Volume 48 Number 48
Produced: Thu Jun 16 20:42:53 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Accepting Psak without reviewing sources
[Y. Askotzky]
Is he a gonnif and what should I do about it?
[Carl Singer]
Listening to Ones Parents
[Binyomin Segal]
Multiple views of the "single use" camera
[Carl Singer]
Our "hot" Single-Use Camera (3)
[Ari Trachtenberg, Tzvi Stein, Shayna Kravetz]
Why can't we all learn to get along with each other?
[Irwin Weiss]
Yiddish
[Ben Katz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Y. Askotzky <sofer@...>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 13:43:50 +0200
Subject: Accepting Psak without reviewing sources
But if you ask without such qualification, you are bound by the rov's
response, and need his permission to seek a second opinion. To ask a
sheilah with no intention to be bound by the response (or to pose a
hypothetical question as though it is of immediate practical concern) is
real g'neivas daas, and disregards the effort that may be expended in
coming up with a responsible decision.
In addition to the above, there are stories that teach us that a posek
doesn't receive the special siyata dishmaya when the person asking the
shaila has no intention to follow the psak/eitzah. A story is told about
my rav, Rav Michel Twerski, that when approached by a couple seeking
maritial counseling, he declined to talk to them. His rebbetzin was
surprised and asked him afterwards why he refused to see them. He told
then that it was obvious to him that one of the spouses had no interest
in hearing what he had to say and thereby knew that he would not have
siyata dishmaya to help them.
kol tuv,
Yerachmiel Askotzky, certified sofer & examiner
<sofer@...> www.stam.net 1-888-404-STAM(7826) 718-874-8220
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 06:55:04 -0400
Subject: Is he a gonnif and what should I do about it?
The "single use" discussions reminded me of this question.
During winter months I daven at a nearby shul that has a weekday b'zman
minyan for mincha-ma'ariv.
One day someone I don't know, but recognize by face, asked me if they
could borrow my pen -- I handed them my pen -- a cheap "stick" pen --
like you get in hotels, etc. That person did not return the pen to me
after davening -- he apparently is one of many people who daven mincha
with this minyan then daven elsewhere for ma'ariv (perhaps going back to
work, etc., in between) That evening someone died and for the next week
I attended a shiva minyan rather than the shul minyan. And the clocks
changed, etc., and I'm now davening back at my own shul.
I see the "borrower" on rare occasion -- usually across the room during
davening when it's inappropriate to talk with him. He's apparently
forgotten about the pen.
Since I have the memory of an elephant -- should I remind this person of
the borrowed pen or forget it? My concern is NOT the pen, I have a
drawer full -- we regularly buy them a dozen at time -- but the aspect
of (his) genayvah?
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 05:30:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Listening to Ones Parents
Russell Jay Hendel raised a point that has often troubled me, and I have
never really been able to find a satisfactory answer in my own mind. He
points out that:
> Jewish law is very clear: There are two obligations: a) One must
> provide parental needs (but from their funds) and b) one must treat
> parents respectfully. As far as I know there is NO requirement
> anywhere to OBEY / LISTEN/ FOLLOW advice of ones parents.
While a study of the primary sources would suggest that Russell is
correct, there are a number of data points that suggest
otherwise. Because of my busy schedule though, I will mention just the
most obvious example.
The halacha discusses a dispute between father and son over where the
son should go to yeshiva. And the halacha records that the son is not
obligated to listen to his father because "ayn adam lomed eleh bmakom
shelibo chafetz" (something like: a person can only learn where he is
happy). This suggests that barring this unique element of learning, a
father would be able to expect his son to learn where the father sends
him. But if Russell is correct there is no need for this rule, a son
should be allowed to learn where he wants.
One additional point...
> But even when a parent is abusive a child MUST STILL treat the parent
> respectfully (Leaving the situation is not disrespectful).
While I agree that this is true from basic halacha, I suspect that in
many situations one could easily be considered an "ones" (coerced, and
hence exempt) in this regard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 06:44:09 -0400
Subject: Multiple views of the "single use" camera
If one is uncertain about the terms of a transaction and thus worried
that they may be doing an avayarah (say theft / genayvah) wouldn't the
halachically prudent thing (to do) be to ask the other party to clarify
the terms of the transaction and to forthrightly explain what your
intentions are?
A reluctance to do so might indicate that you're trying to pull one over
on the other party -- which may or may not be halachically acceptable.
Carl A. Singer, Ph.D.
Passaic, NJ 07055-5328
<casinger@...>
See my web site: www.ProcessMakesPerfect.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:21:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Our "hot" Single-Use Camera
> From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
> The question still boils down to is it a sale or lease. To me it seems
> more like a sale. In a lease the owner always keeps track of who has
> the property. Here if one pays cash, there is no record of who own the
> property. it is sold in a store as a sale.
Computer software is leased without the owner's keeping track of the
property. In this case, I think one of the important questions to ask
is what happens if you accidentally break the camera. Does the store
require you to pay it for the loss? If not, then why should you not be
allowed to "break" the device by hacking it?
Best,
Ari Trachtenberg, Boston University
http://people.bu.edu/trachten mailto:<trachten@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:29:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Our "hot" Single-Use Camera
> After I wrote:
> >> How much clearer can the words "Single-use camera" be? That is a clear
> >> statement that the vendor is providing you (I am trying to avoid
> >> choosing between "selling" and "renting" here) this camera for a single
> >> use. From a technical legal point of view, if there is no separate
> >> written contract of sale, the advertising, labelling, etc. become our
> >> only guidelines to establishing the intent of the parties and, hence,
> >> the contract.
> Tzvi Stein objected:
>> I disagree strongly. Advertising and labelling most assuredly do
>> *not* form a contract. No where have I, the buyer agreed to anything
>> on the advertising or labeling. I find it surprising to even see
>> such a concept suggested. Are you saying that if I buy a product
>> that is advertised as a "breakfast cereal" and I eat it for dinner
>> instead, I am breaching a contract? Or if I buy a cup that is
>> labeled as "disposable" and never dispose of it, but just wash it and
>> keep re-using it, I'm also breaching a contract? Come on!
> Technically, in the absence of a written contract, the advertising is
> evidence of the terms of the store's offer and when you pay your money
> and take away the object, you accept that offer by your conduct.
> There may be no written contract but (as the embarrassed holder of an
> LL.B.) I promise you that legally there is a contract between you and
> the camera shop. And your examples assume that you've /bought/ the
> objects in question which is, of course, begging the whole question
> that we're struggling with here. I think we can agree that, if you
> bought the camera, it's yours to do with it as you will. The real
> issue is, have you bought it or is this something other than a simple
> sale?
You did not address the other examples. If the camera's advertising
creates a contract, am I breaching the contract implied by the cereal's
advertising when I eat the "breakfast cereal" for dinner? Maybe the
company that sells the cereal also sells dinner items that are more
profitable for the company and by converting their "breakfast cereal"
for dinner use, I'm depriving them of that profit and violating the
"implied contract". Also, when I buy "duct tape" and I use it for
purposes other than taping ducts, I may be depriving the company of
profit from other more specialized products they may sell that are more
profitable than duct tape.
I don't think the concept of advertising / packaging constituting an
implied contract holds any water.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shayna Kravetz <skravetz@...>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 20:33:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Our "hot" Single-Use Camera
>You did not address the other examples. If the camera's advertising creates
>a contract, am I breaching the contract implied by the cereal's advertising
>when I eat the "breakfast cereal" for dinner? Maybe the company that sells
>the cereal also sells dinner items that are more profitable for the company
>and by converting their "breakfast cereal" for dinner use, I'm depriving
>them of that profit and violating the "implied contract". Also, when I buy
>"duct tape" and I use it for purposes other than taping ducts, I may be
>depriving the company of profit from other more specialized products they
>may sell that are more profitable than duct tape.
As I said in my previous post, these are all examples where there is no
question but that the goods have been sold outright to you and you can
do what you like with them. The problem is that, with the camera, there
seems to be some doubt whether it is being sold unconditionally. If it
is either sold on conditions or 'rented' in some sense, then the camera
shop may indeed have a legal right to require you to return the camera
-- just as a rental car company can force you to return the car.
>I don't think the concept of advertising / packaging constituting an implied
>contract holds any water.
The advertising/packaging are not the contract, they are evidence of the
terms of the implied but unwritten contract between the camera shop and
the person. Of course, if you don't trust my opinion on this, you could
ask any 2nd-year law student. Beyond that, all I can suggest is go to
law school. Or, if that doesn't work for you, you could read an
elementary contracts law text if you want to understand the basic law of
civil contracts in common law jurisdictions such as the US, Canada, and
England.
Kol tuv from
Shayna in Toronto
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Irwin Weiss <irwin@...>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 08:06:20 -0400
Subject: Why can't we all learn to get along with each other?
Stuart Pilichowski laments, "Why can't we all learn to get along with
each other?" in a response to an inquiry about leaving a shul due to
distressing infighting. I agree with Stuart's lament. It is a timely
lament, as well, as we approach Shavuot.
When we gathered to receive Torah at Mt. Sinai, the text says..." they
came to the wilderness of Sinai and there Israel encamped before the
mountain..." (Exodus 19:1-2). The word "encamped" is written in the
"singular" ("Vayichan"). Chazal notes that even though there were more
than a million people, when B'nai Yisrael came to Mount Sinai to receive
the Torah, the merited receipt of the Torah because they were united.
<irwin@...>
Irwin E. Weiss, Esq.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 10:46:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Yiddish
>From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
>I have pointed out on occasion that many of the Hebrew forms used by
>Ashkenazic Jews, though often called "wrong" , are actually examples of
>MH as preserved by Ashkenazic Jewish in Yiddish. An example of "wrong
>dikduk" is the term "loshon hara`". Now "oyberkhakhomim" say that the
>correct form is "Leshon hara`", what is called "semikhut." This is
>true--in Biblical Hebrew. Yet in MH there is no such distinction, for
>in MH the smikhut form of "lashon" is also "lashon." "Yasherkoyekh" (or
>as you sometimes hear, "asherkoyekh") is another such non-mistake, as I
>pointed out on mail-jewish years ago.
>[Snip]
>Finally, Yiddish contains words for halakhic concepts which do not exist
>at all in Hebrew (pareve, yortsayt).
a few comments re Dr. Steiner's interesting points, above:
1. I have been reading MJ quite a while and do not recall how
"yasherkoyach" is NOT an error, if not in grammar, then at least in
pronounciation.
2. I do not believe that yahrzeit's were commemorated before the early
Middle Ages at the earliest, and thus there would have been no need for
a Hebrew or Aramaic term for this concept.
3. It is surprising that there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word for the
concept of pareve, a point I DO remember Dr. Steiner making in the past.
4. Mechutan IS a great word.
Hag sameach!
Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
e-mail: <bkatz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 48 Issue 48
