Volume 40 Number 17
                 Produced: Mon Jul 21 20:33:12 US/Eastern 2003

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Another approach (Gn01-28) to 1st man in Space
         [Russell J Hendel]
Aretz vs Adama
Carrying on Yom Tov
         [Binyomin Segal]
Dina D'malchusa Dina
         [Michael Kahn]
Dina D'malchuta Dina
         [Yair Horowitz]
Eretz and Adama
         [Jonathan Groner]
Halacha and Danger
         [Michael Kahn]
Kedusha deSidra
         [Martin D. Stern]
Levi-in-doubt pidyon
         [Gershon Dubin]
Little Red Wagon and Shabbat
         [Carl Singer]
Myth of the Mother Bird's Rejection
         [Eitan Fiorino]
Shiluach Haken
         [Mark Symons]
Who is the Rebbe
         [Martin D Stern]
Zemirot Friday Night during Summer
         [Martin D. Stern]


From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:37:14 -0400
Subject: Another approach (Gn01-28) to 1st man in Space

There have been several postings on the permissability of BEING THE
FIRST MAN IN SPACE (eg v40n15,16). (The issue being whether it is a
violation of the prohibition of placing oneself in danger)

Just wanted to mention something I heard from the Rav (Rabbi Joseph Baer
Soloveitchick) on the verse Gn01-28 AND GOD BLESSED MAN...  BE

The Rav pointed out that CONQUER is a word with MILITARY NUANCES.  The
Rav explained that (a) man is blessed (and allowed) to wage war with
nature and (b) part of war is to have casualties and lose people

It would appear then,that it is permissable to place oneself in
POTENTIAL danger if there are POTENTIAL benefits -- in fact every type
of conquest, whether a journey to Antartica, a new medicine, going to
Mars, or a new surgery has potential risks and benefits and is therefore
permissable. To the best of my knowledge there are no numerical caps on
this permissability (That is we do not require that the odds of survival
be at a certain level -- however needless to say if one can compute such
odds one is obligated to inform all participants)

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


From: <chips@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:08:58 -0700
Subject: Re: Re: Aretz vs Adama

> my grandchildren inform me, confirmed by my daughter, that there is a
> frum rabbi who says that if veggies and fruits are hydroponic, you make
> a shehakol. Interesting, indeed. He has a tape on that and on what you
> need to feed your pets and other animals.
> jeanette friedman

Sounds like one of Rabbi Reisman's tapes. 

[Jeanette has also responded to a email to her on the source that it was
Rabbi Reisman. Mod.]

There is a lot more than one, I have yet to hear of a frum rabbi who did
not rule that shehakol is the brocha to make on hydroponic
veg&fruits. There are even some that rule that veg&fruits grown in
potted planters do not get 'haAdomah'.



From: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:55:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Carrying on Yom Tov

I think the recent discussion about the prohibition of carrying on yom
tov would be helped by a look at the sources.

In the introduction to hilchos yom tov, the shulchan aruch states (orach
chaim, 495:1): All melacha (creative work?) that is forbidden on shabbos
is forbidden on yom tov with the exception of melacha for ochel nefesh
(literally food for the soul) and except for carrying and fire...

The mishna brura there points out that the details of carrying is found
in siman 518. Going to orach chaim 518:1, we find the following in the
shulchan aruch:

Since carrying was permitted for the needs of ochel nefesh, it was
permitted as well for situations of no need e.g. a child (that is
carrying a child, the mishna brura points out that this refers to
carrying a child who could be left at home but the father enjoys having
the child with him) or a lulav or a sefer torah or other vessels. The
rama here interjects: [these examples are all permitted where] there is
some small need or where he is afraid that the thing will get stolen or
some other loss. The SA continues: however, stones or things like them
are forbidden [to be carried]. The rama concludes: And it is permissible
to play with a ball even on Rosh Hashana even though it is simply
carrying [with no real purpose other than fun]. And if there is an erev
it is permitted to carry and remove things [from one domain to another],
as long as the item carried is a vessel, even if it is not for the needs
of the day.

With that being said, while both Chaim Tatel and Akiva Miller are 
technicaly correct that:

> Chaim Tatel:<<< There most certainly is an issur of hotzaa on Yom

The rabbi of the anonymous eruv who
> .. seemed to think that the possibility
> that of someone carrying something on Yom Tov that he doesn't need was
> pretty far-fetched and not worth worrying about.
is indeed pretty reasonable.



From: Michael Kahn <mi_kahn@...>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:19:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Dina D'malchusa Dina

>Among those who believe that DMD applies to all laws, I am fairly
>certain that all agree that DMD does not apply if the majority of the
>non-Jews in the nation don't abide by the law. (A one word example (for
>those of us in NYC): Jaywalking.)

I heard the same thing, namely, that Dina Dmalchusa doesn't apply to an
unenforced civil law. Hence, I heard Rabbi Yisroel Reisman say in his
Navi shiur that Reb Moshe Feinstein told someone he was permitted to
drive up to a couple of miles above the speed limit since the police
don't pull over such people.


From: <Ggntor@...> (Yair Horowitz)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:37:58 EDT
Subject: Dina D'malchuta Dina

Although it doesn't seem as if any of the items in the list would change
DMD's parameters to apply it to speeding, Joel Rich's explanation of
some of the various theories on the extent of DMD brings up an
interesting question.

       1. Popular acceptance of the King's laws
       2. Royal ownership of all the country's land
       3. Ownership by conquest
       4. Popular acceptance of King's sovereignty
       5.Bnai Noach must set up courts(dinim)
       6. Hefker Bet din Hefker(court's ability to expropriate property

When a king is spoken about in halachic works, does the power given to
the king apply to a modern government or president?

(For instance, if the president's motorcade decided to go through your
property because it was more convenient, could you charge him for things
he broke? - If I recall correctly from Sanhedrin, a king was allowed to
do that at his convenience)

Yair Horowitz


From: Jonathan Groner <jgroner@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:38:40 -0400
Subject: Eretz and Adama

Charles Halevi wrote:

<No doubt there's a simple answer to this that I just don't
know, but:
           Why does the bracha (blessing) for vegetables use the word
"adama" - "ground" but the bracha for bread thanks/praises God for
bringing it out of the "aretz" - "land"?>

I believe that the bracha on bread is phrased that way because it echoes
the verse in Tehillim, "l'hotzi lechem min haaretz." It's from the
Barchi Nafshi, Tehillim 104:14. When the Sages wrote the text of our
Brachot, they used the language of Tanach whenever possible.

Jonathan Groner


From: Michael Kahn <mi_kahn@...>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:22:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Halacha and Danger

The halacha seems to be that one may not endanger oneself even in order
to save someone else. Does this mean it is assur to be a fire or police


From: <MDSternM7@...> (Martin D. Stern)
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:50:21 EDT
Subject: Kedusha deSidra

    Many years ago I remember seeing an explanation of the inclusion of
the Aramaic Targum in the Kedusha deSidra (Uva leTsion goel) as being a
counter to the Christian missionary propaganda. They claimed that the
three times repetition of the word 'kadosh' was a proof of their
doctrine of the trinity but the Targum explains the true significance of
each one. However I can no longer recollect the source. Can anyone help
me find it?

    Incidentally, it occurred to me that the substitution of the verse
'HaShem yimlokh le'olam va'ed' for 'Yimlokh HaShem le'olaam, Elokayikh
Tsion ledor vador, Hallelukah" may have had a similar motivation since
the verse from Tehillim also has three Divine names and might have been
subject to similar heretical interpretation. Has anyone come across it?

    Martin D Stern


From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:01:27 GMT
Subject: Levi-in-doubt pidyon

<<I would like to respectfully point out that there is a machloket
poskim with regard to this problem>>
Balance snipped for bandwidth.

Thank you for sharing this impressive list of poskim.  I have one
question that perhaps is addressed in some of the sources you cite:
Does/when does the fact that we are nowadays not definitely sure of who
is or is not a kohen, factor into the other doubts?

And, BTW, I never disagreed that, as you write, "When in doubt, a posek
should be asked to judge"

And certainly not with "May we only hear of smachot." 



From: Carl Singer <csngr@...>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:31:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Little Red Wagon and Shabbat

Interesting tangents -- the ORIGINAL questions remain -- (1) is it
socially more acceptable to use the stroller or pram, as opposed to
using the little red wagon.  (2) is there any halachic difference
between the two (presumably because the pram's primary purpose is to
carry the child.

Carl Singer


From: Eitan Fiorino <fiorino@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:10:57 -0400
Subject: Myth of the Mother Bird's Rejection

> From: Sam Saal <ssaal@...>
> This may be the worst of all possible worlds. As someone else pointed
> out, once a human touches the eggs or young, the mother will reject
> them and they will surely die.

The concept that a mother bird will reject its young once touched by
humans is a myth.  I learned this a couple of years ago when I once
discovered a pair of fledgling birds on my lawn.  Incorrectly believing
they had been knocked out of their nest and were doomed, I put them into
a shoebox, brought them inside, and realized I hadn't a clue what to do
with them.  A little bit of internet homework taught me a lot about
fledgling birds, including (1) they are kicked out of the nest in order
to learn to fly, and the mother/parents continue to watch over them; (2)
it is nearly impossible for a non-expert to feed fledgling birds without
killing them; and (3) birds don't really care if their young have been
handled by people.  The next morning I put the shoebox out, took off the
cover, and within minutes of the fledglings making some noise, the mother
bird appeared.  They all hopped off into the bushes, looking none the
worse for wear.  Since then I've handled baby birds on other occasions
without any evidence of rejection by the parent bird.


To: <mail-jewish@...>

From: Mark Symons <msymons@...>
Subject: Re: Shiluach Haken

>From: Meir Possenheimer <meir@...>
>In the light of all the correspondence on the above topic, may I
>respectfully point out that the Mitzvah is "shiluach >hakane", and not
>as stated.

Calling it "shiluach hakan" is probably because of the phrase "kan
tzipor" in the pasuk (Torah verse), although grammatically when on its
own the word should be "ken". But wouldn't calling it "shiluach ha'em"
or "shiluach hatzipor" or "shiluach em haken" or "shiluach tzipor haken"
make more sense?  Perhaps "shiluach haken" is just an abbreviation for
either of these latter 2.

Mark Symons

From: <MDSternM7@...> (Martin D Stern)
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 16:34:09 EDT
Subject: Who is the Rebbe

In a message dated 20/7/03, Yehonatan Chipman <yonarand@...> 

<<At the risk of engendering further mahloket, may I take exception to
this writer's use of the term "The Rebbe," without further adjective.  I
assume he is referring to the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, ztz"l.  To assume
that the entire Jewish people, of whom I think we have a pretty wide
cross-section on this list, accept him as simply "The Rebbe" is rather
offensive and presumptuous. The Lubavitcher Rebbe, with all of his
sterling virtues and accomplishments, wasn't Rabbenu Hakadosh (i.e, Rav
Yehudah Hanasi), whom I think was the last person universally referred
to simply as "Rebbe"!  >>

    If Yehonatan Chipman is being so precise he should not call Rabbenu
Hakadosh Rav Yehudah Hanasi but Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi. There is a general
principle of 'Gadol meiRav Rabbi, vegadol mei Rabbi Rabban, vegadol
meiRabban shemo' which may be loosely translated that 'the rabbinic
titles in ascending order of stature are Rav, Rabbi, Rabban, but the
greatest Sages (like Hillel) need no title at all'.

    Martin D Stern


From: <MDSternM7@...> (Martin D. Stern)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 03:46:59 EDT
Subject: Zemirot Friday Night during Summer

    Many Jews from Germany do not to sing zemirot on Friday night in the
summer (from Shabbat Hagadol till Shabbat Bereishit). The obvious reason
is the late onset of Shabbat in the northern hemisphere at that time of
the year but does anyone know of any written reference to this 'custom'?

Martin D. Stern
7, Hanover Gardens, Salford M7 4FQ, England
+44 (0) 161-740-2745
email <mdsternm7@...>


End of Volume 40 Issue 17