Volume 44 Number 80
                    Produced: Tue Sep 14  5:41:01 EDT 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Ain't gonna work on Saturday (2)
         [Kenneth G Miller, Batya Medad]
Eating in Jaine restaurants
         [Carl Singer]
Jason Aronson Inc
         [Naomi Graetz]
Non-Denominational Prayer Rooms
         [Ari Trachtenberg]
Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin
         [Dov Teichman]
Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin -- chumras (2)
         [Frank Silbermann, <MPoppers@...>]
Source of Quote "Divrei Torah Aniyim..."?
         [Gilad J. Gevaryahu]


From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:05:04 -0400
Subject: re: Ain't gonna work on Saturday

This is a very long post, but it seems that there is a lot of confusion
about some pretty important laws, and I hope to clear some of it up.

Michael Mirsky and Carl Singer wrote that certain people get paid *not*
for what they do on Shabbos, but for their pre-Shabbos preparation.
Daniel Lowinger and Shalom Ozarowski pointed out that if this were the
case, someone might do only the pre-Shabbos preparation, and none of the
Shabbos work, and still expect to be paid.

Fortunately, the halacha is NOT as described above. The Shemiras Shabbos
K'Hilchasa discusses these laws in detail in chapter 28, paragraphs
48-68. Below is my translation of a few of the paragraphs which are most
relevant to the above questions.

(Please note that I have translated the words "s'chirus m'chayeves" as
"contract". This would be more literally translated as "obligatory
employment"; our concern is not on whether the terms of employment are
written up on paper, but that the focus is on the nature of the work
being a project which is expected to be completed in its entirety. We
will see that when one hires a caterer for a Shabbos kiddush, for
example, he is being hired as a *contractor*, and if he merely drops off
the food without severing it, he has broken the contract, and will not
get paid.)


Shabbos payment is forbidden when it is paid separately for the work
which is done on Shabbos, or even when it is paid together for the work
done during the week but is unconnected to the Shabbos work. But one is
allowed to accept payment for work done over a specified time, such as a
month, a week, or a number of days, which include Shabbos. The Sages
called this "absorbed Shabbos payment".

This applies to a contract which is structured in such a manner such
that neither the employee nor the employer would normally back out of
the agreement during the time period (or even in cases where they could
back out, but payment would not be calculated on a "number of days
worked" basis). But if it is not a contract, so either the employer or
employee can back out at any time they want, with no fear of ill will
from the other party, and payment would be calculated on a per-day basis
until the end, this is not a permitted "absorption", and it is forbidden
to accept payment for the Shabbos work. This applies even if the payment
is made in one lump sum, because the criteria for this is not the manner
of payment, but the conditions of employment.

Therefore, a baby sitter, tutor, or any other worker, can accept payment
for even the work he does on Shabbos, provided that he is working as a
contractor, as described above, even if the payment will be calculated
on the number of hours working, including those worked on Shabbos...


One may not engage a guard or any other kind of paid employee, for
working on Shabbos alone, beause of this prohibition. If he has no need
for him to work except on Shabbos itself, he should stipulate that he'll
work a little bit on Erev Shabbos or on Motzaei Shabbos, so that he'll
be able to be paid "absorbed". Therefore, one who is making a simcha and
is hiring waiters, clean-up crew, etc., must stipulate that they'll
begin their preparations before Shabbos, or that they'll clean up after
Shabbos is over, and it will be allowed for the workers to accept
"absorbed" payment for all the work together.


There is a dispute among the authorities whether the prohibition of
Shabbos payment applies to things which are a mitzvah, such as a chazan,
or one who blows the shofar. But even according to the lenient opinion,
accepting payment for it is not a sign of blessing. It would be proper
for those so engaged, to stipulate that they are accepting payment only
by "absorption", i.e., that the chazan is being paid also for his
davening during the week, or that the shofar-blower is paid also for
blowing during Elul, and see above paragraph 61.

Akiva Miller

From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:22:44 +0200
Subject: Re: Ain't gonna work on Saturday

	My question is, why is it that some professions can work on 		shabbos, while others can't??

The ones who can work are keeping Shabbat.  YOu can work as a rabbi or
waiter or medical staff, as long as hilchot Shabbat are obeyed, but you
can't work as an accountant or seamstress.  You can get paid to wash the
glasses to be used that same Shabbat, but you can't "blow glass" or
"pot" on the wheel.  You can buy land in Eretz Yisrael from a goy on
Shabbat, apparently it's akin to pikuach nefesh, and one isn't allowed
to delay. 



From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 06:46:04 -0400
Subject: Eating in Jaine restaurants

One of the replies mentioned pots and pans which brought to mind the 

About 5 or so years ago I managed a worldwide team at IBM.  I gathered
them together near NYC for a meeting and hosted them to a July 4th
barbecue at our home.  Since two were Hindu's, one very strict, I
inquired as to their food needs.  They would eat sham (vegetarian)
hamburgers, etc.  When I inquired about utensils -- would they have any
issues with what these were cooked or served on they had no such
concerns as it was outside the scope their practice.

Carl Singer


From: <graetz@...> (Naomi Graetz)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 0:26:49 +0530
Subject: Jason Aronson Inc

Immanuel Burton asks: "I've heard that Jason Aronson Inc is no longer in
business (can anyone confirm this?)" Alas, this is so. As a published
author of JA, I am sad to say that this is true.  However, the
publishing company of Rowman & Littlefield has bought up both their
Jewish Studies and Psychotherapy lines and have promised to keep all the
books in stock and in print. You can search their catalogue at:

Naomi Graetz, author of Silence is Deadly:
Judaism Confronts Wifebeating (Jason Aronson, 1998).


From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:39:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Non-Denominational Prayer Rooms

 >From: Immanuel Burton <IBURTON@...>
 >Given that one may not pray in a place where idol-worship is conducted,
 >and that the above-mentioned prayer room could very well be used by
 >members of a religion that is Halachially classified as idolatory, and
 >that those people may or may not set up a 'portable' idol while they are
 >praying, may one use such a non- denominational prayer room?

As a student, I heard a well-accepted rumor that Rabbi Soloveitchik z"l
personally sanctioned MIT's multi-denominational chapel, which has an
interchangeable Aron Hakodesh and crucifix, when it was built.


From: <DTnLA@...> (Dov Teichman)
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:03:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin

Ben Katz <bkatz@...> writes:
> It is obvious at least to me, from a historical perspective, that the
> reason we don't hear about a machloket in the order of the parshiyot of
> the tefillin until the Middle Ages, even though tefilling were worn for
> more than 1000 years prior, is that no one seemed to mind exactly what
> order the parshiyout were in. 

You did not consider what the Talmud says in the historical
pespective. The Gemara in Menachos 34b-35a seems to mind what order the
parshiyos were in as it says "if they are switched it is passul."
Furthermore the Zohar in many places also discusses the order of the
parshios and its kabbalistic significance. Putting 5 parshios in
Tefillin is an issur deoraysa of Bal Tosif. I doubt that a permanent
appendage would have been added to a long standing mitzvah that had been
around for thousands of years. The 4 headed shin is also mentioned in
the Zohar.

The difficulty you are having also occured with shofar blowing. There
was a machlokes about what a teruah was and so R Abahu made a takkana to
do both a shevarim and a teruah as the Gemara in Rosh Hashana
discusses. Didn't they remember what they did last year?

Rashi was at his grandson's (R"T) bar mitzvah. Didn't he instruct him
how to put on tefilin and the proper order?

Why would Rabbeinu Tam wake up one day and decide to change things?

The rishonim on the gemara in Rosh Hashana explain by bringing Tshuvos
from Rav Shereira Gaon and Rav Hai Goan, that really both ways of
blowing shofar were legitimate but R Abahu did not want two traditions
so he unified everyone. The same thing applies to Tefilin, there were
always two traditions but rashi and R"T argued about which tradition
appeared correct to them. In turn the Zohar and Arizal explain the two
traditions and why they are both correct. Just as both ways of blowing a
teruah were correct. 

Dov Teichman


From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 07:54:04 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:  Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin -- chumras

One MLJ poster mentioned that all the great mekubalim (kabbalists) wore
Rabbeinu Tam tefillin, and that the Ari (Rv. Isaac Luria, I believe)
required it.

But I seem to remember my previous LOR once telling me, "We don't pasken
halacha (render halachic decisions) al pi kaballah (from kaballistic
sources)."  Assuming my memory is correct, to what extent is this
accepted as a general principle?

Frank Silbermann	New Orleans, Louisiana		<fs@...>

From: <MPoppers@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:50:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin -- chumras

In M-J V44#74, Dr. BZKatz wrote:
> It is possible that the odd shin with 4 stems on the tefillin is left
over from a time when the maker wanted to show that his tefillin only had 4
parshiyot. <

How possible?  Let's consider the possibilities, given the statement of
Abayai in BT M'nachos 35a that "Shin shel T'filin Halachah l'Moshe

-1- that Shin was a regular Shin with three heads, but the t'filin maker
added a 4th head for the reason mentioned above -- then why do our
shel-rosh boxes have both a three-headed and a four-headed shin?

-2- that Shin wasn't a regular Shin -- if it had less than three or more
than four heads, see -1-, and if it had four heads, one can also ask
what change was actually made by that t'filin maker

-3- the shel rosh was traditionally made with two Shinin, both with
three heads -- then why did this maker change one Shin but not the

-4- there were two Shinin, one regular (three heads) and one not --
again, why wasn't the regular Shin changed to four heads?

As for truly-possible reasons for a four-headed shin in addition to the
shin noted as miSinai, the commentaries I've seen all point to the
special nature of the writing of the luchos ("in the air," such that,
IIUC, a three-dimensional shin, or any other letter, casts a shadow in
four directions), and why someone (given that this aspect, and perhaps
the 2nd shin in general, isn't miSinai) decided to allude to such an
aspect may be a worthy topic for discussion, if anyone has sources
and/or a breadth&depth of traditional knowledge to bring to the table.

All the best from

-- Michael Poppers via RIM pager


From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 10:50:31 EDT
Subject: Source of Quote "Divrei Torah Aniyim..."?

Aliza Berger (MJv44n74) asks if there is a source for the quote "divrei
torah aniyim bemakom echad v'ashirim bemakom acher" [=The Torah's words
are poor in one place and rich in another].  She found only a variation
where there word "bemakom" is substituted by "bimkomam/n"

I checked the Bar-Ilan CD/ROM and the other major books of Jewish
Quotes (Hyman, Blau, Mosad Harav Kook, Perlman, Eisenstein) and all give
the same answer, that is, in old sources the only version found is
indeed "Binmkomam/n" found in Y. Rosh Hashana, and Tosafot in K'ritut.
However, starting later people brought up the version of Aliza. There
are two possibilities: (1.) Indeed the was another version which was
retained by the later people and brought by them, or, the more likely
case (2.)  people misquoted from memory. The "matbe'ah lashon"
[=compound expression] "bemakom echad" combined with "bemakom acher" is
common, and this quotes fits into this pattern, and that is, in my view,
the source of the misquote. (This combination "bemakom echad" + "bemakom
acher" can be found in Mishnah Sota 9:3; Tosefta Pesachim 7:17,
B. Shabbat 8b and may more old sources as well in Ibn Ezra Tehilim
74:17; Ramban Bereshit 42:21 and many more).

There is one sources that is different "divrei torah aniyim bemakom
echad v'ashirim bimekomot acherim" [=The Torah's words are poor in one
place and rich in other places]. (Eisenstein, Otzar Midrashim quoting
the B'raita de Lamed Bet Midot, p. 268) In this case the singular plural
reverse places, and in my view probably on account of misquoting from
memory. I do not know the age of this last midrash and if there is a
critical edition out there.

Gilad J. Gevaryahu


End of Volume 44 Issue 80