Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 002

Friday, March 15 2002

• Re:RE: "Banecha KiShtilei Zeitim"?
• Re: "Banecha KiShtilei Zeitim"?
• RE: RE: "Banecha KiShtilei Zeitim"?
• Rav Henkin s views on adoption
• Re: Rav Henkin s views on adoption
• Re: Does a talmid chacham have a yetzer hora?
• Re: haGR"A on the yetzer hora of tamidei chachomim, etc. - elaboration
• Re: Rav Henkin s views on adoption
• Re: newspapers on Shabbat
• re: newspapers on Shabbat
• Re: Segulos
• Re: what we daven for?
• SE on ubilvad sheyichavein libo
• RE: Does a talmid chacham have a yetzer hora?
• Re: Haftara on Yom Ha'Atzma'ut
• Re: Rav Henkin s views on adoption
• When did Mosheh write the Torah?
• Opening Packages on Shabbos

[Conversation bounced from Areivim. B"H many of our Areivim conversations
have become increasingly Torahdik lately. -mi]

I posted that RMF was not fond of adoption of gentile children, and then
converting them, and that in his POV this was done out for the parents'
interests, not the childs or lesheim mitzvah. I may have failed to specify
sufficiently that we are talking about adopting gentile children, which
is, OTOH and as I already posted, permissible (assuming an observant
couple so that there is no safek geirut, etc.).

Additionally, I should have posted that although there is no mitzvah
to adopt gentile children, there is a mitzvah to adopt Jewish children
in need of a loving and caring home (assuming you can provide such an
environment). However, this fact is almost irrelevant to the anonymous
poster, as that mitzvah is contingent not merely upon those who are
childless, but also upon everybody else, married and not married, provided
there are no conflicts with other halakhot. ('Hashad in the case of a
single person adopting a teenager of the opposit gender is one example,
I think.)

Indeed, this list is blessed with a number of individuals who have
adorned klal Yisrael with their efforts in this matter.

Arie Folger (who is not praising himself in the closing line of the post).

On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 05:32:52PM -0500, Arie Folger wrote:
: Additionally, I should have posted that although there is no mitzvah to adopt 
: gentile children...

I do not believe this is always true.

Are you saying there is no mitzvah in adopting a "border baby" -- a child
abandoned by his mother to become a border in a hospital? Saving a human
(albeit non-Jewish) child from being raised by a system rather than a
loving home is not an act of chessed?

Or all those baby girls in China who are abandoned at birth because the
gov't only allow their parents one child, and girls don't carry on the
family line. Giving one of them a home is not an act of chessed?

People adopt out of love for a child, or love for the idea of having a
child. Not as a chessed project. True whether the child is an Amerasian
from Korea or a chassidishe baby with Downs. In any case you'd be judging
the act for its side effect.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

It might be helpful to ask Rabbi Henkin to post his grandfather's shita
on adoption.

From: Stuart Klagsbrun <SKlagsbrun@agtnet.com>
> It might be helpful to ask Rabbi Henkin to post his grandfather's shita on
> adoption.

The 2nd volume (p. 98/9) of Rav Henkins sefer has 2 short tshuvos on
adoptions. It is quite clear that he is against the adoption of non-Jewish
children. (Generally he isn't overly sympathetic to accepting even adult
geirim.) Ayin shom leshono.

He writes that the 'derech hakosher' is to be 'megadel' a Jewish orphan
whose yichus and kashrus is known.

BTW in the following tshuvo, Rav Henkin z'l comes out very strongly
against donor artificial insemination. And re another Areivim thread,
he writes that if someone cannot be mekayem mitzvas piryeh verivyeh,
he is 'onus rachmono potrei' and he recommeneds adoption of a kosher
meyuchesdigeh Jewish child.

SBA

On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 06:00:20PM +1100, SBA wrote:
: The 2nd volume (p. 98/9) of Rav Henkins sefer has 2 short tshuvos on
: adoptions....

RSBA's summary is much like the one R' Henkin emailed me. Here's what RYHH
(CC-ed) sent when I forwarded to him RSK's request to post something.
Included in RSK's request was a post of mine quoted in entirety, I think
he's addressing that more than Simcha.

From: "Rabbi Y.H.Henkin" <henkin@012.net.il>
To: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 21:53:20 +0200

Shalom,

In a world where there was no shortage of Jewish orphans from good
families, my grandfather z"l recommended a a couple raising such an orphan
and letting him know who his parents were when he grew older or, better
yet, from the start calling themselves "aunt' and "uncle" rather than
"mother" and "father." He strongly disapproved of adopting non-Jewish
children. See Teshuvot Ivra (Kitvei hGri"a Henkin vol. 2) no. 72 (2).

 From the fragment of the discussion attached to your e-mail message,
there seems to be a confusion between "mitzva" as a specific commandment
and as an amorphously praiseworthy act. In any case, in my opnion bet din
is under no obligation to convert anyone except in the case of a non-Jew
who persistently seeks to convert, which doesn't apply to children.. But
bet din can convert non-Jewish foundling children if it wants to. See Bnei
Banim II no. 36, which I wrote in reply to one rabbi's proposal to get
around the problem of whether or not zechut hi lo in order to carry out
mass conversion of non-Jewish adopted children in non-religious homes .

    With Torah blessings,
    Yehuda-Herzl Henkin

Ad kan RYHH.

Note that in the first paragraph RYHH describes a world that does not
exist. There is a shortage, probably has been since the early days after
WWII. I would agree that one should look for a Jewish child first, but
there are far fewer healthy Jewish newborns than parents looking to adopt.

How unhealthy or old of a Jewish child must we ask a couple to consider?

Why "from good families"? Should a mamzer be raised as a non-Jew or in a
non-frum home (and marry a non-mamzeres) because we don't want to share
his heartache two decades later?

In the 2nd paragraph, I simply can't understand the position. I do
not think that saving a non-Jewish child from neglect is merely an
"amorphously praiseworthy act", but is actually a chiyuv. Given our
limited resources, aniyei irecha (or amcha) kodemin, but often it's
not either-or.

But in any case, these children are foundlings. As opposed to a child
searched for by lawyer and newspaper ad.

I did not yet see your teshuva, however I see no way in which a a
conversion of adoptees by non-frum parents could be zochin lahem. Doesn't
beis din's apitrupusin help define why it's a zechus? Geirus without
having shomrei torah umitzvos as apitrupusin raising the child Jewish
is no favor to the child. Better to be an ehrlicher non-Jew than ketinoq
shenishba.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

Micha Berger wrote:
>Li nir'eh this answer to your question is the only way you /could/
>understand the ba'al haTanya. Otherwise tzaddikim would be born, not
>made. (Medrashim about Moshe as an infant aside, since they're generally
>considered problematic in this regard.)

I haven't been following this thread as closely as I should, perhaps,
but I was wondering how you would understand the Gur Aryeh on the first
posuk of Korach in the light of all this.  He says (IIRC) that a rasha
(refering to Korach) can not be born to a tzadik gamur (refering to
Ya'akov).  This implies that there is some difference in a persons
yetzer hara/yetzer tov due to birth/yichus.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
<daniel@cfd.ame.arizona.edu>		1130 North Mountain Ave.
Dept. of Aerospace & Mechanical		The University of Arizona
  Engineering				Tucson, AZ  85711

On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 01:02:14PM -0500, RaphaelIsaacs@aol.com wrote:
: Rav Matis Weinberg does not consider this a reasonable way of looking
: at the issue, for the following reasons:
: 1) If the Talmid Chochom's Yeitzer Tov:Yeitzer Hara ratio remains
: constant, then the maamar Chazal is rendered meaningless.

While I understand RMW's 2nd difficulty, I don't get this one.

The ma'amar chazal could be just that: that the tzaddiq's YhR increases
alongside his YhT *so that* the two stay in balance.

-mi

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> I did not yet see your teshuva, however I see no way in which a a
> conversion of adoptees by non-frum parents could be zochin lahem. Doesn't
> beis din's apitrupusin help define why it's a zechus? Geirus without
> having shomrei torah umitzvos as apitrupusin raising the child Jewish
> is no favor to the child. Better to be an ehrlicher non-Jew than ketinoq
> shenishba.

Shalom,

I disagreed with that rabbi's proposal. However, its Halachic basis
was that when a non-Jew wishes to convert together with his young
children, zechut hi lo is not required. Zechut hi lo is only needed
to establish presumed consent, and when the father also converts, the
Gemara's assumption is that the child wants to do what his father does,
whether or not it is zechut for him. This could apply also to any Jewish
father of a non-Jewish child (the mother is non-Jewish): the child would
want to convert in order to be Jewish like his father. It might also be
applicable when a Jewish couple adopts a non-Jewish child, particularly
if the child doesn't know that he is adopted. The question of zechut is
thus circumvented.

    With Torah blessings,
    Yehuda H. Henkin

> A totally different question is whether newspapers fall under the
> prohibition against reading shtarei hedyotos, are in the spirit of
> Shabbos, or - can I say it without seeming like a kannai? - bittul Torah.

I don't disagree with most of your points (and I don't doubt that there
are better ways to spend shabbos than reading a newspaper), but, just
to nitpick:

I don't know that reading a newspaper *necessarily* constitutes bittul
Torah anymore than taking a nap or shmoozing with friends constitutes
bittul Torah. R' Reisman often quotes a Ramoh who says that, if one
enjoys "shmoozing," then one can shmooze on Shabbos and this will fall
into the category of oneg shabbos.

KT
Aryeh

See Orach Chaim 307:13 re: issur of reading iggrot shalom and 307:16
re: sichot chulin, sipurei milchamot, etc. Although the Rema (307:16)
indicated the issur was only on non-Hebrew material, most poskim disagreed
and indicated that also secular material written in Hebrew was also not
permitted to be read on Shabbat (see: Mishna Brura s"k 64 who brings
down many poskim [Aguda, TAZ, BACH,GRA] who forbade reading even secular
material in Hebrew).

However, the She'elat Yaavetz 162 permits reading even non-Hebrew secular
news as long as one doesn't read any commercial material (e.g. adverts)
or business matters, since reading news (about local wars, etc.) doesn't
fall into the rubric of "shitrei hedyotot".

So the Wall Street Journal would be assur but perhaps the front page of
the NY Times would be OK.

Josh

On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 11:05:13PM -0500, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: If a segulologist figured it out, then I have two choices: I can choose to
: suspect that the effect is due to some teva-dik principle which science
: has yet to discover. Or I can choose to believe that it is truly an
: upper-worldly phenomenon.

Yes, I did not figure the role of ignorance in preserving bechirah.

But my question was why segulos? Why leave around something that
when properly understood reduces bechirah? What is the offsetting
benefit?

On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 09:42:11AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: 2. The Ramban, the Zohar, and their associates: there is a continuum
: of natural -> supernatural law, and segulos are in the middle of the
: continuum.
...
: 3. There is radical discontinuity between the natural and the supernatural
: (above olam haasiyah), and the soul is part of the supernatural, as
: are segulos.

I get this idea from the Nefesh haChaim. That only man has connection
to kochos from all the olamos. That all other physical objects are
only connected to the kochos of Olam ha'Asiyah. He also says that each
of the four olamos have their own 10 sefiros -- also implying discontinuity
between the physical and each of the non-physical realms. He also derives
this from the same Zohar you write says otherwise.

However, my problem holds whether segulah is discretely different
than teva, or is simply further along a spectrum. My question would
then become about the need to create this spectrum, since the need for
causality can be satisfied by the teva end without introducing evidence
of higher existance.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 08:53:18PM -0500, RYGB wrote:
: In any event, it seems quite clear that we are davening over the Chillul 
: Hashem inherent in our oppression and suffering...

Very Nefesh haChaim, to say that the ultimate kavanah is for HQBH's
sake.

...
:                  'Twould seem that there must be some message conveyed
: to the praying person by those words he is praying, no?

Don't RSRH and RYGB give this as the primary tachlis of tefillah, and
the whole reason why "lehispallel" is in hitpa'el? I also understood
this to be the root of the Gra's chaqirah between tefillah and
tachanunim. (I'll save the chevrah from my posting it again.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

It's an interesting approach to effort and sechar. What happened to
lefum tza'ara?

I particularly think the SE is taking an approach found in the Moreh
(3:51) linking sechar not to the act, but to the da'as gained by the
act. Note the SE doesn;t quote the more famous "ublivad sheyichavein
libo lashamayim" and instead has "sheyichavein adam *da'ato* lashamayim"
(from the end of Menachos).

Sfas-Emes
Dr Jud Leff

Vayikra, 5631

The Sfas Emes begins the ma'amar by referring to the first Medrash Rabba
on Parshas Vayikra. That Medrash, in turn, starts with a comment by
R. Tanchum on the pasuk in Tehillim (103:20): "Borachu HaShem malachav,
giborei ko'ach, osei retzono, lishmo'ah bekohl devaro." (ArtScroll:
"Bless HaShem, O His angels; the strong warriors who do His bidding,
to obey the voice of His word.")

R. Tanchum asks: Who are the mal'achim ('angels', 'emissaries', 'agents')
that the pasuk has in mind? The pasuk cannot be referring to the celestial
mal'achim; for they are the subject of the next pasuk ("Borachu HaShem
kohl tzeva'av." ArtScroll: "Bless HaShem, all His legions, His servants
who do His will.") How do we know that this subsequent pasuk refers to
the celestial mal'achim? Because the pasuk refers to "all His legions"
-- "all" implying total compliance; i.e. compliance by the entirety of
the legions. And only of the celestial mal'achim can we speak of total
compliance with HaShem's commands. Rather, the first pasuk is referring
to mal'achim in the terrestrial sphere, i.e., to human beings who conduct
themselves as HaShem's agents in this world.

The Sfas Emes emphasizes that this is the reason we are sent to this
world -- to carry out HaShem's will. And to the degree that we make
all our actions manifestations of HaShem's presence, we too can become
mal'achim -- agents, with no agenda of our own.

You may wonder: Why do Chazal mention this topic in the context of the
first pasuk of Vayikra? I suggest the following answer. Moshe Rabbeinu
was the ultimate in this role, always ready to attend to retzon HaShem
(the will of HaShem). Where do we see Moshe Rabbeinu's constant, immediate
availability? In the first pasuk of Sefer Vayikra, where the Torah tells
us -- -- with no preamble or introduction -- "HaShem called Moshe... "
Apparently, Moshe was always there, ready to receive his next mission.

Note one "side effect" of Moshe's posture. Moshe Rabbeinu had ample
cause to be unhappy with his life. His children did not follow in his
footsteps. He knew for a fact that despite all of his efforts, B'nei
Yisroel would go off the derech, the path of righteousness prescribed by
HaShem. Last but not least, HaShem denied Moshe his prayer to enter Eretz
Yisroel. Despite these serious reverses, Moshe Rabbeinu does not come
across as a victim; indeed, not even as a tragic hero. I suggest that the
reason for his equanimity was precisely in the fact that Moshe Rabbeinu
had no ego of his own. Viewing himself totally as an agent to carry out
HaShem's will, he could separate himself from his personal desires.

The next portion of the ma'amar requires some background
information. Vayikra, 1:1-13 tells us, in connection with a korban olah
(an animal brought as a burnt offering): "Olah hu, isheh rei'ach nicho'ach
LaShem." (In G. Hirschler's translation of R. Shimshon Rafael Hirsch:
"It is an ascent offering, an offering made by fire as an expression of
compliance to HaShem.")

Similarly, if a person brings a much less expensive korban olah,
a turtle-dove, the Torah (Vayikra 1:17) uses the very same words to
describe HaShem's reaction (as it were): "Isheh rei'ach nicho'ach
LaShem." Likewise, in its discussion of the korban that a poor person
brings -- an offering of flour -- the Torah (Vayikra 2:2) uses the very
same words: "Isheh rei'ach nicho'ach LaShem."

These three korbanos involve very different financial costs. The fact
that, nevertheless, HaShem accepts each of these offerings in the same way
led Chazal to comment (in the last mishna in Menachos): "Echad hamarbeh,
ve'echad ha'mamit; ubilvad she'yechavein ahdam da'ato lashamyim." That
is, if people focus on serving HaShem, it does not matter whether in
their actions they do much or do less. They receive the same reward of
acceptance from HaShem in either case. The cosmic impact, so to speak,
is identical.

(Concerning the halachic implications of this mishna, speak to your
poseik. But before asking, note the powerful condition to qualify:
"ubilvad she'yechavein ahdam... " ("provided people focus on serving
HaShem... ") How often can I say that, when doing a mitzva, I was in
fact "mechavein da'ati...? " Saying the "Lesheim yichud kudsho" helps
sometimes, but not always.)

We continue with essential background information. The Shulchan Aruch
(Orach Chayim, Siman 1, Se'eef 4) discusses the recitation of Tikun
Chatzos (the special text to be said at midnight to plead with HaShem
for the ultimate redemption). Tikun Chatzos is not an easy text,
and perhaps for that reason the Shulchan Aruch states: "Tov me'aht
tachanunim bekavana mei'harbei shelo bekavana." ('It is better to say
fewer supplications with proper focus on what one is saying than to say
more without proper focus.')

This statement echoes our text of "Echad hamarbeh... " At which point,
the Taz, a commentary on the Shulchan Oruch, raises the question: Why
should the marbeh and the mamit receive the same reward? If both do the
mitzva with proper focus of serving HaShem, should not the person who
does more receive a greater reward? The question of the Taz reflects the
conventional reading of a standard implication into the text of "Echad
hamarbeh... " That is, that the person who does more has greater merit
than the person who does less.

The Sfas Emes reads the text entirely differently. In fact, one might
say that he turns the text on its head. (To this the Sfas Emes might
reply that he found the conventional reading of the text upside down,
and therefore he had to set it right.) Thus, the Sfas Emes asks: Why
should the one who does more receive as much reward as the person
who does less? Both have achieved the same desired result, namely,
to focus on serving HaShem. But the one whose input is smaller has
achieved this result more efficiently. By economizing on his input, he
has saved resources -- which are now left over and available for other
tasks. Shouldn't the more efficient person receive a greater reward?

This perspective is so unconventional that it may be hard to grasp. For
this reason, the Sfas Emes presents a parable to bring home what he is
saying. The parable tells us of two merchants from the same town, both of
whom have to travel to the same destination. One merchant arrives there
quickly; the other, only after long delay. When asked why he was so long
in arriving, that merchant replied: ' After all, I finally reached the
destination. Let's not discuss my problems in getting here!" In other
words, it is the one who invests the greater effort in achieving the
objective who -- rather than being lauded for his exertion -- would, but
for the text "Echad hamarbeh..." be expected to explain himself. At which
point come the comforting words of the Sfas Emes, telling us that the
purpose of our actions is "... she'yechavein... da'ato lashamayim." Thus,
provided we achieve the objective of the korban, it does not matter how
much we may have to strive to reach that objective.

The Sfas Emes continues with a new perspective on what that objective
is. He reads the word korban -- 'offering' -- as an allusion to the word
karov -- 'close'. Thus, he concludes with a reminder: that the objective
of our offerings is to bring ourselves closer to HaShem.

> I haven't been following this thread as closely as I should, perhaps,
> but I was wondering how you would understand the Gur Aryeh on the first
> posuk of Korach in the light of all this.  He says (IIRC) that a rasha
> (refering to Korach) can not be born to a tzadik gamur (refering to
> Ya'akov).  This implies that there is some difference in a persons
> yetzer hara/yetzer tov due to birth/yichus.

However, I have never seen the opposite said [that a tzaddik cannot be
born from a rasha], and we know that this is not so from both Avraham
Avinu and more so from Rachel and Leah. We learned that it is not
the yichus, it is the origin of the neshama; in other words there are
neshamos of different levels and davka sometimes a very exalted neshama
must be born to a no-goodnik to get it into this world.

---Rena

On 14 Mar 2002 at 9:06, Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer wrote:
> The "Haftara" on Yom ha-Atzma'ut is read without any Berakhot - before
> or after. Hence it presents no halakhic problem.

Is it really that simple? AIUI, RYBS held that any changes to the Nussach
haTefilla were forbidden until after Kaddish Tiskabel, and therefore
he held that the Haftorah - and also saying Hallel without a bracha -
were not to be done. AIUI, RYBS said the prakim of Hallel as Tehillim
after davening to avoid the problem of being meshaneh in the Nussach
haTefilla before Kaddish Tiskabel.

-- Carl

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

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Note that in the first paragraph RYHH describes a world that does not
> exist. There is a shortage, probably has been since the early days after
> WWII. I would agree that one should look for a Jewish child first, but
> there are far fewer healthy Jewish newborns than parents looking to adopt.

> Why "from good families"? Should a mamzer be raised as a non-Jew or in a
> non-frum home (and marry a non-mamzeres) because we don't want to share
> his heartache two decades later?

WADR to all, looking into Rav Henkin's sefer, there is no doubt at all
that he was very against adoption of non-Jews (and also children whose
yichus is doubtful).

He writes there - to the author of sefer Nachlas Zvi: "...Veyasher kocho
al shemoycheh be'oz al imutz yaldei nochrim.....mishum taaruvas hadomim
shel osom sheyesh bohem achzoriyus vegilui aroyos...ubifrat ketanim
sherubom bnei zenunim hem..."

On adopting a child of a Jewish penuyeh he writes:
 "...muven shezeh rak bedieved...

He adds: '... Vehaderech hakosher hu legadel yosom mibnei yisroel sheyedua
yichuso vekashruso...'

Interestingly, Rav Henkin z'l also writes: "...Im mitzvos Hashem niros
lepe'omim ke'achzoriyos, harei onu mechuyovim laasosom, beyichud lenoge'a
letaharas yisroel..."

I cannot agree that RH is talking only in a situation of "... a world
where there was no shortage of Jewish orphans from good families.." and
would have paskened differently in a situation where there were few
Kosher children available.

After all that Tshuvah was written in 1960 - not a time when there were
too many 'kosher' and meyuchesdige yesomim floating around.

SBA

The machlokes is well known, whether the entire Torah was written
bevas achas, or bivas achas (Gittin 60a). Looking it over in something
written for Torat Emet <http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_torah.html>,
I finally notied who said what.

R Yochanan is the one who says it was written "scroll by scroll". Reish
Lakish says it was given at once.

Note that R Yochanan was raised by Chaveirim, became an amora himself...
in short, his avodas H' was a steady progression over time. R"L, OTOH,
became a tzaddiq bevas achas. Did each see their own derech in nesinas
haTorah?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

My chavrusa and I have been learning Shmiras Shabbos K'hilchasa, and
recently completed chapter 9, which is about opening packages on Shabbos.
This is a chapter which I've had trouble with in the past; for example,
what is the basic difference between a box of cereal whose top is glued
down (which the SSK disallows opening) and a wine bottle whose top is
covered with sealing wax (which he does allow)?

I've been through this chapter many times, but I feel that this time I
was zocheh to understand it better than previously. In order to help
me retain this learning - and to help others who might have troubles
similar to mine - I chose to write a sort of summary of the SSK, giving
the same halachos, but in a somewhat reorganized fashion.

I offer this now to the chevra, in the hope that perhaps someone else
can benefit from it as well. If anyone notices any point on which I
misunderstood the psak of the SSK, *please* let me know.

Other comments will also be appreciated. If you find this format helpful,
and would like to see my reorganization of Chapter 18 (What may and may
not be worn outside where there is no eruv), let me know that too.

Akiva Miller


OPENING PACKAGES ON SHABBOS

(This essay is based on Shmiras Shabbos K'hilchasa, chapter 9, paragraphs
2-21. Sources are in parentheses, and refer to the paragraph numbers
there. The purpose of this essay is to help distinguish between various
types of packages, as categorized by the Shmiras Shabbos K'hilchasa. A
great deal of other related information appears there, and it should be
learned as well.)

Packages can be categorized both by how they are used and also by how
they are constructed. If a package is exempt on either grounds, it may
be opened on Shabbos.


PACKAGE USE

Packages which are normally refilled and reused may not be opened. Ex:
large industrial-type sacks of rice or sugar. (2)

Packages which are normally emptied and discarded immediately upon
opening, may be opened in the usual manner, except that one should try
to avoid tearing through letters or pictures. Ex: single-serving sugar
packets. (4)

Between those two groups are many packages which are not reused after
being emptied, but they *are* used to store the contents *until* they are
emptied. Ex: milk bags, sealed paper bags of sugar or bread, matza boxes.
(3)

These may not be opened, but according to some poskim, they may be
opened provided that he does not make a particularly neat and convenient
opening. (3) [The great majority of packages fall in this category,
and the Shmiras Shabbos K'hilchasa does not offer any advice for which
opinion to follow. See the appendix at the end for more information.]


PACKAGE CONSTRUCTION


One may not make an opening in the material of the container itself.

Examples: hole on top of a can containing liquids (5), spout on the
side of a cardboard carton of sugar (5), tissue box (8), "churchkey"
ribbon on canned sardines and oats (18). This also includes perforating
new holes on top of a can of baby powder or scouring powder even if the
holes were pre-scored (6). (Of course, *using* that powder is subject
to other restrictions not discussed here.) One may not make or enlarge
the holes in a baby bottle nipple or salt shaker (19).


One may not make an opening in a container whose edges are sealed to
each other.

Examples: paper sugar bags (3), plastic milk bags (3), potato chip bags
(3), matzah boxes (3), a bag whose end is knotted to itself (16).


One *may* open a seal (in a destructive manner, see below) if it
is not part of the container itself, but is only connected to the
already-existing container. This would be done by destructively tearing
the seal from the container.

Examples: a box whose ends are not glued together, but are taped together
(10), foil covering on top of a wine bottle (11), paper seal on mouth of
a jar of instant coffee (11), plastic or foil seal on a yogurt container
(11), staples which are holding a bag closed (9), a bottle whose cork
is secured with sealing wax (20).


One may destroy (see definition below) other things which prevent him
from reaching the food, provided that no new container is thereby created.

Examples: string tied around a cake box (14), wire or string around the
neck of a bag (13,14), string on which figs are threaded (15), paper
which is wrapped around (but not attached to) something (10). [Note:
These strings and wires may be cut destructively, but may not be untied
or untwisted (13).]

One may open a package if there is no tearing or breaking involved, even
if one uses some tool in the process. This includes lifting crown-style
bottle caps (20), removing corks (20), and unscrewing an ordinary jar cap
(21).


OPENING IN A DESTRUCTIVE MANNER

A package or seal which is otherwise prohibited to open may be opened in
a destructive manner which renders it unfit for any further use (12).
When doing so, one should try to avoid tearing through any letters or
pictures (12).

Most metal screw-off bottle caps have a ring at the bottom which either
remains on the neck of the bottle, or breaks into pieces. This first
unscrewing transforms it into a useful reusable cap, which may not be
done on Shabbos (17). However, the cap *may* be unscrewed on Shabbos if
he first destroys it, by making a hole in it so wide that it will not
be useful as a cap afterwards (17).

An ordinary jar cap is already a useful object; if air pressure makes
it difficult to open, one *may* perform the negligible act of making a
small puncture to equalize the pressure (21).


APPENDIX

Note: The following is *not* based on the Shmiras Shabbos K'hilchasa.

According to Rav S.Z. Auerbach (quoted by Rabbi Doniel Neustadt at
http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5757/beshal.html), an
important factor is how long the container will be used for storage after
it is opened: He allows opening soda cans, tuna cans, and juice boxes, but
not long-term crouton cans, and probably not paper milk cartons either.

The Shmiras Shabbos K'hilchasa had cited a difference of opinion among
the poskim, regarding packages which are not reused after being emptied,
but *are* used to store the contents *until* they are emptied. To me,
this appears to be Rav Auerbach's way of resolving this dispute.

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


[ 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         ]