Volume 12 Number 30
                       Produced: Wed Mar 30  8:34:13 1994

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Basar B'chalav (2)
         [Yacov Barber, Miriam Nadel]
Bateil Be-Shishim
         [Aryeh Frimer]
Convert as "ben/bas Avraham Avinu"
         [Freda Birnbaum]
         [Aleeza Esther Berger]
Kuntresay Shiurim
         [Yechiel Wachtel]
Meat and Dairy
         [Lon Eisenberg]
Men,Women and Mitzvot
         [Saul Djanogly]
Query: Student Movements at YU
         [Aharon Tzvi HaLevi]
Shelo Assani X
         [Danny Skaist]
Worm drilling
         [Joshua W. Burton]
         [Michael Rosenberg]


From: <barbery@...> (Yacov Barber)
Date: Mon, Mar 14 14:49:49 1994
Subject: Basar B'chalav

>    Jack Reiner (MJ 12:14) asks whether various functions at McDonald's
>(owner, worker, stockholder, etc.) are problematic because of the
>prohibition against deriving any benefit from milk/meat combinations.
>It is my recollection that the DEFINITION of such combinations requires
>the meat to be kosher,

  The Torah prohibition of bosor b' cholov applies, only if the meat is
from a kosher animal. The  Rabbis prohibited bosor b' cholov even if the
meat is from a non kosher animal. One of the practical differences between
the two would be if you are allowed to have benefit from the food. If it is
a kosher animal , no, a non kosher animal, yes. So if McDonalds only use
non kosher meat it would be fine.You may argue that perhaps even if it is
from a kosher animal it should be fine since it is not kosher meat. However
the Sma'g writes that in the category of a kosher animal we will include
both neveilus and treifus, (animals that have not been slaughtered or have
certain blemishes that would make them unfit for consumption.)

Rabbi Yacov Barber
South Caulfield Hebrew Congregation
Phone: +613 576 9225
Fax: +613 528 5980

From: Miriam Nadel <nadel@...>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 94 07:54:14 PST
Subject: Re: Basar B'chalav

Actually, it requires that the meat be from an animal that is kosher,
not that the meat itself be kosher.  Hence, cheeseburgers made with
treif meat are a problem, as are pet foods containing beef and cheese,
while pet foods containing horsemeat and cheese would be okay to use.

It seems to me that being an owner or worker at a restaurant which uses
meat and dairy together is clearly a problem.  But for a stockholder, it
should depend on whether the company in question also does other things.
My reasoning is the answer I got several years ago to a question about
buying food from cooperative markets after Pesach.  Since the store is
jointly owned by its stockholders, there is the potential problem of
benefiting from chometz owned by Jews during Pesach.  But, so long as
the store sells other (non-chometz) products and is owned primarily by
non-Jews, you can presume that the shares of the Jews are used for the
ownership of the non-chometz.  So owning stock in MacDonald's is likely
to be a problem but owning stock in a conglomerate which owns some treyf
restaurants probably isn't.  There should be even less of a problem with
a diversified mutual fund since you don't directly control which stocks
it is invested in.  If there is a Fidelity Select Fast Food Joints,
though, it seems questionable to me.

Miriam Nadel


From: Aryeh Frimer <F66235@...>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 94 09:26:04 -0500
Subject: Bateil Be-Shishim

It is forbidden for a Jew le-Chatchilla to nullify in 60; however, if
you buy the product after the producer has already nullified it
be-Shishim then the food is kosher. The problem with gelatin or certain
Red food coloring (sometimes derived from a beetle) is that they are
often used to give a product its shape or color and are not Bateil
(nullified) at all even if 1 in a 1000.


From: Freda Birnbaum <FBBIRNBA@...>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 94 07:32 EDT
Subject: Convert as "ben/bas Avraham Avinu"

In the first issue of m-j labeled Volume 12 #15, which appears to have been
overwritten in the archives by the second issue labeled #15, Eitan Fiorino
notes, re various issues regarding gerim:

[I've figured out why that happened and hopefully will be able to
prevent it from reoccuring. I will get the first v12n15 uploaded to the
archives and listed as v12n15a as soon as I work through some of the
backlog I've got here. Mod.]

>I was informed by R. David Feinstein that I need not specify "ben
>avraham avinu" on the ketuba (ie, "ben avraham" is sufficient).

I wonder, would the answer be different in the case of a female convert?
I ask in the context of, what are the uses of a ketuba and what are the
documents, if any, we need or recognize re anyone's personal status?
Might there be more reason to have the information that a person is a
convert on record somewhere in the case of a woman than of a man?  (I
can't think of any, at least re a ketuba, because if she later gets
divorced she can't marry a cohen anyway, because of being divorced.)

Freda Birnbaum, <fbbirnbaum@...>
"Call on God, but row away from the rocks"


From: Aleeza Esther Berger <aeb21@...>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 1994 11:54:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Ketubot

In mail.jewish Vol. 12 #12 Digest, Aryeh Frimer said:
> After all, the only
> reason we read the ketubah in the first place is to serve as a hefsek
> (interruption) between the Kidushin and the nisuin so that we can make
> a second boreh pri ha-gafen. People don't normally read their contracts
> in public before hundreds of people. So reading the ketubah per se' has
> no halakhic standing.  

Janice Gelb answers Aryeh:

>I got dramatic proof of this at a wedding I went to in Israel a few
>years ago right after the shekel was devalued, where in the middle of
>reading the ketubah the presiding rabbi went off on a five-minute
>tangent about whether the shkalim mentioned were new shkalim or old!

I understand that Janice means this as a joke, but it brings up a
serious point. In our times, unlike the time of the Talmud, not only
does *reading* the ketubah have "no halakhic standing", but the amount
of money stated in effect doesn't either -- for no good reason.  This
money is supposed to be given to a woman in the event of a divorce.  The
sad fact is that today, women *never* collect this money.  How much is
it?  Well, a good few thousand dollars.  (The fact that no two batei din
[Jewish courts] that deal with divorces give the same figure on the
worth of a ketubah is empirical evidence that not only is the ketubah
money never awarded, the batei din never even consider the possibility
that it might be.)  More often, in the case of a woman whose husband is
holding out on giving her the get [jewish divorce], she winds up paying
him.  Thus the ketubah, the original purpose of which was financial
protection for the woman, has become something meaningless from this

Well, you might say, women don't need the ketubah money any more, since
they get wonderful settlements from civil courts.  In very Orthodox
circles, a woman who goes to a civil court instead of a bet din is
frowned upon as "not frum".  Also, I don't believe a problem in halakha
is best addressed by such avoidance measures.  It would be better
addressed straight on.

A better argument against awarding the ketubah settlement in today's
world is that since both men and women are in theory equal breadwinners,
there's no particular reason that he should give her money.  However, I
wouldn't use this argument until *all* the other laws of divorce also
opearate equally for Jewish men and women.  Clearly, however, today,
they do not, leading to the "agunah problem".

This information comes from members of the *Agunah* organization, which
aids women in this situation.  Hence the line in a "prayer for agunot"
which is recited at the Flatbush Women's Tefilah Service (after the
prayer for the State of Israel) -- "the men (i.e. the recalcitrant
husbands) who bind women in the tatters of their ketubot". The prayer
goes on to say "may you (G-d) infuse our rabbis with the courage to
recognize oppression and rule justly against it."

Aliza Berger


From: Yechiel Wachtel <YWACHTEL@...>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 94 00:59:58 PST
Subject: Kuntresay Shiurim

	One can obtain reprinted copies of Rav Gustman Ztzls Kuntresay
Shiurim on Bava Metziah, Kidushin and possibly others by contacting
Yeshiva Netzach Yisroel, 22 Even Ezra St. , Jerusalem.  02-639-917, 02-


From: eisenbrg%<milcse@...> (Lon Eisenberg)
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 94 18:53:19 -0500
Subject: Re:  Meat and Dairy

Arthur Roth stated that the prohibition of benefit of meat cooked with
dairy requires the meat to be kosher.  I believe this is not the case.
The meat must simply come from a kosher "behemah" (domestic animal).
Therefore, if the meat were to come from a pig (not kosher) or deer (not
domestic) [it is a hayah, not a behemah] the prohibition would not
apply.  The fact that the beef did not have proper shehitah (ritual
slaughter) should not remove the prohibition.

[Similar Replies from:

<MSHAMAH@...> (Moshe Shamah)
<saul@...> (Saul Djanogly)


From: <saul@...> (Saul Djanogly)
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 94 08:53:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Men,Women and Mitzvot

See Mishnayot Horayot Chap.3 Mishna 7
'When it comes to saving life a man has precedence over a woman'
The Rambam in his commentary says
'You already know that a man is obligated to keep all the Mitzvot and that a
woman only has to keep some as explained in Kidushin,and that he is holier 
than her. Therefore his life must be saved first.'
Also see the next Mishna where Torah learning is the first criterion for
deciding which man to save first.

saul djanogly


From: Aharon Tzvi HaLevi <yolkut@...>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 94 00:11:54 -0500
Subject: Query: Student Movements at YU

        I may be writing a contemporary history paper on student movements 
between 1965-75 in Yeshiva University (esp. Vietnam, Civil Rights, 
"student's rights<" Soviet Jewry,) anyone who has information or was 
involved in these movements at YU please let me know.  I am esp. curios 
as to the religious dimension of these movements., and reactions of the 
various roshei yeshiva.
Daniel A HaLevi Yolkut


From: DANNY%<ILNCRD@...> (Danny Skaist)
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 94 09:26:22 -0500
Subject: Shelo Assani X

>Arthur Roth
>largest number.  Thus we thank Hashem FIRST for not having made us
>non-Jews (even male!), then for not having made us slaves (even male!),
>and only after that for not having made us women.

The proof of all this is that if one of the 3 blessings was skipped, one
may not go back to say it.

Having thanked G-d for having more mitzvot then a woman has we may not
thank G-d for having more mitzvoth than a slave has, since "more
mitzvoth than a slave", is included in "more mitzvoth than a woman" and
it would be a bracho l'vatalah.



From: <burton@...> (Joshua W. Burton)
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 94 16:29:43 EST
Subject: Worm drilling

The worm was Shamir---to the delight of the dati Israeli left....

                    _._ _  _ ___ _ ___   _  _ _ _ _ _ _ _   _  _ _ _ _._ ___ _ 
Joshua W. Burton     | |( ' )   |.| . |  ( ' ) | | | | | |   \  )( (  ) |   | |
(401)435-6370        | | )_/    | |___|_  )_/   /|_|   | |  __)/  \_)/  ||  |  
<burton@...> |                          ..      .     -    `.         :


From: <Michael.Rosenberg@...> (Michael Rosenberg)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 94 07:28:50 PST
Subject: Yedchem

The word "yedchem" appeared in last week's parasha.  Although we use
this term daily during the reading of Sh'ma, I have never felt that I
understood the exact difference in nuance between "yedchem" "yadeichem?"
Is there a difference?  When is one used over the other?  And why?

uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!31.9!Michael.Rosenberg
Internet: <Michael.Rosenberg@...>


End of Volume 12 Issue 30