Volume 40 Number 21
                 Produced: Thu Jul 24  7:11:52 US/Eastern 2003

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Carrying on Yom Tov (3)
         [David I. Cohen, Binyomin Segal, Immanuel Burton]
Definite article with Acronyms (was: "The Rebbe")
         [Perry Zamek]
         [Eli Turkel]
Halakha leMoshe MeSinai
         [Shlomo Pick]
Man in Space
         [Shraga Rubin]
Placing oneself in danger
         [Dr. Josh Backon]
The Rav
         [Shmuel Himelstein]
"the Rebbe"
         [Batya Medad]


From: <bdcohen@...> (David I. Cohen)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:20:33 -0400
Subject: Carrying on Yom Tov

> 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.

But wouldn't that be the case with or without a functioning eruv?

I believe the discussion started with the idea that it is necessary to
have the eruv checked before a Yom Tov as is done before Shabbat. It
seems to me that the question of what can or cannot be carried on Yom
Tov is there regardless of the existence of an Eruv, and that the Eruv
does not need to be checked before Yom Tov. (Parenthetically, not
everything can be carried on Shabbat just because there is an Eruv)

David I. Cohen

From: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 07:11:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Carrying on Yom Tov

Gershon Dubin wrote:
> 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.

This is true, but it would be true with an eruv as well. It is called 
"hachana" (preparation) and is prohibited regardless of an eruv.

And that really is the point. If there is a desire to carry the object,
that desire is almost always sufficient for the tzorech kzat (small
need) that is necessary. Unless the desire refers to things that are
muktza, or carrying which is hachana.


From: Immanuel Burton <IBURTON@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:45:27 +0100
Subject: RE: Carrying on Yom Tov

The Shavuos 5763/2003 edition of the Daf Hashavua leaflet published by
the United Synagogue [of Britain] contained an article about carrying on
Yom Tov, in which it was stated:

"A responsum of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein indicates that things that are
naturally carried together, such as a bunch of keys or a box of tissues,
may all be carried on Yom Tov, even if not every individual unit is
required on that day. Likewise, the Mishnah Berurah indicates that if
one is uncertain whether or not a particular item will be required, it
may be carried."

Unfortunately, no reference to Rabbi Moshe Feinstein's responsum or to
the Mishnah Berurah was given.

I would imagine that the rationale behind permitting the carrying of a
bunch of keys is that a bunch of keys is considered a single item, much
like, say, a six-pack of beer is considered as a single item for the
purposes of a "five items or fewer" queue in a supermarket.

Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchosoh (20:77 or thereabouts) says that if one has
a bunch of keys containing keys which are muktza, the muktza keys should
be removed before Shabbos if one wants to use that bunch on Shabbos.  A
car key is NOT muktza unless all it does is operate the ignition switch
- if it also opens the doors then it is not muktza, as it is permitted
to open one's car door on Shabbos (to fetch something, for example)
provided that a light doesn't come on when one opens the door, and that
there aren't any problems with regards to carrying, e.g. in the street
without an eruv.

Immanuel Burton.


From: Perry Zamek <jerusalem@...>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:45:24 +0200
Subject: Re: Definite article with Acronyms (was: "The Rebbe")

Mark Symons asks (MJ 40:19):

>On a bit of a tangent to this, why is it that we refer to "The Rambam",
>"The Ibn Ezra", "The Maharal", whereas Rashi and Ramban, for example,
>don't get the definite article?

I don't think it's as clearcut as Mark's exampled suggest. My experience
(at least in English usage) is that "Ibn Ezra" is quoted without the
article, while "Ramban" may sometimes take the definite article.

Perhaps the source is in the Yiddish spoken in the yeshiva world
(yeshivish). "Rashi zogt..." (Rashi says), compared with "ober der Ibn
Ezra taicht..." (while *the* Ibn Ezra explains).

Another possibility is the fuzziness that exists in Torah discussion, in
terms of whether one refers to the person or to his written work --
sometimes it's not clear which is being spoken of, and this then
translates into the English.

Any other suggestions?



From: Eli Turkel <turkel@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:33:02 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: DMD

> 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?>

Obviously 1) 4) 5) apply to any democracy while 5) and 6) apply to even
a dictatoeship.  It is mainly the Ran that stresses (2) and that is a
minority opinion.

There were several detailed articles discussing these issues with
respect to the Israeli government in the late 1940s and early 1950s
several of which have been reprinted.

In terms of working as a policeman/fireman there is no problem for 2
reasons. First the danger level is not that high and second it is
allowed for a living.

In terms of war I believe that the minchat Chinuch already asks the
questions that only 3 mitzvot override pikuach nefesh and war is not one
of them.  He answers that obviously the 3 mitzvot are not exclusive
since war by its nature is risk taking.

BTW I have heard from many rabbis that the usual laws of not taking
risks do not apply in war-like situations. Thus, it is allowed to risk
ones life to rescue prisoners or to save a wounded person on the
battlefield even if it might not be allowed in civilians. This is
because it is important for the morale of an army to know that if a
soldier is stranded or captured that others will make attempts to save
him and not merely say that cannot risk their own lives to save another.

Eli Turkel


From: Shlomo Pick <hspick@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 11:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Halakha leMoshe MeSinai

russel wrote the following a few issues ago in
reference to an earlier posting by me:

>Shlomo (v40n7) in commenting on my posting on Biblical drash calls the
>prohibition of allowing male Moabite converts to marry full fledged
>Jewesses (I accept his correction) -- he calls this law a "law given to
>Moses at Sinai".

 he then goes on to criticize what i wrote:

>It seems to me that the phrase "law given to Moses at Sinai" has two
>distinct meanings. On the one had it can refer to any law with Mosaic
>authority(See Avoth Chapter 1 Mishnah 1).  On the other hand it also
>has a very narrow meaning-- it refers to laws with Mosaic authority
>which however cannot be derived from the Biblical text.  There are only
>a few dozen such laws. This is the position of the Rambam. His
>introduction to his commentary on the Mishnah tractate of Beracoth
>contains a thorough discussion on the 5 categories of Jewish law and a
>careful definition of each one.

unfortunately, russel has ascribed to me what maimonides himself wrote
in issurei biah, chapter 12, halakha 18, where he calls this law of
moabi and not moabiya a Halakha leMoshe MeSinai. i don't [think] he is
referring to russel's generic definition. i do admit that it contradicts
maimonides's formulation in the introduction to the Mishna commentary
and accordingly it should have said "mepee haShmu'ah" (according to
tradition). but he didn't do that. does that mean that this is one of
the over 600 revisions between the mishne commentary and the mishne
torah? in any case, i had cited the brisker rav's commentary to ruth,
and he also takes the rambam at face value - it's a halakha le moshe

i am now in a real galut, w/o sefarim and a yahoo address instead of my
regular one, and cannot further investigate this formulation of



From: <BaalHaIkvei@...> (Shraga Rubin)
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:13:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Man in Space

Russell J Hendel in MJ v40n17 wrote:
> 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 permissible to place oneself in
> POTENTIAL danger if there are POTENTIAL benefits -- in fact every type
> of conquest, whether a journey to Antarctica, a new medicine, going to
> Mars, or a new surgery has potential risks and benefits and is
> therefore permissible. To the best of my knowledge there are no
> numerical caps on this permissibility (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)

How do you see anything about "whether a journey to Antarctica, a new
medicine, going to Mars, or a new surgery" from there?  Conquer, in the
simple sense of the word, is a military nuance, as you pointed out.

Additionally, the pusok says "FILL THE LAND AND CONQUER IT."  Seems that
this idea of conquering is only talking about filling the land i.e. not
outer space. (The pusok says aretz, not olam.)

But on a military nuance level, it's a beautiful pshat in the pusok.
Thank you.

Shraga Rubin


From: Dr. Josh Backon <joshuab@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:34:08 +0300
Subject: Placing oneself in danger

 There is extensive halachic discussion on to what extent one can (or
 must) put oneself in danger. The halacha is in the Shulchan Aruch
 CHOSHEN MISHPAT 420:31 (one who injures himself, even though he isn't
 permitted to do this, is not subject to punishment..) and in YOREH DEAH
 155:1 (see: Shach s"k 7).

 Topics discussed have ranged from diets (Iggrot Moshe CM II 65),
 aesthetic plastic surgery (Iggrot Moshe CM II 66; Chelkat Yaakov III
 11; Minchat Yitzchak VI 105 # 2; Tzitz Eliezer XI 41), performing
 religious requirement [drinking wine at the Seder for someone with an
 allergy] (Halacha u'Refuah Sefer 4 p. 125), undergoing risky medical
 procedures (Shvut Yaakov III 75; Achiezer II 16 # 6; Binyan Tzion I
 111; Bet Meir YD 339 #1; Yad Halevi I YD 207; Harav Unterman in Noam
 Vol. 13 p. 5; Tzitz Eliezer IV 13 and X 25 # 17; Shearim Metzuyanim
 B'Halacha 190 s"k 4; Mor U'Ktziya 328), volunteering for medical
 research, and endangering oneself to save someone else (discussed in
 Shulchan Aruch CHOSHEN MISHPAT 425:1).

 Josh Backon


From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:34:21 +0200
Subject: The Rav

My brother-in-law told me that a number of years ago in the Gush they would
sometimes put up a sign to the fact that:

"The Shiur on the Torah of the Rav Zatzal will be at X hour.
"The Shiur on the Torah of the Rav Shlita will be at Y hour."

The first was Rav Kook and the second was Rav Soloveichik.

Shmuel Himelstein


From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:41:18 +0200
Subject: Re: "the Rebbe"

      e.g. the Rebbe (Lubavitch), the Rav (Soloveichik) etc. I note

Very important.  Here in Shiloh, when someone refers to "HaRav" they
mean HaRav Kook, or depending on context, it could be our local HaRav
Elchanan Bin Nun.



End of Volume 40 Issue 21