Zev and Ben.

The bottom line - one can "make make kiddush then distribute" in a way
that is both halachic and hygienic (no pagum wine created or
distributed), in a way that is halachic but less hygienic (pagum wine
created but rectified before distribution), or in a way that is both
unhalachic and less hygienic (pagum wine created and distributed).

Importantly, the shulchan aruch does not appear to identify as
halachically preferable either (1) making kiddush then distributing
(non-pagum) wine or (2) distributing wine then making kiddush.  While
the shulchan aruch makes no mention of hygienic issues, it is hard to
imagine why our modern sensibility on this issue should not be used to
choose from among the halachically equivalent options for distributing
wine from kiddush.


From: Matthew Pearlman <Matthew.Pearlman@...>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:59:14 -0000 
Subject: Kiddush

In discussing Kiddush customs, Eitan Fiorino wrote "One can avoid this
issue by pouring wine out into a cup (leaving a reviit in the kiddush
cup), drinking from the kiddush cup, and using the wine that was poured
into another cup to distribute to guests. "

I always had a problem with this approach on the grounds that it does
not seem right to make a bracha over the wine, then immediately pour
some away before drinking.  Is it better to pour into the second cup and
then the mekadesh drinks from the second cup and distributes the
remaining wine from the kiddush cup to the guests?  In that way, the
wine that you have poured out is drunk from and so the pouring becomes a
direct part of the process of drinking.  The downside is that you do not
drink from the cup you were holding to make kiddush.

Can anyone add any halakhic justification to one or other of these

Matthew Pearlman


From: David Waxman <yitz99@...>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 17:38:10 -0800
Subject: Re: Marit Eiyin

>From: David Waxman
> >>As far as your latter question, we're not worried about someone
>regarding Denny's as kosher, we're worried about them regarding you as
>I beg to differ: How many times have you heard someone say (or thought
>yourself) something like "...and there were people with yarmulkes eating
>there so it must be OK." I know when I am in a strange city, either in


Certainly the issue of misleading misinformed Jews astray is important.
According to Rav Moshe, however, it is not the issue of Marit Eityin.
Refer to Iggeret Moshe OC/a ch. 96, p. 147 or mail-jewish Vol. 37 #50

The above, however, only forces the question - why shouldn't it be 
rabbinically forbidden to do something that might mislead misinformed 
Jews?  To this I can only offer my own conjecture.
1. This area is too wide to warrant a rabbinic prohibition. There are too 
many grey areas here.
2. If someone makes a mistake that stemmed from observing another Jew, that 
action can be corrected and atoned for.  It is much more difficult, 
however, to fix someone else's reputation.



From: I Kasdan <Ikasdan@...>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 21:54:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Nefilas Apayim

Why and when did it become acceptable to do nefilas apayim, i.e., kisui
panim with arm on forehead, in the presence of s'forim as opposed to a
sefer Torah?  [See SA, Orach Chayim siman 131:2 and the MB there.]

While I know that the Rav zt'l practiced nefilas apayim when reciting
tachanun in mincha after shiur at Y.U. when there were s'forim in the
room, does anyone know how he held (or would hold) by a davening in a
room where there are no s'forim present?


From: Edward Ehrlich <eehrlich@...>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:19:58 +0200
Subject: Rock Throwing

David Farkas wrote:

>    Its fashionable to criticize the rock throwers, and certain orthodox
>groups here in the US compete with other Jewish groups, stumbling over
>themselves in the race to condemn the Charedim first. But lets not forget
>that by throwing rocks and showing strength, the Charedim are standing
>tough on an issue that they cannot afford to be genteel about. Their
>strength and supposed "wildness" keeps outsiders from ruining their
>community, and that's exactly the way they like it. 

As Rabbi Adin Steinzaltz pointed out: it is no greater an aveirah to
drive in a religious neighborhood than in a non-religious neighborhood.
The issue of where traffic should and should not be permitted on Shabbat
is not a religious or halakhic issue but a neighborhood issue. Haradeim
have succeeded in maintaining their way of life in areas that both allow
and disallow traffic for many years.  In fact, the closing off of Kikar
Shabbat in Jerusalem only took place in the 1960s.

>Anyone who's been there has to admit - its a lot nicer walking there
>[Kikar Shabbos] on Shabbos than it is on Rechov Ramban in Rechavia,
>where sometimes you can hardly tell its Shabbos.

That may be true, but "it's a lot nicer" does not justify the use of
violence - especially against fellow Jews - especially on Shabbat. There
might be some Halakhic difficulties of staging even a peaceful and legal
demonstration on Shabbat because it forces Jewish policemen to perform
malakhah on Shabbat.  (Large demonstrations create a need to mobilize
extra manpower and not merely move around existing manpower that would
usually be on duty during Shabbat.)

It seems to me that rock throwing and related violence involves a
violation of Halakha.  Such activities first of all violate civil law
and since "dina d'malchuta dina" this is also a violation of halakha.
They also endanger both life and property.

Furthermore, such violence hardly brings Jews closer to Torah.  I hope
that criticizing those who deliberately use violence against other Jews
is not merely a matter of being "fashionable".

Ed Ehrlich <eehrlich@...>
Jerusalem, Israel

From: <Joelirich@...> (Joel Rich)
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 08:23:32 EST
Subject: Re: Rock Throwing

<<  But I do wish to raise the point that it is possible for an issue to
 be condoned tacitly as opposed to explicitly. I'm not suggesting that Rav
 Shach or anyone else for that matter did give tacit approval for the
 rioting and the stone throwing - I have no idea. But it seems to me that
 some people of influence in the Yerushalmi communities ( and that
 includes people that most readers of MJ, I would venture, have never
 heard of) must be giving it some form of tacit approval, else these
 activities would not have lasted so long. And I for one am not convinced
 that such quiet, tacit approval is a bad thing. >>

If one accepts the premise that deliberately harming another Jew or his
property is generally against the halacha(unless carried out under the
spedcific direction of a poperly constituted bet din), then for these
individuals to be involved in such acts without clear (rather than
tacit) approval of their spiritual leader(I'm assuming for now that they
would accept his words in place of a properly constituted bet din -not
that I neccesarily agree) would be their determination to do an aveira
lshma(a sin for good purposes). IIRC one can only do this if one is at
such a high level that they can be sure they are acting totally
objectively and in accordance with god's will (a rare case )

Joel Rich

From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 22:03:15 +0200
Subject: Re: Rock Throwing

      that by throwing rocks and showing strength, the Charedim are
      standing tough on an issue that they cannot afford to be genteel

??????  Really?  It's weakness to throw rocks and a real chilul hashem.
They turn people away from Judaism, injuring their bodies and souls.
There's nothing religiously Jewish about their behavior.  It doesn't
matter how "strict" they may be about Kashrut, Shabbat etc, They sinned
"bein adam v'chavero."


From: Sid Gordon <sid.gordon@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:55:45 +0200
Subject: Rock Throwing

In V37#69, David Farkas suggests that
>by throwing rocks and showing strength, the Charedim are standing
>tough on an issue that they cannot afford to be genteel about. Their
>strength and supposed "wildness" keeps outsiders from ruining their
>community, and that's exactly the way they like it.

He then goes on to suggest that this may be a preferable alternative to
the way many American Jews fled changing neighborhoods.  What a novel
idea!  If only Jews had had the foresight to burn down the homes of the
first blacks who moved into our neighborhoods, we could have maintained
our property values.

Wrong.  Throwing rocks is not "supposed wildness", with or without
quotation marks.  It's attempted murder, as anyone who has ever had a
rock thrown at him knows.  And since most psokim still hold that murder
is against normative halacha, I'm surprised this suggestion, couched as
it is in terms of "perhaps", and "there are two sides to the issue",
made it passed the moderator's filter.

From: Eli Turkel <turkel@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 15:09:56 GMT
Subject: Rock Throwing

<Well, the Charedim don't want to leave, and neither should they have to
either. They were in Meah Shearim well before many of the non-religious
Israelis were in the country, and those Israelis who wish to drive on
Shabbos have plenty of space to do so elsewhere. ( Like we always say
about the Arabs, right? There's dozens of enormous Arab countries out
there, why cant they just let us live in peace in this one tiny corner
of the world?). Let us not forget that once disputes get to the courts,
the Israeli Judicial establishment has time and again, with only limited
exception, ruled in favor of the non Orthodox side. It is the only the
Charedim's united show of strength and defiance, therefore, which keeps
the Judiciary and Police from forcefully allowing traffic right down the
middle of Kikar Shabbos. Anyone who's been there has to admit - its a
lot nicer walking there on Shabbos than it is on Rechov Ramban in
Rechavia, where sometimes you can hardly tell its Shabbos.>

However, the fights are not only in Meah Shearim. Besides other
neighborhoods in Jerusalem the latest fights have been in Bet
Shemesh. Several people who have recently moved from Meah Shearim to Bet
Shemesh decided that what is good for Meah Shearim is good for Bet
Shemesh. Hence, they are trying to close down the road that connects Bet
Shemesh to Ramat Bet Shemesh on shabbat by throwing rocks at passing

Yes it would be nicer to walk down that neighborhood also on shabbat
without cars going through the neighborhood. The question is whether
they can move into a neighborhood and then impose their way of life on
everyone else


End of Volume 37 Issue 78