Volume 40 Number 18
                 Produced: Tue Jul 22  4:55:57 US/Eastern 2003

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

A 7th Reason for DMD (acceptance of non-Jewish monetary law)
         [Russell Jay Hendel]
Carrying on Yom Tov
         [Gershon Dubin]
Conquest and Risk (2)
         [c.halevi, Avi Feldblum]
kedusha desidra
         [Joshua Hosseinof]
Speeding | Cell Phoning is violation of MURDER
         [Russell J Hendel]
"The Rebbe" (2)
         [Robert J. Tolchin, Zev Sero]
Three is a Charm
         [Charles Halevi]


From: <rjhendel@...> (Russell Jay Hendel)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:53:37 GMT
Subject: A 7th Reason for DMD (acceptance of non-Jewish monetary law)

Joel Rich compactly gives 6 theories on why the law of the land is
binding on Jewish law(DMD)(v40n16)

I just wanted to add a modification to defenses #1,#4 (Popular
acceptance of the Kings laws|Soveereignty).This in effect gives a 7th
reason I begin by giving a source for DMD (Jewish acceptance of
non-jewish monetary law)

I suggest the source is Rambam laws of theft and lost, Chapter 5. The
last half of the chapter deals with confiscation rights of kings (eg the
Right to pay money for a house whose land is needed for a new road) The
last law in the chapter clearly explains the reason

- When do all the above laws hold: When the people
- accept the King and HIS CURRENCY. But if they
- dont so accept then this King is no different then
- any other gang of armed bandits

Note the addition of the words "AND CURRENCY". I inferred from this that
the reason for DMD(Jewish acceptance of non-Jewish monetary law) is a
CONTRACTUAL exchange: The Non-jewish government protects society
sufficiently so that the currency of the land has stable worth. In
EXCHANGE for this SERVICE the Jews (and other residents of the country)
agree to abide by the laws of the land.

In other words: We abide by all laws because that is part of the
contract which preserves the country currency stability.

It would appear to me that this provides a 7th reason for accepting
monetary non-Jewish law. It would also follow that this acceptance
applies EVEN in a land without a King and EVEN in a country where there
is some discrimination against Jews (eg if non-jews are selected first
for important Jobs). The important point is that we have a contract with
the government and they preserve the currency value.

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


From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:09:50 -0400
Subject: Carrying on Yom Tov

From: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...>
<<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>>

The rule is really quite simple: although halacha does not require the
melacha to be for the purpose of food, it does have to be for *a*
purpose of Yom Tov.  This means, for example, that one may not carry a
ring of keys that includes car or office keys if all one needs for Yom
Tov is the house key.

If one stays at one's parents for the first day and then walks to one's
inlaws for the second, for instance, one may not take along clothes for
the next day because although they're needed for the next day, they are
not a tzorech Yom Tov for today.

Pick up any contemporary hilchos Yom Tov book for more practical
examples; the situation is anything but farfetched.



From: c.halevi <c.halevi@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:52:54 -0500
Subject: Conquest and Risk

Shalom, All:

	Why are we spending time debating whether people can put
themselves in danger, when halacha (Jewish law) clearly allows
"meelkhemet ri'shoot" -- wars that are not self-defense, but distinctly
permitted for the purpose of conquering? If that's not putting you at
peril, what on earth is?

Charles Chi (Yeshaya)Halevi

From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 04:38:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Conquest and Risk

Halacha clearly does not allow just anyone to decide that they can start a
"milchemet reshus", so all you can show from there is that there are times
that halacha may permit oneself to be put in peril and others when one may
not. The discussion here is what are the parameters of the permissable and
forbidden, so I think it is appropriate for these "pages".

Avi Feldblum
mail-jewish Moderator


From: Joshua Hosseinof <jh@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 23:08:47 -0400
Subject: kedusha desidra

I recall reading that the reason why the third pasuk in Kedusha desidra
is not the same one from our regular kedusha is because there is no
Targum for Ketuvim which the pasuk "yimloch hashem" is from.  Rather we
only have targum for Torah and Nevi'im.

If you look in a Mikraot gedolot for Iyov, Mishlei, or Tehilim, you will
find a targum, but it was written in a later period than the Targum
Onkelos or Yonatan ben Uzziel.  The Targum for Tehillim, according to
the Mikraot Gedolot "Haketer" put out by Bar Ilan Univ, is from the 6th
or 7th century CE (as opposed to the 1st century CE for Onkelos and
Yonatan ben Uzziel).  It seems also, that the Targum for Tehillim was
completely unknown to Rashi, the Radak, and other commentators.  Rashi
and the Radak often do quote from Targum to explain words or pesukim,
but in Tehillim they never do, except to quote Targum Onkelos or Yonatan
of the same word or root that appears in Torah or Neviim.

Since Kedusha de'Sidra pre-dates the Targum on Tehillim (Kedusha desidra
is mentioned in the gemara Sotah 49a) the author presumably decided to
use a pasuk that said essentially the same thing as "yimloch hashem" but
also had a Targum.

Josh Hosseinof


From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 19:39:17 -0400
Subject: Speeding | Cell Phoning is violation of MURDER

Just a small(actually big) addendum to Yair Horowitzs post on safe
driving speeds (v40n15) (Also responds to Karen v40n14 and Immanuel
Burton v40n13 on using cell phones while driving)

The Rav (Rabbi Dr Joseph B Soloveitchick) once personally confirmed to
me (in response to a question that I asked him individually after shiur)
that accidental killing in a speeding car is classified as NEAR-WILLFUL
murder (2nd degree murder--in Jewish law there are 5 degrees)

There are legal consequences to this - If I kill someone in a speeding
car and their relative kills me (in revenge) then there is no death
penalty. I also do not go to the refuge cities.

It IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS from this that violating the speed limit is a
direct violation of THOU SHALL NOT KILL (and this is true whether you
kill someone or not).

To use another example of NEAR-WILLFUL killing (eg Rambam, Murder, Ch 6)
throwing a stone (or shooting) into a crowded street is NEAR-WILLFUL
killing. Although the Rambam doesnt explicitly add, it is clearly
prohibited to throw stones into crowded streets and I think it clear
that the source of prohibition is THOU SHALL NOT KILL

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


From: Robert J. Tolchin <tolchin@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:19:09 -0400
Subject: "The Rebbe"

Yehonatan Chipman wrote in Vol 40 No. 15 as follows:

>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.

Though I understand Yehonatan Chipman's point, I don't agree with it.

The point of language is communication. We use words, names, etc. to
communicate ideas. If I say something and you understand what I'm
saying, language has accomplished its purpose. So, even if I point at
something and say "uh", and you know what I want and hand it to me, we
have communicated. You might have understood the meaning I was trying to
communicate from the words themselves, or from the context,but it
doesn't matter.

When people say "the Rebbe", generally speaking in the context of the
general Jewish community in the early 21st century, most listeners who
are tuned in to Jewish issues know that the intention is to refer to the
most recent Lubavitcher Rebbe, M. M. Schneerson. Obviously, if you're in
a Satmar context, people would assume you're referring to the Satmar
Rebbe, and in other contexts there might be other Rebbes. When people
use the term "the Rebbe", they have to be aware of this and make sure
that there won't be confusion, and generally people do.

In the New York City metropolitan area, people refer to Manhattan as
"the City." Never mind that Brooklyn is technically part of the City, or
that Newark, Jersey City, White Plains, Yonkers, Mineola, and Riverhead
are also "cities." If I'm in the Hamptons and I say "I'm going to the
City", absolutely nobody will be confused and think that I'm going to
Yonkers.  Of course, if I'm at a meeting of the Yonkers City Counsel,
the term "city" might be taken to mean Yonkers, but don't be so sure.

In the USA we have a President. But so does every shul and every
corporation. When I say "the President said terrorism should stop in the
Middle East", nobody would reasonably think I'm referring to the
president of my shul or the president of General Motors. But In GM
headquarters, I'd have to be attuned to the fact that there "the
President" might actually be taken to mean the President of the company.

Nobody seriously could confuse "the Rebbe" with "Rebbe." One is always
called "the Rebbe", and the other is always called "Rebbe." The "the"
makes a big difference. Moreover, even if the nicknames were the same,
you could still tell from context who was being referred to.

Besides, how do famous rabbis get their timeless nicknames? People start
calling them by the nickname, and it sticks--just like any other
nickname. In the beginning of any nickname there might be some
confusion, but that all gets resolved if the nickname sticks. It's the
same with any nickname. For example, if I'm talking about Israeli
politics and I refer to "Arik", everyone knows I'm talking about Prime
Minister Ariel "Arik" Sharon, even though there are surely thousands of
"Ariks" in Israel. And when people refer to "Rabbi Kahane", everyone
knows who it is, even though there have been many rabbis named Kahane.

It seems clear to me that nobody could really believe in good faith that
the use of the term "the Rebbe" in context would really lead to any
significant confusion. So I ask myself, why would someone make an issue
of it?

Unfortunately, it seems that there are many people who are set on edge
by the Lubavitch approach to Yiddishkeit, and who either consciously or
subconsciously look for any angle to criticize anything having to do
with Chabad. This is the real issue for discussion.

By the way, anyone who objects to "the Rebbe" should also object to the
term "Chabad" since Chochma, Bina and Daat are universal and are not the
sovereign territory of a particular movement. Likewise, they should
object to the term"Lubavitcher" since "Lubavitch" was just a town in
Russia and surely there were people from there who weren't followers of
"the Rebbe's" movement so the term "Lubavitcher" is not accurate either.
But gimme a break.

--Bob Tolchin

[From a practical perspective, I agree with R. Chipman. Where possible
(and I remember) when people use such language in postings, I ask that
you put the detailed reference in paranthesis the first time you use it,
e.g. the Rebbe (Lubavitch), the Rav (Soloveichik) etc. I note that
Russel has been doing that since the email from R. Chipman. Mod.]

From: Zev Sero <Zev.Sero@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:42:58 -0600
Subject: RE: "The Rebbe"

Robert J. Tolchin <tolchin@...> wrote:
> And when people refer to "Rabbi Kahane", everyone knows who it is, even
> though there have been many rabbis named Kahane.

Much to the chagrin of R Kalman Kahane obm, who in his later years waged
a futile campaign against the use of the term `Kahanism' in the media
and the Knesset.  IIRC, as a former MK himself, he got the Speaker to
ban the term from the floor of the Knesset, but he had no luck with the
media; and after he was no longer around to write letters to the Speaker
the term made a reappearance even in the Knesset.

Zev Sero


From: Charles Halevi <c.halevi@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:19:19 -0500
Subject: Three is a Charm

Shalom, All:

<MDSternM7@...> (Martin D. Stern) Wrote: >> 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.<<

Three and seven both were significant and sacred numbers in Judaism long
before Christianity. There are three Avot (forefathers), three ri'galeem
("pilgrim holidays," where journeyed to Jerusalem), three men
constituting a bayt deen (ecclesiastical court), three occurrences of an
event constituting a khazaka ("propensity") etc.

Ergo it is Christianity which owes its Trinity concept to Judaism, not
vice-versa, and theirs is the burden of proof of originality, not

No doubt other m-j members, far more learned than I am, can come up with
more "sacred threes."

Yeshaya (Charles Chi) Halevi


End of Volume 40 Issue 18