Volume 37 Number 71
Produced: Wed Nov 6 6:12:22 US/Eastern 2002
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Clergy for Tax Purposes
[Yisrael and Batya Medad]
Clothes from the Drier (2)
[Gershon Dubin, David Lefkowitz]
Contract of Selling Chametz
[Zev Sero]
Eshet Kohen
[Robert Israel]
Kriat Shmah Before Retiring
[Chaim G Steinmetz]
Legal Fiction
[<chips@...>]
Maarat Eyin (Morris Aiyen) in the eye of the beholder
[David Waxman]
Maarit Ayin
[Harry Weiss]
Marit Eiyin
[Bernard Raab]
Question re Lashon Hara
[David Waxman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael and Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 06:51:34 +0200
Subject: Re: Clergy for Tax Purposes
Btw, does anyone know whether graduation from Drisha's scholars
program (or similar) gives women some means of declaring
themselves clergy for tax purposes?
I'm sure it can be done. It would reaffirm and recognize the
professionalism of women's learning.
Good luck,
Batya
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:39:17 GMT
Subject: Clothes from the Drier
From: Leah S. Gordon <leah@...>
>>1. Is there really a problem with using the washer as a hamper on
shabbat, i.e. for the dirty clothes, diapers, etc. one produces on
shabbat? I can't think of a family that doesn't do this in my
community, unless they don't have a machine.
If all you're doing is dropping clothes in, no. If you must open the
door first, it's moving a keli shemelachto le'isur (a utensil whose
primary use is forbidden) and is permitted, but should be avoided, such
as by propping open the door before Shabbos.
>>Can't you open it and get out the underwear or whatever?
See answer to first question.
>>Must you really stop the machine, take the wet/dirty/etc. clothes out,
etc. so as not to have them running on shabbat or full of your
clothes? I can't believe this is the case, considering that such
things as timer-clocks for appliances are allowed.
Working backwards here (even though this is your third question and you
promised two <g>) Rav Moshe Feinstein prohibits using timers for
anything other than lights. While few people don't put air conditioners
on timers, there is clearly no free for all on them.
hat said, it should be noted that from when you light candles, you have
18 minutes to sunset, and, according to most poskim, a fair amount of
time after that as well. During that time one may not do any forbidden
melachos, but leaving the drier running is probably OK.
Of course, CYLOR.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Lefkowitz <Dovid107@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:17:16 -0500
Subject: Clothes from the Drier
Leah Gordon wrote:
> 1. Is there really a problem with using the washer as a hamper on
> shabbat, i.e. for the dirty clothes, diapers, etc. one produces on
> shabbat? I can't think of a family that doesn't do this in my
> community, unless they don't have a machine.
Not paskening here, but generally things that are set aside for Shabbos
use can be used on Shabbos.
> 2. a. Suppose you are in a rush and didn't empty the drier before
> shabbat, but you need an item to wear on shabbat that is in the drier.
> Suppose further that there is no light in the drier, no buzzer to be
> buzzed, etc. if you open/close the drier. Suppose further that the item
> to get out isn't one you'd fold or shake out (someone said that was like
> "ironing"). Can't you open it and get out the underwear or whatever?
You may open such a door to take clothing out if the clothing were
intended for Shabbos use.
However, you may not close the door to the drier in a normal way (you
have to use your knee for example) unless the open door is in the way.
> b. Suppose you are in a rush and you have time to start the wash/dry
> before shabbat, but then it's suddenly candle-lighting time. Must you
> really stop the machine, take the wet/dirty/etc. clothes out, etc. so as
> not to have them running on shabbat or full of your clothes? I can't
> believe this is the case, considering that such things as timer-clocks
> for appliances are allowed.
Rav Moshe Feinstein held that appliances that make a loud noise when
operated are akin to a milstone which was prohibited to use even though
the act was started on Shabbos. The principle is called "zeelusa
d'Shabbos", a degradation of Shabbos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 14:45:37 -0500
Subject: Contract of Selling Chametz
David Herskovic <crucible@...> wrote:
> But it takes two to form a contract, so try putting the shoe on the
> other foot. Imagine some crafty Jew with a surplus of Chomets tries to
> enforce his contract by suing the buyer to finalise the sale. Find me
> the court that will enforce the contract and oblige the purchaser,
> usually from the lower strata of society, to finalise the deal or
> bankrupt him when he can't come up with the cash and then I'll be
> persuaded.
A bet din would certainly enforce it. And we do make a reasonable
effort to have the contract comply with the requirements of local law,
so any *honest* goyishe court would also enforce it. What you seem to
be saying is that goyishe courts are dishonest, and would ignore the
terms of the contract in the name of `equity'; this may indeed be so,
but I fail to see why that should affect our view of things.
There have been many times and places where a Jew could never prevail
over a goy in court; would you say that in those times and places,
contracts between Jews and goyim were in fact invalid? That a goy who
borrowed money from a Jew did not really owe it, because the creditor
knew that he could not enforce the debt in court?
As you say:
> Of course, lack of enforcement does not nullify the contract
Precisely. Why should we need anything else? It's enough that we know
that the sale is valid, and that if we were to insist on its terms we
would be within our rights. Halacha does not and can not depend on the
integrity of goyishe courts; nor are courts the only way to enforce
contracts.
> but it does show that apart from orthodox Jews who require the sale
> to divest themselves of the Chomets, there are few others who will
> see it as a contract which was intended to create legal obligations
> and thus enforceable.
Once again, why should we care what others think, when we know that they
are wrong? How does their uninformed or corrupt view change the facts?
Zev Sero
<zsero@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Israel <israel@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:28:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Eshet Kohen
The one biblical precedent I know of for the idea of a pregnant mother
taking on restrictions on behalf of her child is the story of Shimshon,
whose mother was told by the angel, "Therefore beware, and drink no wine
or strong drink, and eat nothing tamei ... for the boy shall be a Nazir
to God from birth". Of course this was a very special case. It's
interesting, though, that the restrictions mentioned are only about
eating and drinking; Shimshon's mother was _not_ told to avoid
cemeteries.
Robert Israel <israel@...>
Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim G Steinmetz <cgsteinmetz@...>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 00:04:24 -0500
Subject: Kriat Shmah Before Retiring
Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...> writes
> David Curwin v37n47 asks
>> c) If someone is so tired they can't really concentrate on what
>> they're saying, is there any need to say Kriat Shma Al HaMita?<
> Quite simply the sources are as follows:
> 1) Biblically we must say Kriat Shma twice a day This is explicitly
> stated in the 1st chapter of shma
> 2) But sometimes we either say Maariv too early or dont concentrate
> at all. Hence it would be helpful IF YOU HAD A DOUBT, to repeat Kriat
> Shma before going to sleep.
> 3) Also: I think the Kitzur SA(Code of Jewish law) recommends saying
> >verses of mercy< so as to hasten the induction of sleep (And saying
> shma has that effect also).
> Bottom line: You do NOT have to say Shma over again. If you however
> did not have proper intention or timing you should say it over again.
I humbly disagree.
The source for saying at least the first paragraph of Shma, is a Gemoroh
in Brochos 4b , where it is referred to as a "mitzvah". It is also
mentioned there in 60b when discussing the brocho of Hamapil. This is
also brought in Rambam Hil Tfilla 7:2, and SA OC 239:1. In these sources
no connection is made to whether he fulfilled the mitzva properly
earlier or not.
Therefore, even though it is not be a biblical mitzvah if read properly
earlier (in the right time etc), but it should said nonetheless, as seen
in the above sources - though if one did not read the Shma in the
correct time, he would be obligated to read all 3 paragraphs (see Mishna
Brurah). Since one is not saying it for the biblical mitzvah, I would
assume that the proper intention should not be (such) an issue.
Chaim G. Steinmetz
<cgsteinmetz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <chips@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 22:51:59 -0800
Subject: Re: Legal Fiction
> From: David Herskovic <crucible@...>
> But it takes two to form a contract, so try putting the shoe on the
> other foot. Imagine some crafty Jew with a surplus of Chomets tries to
> enforce his contract by suing the buyer to finalise the sale. Find me
> the court that will enforce the contract and oblige the purchaser,
> usually from the lower strata of society, to finalise the deal or
> bankrupt him when he can't come up with the cash and then I'll be
> persuaded.
Your sale of Chometz may be a sham but I'm pretty sure you have not read
the actual agreement. I have had , lets see, 5 different Rabbi's handle
my sales, all from different Yeshivas. The option to have the goy
consumate the purchase after Pesach belongs to the goy. The original
Jewish owner can not force the issue.
rp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Waxman <yitz99@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 22:06:58 -0800
Subject: Re: Maarat Eyin (Morris Aiyen) in the eye of the beholder
>Case #2 - if Plony, the am ha'aretz does something it's suspect, but a
>respective Rav Plony has much more lattittude as he might get the
>benefit of the doubt.
One is obligated to judge a talmud chacham favorably to a higher
standard than your everyday tax paying citizen. I doubt that this
relieves the Rav of his obligation to avoid questionable situations. To
the contrary, I expect that he is held to a higher standard.
Again, the key is to focus on your own obligations - to judge others
favorably (to the appropriate degree), and to avoid marath eiyen on
yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:39:02 -0800
Subject: Maarit Ayin
There has been a considerable discussion regarding the Maarit Ayin issue
when in a treyf restaurant. People have referred to only having a drink
etc. In the nices places, particularly hotel restaurants, there is
another possilbity. I have been a meeting expecting to only have a
drink, when the host says they made arrangements for me, and sure
enough, I get served a TV dinner, similar to airline meals, double
wrapped with plastic utensils. (The directions for the staff are on the
package). Does that fact that many places have the kosher meals
available make it better, or the fact that people see that one is eating
make it worse.
Harry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:51:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Marit Eiyin
From: David Waxman
>>As far as your latter question, we're not worried about someone
regarding Denny's as kosher, we're worried about them regarding you as
traif!<<
I beg to differ: How many times have you heard someone say (or thought
yourself) something like "...and there were people with yarmulkes eating
there so it must be OK." I know when I am in a strange city, either in
the US or abroad, including Israel, and am really not familiar with the
level of kashrus in a *nominally* kosher establishment, the sight of
someone in a yarmulke is reassuring. Don't tell me you don't feel the
same way! In Israel, the problem can be acute. If you, a visitor, come
upon a Burger King and see someone wearing a yarmulke sitting there,
wouldn't you be likely to assume it was one of the kosher ones? Of
course we cognoscenti would check further, but is that really the
answer?
I have seen people with yarmulkes in non-kosher restaurants, at
community swimming pools, and in R-rated movies. My former Rav said this
is not a mitzvah. I say it is an embarrassment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Waxman <yitz99@...>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 22:15:03 -0800
Subject: Re:Question re Lashon Hara
> >>is weekend's Ha'aretz carried a story about a certain Israeli Rav who
>was indicted for Kashrut fraud, along with the company whose Hechsher he
>gave. The case has not yet come up for trial. My question is whether one
>is permitted to relay such limited information to anyone else, or whether
>this is considered Lashon Hara.<<
Why not call the kashruth organization, and a couple of others do verify
the information?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 37 Issue 71
