quote:

Originally posted by Sam-:
[
You still haven't say what the problem is, all you said is that "there is a question about keeping the money". Is the money impure?

i don't believe that i stated anything about money being tomei.
money by it's nature has value. if it is used for torah, mitzvos, maasim tovim and simcha then it is part and parcel to the schus of those things.
if it is used for avairos, and simcha from things that are avairadig; it can be part and parcel to that as well.
i do not have a source for this (nor am i looking for one). it is an opinion.

I didn't mean "impure" i meant to say - forbidden. Thank you MK, now I understand the issue.

Quote "In such a case, are they worn with their covers of whatever type?

Or are the covers left where the tefillin were found abandoned?"

The boxes are not brought, since that wouldn’t be wearing but carrying. Also, they only were Meikel because the T’feilin is in a disgraced way. The boxes we’re not in this Heter.

Quote LS "3. As for moving tefillin on shabbat in the public domain, there are other opinions in the gemara."

I think there is no argument here. There is an argument if only one pair or two. There are instances where you don’t bring it in, if there is no straps or there is a bundle of them or there was a Shmad not to be caught with T’filin.

Quote "1. Poskim in Israel (Rav Kook, Eretz Chemdah) today say do only one day regardless of where you are going or coming. The talmud and rishonim are clear that no one ever did two days in Israel and it is a chumrah from after the time of shulchan aruch and violates the principal of separating oneself from the tzibur. "

Why should this be different than any Minhag (which 2nd day YT is "Minhag Avaseihem Biyadeihem") that if you plan to return to your hometown, you have the Chumras of your hometown and the town you’re staying in?

"Wearing Tefilin on Yom Tov is not a Milacha. Many Shitos held that one can wear it on Shabbos as long as you don’ t go outside (maybe you’ ll need to use the facilities and you’ ll take it off and carry 4 Amos in the public domain)"

Rav Chaim,

Rav Kook implies |Orah Hayim| 31, which invlolves "|bal tosiyf|," does not pertain to |yom tov sheni|.
Public violation presents, however, questions of |hillul hashem| and more importantly, "|lo titgodidu|." Latter is the |lav| that private transgression (a) does not effect and (b) brings no reason for suspending an |aseh|.

Shalom Pollack

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
Quote "Answer: such represents, where given community accustoms contrarily, |iysur de-orayta|; secret transgression won't! So donning phylacteries solitarily, one Scriptural junction, remains valid!"

Wearing Tefilin on Yom Tov is not a Milacha. Many Shitos held that one can wear it on Shabbos as long as you don’t go outside (maybe you’ll need to use the facilities and you’ll take it off and carry 4 Amos in the public domain)

Even the Bais yosef, who from the newly discovered Zohar, which was very strong about not wearing tefilin (because it’s a slight to Shabbos, since your making it look like weekday) would not claim it to be a Melacha D’Oraisah.

Everyone holds, that if you find Tefilin abandon in the street, you don it to bring it to safety (as per the Mishna in the beginning of the tenth Perek of Eiruvin.

Conclusion: We still don’t see anybody who allows a Melacha of Shabbos to be done from the Torah in private.

I still don’t understand.

Quote"Public violation presents, however, questions of |hillul hashem| and more importantly, "|lo titgodidu|." Latter is the |lav| that private transgression (a) does not effect and (b) brings no reason for suspending an |aseh|.

Since you’re not doing it in public, then there is no mixture of laws, so there is no Lav of LoSisgodidu. But something that the actual action is the Issur, like that of Shabbos, that we don’t find any difference between doing in public or private.

Rav Chaim,

Feedback correct. Now please understand my analogy.
A |lav| is a |lav|: "|Lo titgodidu|" can be equated with |hillul shabbat|; "the middle of nowhere as far as a Jewish commnuity" parallels |melakha beseyter|. May questionable |pikuah nefesh| resemble, in such an instance, |tefillin| of one |ben Eretz Yisrael| on |yom tov sheni|?
Would BatYisrael's heter have, therefore, more power if she stays put?


Shalom Pollack

I don't think it's a good parallel. Lo Tisgodidu is by nature only if you are practicing "together" in a different way. Doing it in private is like doing it in Chutz L'Aretz, which is no problem.

It's like parelling Shabbos to Shatnez. You're allowed to do Malacha on Tuesday, so you should be allowed to wear Shatnez on Tuesday. But the difference is that the essence of forbidin Malachos are only on SHabbos, so you can't compare it to any other Lav. SO the essence of Lo Tisgodidu is also when done together, so it cannot be done with any Lav.

I agree that if someone will do an Aveirah, better do it in private, but it doesn't make it into a Heter. And if there is a Heter of Pikuach Nefesh, then it doesn't make a difference who it was done in front of.

Rav Chaim,

Key factor is balancing individual |heter| against collective |hillul hashem|.
"Baal tosiyf" represents, with |ben-hul|'s tefillin, a problem; that has no relation to |benei eretz Yisrael| (|be-yom tov sheni|). How are those two reconciled?
Latter may, when traveling abroad, don privately; communal custom will, therefore, stay sacrosanct. This resembles children, permitted food during Yom Kippur, where their congregation remains restricted. They should refrain from eating publicly.
Places having few Jews resemble |be-seyter|. That's why I suggest Bat Yisrael, permitted anyway lenience regarding sabbath*, remain.
Perhaps you also don't understand feelings arisen when one observant doctor, black hat and all, finds himself driving, down Borough Park's 13th Ave, on shabbat. Such an advantage might it prove not being "in the stream of things."

Shalom Pollack


*|Igrot Moshe|,|Orah Hayim| 4, 79, et al.; |Minhat Yitzhak| 1, 53.

quote:

Perhaps you also don't understand feelings arisen when one observant doctor, black hat and all, finds himself driving, down Borough Park's 13th Ave, on shabbat. Such an advantage might it prove not being "in the stream of things."

What guidance was given to the famous rabbi who had the opportunity to drive on Shabbos for an audience with someone in Washington DC in an attempt to save Yidden from the Holocaust? Was he advised to in any way make his hat or Jewish dress less apparent?

Are regular Yidden in the event of a Shabbos trip to the birth ward advised to minimize their dress?

While we never had the opportunity to have a Shabbos delivery, it seemed to be a strong possibility. I understood the rule to keep the engine running once at the hospital since there was no longer any life-saving reason to perform the malacha of turning off the engine. But I wasn't sure without an eruv or overhang how to carry sleeping or not-yet-walking siblings into the hospital.

To the degree that I might have had to explain to a hospital security guard what was going on with our car left running I think that having visible signs of likely religiosity would be helpful. Anyone seeing a very pregnant Jewishly-dressed woman driving in a car on Shabbos would probably recognize what's going on.


Also, I understand that for a mohel to perform a Bris on Shabbos there are some extra leniencies regarding carrying his tools in his ... bris-kit. In any discussions about these halachos, are there any recommendations for making it obvious what he is carrying and why in case his looks or style of dress would raise eyebrows?


I heard a story in my family of a mohel who did perform a bris on Shabbos, and the father was particularly impressed that the mohel did his work only for the mitzvah, would not accept money. Apparently it is not only for Shabbos Brisim that this was the case. At the time I was unable to ask the mohel about these matters.

Quote ""Baal tosiyf" represents, with |ben-hul|'s tefillin, a problem; that has no relation to |benei eretz Yisrael| (|be-yom tov sheni|). How are those two reconciled? "

I don’t think this really represents a problem. Why would there be Baal Tosef for Teffilin, which everyone agrees that on that day it’s D’oraisah to put it on. The only thing, in Chutz L’Aretz, the D’rabanan of a second day pushes off the D’oraisah of putting them on with a Shev V’Al Taaseh (by being passive.) But in reality, by wearing T’filin he’s not adding to the Mitzvah but rather he’s doing the Mitzvah.

Quote "Perhaps you also don't understand feelings arisen when one observant doctor, black hat and all, finds himself driving, down Borough Park's 13th Ave, on shabbat. Such an advantage might it prove not being "in the stream of things." "

On the contrary, If he’s doing it for Pikuach Nefesh, then he’s no worse than the Hazolah guy driving in his ambulance. I think it’s known Pikuach Nefesh, so I don’t think that anybody would think anything of it.

I not sure how you’re proving your point from the Igros moshe. (I don’t have a Minchas Yitzchok to see what he says)

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
Quote ""Baal tosiyf" represents, with |ben-hul|'s tefillin, a problem; that has no relation to |benei eretz Yisrael| (|be-yom tov sheni|). How are those two reconciled? "

I don’t think this really represents a problem. Why would there be Baal Tosef for Teffilin, which everyone agrees that on that day it’s D’oraisah to put it on. The only thing, in Chutz L’Aretz, the D’rabanan of a second day pushes off the D’oraisah of putting them on with a Shev V’Al Taaseh (by being passive.) But in reality, by wearing T’filin he’s not adding to the Mitzvah but rather he’s doing the Mitzvah.

Quote "Perhaps you also don't understand feelings arisen when one observant doctor, black hat and all, finds himself driving, down Borough Park's 13th Ave, on shabbat. Such an advantage might it prove not being "in the stream of things." "

On the contrary, If he’s doing it for Pikuach Nefesh, then he’s no worse than the Hazolah guy driving in his ambulance. I think it’s known Pikuach Nefesh, so I don’t think that anybody would think anything of it.

I not sure how you’re proving your point from the Igros moshe. (I don’t have a Minchas Yitzchok to see what he says)

Rav Chaim,

Let's reiterate: our |de-oraytata| problems which |yom tov sheni| presents are, for a |ben eretz yisrael|, |hillul hashem| as well as "|Lo Titgodidu|." An individual may breach these by donning publicly because such separates him from local juridicial ruling; he does follow, thereby, an admixture of laws.
(See |Mishna Breurah| on |Orah Hayim| 31 about "|baal tosiyf|" relating to |benei hul|).
|Hillul hashem| is also |lo taaseh|; we needn't say how it violates that.

Shalom Pollack

Quote "An individual may breach these by donning publicly because such separates him from local juridicial ruling; he does follow, thereby, an admixture of laws"

That’s my point, that Lo Sisgodidu only applies when you’re doing it together with the community, but when you do it privately, it’s not that you have a Lo Sisgodidu in private, you don’t have Lo Sisgodidu at all. That’s why it’s different than Shabbos, that if you are Michalel Shabbos in private, it’s still Chilul Shabbos.

Quote "See |Mishna Breurah| on |Orah Hayim| 31 about "|baal tosiyf|" relating to |benei hul|)."

I would imagine your referring to over there when you put on T’filin on Chol Hamoed when your Minhag is like those that say there is no obligation to put it on on Chal Hamoed. In our case by Bnai Chutz L’Aretz is different. On Chal Hamoed, there is no Mitzvah from the Torah to put in on, so by putting it on for a Mitzvah is Bal Tosef. By Ben Chutz L’Aretz, there is still a mitzvah from the Torah to put it on (since the 2nd day is only Midarabanan) so why would there be Bal Tosef.

The MB also says there if you have Kavana not to be Yoitzeh, there is no Baal Tosef, so even if it applies over here, there would still be no problem to put them on with Kavana not to be Yoitzeh.

Rav Chaim,

(A)"|Lo titgodidu|" is still a |lav|; this always has implications for secret as well as open transgression. My intent was that, privately, such (like any other negative) can be just |de-rabanan|. Who says you don't have it, at all, if not breached publicly?
(B)See "|Ve-yom tov|" in |Mishna Breurah| (OH 31,1). This does not refer to |hol ha-moed|. Main point regarding individual |benei Eretz Yisrael| is, however, item A.

Shalom Pollack

Quote "A)"|Lo titgodidu|" is still a |lav|; this always has implications for secret as well as open transgression."

No it’s not. Who are you being making Agudos with if it’s by yourself?

Quote "My intent was that, privately, such (like any other negative) can be just |de-rabanan|. Who says you don't have it, at all, if not breached publicly?"

OK, I’ll prove it to you (Even though I feel there is no real reason to prove it, just like I don’t feel I need to prove that these Averos weren’t given only when someone is jumping on the back of a Gorilla)

For, a D’rabanon, you wouldn’t bring a Chatos. The Gemarah in Shabbos 68a says that a Ger that converts among all non-jews, (so he never learnt of Shabbos) when he finally learns about it, he brings one Chatos for all the years that he transgressed Shabbos. If it would be true that in private he never transgressed a D’oraisah, he shouldn’t bring any Chatos.

Second proof.

The Gemarah in Sanhedrin 43b talks about when the rest of Klal Yisrael gets punished for someone else did in private (Hanistaros LaHAshem) (even if one person knows, it's not considered private anymore, as says in the Sugya.) But for the sinner, he’s certainly transgressed, it’s only a question if we’re responsible for him. But according to you, there are no sins that are done in private.

"That’ s my point, that Lo Sisgodidu only applies when you’ re doing it together with the community, but when you do it privately, it’ s not that you have a Lo Sisgodidu in private, you don’ t have Lo Sisgodidu at all. That’ s why it’ s different than Shabbos, that if you are Michalel Shabbos in private, it’ s still Chilul Shabbos."

Another answer:
|Rishoniym| (like the |Rash|) hold a |ben Eretz Yisrael| is barred |melakha| on |yom tov sheni| but, nonetheless, required |tefillin|-- privately only.
Were we to say "|Lo titgodidu|" always has applications only in public, then why can't any other work, done privately, be permitted?
Were we to say it's |de-orayta| everywhere, then how could |tefillin| (an |aseh|) outweigh that?

This writer thinks |Orah Mishpat| (viewing solitary breaches as |de-rabanan|) solves, quite well, our problem-- with respect for your disagreement.

Shalom Pollack

quote:

Originally posted by Shalom Pollack:
Another answer:
|Rishoniym| (like the |Rash|) hold a |ben Eretz Yisrael| is barred |melakha| on |yom tov sheni| but, nonetheless, required |tefillin|-- privately only.
Were we to say "|Lo titgodidu|" always has applications only in public, then why can't any other work, done privately, be permitted?

I'm not sure that Lo Titgodidu applies to melacha in private on Yom Tov Sheini (like your first answer).

Yisroel,

Thanks for your interest. Please check the quotes before commenting.


Shalom Pollack

Shalom,

I have checked your quotes. In fact I have taken the trouble to read through all your postings on this topic and I have not come away with any clear idea of what you are saying.

For example, you have still not answered Rav Chaim's objection to your statement that a Melacha B'Tzina (in private) on Shabbos is an Issur D'Rabbanan only.

It is also, in the light of your comment to me, unclear what you actually were saying in the message I was commenting on. Do you say that "Lo Titgodidu" applies in private as well as in public or not?

Finally, I think it would help to be able to read your messages if you could leave out the vertical lines from the Hebrew words.