Over Exposed

To contact us Click HERE

There is a new entity on Facebook that claims to expose the under-belly of Clatsop County.    This site became active last Friday and was quickly followed by a similar site for Tillamook County on Sunday.
Though the administrators of this page give no hints as to who they are or what their real intentions are for setting up an inflammatory site such as this.  Many of the people commenting ask who is in charge and no answers come forward.  As a person who does not read any local newspapers or listen to local news, I’m not sure how public or quasi-public or factual any of their posts are, but their editorializing and character assessments are slanderous of people who have yet to be tried or convicted. 
One case in point is a woman featured in Tillamook who the list as “Tillamook's most famous criMILFinal”, please note the word criminal is spelled with the letters MILF which is an acronym of “Mother I’d Like to Fuck”.  I hope her defense attorney is paying attention for this bonanza because her case just got a lot easier to dismiss.  There is no way to solicit a retraction since there is no one to track down, hence no one is responsible or accountable for what is published.  It's hard to sue them for slander.
It seems like this page is put together with some assistance of law enforcement on some level.  I haven’t heard any statements of denial from the Sheriff which surprises me.  I’ve always found the Deputies in this county to be real up-standing professionals.  I’ve never seen them display any vengeful streak and I found them to be down-right compassionate and even have great senses of humor.  I’ve seen them treat criminals with respect.
The problem with these pages is that they are being used as a public pillory with no regards to the presumption of innocence.  It is a place for internet bullies to strike at those without regard to a possible innocence or sincere attempt at rehabilitation.  Records can be legally sealed or expunged, but the Internet cannot.  
I am curious who will be left out of their spotlight.  Will the child of a local Judge and a local attorney be spared?   How about the child of a local newspaper publisher?  How about a local newspaper publisher?  I wait for them to publish something about someone with local power, influence or respectability, though respectability is rarely shared with those with power or influence.
This site shows that the administrators and many of those who comment on this site are the true underbelly of our County.  This is the local equivalent of the Jerry Springer Show.  It is a site of mob mentality and retribution.  I wonder what other ideas they have to humiliate those who are presently serving time for their crimes and those who haven’t even been arraigned yet.

It's really odd to see the commenters propose punishment for the criminals from hanging, throat slitting and shooting them in the head.  It seems the audience has violent tendencies as well and are only one psychotic freak-out from being incarcerated themselves.

I really hope that local law enforcement isn't involved with this site.  If they are they will totally lose my support and respect and this will weigh heavily on any future bond measures for a new jail.

Review of Daniel Carr’s “FDR’s 1933 Gold Confiscation was a Bailout of the Federal Reserve Bank”

To contact us Click HERE
Review of Daniel Carr’s “FDR’s 1933 Gold Confiscation was a Bailout of the Federal Reserve Bank”Thomas Allen
    In his article, “FDR’s 1933 Gold Confiscation was a Bailout of the Federal Reserve Bank,” Mr. Daniel Carr argues that President Roosevelt stole the people’s gold primarily to bailout the Federal Reserve Banks. His article can be found at http://www.moonlightmint.com/bailout.htm. In presenting his argument, Mr. Carr makes some questionable assumptions. This article discusses errors in Mr. Carr’s article. Otherwise, Mr. Carr presents a good terse description of events leading up to the Great Depression and the cause of the Great Depression.

    Before discussing Mr. Carr’s article, three tables of monetary statistics are given. Data in these tables are used in analyzing Mr. Carr’s arguments and drawing different conclusions. These statistics are from Federal Reserve documents that can be found at http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/bms.

    The monetary statistics presented below are from Banking and Monetary Statistics, 1914-1941. In Table 1, the monetary statistics are from Section 11, “Currency,” Table No. 110, “Currency in Circulation — By Kind, Monthly, 1860-1941,” page 412. The numbers in Table 1 are for currency outside the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve Banks.
    Table 2 summaries the monetary gold. On page 506 of Section 13, “United States Government — Treasury Finance and Government Corporations and Credit Agencies,” the gold reserves for backing United States Notes are $156 million. Section 14, “Gold,” Table No. 156, “Analysis of Changes in Gold Stock of the United States, Monthly, 1914-1941,” page 537, gives a monthly average gold stock of $4,226 million for December 1932 and $4,093 for February 1933.  

    Part of the gold that the Federal Reserve Banks held was used to back federal reserve notes, and part was held for member banks as reserves. Section 10, “Member Bank Reserves, Reserve Bank Credit, and Related Items,” Table No. 102, “Member Bank Reserves, Reserve Bank Credit, and Related Items, End of Month Figures, 1914-1941,” page 376, shows that the Federal Reserve Banks held $2,509 million as member bank reserves on December 31, 1932 and $2,141 million on February 28, 1933.

    Table 3 gives the quantity of gold-clause paper currency.


     Although they were not gold-clause notes, the Gold Standard Act of 1900, which firmly placed it United States on the monometallic gold standard, made Treasury notes of 1890, silver dollars, silver certificates, and subsidiary silver redeemable in gold.

    For purposes of comparisons with Mr. Carr, the data for February 1933 are used except where February 1933 data are not available. Then December 1932 is used. February was the last full month before Roosevelt took office. He executed his great gold theft in March 1933.

    Mr. Carr estimates the quantity of gold-clause federal reserve notes in circulation in 1933 to be between $13,292 million (20,000 metric tons) and $26,916 million (40,500 metric tons). (He uses metric tons to weigh gold instead of dollars. At this time, a dollar was the weight of 23.22 grains of fine gold.) He uses The Standard Handbook of United States Paper Money by Chuck O’Donnell and The Comprehensive Catalog of U.S. Paper Money by Gene Hessler along with some assumptions that he explains to derive these numbers. As shown in the tables above, his estimate far exceeds the estimates of the Federal Reserve. Mr. Carr’s estimate for federal reserve notes in circulation is 3.9 to 7.9 times greater than the Federal Reserve’s estimate of $3,405 million. His estimate is 2.5 to 5.2 times greater than all gold-clause currency in circulation.

    Mr. Carr estimates the country’s monetary gold reserves in 1933 to be about $4,000 million, which he assumes that the U.S. government held to back gold certificates. As shown in Table 2, the Federal Reserve estimates $649 million were held to back gold certificates (assuming that the U.S. government fully backed its gold certificates). Its data show a total gold stock of $4,093 million, which is about the same as Mr. Carr’s estimate. However, unlike Mr. Carr’s assumption, the U.S. government did not hold all this gold. It was spread among the U.S. government ($805 million), the Federal Reserve Banks ($3,004 million), and the public ($284 million)

    By law, the Federal Reserve had to maintain a minimum of 40 percent in gold for outstanding federal reserve notes. Thus, it needed $1,362 million in gold to satisfy the statutory backing. It had $3,004 million in gold to back $3,405 in federal reserve notes.

    Mr. Carr estimates that between $13,292 million and $26,916 million in federal reserve notes were unbacked. He is correct in that the Federal Reserve lack enough gold to redeem all its notes. However, the shortage was not nearly as great as he estimates. Nevertheless, the situation was as dire as he declares.

    The $3,004 million in gold that the Federal Reserve held was not only for backing its notes. It was also for backing checkbook money issued by member banks. Moreover, member banks were liable for redeeming their bank notes in gold. Consequently, the problem was not a lack of gold held by the Federal Reserve to redeem federal reserve notes. The problem was that the Federal Reserve and commercial banks held insufficient gold to redeem the demand deposit accounts, checkbook money, held by the public.

    Most loans were in the form of demand deposits instead of paper money or coin. Funds in demand deposit accounts were available to the holder on demand and had to be redeemed in gold if so demanded. As the typical bank was using $1 in gold to back several dollars in demand deposits (it was allowing multiple parties to use the same gold simultaneously), it could not redeem all its deposits if a bank run occurred as happened in the early 1930s.

    Section 2, “Assets and Liabilities of all Member Banks,” Table No. 18, “All Member Banks — Principal Assets and Liabilities on Call Dates, 1914‒1941," gives $15,193 million in demand deposits (checking accounts or checkbook money) subject to reserves and vault cash of $423 million on December 31, 1932. Section 9, “Federal Reserve Banks,” Table No. 85, “Assets and Liabilities of Federal Reserve Banks, December 31, 1914-1915,” page 332, gives $2,509 million in reserves held by the Federal Reserve Banks for member banks on December 31, 1932.

    These statistics show that commercial banks that were members of the Federal Reserve System had $2,509 million in reserves plus $423 million in vault cash or $2,932 million that could be used to redeem $15,193 in checkbook money. Thus, on December 31, 1932, the Federal Reserve System held $3,288 million in gold to back $15,193 in demand deposits and $2,716 million in federal reserve notes. It was short $14,621 million in gold. Moreover, commercial banks were liable for $820 million in gold for redemption of national bank notes, which an equivalent amount of U.S. government bonds held by the U.S. Treasury secured. The problem was not too many unbacked federal reserve notes. It was too much unbacked checkbook money. This shortage of $14,621 million, plus an additional $820 million for national bank notes, falls within Mr. Carr’s estimate of $13,292 million to $26, 916 million.

    The above shows that the U.S. government held $805 million in gold to back gold certificates and U.S. notes. The Federal Reserve held $3,004 million in gold. Of the $4,093 million of the monetary gold, the U.S. government and Federal Reserve held 93 percent. The people held $284 million in gold coins or about 7 percent of the monetary gold. If the coins were roughly evenly distributed among the population, each person would have had between $2 and $3 in gold coins (c. 123 million population).

    As Roosevelt confiscation order allowed each person to keep $100 in gold coins, he did not have to steal any coins held by the public. Between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, he already had nearly all the gold. All he needed to do, and what he did do, was to violate the U.S. government’s, the Federal Reserve’s, and national banks’ contracts with the people by voiding the redemption clauses in the law and on the paper money.

    Bailing out the Federal Reserve was not the primary reason that Roosevelt stole the people’s gold as Mr. Carr asserts. The primary reason was control. Roosevelt wanted to establish a fascist government. Gold prevented him from doing that. Gold protects the people from despotic governments and their central bank co-conspirators. Once he had stolen the people’s gold and outlawed their using it as money, he proceeded to convert the United States into a fascist state.

    However, Roosevelt did greatly aid the bankers to do what bankers like to do most — inflate. He did this in three ways. First, he stole the gold that the people had entrusted to the U.S. government and let the Federal Reserve use it as part of its official reserves. Second, he redefined the dollar from 23.22 grains of gold to 13.71 grains, i.e., he devalued the dollar about 41 percent. Third, and most important, he removed the restraint of gold redemption.

    Mr. Carr is correct about Roosevelt stealing the people’s gold to benefit the Federal Reserve by relieving it of its obligation to redeem its notes in gold. Roosevelt also relieved the U.S. government of its obligation to redeem its paper money. However, the biggest beneficiaries were the commercial banks, which were also relieved of their obligation to redeem their checkbook money in gold. They also received a slight benefit of not having to redeem their bank notes in gold.

    However, Mr. Carr’s claim that Roosevelt stole the people’s gold to bailout the Federal Reserve is questionable. At least, he fails to prove his point. The monetary data that he uses is highly questionable. He needs to reevaluate his claim or prove it using more reliable and acceptable data presented by the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury. These data may be rigged as governments, and by extension their central banks, are notorious liars. (The post Federal Reserve statistics appear to be in line with pre Federal Reserve statistics.) Moreover, once banks were relieved of the obligation to redeem their money in gold, most, and certainly the Federal Reserve, did not need bailing out.

    Mr. Carr is correct in identifying bank money as a major problem that led, at least in part, to Roosevelt’s theft of the people’s gold. However, he focuses on bank notes, federal reserve notes, instead of checkbook money. The latter was much more significant as it was 5.6 times greater than federal reserve notes in circulation.

    Perhaps Mr. Carr or someone else may be able to sift through the voluminous data in Banking and Monetary Statistics, 1914-1941 and derive more accurate conclusions than I have.

Copyright © 2011 by Thomas Coley Allen.

   

Nationalism and Imperialism

To contact us Click HERE
Nationalism and Imperialism Thomas Allen
    Nationalism is often accused of being the cause of many wars. It has been accused of aggressive war making. It has been accused of causing one nationality to impose its will on another nationality. Nationalism has been falsely maligned. Much of what is blamed on nationalism should be place on imperialism.

    Before proceeding, a distinction needs to be made between a “nation” and a “country.” A “nation” is a community of people of the same race having a common origin and language and with common traditions, culture, economy, etc. that is capable of forming a nation-state, i.e., a politically organized relatively homogenous people inhabiting a sovereign state. A country is the territory that a political state governs. A nation is the people, and a country is the land.

    Much confusion exists between nationalism and imperialism. Nationalism seeks to preserve a nationality. It seeks to preserve a nation (not to be confused with a country, most of which today are empires) and its culture, language, race, laws, economy, etc. On the other hand, imperialism seeks to impose the culture, laws, economy, etc. of one nationality on another nationality. Nationalism is essentially the opposite of imperialism.

    Nationalism acquired its belligerent reputation in the nineteenth century when various nations attempted to secede from various European and American Empires. The Irish attempted to secede from the British Empire. Several nations of the Austrian Empire attempted to secede. They were unsuccessful. However, Hungry did manage to obtain parity with Austria; hence, Austria-Hungry was born. Secession from the Turkish Empire was more successful as Greeks, Serbians, Rumanians, Bulgarians, and Albanians won their independence. In North America the Southern States failed in their attempt to secede from the American Empire.

    Many historians agree that the fundamental cause of World War I was imperialistic in nature. Few blame nationalism for the war. As destructive as that war was, it did advance the cause of nationalism — at least in Europe.

    The Irish gained independence although the status of Ulster has yet to be satisfactorily resolved.

    The Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed into several nations. Although they lost part of their nation (part of Tirol) to Italy and were not united with Bavarians provinces of Bavaria, the Bayuvar (or Austro-Bavarians) formed a new Austria. Although they lost part of their nation (Voyvodina) to Serbia, the Hungarians formed a new Hungary. The Czechs gained their independence although they held the Slovaks in subjection until 1992 when the Slovaks gained their independence and the Ruthenians until the end of World War II when they were transferred to the Soviet Union. In the south the Croats, Dalmatians, Slovenes, Bosnians, and Herzegovinians were not so fortunate. They were merged into the Serbian Empire (commonly called Yugoslavia) along with the Montenegrins and Macedonians until the collapse of the Soviet Empire precipitated the collapse of the Serbian Empire. (However, the Montenegrins remained under Serbian rule, and the Dalmatians remained under Croat rule.)

    Out of the fall of the Russian Empire came homelands for nations of the Finns, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Kashubians in Gdansk, and Poles. The Byelorussians were divided between Poland and Russia.

    Germany’s African and Asian colonies were transferred to England, France, and Japan. The Alemanni of Alsace and French of Lorraine were placed under French rule. Much of the German Empire that was Polish became part of Poland.

    The French replaced the Turks as the rulers of the Syrians, Druzes, and Christian Lebanese. The English replaced the Turks as the rulers of the Palestinians, the Arabs of Amman, and the Shiite Arabs of Baghdad and Basra.

    World War II is what really caused the undeserving reputation of nationalism as the cause of aggressive belligerence. The fascist movements in Italy and Germany claimed to be nationalistic, and the gullible, who include just about everyone in academia in the West, believed the fascists and still do. Hitler went so far in this deception that he named his movement National Socialism. Both Germany and Italy were imperialistic, not nationalistic. They sought to conquer other nations and to impose their values, ideology, economy, laws, etc. on these conquered nations.

    Germany and Italy could not have been acting in a nationalistic spirit because both were, and still are, an empire of nations. Germany consisted of at least eight nations: the Bayuvars, Alemanni (who were, and still are, divided among Germany, Switzerland, and France), Franconians (or Upper Germans), Germans (or Middle Germans), Brandenburgians, Plattdeutsch, Wends (a Slavonic people), and Prussians (who lost their homeland to the Poles as a result of World War II). Italy consisted of at least thirteen nations: the Piedmontese, Gallo-Italians, Venetians, Tuscans, Latins, Neapolitans, Sicilians, Sardinians, Friulians, Ladins, Bayuvars in Tirol, Savoyards in the northwest (the remainder of whom live under French rule) and Slovenes in Istria (who were reunited with their kindred after World War II in the Serbian Empire).

    Following World War II the map of Europe again changed. The Soviet Union absorbed the Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians. The eastern boundary of Poland was redrawn, and all of the Byelorussians and Volhynians (whom the Ukrainians now rule) were placed under Russian rule. The Ruthenians (whom the Ukrainians now rule) traded their Czech rulers for Russian rulers, and the Lemks and Boyks (whom the Ukrainians now rule) traded their Polish rulers for Russian rulers. The Rumanians of Bessarabia were also absorbed into the Soviet Union.

    The Prussian states (Prussian, Pomerelia, and Pomerania) were absorbed into Poland, and the Prussians for the most part were driven from their homeland. The eastern portion of Brandenburg also became part of Poland as did Gdansk (Danzig) with the resulting lost of autonomy for the Kashubians.

    At least in Europe, World War II was not nationalistic in nature, but was imperialistic. Because of the war, several nations lost their countries, and no nation gained independence. However, in Asia and Africa things were different. The European colonial empires collapsed. Many new countries were born. Unfortunately, for the most part, these new countries were not nations in the true sense, but where a conglomeration of nations.

    One new country that was a nation born following World War II was the Jewish nation of Israel. However, this nation soon shifted from nationalism to imperialism as it conquered and imposed its rule on the Palestinians.

    Between the end of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Empire, several nations have cried out for independence — some even to the point of armed insurrection. Some of these nations are the Punjabi in India, the Kurds in Iran, Iraq, and Turkey, the Palestinians in Israel, the Boers in South Africa, the Corsicans and Bretons in France, the Basque in France and Spain, the Welsh and Scotts in Great Britain, the Quebeckers in Canada, and the Southern Americans in the United States.

    The collapse of the Soviet Empire brought nationalism to the forefront and has caused imperialism to retreat. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the puppet governments in Eastern Europe, many new countries, most of which are true nations, came into being. Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are again independent. Byelorussians now have an independent homeland for the first time in history. Ukraine is an independent country although it continues to contain several nations along with the Ukrainians. The Rumanians of Moldavia (Bessarabia) have gained independence. In the Caucasian region, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaidzhan are independent. Georgia still consists of four different nations. Armenia’s union with the Armenians of Erzenrum in Turkey remains. Also, remaining is the union of the Azeris of Azerbaidzhan with the Azeris of Iran. In Central Asia the Tajik now have an independent homeland in Tajikistan. The Turanian countries of Kazakh, Turkmen, Uzbek, and Kirghiz have also gained independence.

    In Eastern Europe outside the old Soviet Union, several new countries, which for the most part consist predominately of one nation, have been born. Czechoslovakia has divided. The Czechs (Bohemians) have their homeland, and the Slovaks, theirs. Yugoslavia has divided. The Slovenes, Croats, and Macedonians have their independent homelands.

    Although the growth of modern day nationalism began long before World War I, it really began to bear fruit with the collapse of Turkey’s European empire that began several decades before that war with the creation of several new countries that were true nations. Then nationalism was driven back as imperialism reared its ugly head as the Italian, German, Russian, and Japanese empires began expansion. Imperialism peaked with World War II. Since the conquests of the Soviet Union at the conclusion of World War II, imperialism has been retreating, and nationalism has been advancing. Empires have collapsed, and none have risen to take their place although the United States have been striving to establish an empire of puppet states throughout the world.


Copyright © 1994, 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Striking 1920's Spanish

To contact us Click HERE
This striking 1920's Spanish home is sited on a knoll with hillside views in Silver Lake. Mature trees provide privacy and a natural woodsy feel. Generous living room w/ barrel ceiling and gorgeous period sconces. Formal dining room. Chef's kitchen w/ 6-burner Viking range, wood floors. 2 bedrooms are upstairs and 3rd bedroom downstairs as a separate space, 2 baths. this house has such a nice warm feel to it, approx. 1610 sq ft, on a 5052 sq ft parcel. 2230 Meadow Valley Terrace, Los Angeles, CA 90039. Currently listed at $959,000.

Vintage Movie Star Home in Glendale

To contact us Click HERE


It is very rare to see a home that has remained in the family for 75 years - a true testament to its style and comfortable single level floor plan! Robert Knapp, actor on Bonanza, Rifleman, Gunsmoke, Dragnet and many other popular TV shows used to live here with his wife Marilyn. You can just imagine the wonderful parties here!
The house has an elegant floor plan with double door entry into the formal living and dining rooms. The living room has a fireplace and access to rear gardens, and the den with closet could easily be a 3rd bedroom with adjacent 1/2 bathroom. There's also a large eat-in kitchen with adjoining laundry room.
Fun vintage details are sprinkled throughout the house... like this wallpaper in one of the bathrooms! This is an absolutely great house in a fabulous location that won't last long! 1607 Ramona, Glendale, CA 91208. Listed at $549,000.

Doctor's Appointment on Shabbat

To contact us Click HERE
A student told me that he wasn't feeling well to the point where he feels he might have fever. The only time he could make a doctor's appointment for was Shabbat, and the next opportunity would be only on Monday. Is it permissible to go to the doctor on Shabbat (assuming the doctor is a  non-Jew, as the majority of doctors are non-Jews)?

It is a common misconception that it is permissible for a non-Jew to preform any type of action on behalf of a Jew on Shabbat. But the Talmudic scholar Rav Ashi (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 150A) assumes that it is forbidden to ask a non-Jew to do a melacha (an action which is prohibited on Shabbat) from which a Jew will benefit. Some commentators (such as Rashi and Meiri) explain that this assumption is based upon the Mishna (Shabbat 16:6) which simply states that one may not ask a non-Jew to put out a candle on Shabbat.

O.K. on Shabbat?

The Rambam (Hilchot Shabbat 6:1) interprets this prohibition to be a rabbinic decree. According to him, the reason this prohibition was established is that the sages were concerned that a person might be influenced to himself perform forbidden actions. The way I understand this reasoning is that if there were no prohibition, one would be able to spend the whole Shabbat along with his servant constantly doing melacha on his behalf. The atmosphere which is created through this process may cause one to to himself perform melacha.

 Rav Ulah the son of Ilai and Rav Hamnunah (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 129 A) teach that it is permissible to ask a non-Jew to preform any type of melacha on Shabbat on behalf of one who is sick. The Ran (Shabbat, chapter 14) adds that only one who is so ill that he must stay in bed is defined as sick. But the Magid Mishneh (Maimonides, Shabbat 2:10) writes that the actual definition of sickness is when ones whole body is affected by the sickness, even if he is not forced to stay in bed.

Rav Moshe Iserlish, the Ramah (Shulchan Aruch OC 328:17), rules in accordance with the Magid Mishneh and therefore it is permissible to go to a doctor's appointment on Shabbat when one is not feeling well to the point where he thinks he might have fever (even without actually checking it, as I believe this case qualifies as a sickness that affects the whole body).

It turned out that this student had a sinus infection and was given antibiotics immediately. I believe that this really proves how important it was to get medical care ASAP and that assuming a more stringent approach would not have been correct.

May we all stay in good health, please God, but keep in mind the halachic options we can take advantage of if needed.

Using Another's Tefillin

To contact us Click HERE



Some Hopkins students keep their tefillin in our beit midrash which is great because it means that they feel at home. May one who finds himself one day stranded without tefillin use one of those pairs?


The Mishna[1]presents a difference of opinions between Rabbi Yehuda and the sages regarding the responsibility for the breaking of a flask during an oil purchase[2]. The Talmud[3] understands that their argument is stemming from a much broader issue: is one who uses an object without the owner's knowledge considered a robber[4] [5].
Maimonides[6], the Shulchan Aruch[7] and all major codifiers rule in accordance with the sages' opinion, i.e. one who borrows an object without the owner's knowledge is a robber. The Talmud[8] seems to suggests that if a person barrows an object in order to fulfill a mitzvah the borrower would not be considered a robber. The reason for this would be that we can argue that the owner would be pleased that his property be used for such purposes. The Talmud rejects this possibility in conclusion and rules against it. Thus it seems to be clear that it is forbidden to use someone else’s tefillin without permission.

When can you use it?

Surprisingly, this issue is a little more complex. Rabbeinu Yossef Chaviva, the 14^th century scholar, writes in his Nimukei Yossef[9], that one may use a talit[10] that is found in a place where people usually leave their talitot. His reasoning is that a talit is an object that is not harmed by a single use. The rationale of this ruling is that when the object won't be damaged we can accept the Talmud's above-mentioned suggested understanding, i.e. when speaking of a tool that is used for a mitzvah we may assume that the owner would not object to it being used[11].
13^th century Rabbeinu Peretz ben Rabbi Eliyahu[12] adds to this and says that if the talit is folded one may not use it as this indicates that the owner is extremely conscious of adequately maintaining his possessions. However, another 13^th century scholar, Rabbeinu Mordechai ben Rabbi Hillel[13], suggests an alternative ruling in a situation that the talit is folded: if the user will fold it back so that it is exactly as it was he is permitted to use the talit. It is important to mention that Rabbeinu Mordechai himself says that he is not certain that we can rule this way.
The fundamental rules that we can extract from these sources are as follows:
1. Generally speaking, one may not use someone else's objects without permission even with the intention of returning the object fully unharmed.2. When dealing with an object with which one performs mitzvot, if there is no harm whatsoever done to the object one may use it.3. If there is an indication that the owner is very strict about usage of his property, one may not use his possessions even for a mitzvah.
Rabbeinu Asher ben Yechiel[14] writes that the custom is to use another's talit and that if it was found folded it should be returned the same way, and the Shulchan Aruch[15] rules in accordance with this custom[16].The Rama (ibid.) adds that this is the case with tefillin as well, but not with books as they may be harmed by use.
On the other hand, both Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein[17] and Rav Yossef Chayim of Baghdad[18] write that in their time most people would not be pleased to know that someone used their talitot. Rav Yossef Chayim adds that the same is correct for tefillin and that he himself does not appreciate others using his tefillin.
Moreover, Rav Eliezer Waldenberg[19] says that even when borrowing tefillin directly from their owner one must be sure that the owner agreed to let him use the tefillin wholeheartedly, as sometimes people are disgusted by the thought of sweat being transferred from one person to the other via tefillin use[20]. This is to be done by listening intently to the owner's response and using intuition and common sense to assess whether or not the response was sincere. Now, how is one to do this if he is borrowing without the owner's knowledge?
Rav Waldenberg acknowledges that the Shulchan Aruch ruled that one may use another's tefillin, but he claims that this was relevant in the past when tefillin were much cheaper and therefore people weren't so strict about their use. Today when tefillin are so expensive people have greater reservations about other people using them.
I'd like to add two points that I believe have become an issue in today's world:
1. The method for creating tefillin in modern times involves innovative technologies, which enable a preciseness of shape that is truly remarkable and has never been reached in the past. Some people are more aware than others as far as caring for their tefillin and making sure the corners are unharmed. Thus we can possibly claim that it is forbidden to use someone else's tefillin as they may belong to someone who takes extra care for the shape of their tefillin.
2. Bathing is done much more frequently today than in the past. Many people in the western world shower first thing in the morning. If one puts tefillin on wet hair there is a chance that the shape will be ruined and even that water will erase the parshiyot. Some people are more aware than others of the importance of keeping one’s hair dry while using tefillin.
In my opinion, all the scholars that I have quoted agree that it has to be clear to the person who wants to use the tefillin that the owner would agree to it. To my understanding, their differences of opinions are rooted in their interpretation of different realities and situations. As I have shown, because there may be different reasons that someone would not agree to unattended use of his tefillin, it is very important that one who wants to use another's tefillin must take all of these issues into consideration.
I personally believe that each community should make its own rules regarding this issue so that members of the community know the full consequences of leaving their property in the public domain. I very much hope that we too will set these rules clearly and efficiently in our Hopkins community.

---

[1] Bava Batra 5:9[2] In ancient times, one who bought oil or perfume would bring his own utensils to the seller.[3] Bava Batra 88a[4] It is interesting to note that the Talmud uses the phrase ''gazlan" meaning robber as opposed to the phrase "ganav" meaning thief.[5] The Talmud explains the circumstances in the Mishnah to be such that a small child brought the flask to the seller and he, the seller, used the flask for his own personal benefit. In this case the owner of the flask is absent when the seller borrows it, and the child cannot be considered the owner's shaliach.[6] Hilchot Gzeila V'aveida 3:15[7] CM 359:5[8] Bava Metzia 29b[9] Halachot Ketanot [Menachot] Hilchot Tzitzit p. 12a[10] Prayer shawl[11] The object discussed in the Talmud is a sefer Torah which wears out with use as in those days it was used for studying which can be extremely extensive and intensive.[12] Sefer Mitzvot Katan 31 footnote 20[13] Halachot Ketanot [Menachot] Perek Ha’t’chelet 550[14] Chullin 8:26[15] OC 14:4[16] In regards to a talit[17] Aruch Hashulchan OC 14:11[18] Ben Ish Chai, Year a, Lech-Lecha 6[19] Tzitz Eliezer 12:7[20] But may still possibly allow it because they would be embarrassed to say no.