Volume 12 Number 66
                       Produced: Tue Apr 19  8:18:41 1994

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

         [Pinchus Laufer]
Drug Use Article
         [Anthony Fiorino]
Eating Meat
         [Harry Weiss]
         [Nachum Chernofsky]
Meat Why?
         [Aharon Fischman]
Meat? Why?
         [David Charlap]
Ramban's views on Eretz Yisroel
         [Ari Kurtz]
Rav Moshe's Teshuvot in English
         [Marc Shapiro]
Requests for Comments on Article
         [Marc Shapiro]
S. Leiman  and Eibshutz/Emden
         [Eli Turkel]


From: <plaufer@...> (Pinchus Laufer)
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 15:53:29 -0400
Subject: Bias

From: Jerome Parness <parness@...>
>... the Hasidishization of minhag to law
>in less than a single generation - and the further splintering of B'nei
>Yisrael into subcasts. 

>.... results of sin'at chinam on all sides of the political and religious

Re (1):

I continue with my pet peeve (although Avi wisely chooses not to post it
each time I point it out) - once again anything "bad" is "hasidic".  The
idea that Hassidic is identically equal to bad seems to be the underlying
moral certitude of too many of the MJ community.  I for one find this highly

[While I do not deny that Pinchus has a point, I think he is wrong in
his statement Jerry (and others) is identifying "bad" with "hasidic". It
would be more fruitful in my opinion to understand how each of our
communities understand each other and maybe clear up
misunderstanding/mistrust based on lack of knowledge. Mod.]

Re (2): Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black - only much more so! I
don't recall any messages in MJ from the Chasidim denouncing those who are
Misnagdim or even non-affiliated.



From: Anthony Fiorino <fiorino@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 12:03:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Drug Use Article

Regarding the article on drugs by Rav Ahron Soloveitchik:  the details are
sketchy, but I received the following information -- it definitely appeared
in Tradition and may have been reprinted in a book on drugs edited by Leo


From: <harry.weiss@...> (Harry Weiss)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 22:02:54 
Subject: Eating Meat

In MJ 12#58 Susan Sterngold asks why not be vegetarian.  

1.  There is a Mitzvah (at least tradition) to eat meat and fish on
Shabbat.  On Yom Tov there is a Mitzvah to rejoice and the Talmud says
the only rejoicing is with meat.

2.  If the Jewish people would become vegetarians we would abandon
various Mitzvot associated with Kashrut including Schitah and Kissui
Hadam (covering of the blood).

3.  Meat tastes good and many people enjoy having a good steak.  There
is trouble involved in preparation of all foods.  Even a vegetarian has
too be careful about hashgachas since many "vegetarian" products contain
meat or meat derivatives.  Keeping kosher and having meat products is
not that much more trouble, especially once you get used to it.

4.   Don't we have a responsibility to provide a Parnosoh for
Cardiologists :-)?

Happy Yom Haatzmaut   Harry


From: <F5E017@...> (Nachum Chernofsky)
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 94 12:07 O
Subject: Gebrokts

Regarding the discussion on gebrokts and its effect on dishes, I would
like to relate that over 20 years ago, when my wife and I attended our
first seder which took place at the home of a relative who does not eat
gebrokts (we do), I joked around about their being careful not to get
any matza crumbs in the drinking water, etc.  Subsequently, I went to
ask Harav Shmuel Halevi Vosner (the Av Bet Din of Zichron Meir in Bnei
Brak and one of the Poskei Hador) a she'ila if there was any problem
with Gebrokts and dishes.  His answer was that there is definitely room
to be "makpid" when it comes to gebrokts and dishes, and when in the
house of someone who doesn't eat Gebrokts, a Gebrokts eater should be
equally as careful about dishes, as his host.

Regarding whether Gebrokts is a "chumra" or not, I asked the posek of
Kerem B'Yavne when I learned there in 5733 whether there was any reason
to take on the chumra of not eating Gebrokts.  He told me that it isn't
a chumra, rather a minhag. (I'm sorry, but I don't remember his exact
name - perhaps a Rav Elyoseroff or something like that.)

Nachum Chernofsky <f5e017@...>


From: <afischma@...> (Aharon Fischman)
Date: 14 Apr 94 16:59:07 GMT
Subject: Re: Meat Why?

	In responce to Susan Sterngold's observation on vegatarianism, I
won't disparage those who abstain from what they feel as wrong, but for
others there is "Ain Simcha elah beBasar VeYayin" there is no joy but
with meat and wine.  It may make life difficult, but radical change in
behavior may be more difficult.

Aharon Fischman

From: <david@...> (David Charlap)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 12:26:14 -0400
Subject: Meat? Why?

Susan Sterngold <ss117@...> writes:
>I am not real knowledgeable about halacha but wouldn't it be easier
>just to be vegetarian? In addition to not killing animals and helping
>the environment, one would not have to worry about whether the
>butcher is lying. No separate sinks or dishes for meat or dairy..just
>a thought.. 

1) Yes, it would be easier.  And there are Jews who are vegetarians.
2) Judaism has nothing against killing animals for food, as long as
   they are killed by a shochet who is fully qualified.
3) How does not eating meat help the environment?  Animals have been
   eating each other since long before humans existed.

There are halachic arguments against 100% vegetarianism.  One of them
is the very strong tradition to have meat on Shabbat.  This is from
the passage "Aino simcha, ela b'basar" - "There is no celebration
without meat".  While this is referring to the Temple sacrifices, it
is also the basis for a tradition of eating meat on Shabbat.

Additionally, when the Temple stands, every Jew is obligated to eat
from the Passover sacrifice.  This means that when the Temple is
rebuilt (may it be soon!), even vegetarians will have to eat meat at
least once a year.


From: Ari Kurtz <s1553072@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 11:50:19 +0300
Subject: Ramban's views on Eretz Yisroel

  Shalom Alichem
   I was doing some reading on the Ramban and I noticed what seemed some
outlandish ideas on Yeshuv Eretz Yisroel. On Bamidbar (33,53) the Ramban
learns that there is a definate Mitzvah to settle in the land of Israel.
The Ramban continues on this that also anyone who resides outside of
Israel is considered rebelious to Haashem (Ber 28,17). Then in (Vayikra
25,24) the Ramban points out that Eretz Yisroel is the only portion of
this world that Hashem kept and gave Bnei Yisroel permission to dwell
there. Another point the Ramban makes is that one is only obligated to
perform the mitzvot in Eretz Yisroel and Mitvot outside of Israel is
just for pratice. (With this you'd expect all those who love to be
machmer would jump on a plane to Israel the first chance they had) (Ber.
   What I was wondering is that are there any other Rishonin who take to
this line of thinking ? And on what does the ramban base all this on ?

p.s. By the way I hear you can get a nice house cheap in the Shomron these
     days . 
                                   Ari Kurtz


From: Marc Shapiro <mshapiro@...>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 1994 09:28:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Rav Moshe's Teshuvot in English

I've noticed that Ktav will be publishing a number of translations of R. 
Moshe's teshuvot. The translations are done by Rabbi Tendler. Could 
someone at YU ask him how he he could do this since R.Moshe has a 
teshuvah in which he says that it is forbidden to translate his responsa 
into English. Some years ago I sent a letter to the Journal of Halakhah 
and Contemporary Society pinting this out and the editor responded that 
before they published the translation they got the family's permission. I 
don't see how this helps any since R. Moshe is explicit that you cannot 
do this. What does it matter what the family say?
						Marc Shapiro


From: Marc Shapiro <mshapiro@...>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 20:18:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Requests for Comments on Article

An article of mine recently appeared in the Torah u-Madda Journal and I 
would like to request of all who get the journal to please read it and 
send me their comments, corrections, additions etc. I hope to expand it 
and publish it as a small book (on the history of dogma in Judaism). 
Since there are hundreds of talmide hakhamim who read these posts where 
better to get input than here. Of course, all comments will be 
acknowledged in the text , since one who repeats something in the name of 
another brings redemption to the world.
	Since the article was submitted over a year ago I have come 
across a number of new sources (rarely a week goes by without adding to 
it). If anyone is interested in these recent references please contact 
me. For example, at the beginning I wrote that the Hatam Sofer was wrong 
in referring to a prayer by Rav Tavyomi. I said that the prayer was by a 
certain Tavyomi and was probably medieval. In fact, I now see that it was 
authored by R. Yom Tov Muelhaussen.
	In discussing the Fifth Principle I now see that R. Joseph Messas 
says that it was only directed to the masses but didn't reflect 
Maimonides' true view.
	We now know, thanks to Jordan Penkower, exactly what the Rambam's 
text looked like. Furthermore, I have discovered a Lithuanian aharon who 
matter of factly notes that Ezra emended the text of the Torah.
	While on the topic of Torah text I should mention that R. Yitzhak 
Ratsaby told me that in a new book he will take issue with Penkower. He 
thinks that the Rambam did not use the Aleppo codex. For a variety of 
reasons I think he is wrong. The most compelling reason perhaps is what 
Breuer has noted: Assuming the Aleppo codex is not by Ben Asher we are 
confronted with the fact that an amazing Masorete disappeared without a 
trace and Ben Asher, the famous Ben Asher, left nothing to posterity.
	Ratsaby is a well known halakhist having written 2 volumes of 
responsa and edited MAharitz' halakhic works. I asked him if we should 
adopt the Yemenite version of the Torah since that is more accurate and 
he said yes in theory but in practice the gedolim would need to agree (of 
course tradition is too strong that this would never happen. Breuer noted 
how unusual it is that we will never change our Torah text even though it 
is mistaken but in the last 50 or so years people have begun to say 
zekher in addition to zaycher in Esther even though the first option is 
	The interesting thing about Ratsaby's comment is that, as he 
knows, for the most part the gedolim are unequipped to deal with these 
issues. Even in previous centuries gedolim admitted as much in their 
teshuvot. Masoretic matters never were at the forefront of study so the 
gedolim often are unaware of the metsiut. The logical conclusion is that 
in matters such as this our gedolim should be Ratsaby, Breuer, R. David 
Yitzhaki and others (R. Wosner is also learned in this area). Shouldn't 
they be the ones making decisions in their specialty. It seems illogical 
to leave Masoretic decisions to those gedolim who have no real knowledge 
about the Masorah and its development-- many gedolim have written 
teshuvot on these matters which show (bi-mechilat kevodam) complete 
ignorance. Even such a learned man as Rabbi Zuriel published a text in 
which he discusses the work 
of an apostate, believing him to be a great masoretic scholar! Comments 
on this matter would also be appreciated.
				Marc Shapiro


From: <turkel@...> (Eli Turkel)
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 94 09:50:22 +0300
Subject: S. Leiman  and Eibshutz/Emden

     I had a conversation with someone on mail.jewish concerning
articles of Shnayer Leiman on the R. Eibshutz/Emden controversy. I now
have his articles but lost my list of who wanted them.
      Whoever wanted a copy of these articles can contact me .
Eli Turkel



End of Volume 12 Issue 66