Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 043

Tuesday, May 22 2001

• halocha like beis Shammai in future?
• Re: halocha like beis Shammai in future?
• TSBP
• mada in Torah
• yiras Hashem/bringing Moshiach
• Re: yiras Hashem/bringing Moshiach
• Re: history
• Re: history
• hishtadlus and shmitta
• Re: hishtadlus and shmitta
• re: hishtadlus and shmitta
• Re:Re: Maaser (was: Working Women and Kollel Husbands)
• Re: Sheirut L'eumi
• Re: Mekatreig
• Re: Sheirut L'eumi
• RE: Re: Maaser (was: Working Women and Kollel Husbands)
• Re: hishtadlus and shmitta
• Re: hishtadlus and shmitta
• RE: hishtadlus and shmitta
• Mutav Sheyihyu Shogegin...
• Re: Dor Revi'i on Shavuot (matan torah)
• Lubavitch Tefillin campaign - potential problems
• Re: hishtadlus and shmitta
• Re: Lubavitch Tefillin campaign - potential problems

From: jjbaker@panix.com
> ......IIRC, is there not a Gemara that says in Yimei HaMoshiach, the psak 
> will be like Beis Shammai?.....

I don't believe there is such a gemara. Anyone who knows of one, please 
provide mareh mokom. I think it is an idea that comes from some Kabablistic 
sources that has also been spread by hassidim. I believe that gedolim / 
authorities from other camps / drachim do not accept it. Perhaps they don't 
make a 'big thing' about in because it is not nogeia limaaseh now, and we 
will iy"H see in the future what happens anyway.......

I find it quite interesting to see how such ideas become so widespread among 
the masses to go unquestioned by many and become thought of a standard / 
mainstream Torah as if cited in the gemoro......similar to other inyonim 
recently discussed here, e.g. re the classical position on gilgul 
(reincarnation), etc.

Mordechai

Jon Baker wrote:
>...IIRC, is there not a Gemara that says in Yimei HaMoshiach, the psak
>will be like Beis Shammai?......

Mordechai wrote:
>I don't believe there is such a gemara. Anyone who knows of one, please
>provide mareh mokom.

There is definitely no gemara like that.  I asked my rav, R. Yisrael Hirsch, 
about this and he says that it is definitely in the Shelah and, he believes, 
originates from the Tanna deVei Eliyahu.

Gil Student

In a recent shiur regarding TSBP, R' H Schachter mentioned sifro shel
adam harishon which apparently contained information regarding future
history in general and how halacha would evolve in specific. Does anyone
know of any sources which discuss this sefer and its use in any detail?

KT and a meaningful yom yerushalayim
Joel

The Ramban in his famous Intro to Torah (pg 5 in Chavel ed.) states that
Shlomo HaMelech knew all of science and wisdom through a kabbalistic
understanding of Torah.

The P'as HaShulchan relates that the Gra made a special siyum when he
completed studying "wisdom needed for Torah".  This seems to be straight
secular studies.  This study PH notes included music theory.

Both of these sources seem to indicate that the study of pshat does not
yield a knowledge of all of science.

Shlomo Goldstein

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
> To add to this point: instead of viewing moshiach as a schar for
> the mitzvos (as I had done in a previous post), one may take the
> perspective that we are doing mitzvos to be mesaken olam b'malchus Shakai...

I would go further -- where is the dualism? Tanya makes the distinction
between Moshiach coming for us and the associated utopianisms and
Moshiach coming for HKBH -- it is HKBH who needs Moshiach and who is in
golus with us (even though he does not wish to be) -- and by doing his
will vis-a-vis learning torah and doing mitzvos we bring Moshiach.

See the Rambam in Hilchos Teshuvah 9:2 that the only reason to hope for
the time of moshiach is because then we will have no external barriers
to learning Torah and keeping mitzvos. It seems a bit circular to me to
do mitzvos so that the moshiach will come and we can do mitzvos.

Gil Student

mi>there was no history of pesak[concerning shmitta], between the time the
mi>Me'iri was lost and the time it was found again.

While it may be a surprise to Zionists and Palestinians,  Jews have been
living in Israel pretty much continuously from the Middle Ages [not to
exclude previously].

Shlomo Goldstein

On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 09:08:13PM +0300, S. Goldstein wrote:
: mi>there was no history of pesak[concerning shmitta], between the time the
: mi>Me'iri was lost and the time it was found again.

: While it may be a surprise to Zionists and Palestinians,  Jews have been
: living in Israel pretty much continuously from the Middle Ages [not to
: exclude previously].

But they weren't a bunch of farmers.

-mi

From: "Newman,Saul Z" <Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org>
> in light of this dvar tora of the connection of these two, one 
>  wonders why in many communities they will do a different hishtadlus this
> shabbat, when they will collect money for those who are shomer shvi'it,
> rather than allowing the ribono shel olam to suport them....

Not clear why shomrei shevi'is are less deserving of support because o
who they are. Would you tell a poor person to have bitachon and to help
him in that regard, you refuse to give him tzedaka? Why is this different?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

SN> in light of this dvar tora of the connection of these two, one wonders why
SN> in many communities they will do a different hishtadlus this shabbat, when
SN> they will collect money for those who are shomer shvi'it, rather than
SN> allowing the ribono shel olam to suport them....

MF> Given that according to most poskim, shmitta bizman hazeh is drabbanan, is
MF> it so pashut that Hashem will fulfill his bracha "v'tzivisi es birchasi
MF> lachem bashanah hashishis...?"

Either way, why isn't my directing part of my chiuv ma'aser toward
shomer shvi'it considered a fulfillment of the brocha? If one recognizes
that their earnings are not a result of their own talents and efforts,
rather a manifestation of the beneficence of the Ribbono Shel Olam,
it seems obvious, to me, that this hishtadlus is, in fact, "allowing
the Ribono Shel Olam to suport them".

"...one wonders why in many communities they will do a different hishtadlus 
this shabbat, when they will collect money for those who are shomer shvi'it, 
rather than allowing the ribono shel olam to suport them...."

baalebatish: don't be tzadik on yener's cheshbon

 Or if you prefer, from R' Nebenzahl's sicha this past week-
"The Torah tells us "vezot haTorah asher sam Moshe lifnei Bnei
Yisrael" "this is the Torah that Moshe "sam" - placed before the Jewish
people" (Devarim 4:44).  The word "sam" when spelled with a "shin" means
placed, while when spelled with a "samech" means a drug.  It is from this
that Chazal derive: "if one is deserving, the Torah becomes a drug of life
to him, if one is not deserving, it becomes a drug of death for him" [36]
(Yoma 72b).  My Rebbe HaGaon HaRav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l commented that
the Torah can only be a drug of life, it is the people who have the
ability to turn it into a deadly drug.  How is this so?  By attempting to
fulfill Mitzvot that are not appropriate for them.  For example, when one
lends another money, he is commanded: "do not act toward him as a
creditor" [37] (Shmot 22:24).  The borrower, on the other hand, is taught:
"repayment of a debt to a creditor is a Mitzvah" [38] (Ketubot 86a).  The
proper way to observe these Mitzvot is for the lender to repeat over and
over again to himself: "do not act toward him as a creditor" while the
borrower should keep saying and eventually carry out: "repayment of a debt
to a creditor is a Mitzvah".  What sometimes happens is the opposite, the
lender approaches the borrower: "repayment of a debt to a creditor is a
Mitzvah", while the borrower retorts "do not act toward him as a
creditor"!  It is this type of behavior that can transform the Torah into
a drug of death.

	We find a similar occurrence in the relationship between husband
and wife.  The husband is commanded to honor his wife more than himself
(see Rambam Hilchot Ishut 15:19).  The woman, on the other hand, must view
her husband as an officer or king (see Rambam Ishut 15:20).  What often
happens is that the husband complains why he is not being treated like a
king, while the wife complains that he is not honoring her more than
himself!  The behavior exhibited in this example transforms the Torah into
a drug of death, and is responsible for the soaring divorce rate we have
today.  If each of them would only worry about their own Mitzvot, if the
husband would do his utmost to honor his wife, while the wife would try
her best to honor her husband, the divorce rate would drop significantly.  
There is yet to be a divorce filed in Beit Din on the grounds that each is
honoring the other too much.  The Torah is the drug of life, it is our
misuse that converts it into a drug of death."

>On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 02:45:11PM -0400, Yitzchok Willroth wrote:
>:>                                                 I know that R. Hershel
>:> Schachter tells yungerleit who are supported by kollel stipends and
>:> parents not to give ma'aser.

                                                                 Bs"d
         Years ago, when I was in kollel full-time, and our financial 
situation was shver, my Rebbi, Rav Gerson Goodman, z"l, told me in the name 
of the Ahavas Chessed, IIRC, that the ikker is to do a hafrasha, even if 
you are going to use the money yourself, and not give it to tzedakah. 
Furthermore, a strategy that a lot of the yungerleit in my kollel promoted 
was taking maiser and giving it to your chevrusa, who would, in turn, give 
his to you. That way, everyone was yotzei, and no one "lost out." So what's 
wrong with doing that?
         Anecdotally, I can say that for the first several years of our 
marriage, my wife and I were scrupulous to give maiser. At one point, 
however, we stopped (I even remember when - erev Pesach) because we felt 
that we had too many expenses. It was all downhill from there. The 
financial lachats we suffered was unbelievable, until about two years 
later, when we just decided that even though we couldn't afford it, and 
couldn't see how we could do it, we had no choice but to start giving 
again. From that moment on, bli eyin hara, our situation began improving. 
Mamish a neis...

Eli

So why did none of the poskim then change their psak to reflect the
situation? I find it hard to believe they were uninformed as there were
many stories about how thourough R'Shlomo Zalman/R'Eliyashiv/R'Moshe etc.
were regarding having the facts in front of them before they issued their
psak. So obviously they knew, yet still did not feel that it warranted
going against the psak of the Chazon Ish. maybe it is because they know
that the chareidi girls in fact  do perform service for the country.
After my wife finished high school, the girls in her class in seminary
(post high school program) were very devoted to doing communal chesed,
most  even after graduation from sem. The same is true of the army. The
boys who are learning Torah are doing national service. The fact that it
is not done under the auspices of sheirut l'eumi or tzahal does not mean
it is not being done. I would be very surprised if Dayan Waldenberg sent
his children to sheirut l'eumi. There are other ways of doing service in
Eretz Yisroel besides the state created programs and apparently, many
gedolim feel quite strongly that it is still service for Am Yisroel.

Kol tuv,
Jay 

> This is a well-known phenomenon, known as metathesis, which occurs in many 
> languages.  The examples that come to mind immediately are kevess-kessev 
> and adrikhal-ardikhal.  The latter is probably more applicable to your 
> question, because of its clear foreign source.

Of course, an even more common example of the letter-shift in Hebrew is
in the binyan hitpael, when the first letter of the shoresh is shin or
tzadi (hishtalem, hitztalem, etc.).

Shlomo Godick

At 01:54 PM 5/20/01 -0400, Jay G Spero wrote:
>So why did none of the poskim then change their psak to reflect the
>situation? ...
>                      I would be very surprised if Dayan Waldenberg sent
>his children to sheirut l'eumi. There are other ways of doing service in
>Eretz Yisroel besides the state created programs and apparently, many
>gedolim feel quite strongly that it is still service for Am Yisroel.

I agree with the post, but just for the record, the TE only has one son, no 
daughters, and his son is a Moreh Horo'oh for the Edah Charedis.

From: Eli Linas [mailto:linaseli@netvision.net.il]
> Furthermore, a strategy that a lot of the yungerleit in my kollel promoted 
> was taking maiser and giving it to your chevrusa, who would, in turn, give 
> his to you. That way, everyone was yotzei, and no one "lost out." So what's 
> wrong with doing that?

If we analogize to US tax law, such an arrangement would not qualify as
charitable deduction because there is a quid pro quo--he is giving you only
if you give him.  At the end of the day, each of you is in the same
situation.  Moreover, if you're giving by check (which after all is just a
shtar chov--a promise to pay), all you've done is exchange promises to pay
and then your banks didn't even bother moving the funds (because the two
promises cancelled each other out).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In a message dated Mon, 21 May 2001 10:39:44am EDT, Gershon Dubin
<gershon.dubin@juno.com> writes:
> Not clear why shomrei shevi'is are less deserving of support because o
> who they are. Would you tell a poor person to have bitachon and to help
> him in that regard, you refuse to give him tzedaka? Why is this different?

Any sources on the chiyuv to give tzedaka to one who refuses to support
themselves (this is a big issue in the US wrt welfare - the requirement
that recipients make themselves available for employment in certain
circumstances)

KT
Joel

In a message dated Mon, 21 May 2001 10:39:55am EDT, "Yitzchok Willroth"
<willroth@jersey.net> writes:
> Either way, why isn't my directing part of my chiuv ma'aser toward
> shomer shvi'it considered a fulfillment of the brocha? If one recognizes
> that their earnings are not a result of their own talents and efforts,
> rather a manifestation of the beneficence of the Ribbono Shel Olam,
> it seems obvious, to me, that this hishtadlus is, in fact, "allowing
> the Ribono Shel Olam to suport them".

Another interesting question, R' Moshe has a tshuva regarding the
priorities in tzedaka where he says that those brought down in the S"A
are only for gabbai tzedaka but that individuals have tovat hanna and can
give where they please. Why wouldn't an individual choose to be guided
by the priorities that the s"a lays out (even if you understand them as
being for gabbaim)?

Has this allocation issue been a subject of daat torah in prior
generations or now (ie here's the % that should go to Yeshivot,
gmach's....)?

KT
Joel

From: Yitzchok Willroth [mailto:willroth@jersey.net]
> Either way, why isn't my directing part of my chiuv ma'aser toward
> shomer shvi'it considered a fulfillment of the brocha? 

Pashut pshat in the pasuk is that the bracha occurs during the *sixth* year
so that the field grows enough grain for three years.  Receiving tzedakah is
l'chorah not a fulfillment of the bracha.

> If one recognizes
> that their earnings are not a result of their own talents and efforts,
> rather a manifestation of the beneficence of the Ribbono Shel Olam,
> it seems obvious, to me, that this hishtadlus is, in fact, "allowing
> the Ribono Shel Olam to suport them".

No doubt, that is our concept of tzedakah--the poor man is being supported
by Hashem granting wealth to the rich man.  I thought that shmittah was
different (see above).  Presumably, during the time of the first Beis
Hamikdash, there was no need for a keren sh'vi'is.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Shlomo Godick wrote on Areivim:
>I remember learning that the principle of "mutav sh'yihyu shog'gim v'al 
>yihyu m'zidim" applies only to mitzvos d'rabbanan, but for mitzvos 
>d'oraisoh one must inform the offender of his wrongdoing. Or perhaps that 
>is only for mitzvos lo taaseh?

The gemara in Beitzah 30a says befeirush that it also applies to de'oraisahs 
because tosefes Yom Kippur is de'oraisah.  See the Ran there that we say 
mutav sheyihyu... on mitzvos that are not mefurash in the Torah, which is 
how the Rema paskens in Orach Chaim 608:2.

Gil Student

To be posted soon on the Dor Revi'i website
www.dorrevii.org
www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4

In the Talmud (Kiddushin 31b) it is written:

Ulla Rabbah presented the following discourse at doorstep of the house
of the prince: That which is written (Pslams 138:4): "All the kings of
the earth shall praise thee, O L-rd, for they have heard the words of Thy
mouth" (yodukha ha-Sheim kol malkhei eretz ki sham'u imrei phikha). The
Scripture does not say "the word of Thy mouth" (ma'amar pikha) but
"the words of Thy mouth" (imrei phikha). At the moment that the Holy
One Blessed Be He said: "I am the L-rd thy G-d" and "Thou shalt have no
other gods before Me," the nations of the world said that He seeks only
His own glory. But as soon as He said "Honor thy father and thy mother,"
they recanted and praised Him for His earlier words.

Whoever has studied the history of the world has learned about the
great and fierce wars that were waged between nations concerning faith
and religion. Many powerful nations have been destroyed without a trace
as a result of religious bigotry. Faith has claimed many victims; the
number killed is staggering. And who does not know of the great storm
that was created in the midst of the world when the Christian faith arose
and they desired to bring all the inhabitants of the world beneath the
covenant of their faith. They attacked any nation or kingdom that did
not bow its head before them to accept and adhere to their faith and
left no survivors. For countless years they turned the entire globe into
a killing field. Not until recent years did the earth rest and become
quiet from the blows of her heavy hand.

So therefore when G-d descended upon Mount Sinai to give the holy religion
to the people of Israel, all the nations of the world were frightened and
they were seized by trembling because they thought that the adherents
of this new religion would resolve to extend with all their might the
boundaries of their faith bringing many nations under the yoke of the
new religion by waging war for the sake of G-d and the glory of Israel.
And this is also the opinion of the Midrash.

As soon as the nations of the world heard the voices, they all gathered
together with Balaam. They said to him, "it seems to us that the
Omnipresent intends to destroy the world." He replied, "the Eternal gives
strength to His people, the Eternal will bless His people with peace."

The opinion of the Midrash is that the people of the earth feared for
their lives on account of the Children of Israel, inheritors of the
new religion, lest they wage war against them in a quest to force all
the nations to accept the covenant of the Torah and its commandments.
They feared that the earth would be destroyed because of the ensuing
(violent storm) and a violent war. Balaam answered that although their
aspiration was to illuminate the night and to fill up the entire earth
with knowledge so that the Eternal would be an everlasting light and so
that all the kings of the earth would praise Him, however His way was not
with power and not with might but with the Spirit of the L-rd of Hosts.
And the words of the sages will be spoken pleasantly until all the peoples
of the earth will see that the name of the Eternal is called upon them
and they will all turn their shoulders together to worship Him. And His
people will perform their task with knowledge, and wisdom, in peace and
in tranquility. And so Balaam said: "The Eternal will give strength to
His people to glorify His name throughout the world, but nevertheless
they will not wage war, for the Eternal will bless His people with peace."

And this explains well what the Eternal said to them when He gave them
the Torah. "And you shall keep My covenant and you will be a treasure
unto Me from all the nations, for all the land is Mine." For if the
children of Israel will observe the Torah they will be a treasure unto
the Eternal forever, even when the time comes that "all the land is Mine"
and all the nations will proclaim the name of the Eternal and He alone
will be exalted. Even then, the Children of Israel will be more precious
to the Eternal than any of the other nations of the world, because "you
will be unto Me a kingdom of priests" (mamlekhet kohanim). For just as
the priests stand at the head of the nation to illuminate the path upon
which the nation should travel, so, too, must the Children of Israel
illuminate the whole world and its inhabitants. Many peoples shall walk
in their light and many nations in their radiance. And how will their
words bear fruit and have their desired effect in extracting what is
precious from those who are greedy and in transforming that which is
impure into that which is pure? By being "a holy nation" (v'goi qadosh).
If Israel will sanctify themselves to be holy unto the Eternal, so that
all the nations of the world will see that the name of the Eternal is
proclaimed upon them, then the nations will have reverence for them, as
it is written (Leviticus 26:3): "and reverence my sanctuary" (u-mikdashi
tira'u), which is to say, the reverence of honor (yir'at ha-kavod).
In this way the words of Israel will strike a chord in the heart of all
the nations, but not by means of war or force or might.

Now we all know that a man who is solitary and does not value the pure
life that a man lives with his family and his household, but who separates
himself from his family and the house of his father, a man who does not
share in their distress and does not take pleasure in their joy, we know
that such a man will very easily and willingly prepare himself for war and
to throw his life away on the battlefield for any cause great or small.
Neither drawn sword nor fear of death will deter him from fighting with a
mighty arm. Nothing will subdue his spirit, because, being alone, he will
place no value on his own life. By himself, what is he and what is life?
Not so is the man whose life is tied with bonds of love to his mother
and father and to his family and whose whole life is focused on them.
He will not lift up his soul to fight for his land and his people, or
for his faith and his religion, because his heart will tremble within him
for the lives of his household whose eyes are upon him. His spirit and
his soul and all his thoughts are completely devoted to his parents and
his family, so how will he clothe himself in strength to raise his sword
to smite his enemies? For will not the ones beloved of his soul who are
so precious to him pull him back with emotional ties, just as he, too,
yearns for them? So how will his hand be able to draw the bow of the
mighty? Will not those whom his soul craves rob him of self-confidence
and courage on the battlefield? There is nothing more certain than that
such a man is not a man of war and he will not succeed in battle, because
he will love peace so that he can be tranquil and serene in his home and
at peace in his dwelling place ensconced in the love of his household,
his family, and his parents. And through their love he will grow always,
in the days of their joy and happiness as well as in the days of their
sadness and heartbreak, for good or for ill.

Now when the Eternal commanded: "Honor thy father and thy mother,"
which is the cornerstone of the life of the House of Israel -- that
every man should live with his family in the house of his father (and
the rabbis also infer from the extra words "et avikha v'et imekha" that
one must also love and cling to his brothers and sisters as he does his
own soul) -- He showed that He does not wish to reign with a strong hand.
The Eternal did not want the Children of Israel go out with a sword and
spear to fight a holy war for the sake of their faith, to subdue the
nations with a mighty arm and force them through the sword of war to
submit to their faith. Rather the Israelites were to go in the spirit
of justice and in the spirit of wisdom and understanding, for they were
not men of war and conflict.

And the words of the Midrash are now seven times as bright as the sun.
For at first when the Eternal said: "I am the L-rd thy G-d" and "Thou
shalt have no other gods before Me," the nations of the world said that
the Eternal seeks only His own glory and the Israelites will go out
with a high hand to wage war for their faith. However, when He said
"Honor thy father and thy mother," the nations understood that if the
Israelites will act accordingly and every man will live with his family
in the house of his father, then they will not wage war successfully
and they are not a people of conflict and contention that are eager to
do battle. In this way the anxiety of the nations was quieted and they
recanted and praised Him for His original words.

And our master has found a confirmation of his interpretation in the
Midrash to poroshat Naso (Numbers Rabbah ) where the substance of the
same derivation is presented in a different version:

When the Holy One Blessed Be He gave the Torah to Israel and He said:
"I am the L-rd thy G-d," the kings of the world said, "This One is just
like me. Which king wants another one to contradict him? When He said,
"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me," they repeated what they had
said before, and so did they also when He said, "Thou shalt not take
the name of the L-rd thy G-d in vain," and when He said, "Remember the
Sabbath day and keep it holy." But when He said, "Honor thy father and
they mother," they said, "it is our custom that whoever becomes a deputy
to the king must reject his parents, but This One proclaims "honor thy
father and thy mother." They then got up from their thrones and praised
Him on this account.

And does this version of the Midrash not explicitly confirm the words
of our master above concerning its proper interpretation?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

I think that additional causes for concern about the campaign to put
tefillin on anyone (males presumably) who answers in the affirmative when
asked 'Are you Jewish?' on the street of an American city (or NYC) are

1) Tefillin have special kedusha - they require a) a guf noki and
also b) machshova nikia (forgive me if the expression is incorrect
grammatically). If someone doesn't have these, they are not supposed to
(perhaps not allowed is more accurate) wear them. Therefore, there could
be problems when there is a push to put them on anyone who says they
are Jewish off the street.....

2) I thought of another concern - It is possible that some people who
are actually not Yehudim lihalocho might answer affirmatively when asked
'Are you Jewish?' - e.g. their father may be Jewish but not their mother
(who could be either a non-converted non-Jew or one without 'giyur
kihalocho'). If tefillin would be put on them, would that not be a
significant problem?

Tangent - If a nochri puts on tefillin (ch"v [?]), what exact
issur(im?) is he oveir and what would be the onesh (in a cse /time /
under conditions when onshin were dispensed) ? Being that tefillin is /
are an 'os' , it may not be a light matter - just like the gemara says
that aku"m sheshovas is chayav misa WRT Shabbos which is also an 'os'
(based on the posuk 'beini uvein bnei yisroel os hi liolom I believe) -
so might tefillin be somewhat similar (at least) in that way, being that
it is also called 'os' even though, AFAIK, the posuk doesn't say 'beini
unvein bnei yisroel.....' when calling tefillin 'os', very explicitly
making it an exclusive relationship.....?

Mordechai

Joel Rish wrote:
> Any sources on the chiyuv to give tzedaka to one who refuses to support 
> themselves (this is a big issue in the US wrt welfare - the requirement that 
> recipients make themselves available for employment in certain circumstances)
     
I have never looked into this, but the Commentator once quoted R. Hershel 
Schachter regarding one particular beggar, who was capable of working but 
refused, that there is no mitzvah to give him tzedakah.  The Commentator has 
been known to make mistakes before and I never confirmed this.  Actually, I 
later asked another rav who could not understand the statement.

Gil Student

On 21 May 2001, at 14:36, Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
> 1) Tefillin have special kedusha - they require a) a guf noki and
> also b) machshova nikia (forgive me if the expression is incorrect
> grammatically). If someone doesn't have these, they are not supposed to
> (perhaps not allowed is more accurate) wear them. Therefore, there could
> be problems when there is a push to put them on anyone who says they
> are Jewish off the street.....

AIUI, guf naki referes to bodily functions. I think it's unlikely that 
someone having difficulty controlling their bodily functions would be 
wandering the streets. As to machshava n'kiya, from what I recall, 
the drive was to put tfillin on for about long enough to say Shma, 
which is what they did with them. Given that saying Shma was not 
easy for these people, I think it unlikely that they had time to really 
have a machshava that was not n'kiya either. 

> 2) I thought of another concern - It is possible that some people who
> are actually not Yehudim lihalocho might answer affirmatively when asked
> 'Are you Jewish?' - e.g. their father may be Jewish but not their mother
> (who could be either a non-converted non-Jew or one without 'giyur
> kihalocho'). If tefillin would be put on them, would that not be a
> significant problem?

Why? 

> Tangent - If a nochri puts on tefillin (ch"v [?]), what exact
> issur(im?) is he oveir and what would be the onesh (in a cse /time /
> under conditions when onshin were dispensed) ? Being that tefillin is /
> are an 'os' , it may not be a light matter - just like the gemara says
> that aku"m sheshovas is chayav misa WRT Shabbos which is also an 'os'
> (based on the posuk 'beini uvein bnei yisroel os hi liolom I believe) -
> so might tefillin be somewhat similar (at least) in that way, being that
> it is also called 'os' even though, AFAIK, the posuk doesn't say 'beini
> unvein bnei yisroel.....' when calling tefillin 'os', very explicitly
> making it an exclusive relationship.....?

If the nochri doesn't have kavana to wear tfillin as an os, why is that 
a problem? The Gemara says that a nochri who keeps Shabbos is 
chayav misa, but that implies that he has to do it for the sake of 
keeping Shabbos. If a nochri drinks a cup of wine (and is 
technically making Kiddush by doing so in the day time), does that 
mean he is chayav misa? If he doesn't turn on lights all of Shabbos 
because he doesn't feel like it, is he chayav misa? If not, why are 
tfillin any different? 

-- Carl

Carl M. Sherer, Adv.           Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751 Fax 972-2-625-0461 eFax (US) 1-253-423-1459
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il             mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]