Volume 40 Number 30
                 Produced: Mon Aug  4 14:29:35 US/Eastern 2003

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Carrying on Yom Tov (5)
         [David Cohen, David I. Cohen, Akiva Miller, Akiva Miller, Jack
Tsitsis = 613
         [Dov Teichman]
Walking Stick
         [Carl Singer]
Why Kol Mitzvoth Hashem=612
         [Gershon Rothstein]


From: <bdcohen@...> (David Cohen)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:33:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Carrying on Yom Tov

Akiva Miller wrote:

David Cohen wrote <<< 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. >>>

I don't understand what he means by this. There most certainly are cases
where you could carry something on Yom Tov if the Eruv is functioning,
but could not if there is no Eruv. The Shmiras Shabbos K'Hilchasa gives
the following examples:>>

I respectfully disagree. An eruv only allows carrying of items that one
could otherwise carrying except for the prohibition of carrying
itself. Thus, on Shabbat of Sukkot I cannot carry a lulav and etrog from
one domain to another even to perform the mitzva of lulav and etrog.  On
Yom Tov of Sukkot (not Shabbat) I can.

However, on neither Shabbat nor Yom Tov can I carry my car keys whtjer
or not an eruv is present.  The presence or lack of an eruv does not
effect what I can carry on Yom Tov. That issue is separate. All the
examples that Akiva gave are questions of whether that activity is
allowable on Yom Tov. The presence of an eruv would not affect the

David I. Cohen

From: <bdcohen@...> (David I. Cohen)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:42:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Carrying on Yom Tov

<<Given this tshuva, it would seem that there is indeed a reason to have
an eruv up on yom tov.

My impression is that the minhag is generally not like this tshuva - and
I take some comfort in the fact that (as Rav Moshe points out) Rav
Neurwith read the earlier tshuvos much as I did.

Nonetheless, this tshuva does in fact create a situation that requires
an eruv.

Thank you.

Sorry, I disagree

I think you are conflating muktze (the car keys have no Yom Tov purpose
and therefore cannot be moved) with hotzaah (carrying from domain to
domain or 4 amot in public domain) which would be a prohibition even if
the item had a legitimate purpose (e.g.  cannot carry tallit to shul on
Shabbt unless there is an eruv) I do not believe that rav Moshe would
allow you to carry those car keys on Yom Tov with an eruv.

David I. Cohen

From: <kennethgmiller@...> (Akiva Miller)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:46:55 -0400
Subject: Re: Carrying on Yom Tov

Someone 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. >>>

Harlan Braude suggested <<< One could argue that they could be a tzorech
Yom Tov for today, if, say, the clothes one is wearing tear or become
soiled on the way. >>>

That is a very interesting suggestion. We know that carrying is allowed
on Yom Tov even if there is only a *possiblity* of needing the item. But
what about something which not not merely a "reasonable possibility",
but goes so far as to be a "remote possibility". Is that also allowed? I
don't know. (Harlan made reference to how Eruv Tavshilin relies on these
ideas; I gotta go review those parts...)

But my guess is that even if that argument will allow him to bring along
an extra suit, shoes and shirt, forget the pajamas! (Unless he's going
to arrive early enough for a nap!)

Akiva Miller

From: <kennethgmiller@...> (Akiva Miller)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:51:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Carrying on Yom Tov

David Cohen and I exchanged a few emails offline, trying to get to the
bottom of our disgreement here. He asked me <<< This is the point that I
am not sure about. Can you really carry a siddur (or tallit) home from
shul on Yom Tov [with an eruv] even if you had absolutely no intention of
using the item again on Yom Tov? ... The reason that I am interested is
the fact that in the over 20 year existence of our community's eruv no
Rav of our community (including Rabbi Auman now of Flatbush) has ever
required checking of the eruv prior to Yom Tov. >>>

I had thought this was obvious, from the many places which said not to
carry unneeded items outside *without* an Eruv. So I went to look for a
more explicit source, which very clearly says that if there *is* an
Eruv, then even totally unneeded things *may* be carried.

Short answer: The Rama, at the end of Shulchan Aruch 518:1, writes "If
he made an Eruv, then he can carry anything that's not muktzeh, even if
he has no need for it that day at all."

The long answer, as always, is more complicated.

As it turns out, I was partially mistaken. It seems that the Mechaber
does hold that totally unneeded items may be carried outside (into a
courtyard, at least, I'm not clear about a regular street). But the Rama
(and presumably most/all Ashkenazic rabbis after him) hold as I wrote:
That a totally unneeded item may not be brought outside without an Eruv,
but it may be brought if there *is* an Eruv.

Sources: Shulchan Aruch 518:1 and the Mishna Brurah #10 there. The
Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata 19:1 cites the Rama's view as being the

This is how I understand that Mishna Brura: We know that even on
Shabbos, the only Torah violation of carrying is from the Reshus
HaYachid to a real Reshus HaRabim, or vice versa, or 4 amos within the
Reshus HaRabim.  All other outdoor carrying is "only" a Rabbinic
violation. The MB seems to say that there is a machlokes between the
Mechaber and Rama regarding Yom Tov: According to the Mechaber, carrying
from the house to the courtyard on Yom Tov (even of something that is
totally not needed) was never forbidden by the Rabbis, and therefore the
Rabbis never created the antidote for that prohibition, namely Eruv
Chatzeros. According to the Rama, the Rabbis consider a courtyard to be
outdoors on Yom Tov just like on Shabbos, which makes it prohibited to
carry an unneeded object outside unless an Eruv was made.

(It is unclear to me whether the Mechaber would allow someone to carry
unneeded objects outside the courtyard, into an actual Carmelis, which
is a more problematic area than a mere courtyard. This is significant
because my understanding is that the streets inside the Eruv have the
status of Carmelis. If anyone can offer sources on this point I'd
appreciate it.)

It is a very time-consuming, and sometimes difficult task, to check
whether or not a poles and strings of the eruv are standing on Erev
Shabbos. Perhaps Rabbi Auman and the others feel that for Yom Tov, the
community can rely that the poles and strings are still intact, and that
the Eruv is operational. In the unlikely event that there really is a
problem with a pole or string, then the Mechaber can be relied upon to
say that Yom Tov was not violated by those who carried unneeded items.
(For Shabbos, no such leniency is available.)

My big annoyance is with the city I mentioned in my first post on this
topic, where the Jewish Community owns the area of the Eruv *only* for
the Sabbaths of the the year, plus any Yom Tov which falls on Shabbos,
plus Yom Kippur. Such explicit language renders the Eruv as ineffective
on a weekday Yom Tov even if all the poles and strings are intact. This
bothers me very much, because with a truly negligible amount of effort
-- changing a few words in the written documents -- the Eruv *would* be
effective on Yom Tov. My only guess is that the rabbis of that city do
not hold like the Rama, but rather hold like the Mechaber, that even
totally unneeded items may be carried outside on Yom Tov.

(One last note: When we talk about "unneeded items", we should realize
that we are *not* including cases where the items are needed for the
next day. The Rama explicitly excluded muktzeh items, but we should not
conclude that he doesn't care about the prohibition ofpreparing for the
next day. Questions about whether bringing one's siddur or tallis home
from shul constitutes Preparation For After Yom Tov is an entirely
different discussion than this one.)

Akiva Miller

From: Jack Gross <jbgross@...>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 23:00:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Carrying on Yom Tov

Responding to Akiva Miller's post:

<<... In addition, I believe the Mishna Berura would forbid a person to
carry his housekey outside, if there is someone at home who he can rely
on to let him in.  >>

I do not think that conclusion is warranted.  If the house will be (or
may be) locked when you return, and the keys are taken for the purpose
of opening the door, then using them to unlock the door is "zorech
hayom", and carrying them to make them available is "zorech hayom".  It
matters not that there is an alternative way of opening the door.

Similarly, according to the rishonin who permit "Kibbui letzorech ochel
nefesh" -- extinguishing a flame when that is required for the proper
preparation or preservation of food -- one is allowed to extinguish the
flame under the pot in such an event, even if one could just as easily
move the pot away from the fire.  As long as both are means of achieving
an end involving ochel nefesh, the choice between means that involve
Melacha and means that avoid Melacha is a matter of indifference.


From: <DTnLA@...> (Dov Teichman)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:20:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Tsitsis = 613

Adam Steiner <adam@...> writes:

> The only issue that I have with this is that tzitzith is not spelled
> with both yuds in Bamidbar 15 and therefore would be 590 and not 600 if
> one were to use gematria.  I lack a computerized search 
> tool, I wonder if tzitzith is ever spelled with both yuds.

I did a search and I did not find any Tzizis spelled with 2 yuds. 
However, (the) Sifsei Chachomim brings (the) Mizrachi :) who explains that Rashi's gematria (Tzitzis = 600 + 5 Knots + 8 Strings = 613) works according to the shita of "Yeish Eim Lamikroh" i.e. that we can expound words based on their pronounced spelling, not (merely) their textual spelling.

Dov Teichman


From: Carl Singer <csngr@...>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 06:53:56 -0400
Subject: Walking Stick

> Akiva Miller quoted Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchosoh:
> 19:5) A walking-stick for one who is able to walk without it.
> I remember we discussed in school whether a blind man may carry his
> white stick on Shabbos, as he is physically capable of walking without
> one.  Our teacher told us that since psychologically he needs his white
> stick, he may carry it on Shabbos.  This reasoning may be extendable to
> include someone who's not that steady on their feet and would feel
> better having a stick to hand.
> Immanuel Burton.

I believe that 19:5 "able to walk without it" distinguishes between
someone who is impaired to any degree and uses the walking stick (or
cane) as an aid and someone who uses it for other purposes.  There is no
judgement placed on whether the impaired can scrape by without this aid.
Understand that walking sticks were often decorative (only) and used for
show (not for "go") I am told that there were distinguished Rabbanim who
carried a decorative walking stick (on Shabbos) to indicate their use of
the eruv.

Carl Singer


From: Gershon Rothstein <rothsteing@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:20:04 -0400
Subject: Why Kol Mitzvoth Hashem=612

Adam Steiner wrote:
>The only issue that I have with this is that tzitzith is not spelled
>with both yuds in Bamidbar 15 and therefore would be 590 and not 600 if
>one were to use gematria.  I lack a computerized search tool, I wonder
>if tzitzith is ever spelled with both yuds.

While our mesorah spells Tzitzis without two yuds, Rashi in Bamidbar
quotes a midrash that we remember the 613 mitzvos because Tzitzis is 600
and there are 8 strings and 5 knots. We must say that either the midrash
had an other mesorah that used two yuds or as the Sifse Chachamim says
that the midrash used the reading of the word rather than the writing,
and it is read as Tzeetzees rather than Tzeetzis.

All of this however, doesn't change the fact that Kol Mitzvos Hashem
does indeed have a Gematria of 612.

I too had originally proposed Dr. Hendel's solution, but when I found
the question asked in a serious Torah commentary, I decided that maybe
there is something deeper here.

With best wishes for a speedy Geulah Sheleima.



End of Volume 40 Issue 30