Slashing tires on Shabbos - required to pay?

5tjtimes  by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

 This past Chol HaMoed Shabbos a near tragedy was averted by a quick-thinking Orthodox Jewish man, when he noticed that a driver was stopped at a stop sign on Empire Avenue right before the corner of Reads Lane.  The problem was that the driver had fallen fast asleep with his foot on the brakes.  The person noticed the imminent danger and acted quickly.

The car was running, but the Jewish man was unable to awaken the driver and all four doors of the sedan were locked.  

If the driver were to inadvertently move his foot in his sleep, he could possibly run over innocent victims.  Plus, the area was a heavily walked site next to two very popular synagogues with numerous kids around as well.

After calling the authorities to deal with the driver, the Orthodox Jewish man took a kitchen knife and punctured the tires so that the car would be unable to move forward.  Later, firemen smashed the glass windows and placed the car in park.

There are two questions.  The first question is whether it is permitted to have punctured the driver’s tires on Shabbos or not.    The second question is whether the person doing the puncturing should have made sure to puncture the tires in such a manner that the tires can still be repaired.  When a tire is slashed on the sidewall it cannot be repaired.  If it is cut on the treading of the tire itself then the tire may be plugged up at a tire repair shop.  Is the tire-slashing hero responsible to pay?

The Clics Sukkah - halachic issues

 Five Towns Jewish Times  by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

According to their website, “Clics are colored plastic building blocks that clic together to form hundreds of different models, limited only by the imagination of the child.

They are “produced in bite-proof safe, polypropylene, they are durable and able to withstand prolonged use under all conditions.”

Many people saw the Sukkah made out of Clics highlighted in a popular Vosizneias artcle just before Sukkos.  The Sukkah was constructed by Yonasan Schwartz, owner of Toys to Discover in Borough Park, with the assistance of numerous young boys from throughout Boro Park. The Sukkah, it is reported used over 30,000 Clics and was six by eight feet in its dimension.  

The question is: Are there any halachos about the use of the Sukkah’s clics after Yom Tov is over?

The Sukkas Chaim cites the Zichron L’Moshe which relates a fascinating story about the Chasam Sofer.  The Chasam Sofer had a Yeshiva in Pressburg where students came to study with him from far and wide.  There was one bochur who, while taking down the Sukkah after the Yom Tov, callously stepped upon the branches that were used for the Schach.  The Chasam Sofer felt that the young man’s insensitivity to something that was just used for the Mitzvah of Sukkah was not an insignificant issue.  The Chasam Sofer refused to take the young man as a student in his Yeshiva.

The issue, of course, is based on the Gemorah in Megillah 26b that states that items used for a Mitzvah (Tashmishei Mitzvah) may be thrown out.  Yet we do find (Shabbos 22a) that a use that is demeaning or undignified is forbidden.   The term used by the Poskim is Tashmish shel Bizayon.

In regard to our Clics Sukkah we, therefore, have three questions:  

1] What exactly defines a Sukkah?  Is it the Schach and the four walls?  Or is it just whatever is under the Schach (provided, of course, that what is under meets the size and stability requirements)? [...]

Rape - like force feeding honey on Yom Kippur

Abarbanel (Bereishis 33:18-35): The Torah says, “Dina, the daughter of Leah who was born to Yaakov” – went out. It doesn’t tell this to criticize her that she went out – contrary to what Rashi claims. That is because Leah was well known for her modesty and it because of this modesty that Yaakov did not recognize her when he first had sexual relations with her (Bereishis 29:23:25). And this that Leah went to Yaakov and told him that he would be spending the night with her (Bereishis 30:16) – means only that she went to the door of her house and she said it purely for the sake of Heaven [and not because of lust]. In fact this verse comes to praise Dina and it was saying this to declare that she typically didn’t go out of the house since she was the daughter of Leah and she had been taught to stay in the house. In contrast Rachel was a shepherdess while Leah typically did not leave the house. This attribute of remaining in the house also came to her from her father who was known as one “who dwelled in the tents.” So if her father was modest then surely this would be true of the daughter. All this teaches that she did not go out of the house for bad intentions – G‑d forbid! – but merely “to see the daughters of the land.” The Torah doesn’t say it was to see the men of the city or even the children of the city – but the daughters of the city. In other words she wanted to see the girls of the city and their clothes and jewelry. This was because there was no other girl besides her in the family. So she wanted to learn from the local girls as is the manner of young unmarried women. This resolves the fourth question we raised. Furthermore there is no doubt that Dina did not go out alone but was accompanied by a man or woman - even though this is not mentioned in the Torah’s account – since it is self-evident. (This is similar to the Torah’s description of Moshe going to meet his father-in-law where it is known from other sources (Mechilta Shemos 18) that he didn’t go alone.). However it just says, “That Shechem the son of Chamor the ruler of this land saw her.” This verse is to be understood to mean that since he was the son of the ruler he took Dina by force and was not concerned with the one who accompanied her and he wasn’t afraid of Yaakov and his sons. The Torah simple states, “Shechem took Dina and lay with her and tormented her.” [...] Perhaps the reason the Torah says that he “tormented her” is because sexual intercourse is inherently pleasurable even if it starts out as rape it will nevertheless typically result in physical pleasure. For example it is mentioned in the gemora that a woman came to Rabbi Yehuda HaNassi and told him that she had been raped. Since he held that a woman who is raped must resist from beginning to end – he asked her whether she had experienced any physical pleasure during the rape. Because in his view if there was any moment that she didn’t resist then she would be prohibited to her husband. She replied by asking him whether a person fasting on Yom Kippur who has honey forced into his mouth -  would he find the experience pleasurable even though it was done against his will? This is proof that a natural physical pleasure is not eliminated even if it is brought about by force. Thus this verse is alluding to the praise of Dina. Because she was so upset by the rape that she experienced no physical pleasure at all. All of this teaches us that Dina was absolutely free of all sin. Because if she had experienced pleasure there is no question that her brothers would have killed her when they massacred the community of Shechem and they would have viewed it as a case of an adulterous couple. However it was clear to them that it was absolutely a case of rape – from beginning to end -  and thus they did nothing to Dinah.

[The recent critical edition of the Abarbanel notes there is apparently no known source that Dina was engaged or married- in addition the Abarbanel's claim that she might have been killed if she had been forced to have pleasure is a view clearly against the halacha]
There seems to be a major dispute in the commentaries as to the degree of Dinah's complicity as well as whether she rejected Shechem totally - as the Abarbanel states - or wanted him as the Torah Temima notes.
תורה תמימה (בראשית לד:ב הערה ג): פירש"י שלא בא אליה בעונתה בשעה שנתאוית לו או שבא עליה שלא כדרכה, עכ"ל, ומה שלא פרשו חז"ל בפשיטות ויענה שאנסה שלא לרצונה, שעל זה יונח לשון ענוי כמו תחת אשר ענה את אשת רעהו (פ' תצא), י"ל ע"פ המבואר במ"ר בפרשה כאן בפסוק ויקחו את דינה ויצאו (פ' כ"ו) גוררין בה ויוצאין, והיינו שלא יצאה ברצון מבית שכם, א"כ מבואר שלא נאנסה על כרחה:

Bereishis Rabba(80:11):[[ 11. AND TOOK DINAH OUT OF SHECHEM'S HOUSE, AND WENT FORTH. R. Judah said: They dragged her out and departed.6 R. Hunia observed: When a woman is intimate with an uncircumcised person, she finds it hard to tear herself away. R. Huna [also] said7: She pleaded, ’And I, whither shall I carry my shame?’  (II Sam. XIII, 13), until Simeon swore that he would marry her. Hence it is written, And the sons of Simeon... and Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman  (Gen. XLVI, 10): (this means, the son of Dinah who was intimate with a Canaanite).l R. Judah said: It means that she acted in the manner of the Canaanites.2 R. Nehemiah said: It means that she was intimate with a Hivite [Shechem] who is included in the Canaanites. The Rabbis said: [She was so called because] Simeon took and buried her in the land of Canaan

Minyan, group therapy, and the validation of being seen

Times of Israel by Rabbi Mendel Horowitz

Of those devout it is not unusual for men to gather, fedoras askew, seeking inspiration in the company of strangers. Thrice daily, observant men assemble for prayers and are routinely affected by the shared experience. The siddur is not lacking in appeals for personal growth; the process of supplication can be humbling, heartening, hardy. Still, as much as we talk to and about God, observant men are uncannily reserved about themselves. In a scheme that emphasizes ritual, it is easy to hide behind behavior.

A minyan is a curious thing. Ostensibly a forum for individual worship, much liturgical prose is composed in the plural, likening independent wants with communal needs. Restore us in repentance. Save us and we will be saved. Observant men pray not only with each other but for each other, regularly. Ideally, when joined in prayer dissimilar men concede similarities, the unaffiliated align. Stubbornly, differences tend to divide. There is a certain safety in praying for — and being prayed for by — others. In divine ears we each sound disharmonious. The “one for all, all for one” ideal increases our odds of being heard while protecting us from the humiliation of disclosure.

Compulsory prayers are by design both a declaration of praise and an expression of lacking. The Hebrew term for prayer – t’filah — connotes intervention, a petition for mystic involvement in the minutia of existence. Appealing for such intervention involves appreciating celestial supremacy and confessing human deficiency. Indeed, the Hebrew term for gratitude — hoda’ah — is of the same root as that of admission. While minyans can seem boisterous, the prayers they comprise can function as means for silent confessions and resolutions

Rubashkin appeal rejected by Supreme Court

Forward  The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday by Sholom Rubashkin, the former chief executive of a kosher meat packing plant in Iowa who was sentenced to 27 years in prison on charges of financial fraud.

Without comment, the high court refused to consider whether Sholom Rubashkin’s sentence was excessive for a first-time, nonviolent offender and whether he was entitled to a new trial based on evidence of alleged judicial misconduct in the case.

The rejection could mark the last step in a four-year legal saga that began in May 2008 when federal authorities raided the Agriprocessors kosher meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa.

California bans therapy for sexual orientation

NYTimes  California has become the first state to ban the use for minors of disputed therapies to “overcome” homosexuality, a step hailed by gay rights groups across the country that say the therapies have caused dangerous emotional harm to gay and lesbian teenagers.

This bill bans nonscientific ‘therapies’ that have driven young people to depression and suicide,” Gov. Jerry Brown said in a statement on Saturday after he signed the bill into law. “These practices have no basis in science or medicine, and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery.”

The law, which is to take effect on Jan. 1, states that no “mental health provider” shall provide minors with therapy intended to change their sexual orientation, including efforts to “change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

Tattoo to remember the Holocaust

NyTimes   When Eli Sagir showed her grandfather, Yosef Diamant, the new tattoo on her left forearm, he bent his head to kiss it. Mr. Diamant had the same tattoo, the number 157622, permanently inked on his own arm by the Nazis at Auschwitz. Nearly 70 years later, Ms. Sagir got hers at a hip tattoo parlor downtown after a high school trip to Poland. The next week, her mother and brother also had the six digits inscribed onto their forearms. This month, her uncle followed suit. [...]

It is certainly an intensely personal decision that often provokes ugly interactions with strangers offended by the reappropriation of perhaps the most profound symbol of the Holocaust’s dehumanization of its victims. The fact that tattooing is prohibited by Jewish law — some survivors long feared, incorrectly, that their numbers would bar them from being buried in Jewish cemeteries — makes the phenomenon more unsettling to some, which may be part of the point.

“It’s shocking when you see the number on a very young girl’s hand,” Ms. Sagir said. “It’s very shocking. You have to ask, Why?” [...]

Ms. Sagir, a cashier at a minimarket in the heart of touristy Jerusalem, said she is asked about the number 10 times a day. There was one man who called her “pathetic,” saying of her grandfather, “You’re trying to be him and take his suffering.” And there was a police officer who said, “God creates the forgetfulness so we can forget,” Ms. Sagir recalled. “I told her, ‘Because of people like you who want to forget this, we will have it again.’ ”

Holiness is not ascetisicm:Rav Shimon Shkop

Translation by Rabbi Micha Berger click here for full introduction

In my opinion, this whole concept is included in Hashem’s mitzvah “Be holy, [for I am Holy].”3 The Midrash (Leviticus, Emor, ch. 24) says about this verse: “Can it [truly] be ‘Like Me?’ This is why it continues, ‘for I am Holy’ to teach that My Sanctity is above yours.” And about the foundation of this mitzvah of sanctity the Toras Kohanim4 has “‘be holy’ – be separate”. Nachmanides, in his commentary on the Torah, explains at length this notion of separation as it is stated in this mitzvah, that it is separation from excessive comfort and pleasure – even if they are actions that are not prohibited to us. In one illustrative statement, he writes that it is possible for a person to be disgusting with [what would otherwise be] the permission of the Torah, see his holy words there.

According to this, it would seem the Midrash is incomprehensible. What relevance does the concept of separation have to being similar to the Holy? The verse tells us with regard to this that His Will is not like this. As it says, “Can it [truly] be ‘Like Me?’ This is why it continues, ‘For I am holy’ to teach that My sanctity is higher than yours.” It is more difficult to understand “My sanctity is higher than yours.” This explanation is incumbent upon us to understand – in truth there is some similarity in the holiness He expects of us to His [Holiness], except that His Holiness is more general and inclusive. If we say that the essential idea of the holiness He demands of us (in this mitzvah of “be holy”) is distance from the permissible, that kind of holiness has nothing to do with Him.5

Weberman: The smoking gun

Rabbi Horowitz   After many delays and much legal wrangling, Nechemia Weberman will finally stand trial in Brooklyn Criminal Court on October 30th for allegedly abusing a young girl in the Williamsburg community over a period of three years -- beginning when she was 12 years old. Mr. Weberman is entitled to his day in court and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.[...]

Moreover, it would help undo the denial and cognitive dissonance of those who defend Weberman -- by pointing out how disturbing were the circumstances of his "treatment" of the young girls referred to him.

Think of it this way. Wouldn't alarm bells go off in your mind if a doctor performed an invasive procedure without using latex gloves or if he/she picked up a used syringe to give you an injection? Wouldn't you think it strange if you were a single mother and were requested to meet with your son’s Rebbe or principal at 9 p.m. one evening in a deserted Yeshiva building to discuss your son's progress?

Well, those of us familiar with the do's and don'ts of accepted practice in the mental health profession saw similar blaring warning lights in our minds, as should you when the facts were made public that Weberman:

1) Had unregulated access to many girls over a number of years in his inappropriate and illegal role as their unlicensed "therapist."

2) Had these young girls referred to him for counseling by very Chassidish schools, whose general level of gender separation far exceeds those of the typical "Bais Yakov" (and it would be exceedingly rare for non-Chassidish girls’ schools to regularly refer their Talmidos to a male therapist)

3) Engaged in private, unsupervised counseling sessions with young girls -- often in an office/apartment that contained a working bedroom -- violating all norms of Yichud and Tzniyus.

In addition to all these disturbing facts, it has become clear that these serious allegations are in fact not isolated ones. In fact, since Mr. Weberman's arrest, I was personally contacted by immediate family members of four additional alleged victims of his who are afraid to come forward, and those of us close to the community have heard similar reports from others as well. [...]

Mea Shearim:No gender segregation for Sukkos

YNet   The Toldot Aharon Hasidic dynasty has pledged not to send ushers to the ultra-Orthodox neighborhood's streets to impose modesty rules during the holiday of Sukkot, and not to enforce gender segregation as it has done in previous years.

In discussions held between senior haredi community members and representatives of the police and Jerusalem Municipality, the parties agreed that a safety fence would be set up to maintain order during the Simchat Beit Hashoeivah celebrations held in the area on the intermediate days of Sukkot – but not to impose segregation.

The Jerusalem Police updated Jerusalem Council Member Rachel Azaria on the developments, following her petition to the High Court of Justice against the gender segregation on the neighborhood's main street in past years and the judges' ruling that authorities must prevent this situation. [...]

Jewish student lied about hate crime assault

MLive  Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings III said a 19-year-old Jewish Michigan State University student who alleged he was assaulted last month because of his religion won't face criminal charges for false reporting.

Zachary Tennen, of Franklin, said he was at a party about 1:30 a.m. on Aug. 26 in the 500 block of Spartan Avenue, about a half-mile north of MSU's campus, when two college-aged men asked him if he was Jewish. When he responded in the affirmative, the pair beat him unconscious then stapled his mouth, he alleged.[...]

The case was closed Thursday, though, after authorities concluded there was no merit to Tennen's assertions of a hate crime. A police report on the matter detailed the accounts of multiple witnesses who said Tennen harassed and inappropriately touched women at the party, leading to his being punched in the mouth.

Kav HaYashar:Myth of Ramban's apostate "son"

Debunking a Parshas Nitzavim Myth

By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for the Five Towns Jewish Times

http://5tjt.com/?p=7894

There are a number of Seforim on the weekly portion of Nitzavim that cite a story in the “Kav HaYashar” regarding the words of the Ramban on Dvarim (29:17), “Ki Mishoresh Matok lo yetzeh mar – from a sweet root, something bitter will not be produced.”

The book “Kav HaYashar” was first printed in Frankfurt, Germany by Rav Tzvi Hersh Keidenower in 1705.  Rav Keidenower was the son-in-law of the Shach’s brother and authored a remarkable commentary on Mussar and Chumash.  Although it is a well respected Sefer, in this book, the author puts forth an extraordinary claim (Chapter 81 in some editions), regarding a story that he had heard of one of the sons of the Ramban. 

The story, in essence, has the Pope (presumably Clement the IV) having just read a comment from the Ramban’s recently printed commentary that if a son of a Jew adopted another religion it is a proof that he was never from Jewish lineage in the first place, sent a message to the Ramban.  The message stated that since the Ramban’s own son had just converted to Christianity, his interpretation was wrong.  The Kav HaYashar continues that the Ramban was quite saddened until his wife revealed to him that long ago she was attacked by a nobleman on the way to immerse in a faraway place and this particular child was from that encounter.  As proof she produced the nobleman’s severed finger which she had bitten off. 

The Ramban told the Pope what had happened and the Pope brought the nobleman to see his hand.  Sure enough after the glove was removed from the nobleman’s hand, the finger was missing.  The Ramban felt that his interpretation was thus exonerated.

The story is cited by a number of more contemporary figures other than the Kav HaYashar, including Rav Menashe Klein.  Notwithstanding the citations, it is this author’s view that the story is apocryphal.  There are no less than eight different reasons for this conclusion:

1.       The story is filled with anachronisms.  There was no printing press in the time of the Ramban.  The story uses the term “Dfus” which indicates that there was an actual physical press and also indicates that the Ramban’s work was printed.  This was not the case.

2.       The Ramban’s three sons, Shlomo, Nachman, and Yehuda are known and had Jewish descendents or interactions.  Shlomo had children and the Ramban wrote that they should rather name him after the maternal grandmother and not after him.  Nachman was the recipient of letters from the Ramban and authored commentaries.  Yehuda is cited It is possible that there was a fourth son, Yoseph, but the record shows that he maintained his Judaism, when he is mentioned.  No histories indicate one iota that there was  a descendant of the Ramban or his wife who became Catholic.  Also, this is the type of information that would be spread and cannot be kept hidden.  The Dominicans, antagonists of the Ramban, would certainly have spread it as certainly as they defamed the Ramban in regard to matters of the disputation.

3.       Pope Clement IV was never in Aragon, where the Ramban lived.  He lived in Viterbo 50 miles north of Rome throughout his entire pontificate.  There is no known personal interaction between the Ramban and Pope Clement IV.  The Pope did extend a ban on the Ramban returning to Aragon, but that was by proxy

4. 

5.     [...] See Five Towns Jewish Times for full article

8.     

The author can be reached at yairhoffman2@gmail.com