Avi K

The best way to drink it is with a cup.

Joseph,

1. No right is absolute. Parents do not have the right to educate their children to be gangsters or spongers.
2. So limit your family’s size to your means. In any case, if they have good jobs they will at least need less. Moreover, there is a halachic prohibition against taking charity from non-Jews. These communities should support their own.
3. If the students are doing so well the school will pass muster.

CTL, the Mishna Berura says (135:47) says that it is a denigration to take the sefer from its place.People should go to it not it to people. Apparently Rav Fuchs used the term “shul” because that is the usual place of a sefer Torah.Here the person already has a sefer Torah so there is no big need. In fact, the only reason for three is not to inconvenience the tzibbor by making them wait for it to be rolled to different places. However, as the rav of my community pointed out, the time taken for hagba’ah is almost as much.

From the syllabus of Wisconsin vs. Yoder 406 U.S. 205 (1972) :

“Beyond this, they have carried the difficult burden of demonstrating the adequacy of their alternative mode of continuing informal vocational education in terms of the overall interest that the State relies on in support of its program of compulsory high school education.”

From the Lancaster County, PA website:

“After several years of debate, Amish community leaders and public officials worked out a compromise. This compromise known as the Amish Vocational Program allows for Amish youth to attend a weekly vocational school at the age of 14 after completing the eighth grade in their parochial school.”

“A sefer Torah should not be taken out of the shul to be read in a separate minyan somewhere else. Exceptions are a house of mourning and for other special circumstances (and even then there should be a special place for it). There are those (Maaseh Rav 129 and Rav Sonnenfeld) who are very stringent about this” – Tefilla k’Hilchata ch. 16 Halacha 7 with footnotes)

Which Satmar? Will the rival of the rebe who is fighting this bill support it just as one supported clinton and the other Trump? I still do not see the problem. He who pays the piper gets to call the tune (בעל המאה הוא בעל הדעה). Yeshivot get funding for lunches and secular studies. Grads who cannot get decent jobs get various welfare benefits.

I sometimes get that question and sometimes do not. In any case, I also find it very offensive.

Yserbius, maybe it should be the opposite. Section 8 pushes up rents and housing prices (the voucher can also be used to purchase a home) by raising demand. Just out of curiosity, for what does the “S” in TANSTAAFS stand?

Laskern, the obligation is fulfilled by saying Hallel. There is no Torah need to light candles. Regarding safeka d’yoma there is a problem, maybe even bigger than that occurs on the eighth day of Sukkot in Chutz laAretz regarding sitting in the Sukka. One who says Hallel every day blasphemes. Therefore if the “ninth day” is not part of Chanuka (and now that we have a fixed calendar we know that it is not), then it is prohibited to say Hallel.

Laskern, as Chanuka is rabbinic a safek would be l’kula.

From Dictionary.com:
pa·thet·ic
[p uh- thet-ik]

ADJECTIVE
1. causing or evoking pity, sympathetic sadness, sorrow, etc.; pitiful; pitiable: a pathetic letter; a pathetic sight.
2. affecting or moving the emotions.
3. pertaining to or caused by the emotions.
4. miserably or contemptibly inadequate: In return for our investment we get a pathetic three percent interest.

CTL,

1-3. Aren’t non-show fireworks already illegal? You can add personal injuries caused by them. BTW, while I generally like dogs. barking dogs drive ME crazy, especially when I am trying to sleep.
4. I guess he was mugged by reality. After what you wrote about Bill I would think that you would not want to admit having known him. I would also not put crooked, anti-religious Hilary down on a list of people who can recommend me.
5. I agree. Actually, in Europe and Israel libertarians are called liberals, which is the original meaning of the word. See the website of the Liberal International for their platform. A true liberal would, for example, oppose laws against consensual adult activities (including all types of drugs) as well as anti-discrimination laws that apply to individuals.

CTL,
1. Why should possession of small amounts of pot, or even hard drugs, be a criminal offense? All that does is create career criminals. The Portuguese system (which the Israel Anti-Drug authority has recommended to the Knesset) treets it as a public health problem and has had remarkable success.
2. Everyone wants free choice to do what they want to do. Are you in favor of free choice not to sell cakes for gay weddings? Are you opposed to compulsory “diversity training” (= indoctrination)?
3. Your excuses hold true about outlying areas (although infrastructure can be built as it was when close suburbs were developed after WW2)but what about inner ritzy suburbs? Not to mention designating whole urban neighborhoods as “historic” so that they can remain in the hands of the limousine liberals who claim to love the poor.
4. How do you feel about the threat to Jews from the Left? One of the bastions of liberal academia, Columbia, has been declared the worst college for Jews in America.
5. What is “strict gun control with compulsory education before granting a license”? Do you mean like driving? While it is a good idea anyway criminals will still get guns as always. One can even print a gun from the Internet.

משך חכמה פרשת בחוקותי:

“כך היה דרכה של האומה, שכאשר יכנסו לארץ נכריה, יהיו אינם בני תורה, כאשר נדלדלו מן הצרות והגזירות והגירוש, ואח”כ יתעורר בהם רוח א-לקי השואף בם להשיבם למקור חוצבו מחצבת קדשם, ילמדו, ירביצו תורה, יעשו נפלאות,עד כי יעמוד קרן התורה על רומו ושיאו, הלא אין ביד הדור להוסיף מה, להתגדר נגד אבותם! מה יעשה חפץ האדם העשוי להתגדר ולחדש?! יבקר ברעיון כוזב את אשר הנחילו אבותינו, ישער חדשות בשכוח מה היה לאומתו בהתנודדו בים התלאות, ויהיה מה. עוד מעט ישוב לאמר “שקר נחלו אבותינו”, והישראלי בכלל ישכח מחצבתו ויחשב לאזרח רענן, יעזוב לימודי דתו, ללמוד לשונות לא לו, יליף מקלקלתא ולא יליף מתקנא יחשוב כי ברלין היא ירושלים, וכמקולקים שבהם עשיתם כמתוקנים לא עשיתם. “ואל תשמח ישראל אל גיל בעמים” (הושע ט’, א). אז יבוא רוח סועה וסער, יעקור אותו מגזעו יניחהו לגוי מרחוק אשר לא למד לשונו, ידע כי הוא גר, לשונו שפת קדשנו, ולשונות זרים כלבוש יחלוף, ומחצבתו הוא גזע ישראל, ותנוחמיו ניחומי נביאי ד’, אשר ניבאו על גזע ישי באחרית הימים.”

ZG, you are not up to date. Secular liberalism has become a religion complete with burnings of heretics at the (so far only on social media and in some courtrooms) stake.

Joseph, we follow them unless there is a clear contradiction to Halacha. for example, if a non-Jewish doctor says that a Jew must eat on Yom kippur he eats. Even where there is a seeming contradiction, such as the setting of the value of pi at 3, attempts are made to resolve the difficulty. Thus we see that their views are taken into consideration. Having written that, I will repeat that economists must also be heard as to the costs. There must also be free academic discourse and not, as some leftists have proposed, silencing anyone who disagrees.

Takes, the following article appears in Cross-Currents:

Moonlighting in Halacha
BY YAIR HOFFMAN · PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 6, 2014 · UPDATED FEBRUARY 6, 2014

This past week a terrible tragedy occurred in Scotland regarding a medical doctor. It seems a doctor who was moonlighting did not inform his hospital that he was working another job. On account of his over-tiredness, he did not check that a patient was overmedicated. Nor did he check on the patient. The patient died, unfortunately. This incident highlights an important point in halacha.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics informs us that last year seven million American workers were working multiple jobs. Out of a total employed workforce of 144 million in this country that means that one out of 20 people at work are actually working double jobs. The question is: Are there any obligations from a halachic perspective that these workers have to their day-job employers? Indeed, is having the extra job permitted in the first place?

It is also interesting to note what types of jobs most people have as their second job. Some babysit, others bartend. Some cater. And many run an internet website (more on this as the article progresses).

There is a fascinating Tosefta in Bava Metzia (8:2) which tells us that a worker is not permitted to perform his own work at night time and then hire himself out for work in the daytime. The Tosefta thus introduces a fiduciary obligation placed upon the employee to his potential employer to make sure that he is sharp and alert for the work that he is to be hired to do. The Shulchan Aruch (CM 337:19) quantifies this as the halacha.

Rabbi Ben Zion Meir Chai Uzziel, the first Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, writes in his Piskei Uziel (Sheilot HaZman #46) that this same legal theory also obligates the worker must also have a pleasant attitude in demeanor to his employer, fellow employees, and customers or clients.

Dayan Blau zt”l in his work “Pischei Choshen” (chapter seven) discusses a case where a fundraiser for one institution that paid for his travel expenses travels to America to raise funds and he moonlights for another institution. Dayan Blau forbids the practice. He similarly forbids other similar activities as well.

Aside from this, however, most employers nowadays have a published policy or handbook. Some of them do have formal policies on moonlighting. If so, then there is a halachic obligation to abide by this policy in addition to the halachic requirements. This is also prudent in New York State which happens to be an “at will” employment state where employees can be terminated at any time when faced with no employment contract.

There is, of course, an exception to moonlighting,at night when it is clear that the employer is not paying the employee a full-time salary, or when the employee is only part time. Then it would be understood that the employee needs to make another salary in order to pay the bills.

Many of the aforementioned moonlighters have their own business as a second job. There is a huge Yetzer HaRah to use the equipment and supplies of the day-job employer for this purpose – even if one only “moonlights” on the lunch or coffee break. This too is forbidden and is looked upon as theft in the eyes of halacha. If one needs to access the web for something not related to job #1, one should either bring one’s own iPad or ask explicit permission from the employer. Merely assuming that the employer would not mind is not sufficient. Also, the wifi connection itself may be problematic if it is not open to the public.

The Talmud (Bava Basra 88a) cites a debate between Rabbi Yehudah and the Chachamim as to whether one who borrows without permission has the status of a borrower or that of a thief. The Chachamim view him as a thief. The Rif, the Rambam, and the Shulchan Aruch all rule in accordance with the Chachamim.

The language that the Tur Shulchan Aruch uses (C.M. 359:5) is “Nikra gazal—he is termed a thief.” The question is whether this term is referring to a Biblical prohibition or a rabbinic prohibition. The Gemara (Berachos 6b) invokes this same expression to describe someone who doesn’t respond to a “hello”; if someone says hello to the other and the other does not respond, he is called a thief. Clearly in that case, this cannot be a Biblical notion, as there is no actual theft of property. This would indicate that the term only describes a rabbinic prohibition and not a Biblical one.

The Smah, however, one of the foremost commentaries on the Tur Shulchan Aruch, indicates clearly that he views the Tur’s words as indicating a Biblical prohibition (see note 12 on the Tur).

But wait! There is nothing missing here! How could he be considered a thief? He is a thief because he took without permission, even if there is nothing missing. The Rashba (Bava Metzia 41a) states this quite clearly, as does Rashi.

Often an employee may rationalize the amount of time spent on the computer as not being excessive. One must ask oneself the following question, however: Who is more likely to consider something as not being excessive—the employee or the employer? One does not have to be a rocket scientist to realize that the employer would be more likely to consider something as excessive than would the employee. And unfortunately for the employee, the ball is in the court of the employer on this one.

The second factor is the fact that it is being done on company time. In this regard, there are two types of employees: management-level employees and hourly employees. Clearly, an hourly employee would be illicitly taking money from his employer for any minutes beyond excessive that he has spent infosnacking on the Internet. (And no, the non-excessive minutes are not cumulative.)

A management-level employee who receives a set salary to make sure that a department runs efficiently may have more leeway in this regard, but it would still depend upon the employer. It would seem that there is an obligation to find out where one’s employer stands on such issues. [end of article]

Does that answer your question?

correction: whose wife

CTL, good luck on your appeal. You did call Bill Clinton an adulterer. However, so far as I know neither has been with another man’s wife so halachically neither is an adulterer. BTW, Bill’s moll excused his actions.

Ubiquitin, do Torah Jews (as opposed to am ha’aretzot – and yes, some who wear the uniform are am ha’aratzot) talk during davening? In any case, a chazaka can be overturned where we know that it is inapplicable. This was Rav Yonatan Eibeschutz’ reply to the Emperor who pointed out that they were the rove.

CTL,
1. You posted on November 27, 2018 at 7:13 am “The national Republican Party is the antipathy of Family Values. It ran a thrice married serial adulterer for President in opposition to a woman who was the victim of a husband who committed adultery.” So you each owe the other half an apology.
2. Your blanket refusal to dialogue with individuals (other than Joseph and Curiosity) is very childish. Would you refuse to rebut an opponent in court?

CTL, i was wondering what was taking you so long.

1, The woman in question is his partner in crime – and defended him against very serious charges in this area). She also declared war on traditional religion. A man, BTW, is only an adulterer if his friend (I want this to pass moderation) is a married woman. If she is not Jewish she is not married once she walks out even if there has not yet been a court decree. There is no prohibition for a ben Noach to act like a rooster. I will admit though that I would have preferred Ted Cruz (and voted for him in the primary) but, as we say in Israel, zeh ma sheyeish.

2. Social Security is almost bankrupt because of Democratic largesse. The booming economy of FDR (who interned innocent Japanese, German and Italian Americans against the opinion of none other than J. Edgar Hoover thus freeing up a few hundred thousand jobs) did not start until the US went into a wartime economy.

3. Giuliani (please at least spell his name correctly) is not a typical Republican although he did a great job putting NYC on its feet and bringing crime way down).

4. Saudi Arabia is a bulwark against Iran. Churchill (if I were Scott Kelly I would have told the PC police that if they don’t like what I said they can lump it) said about supporting Stalinj ym”s “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”

5. Democratic judges (yes, judges have political viewpoints) would have trampled freedom of religion and speech.

Neville,, on Nov. 22 he wrote “As for setting up a ‘moed’, there’s a long Jewish tradition of doing exactly that. Each community has many days that they celebrate or fast every year to remember this or that thing that happened since the time of Chazal.” This is still up as of this posting.

I would add that the Democrats are not content to trample on traditional values themselves but want to force everyone else to do so. Hillary said this explicitly shortly before the election. Even the Washington Post called her statement an attack on freedom of religion. On the other hand, Republicans and conservatives want to uphold these values, which are common to Jews and Xtians. IMHO this trend will continue as radical leftists take control of the Democratic party .

CA, why? So she can decide when she wants to hear from him and when not?