Volume 14 Number 87
                       Produced: Fri Aug 19 14:13:01 1994

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Comprehensive Word on Milk
         [Janice Gelb]
Dating quotas
         [Sam Juni]
Freud & incest
         [Shalom Carmy]
Women and Kaddish
         [Aryeh A. Frimer]


From: <Janice.Gelb@...> (Janice Gelb)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 09:57:25 +0800
Subject: Comprehensive Word on Milk

This contains a letter from an OU mashgiach explaining the whole milk
controversy. I thought it was comprehensive enough that you might want
to send it out, even though the subject has been dealt with already on


I've a good friend who's an Orthodox Rabbi here in Chicago; Rabbi Sheldon
Blech.  He works with the OU here, and travels around the world certifying
(or not) food plants and such.  (BTW, apologies for any looseness of terms--
although I've learned much about Kashruth during the term of my association
with Sheldon, I'm not Jewish, so I _know_ there are holes in my knowledge.)

Anyway, Sheldon is techie--in fact, my original association involved a
contract to put up a bulletin board dedicated to alerts and general issues
concerning Kashruth in the U.S.--but not yet on the net.  A friend gave him
a printout of this thread.  He has prepared a statement that is his position
on the issue, which I append verbatim.  Since he isn't yet on the wire--soon,
after this!--he asks that any comments, queries, etc. please be sent to
me, and I will forward them to him immediately.  My preferred mail address
is <ignatz@...>

		Dave Ihnat
		<ignatz@...> (preferred return address)

======================= Begin Rabbi Blech's Article ====================
        It  seems that the way that Hashem designed cows to  be  fed 
        and  the way it is done by modern farmers the United  States 
        are  not  completely  in  sync.  Cows  were  created  to  be 
        biological lawn mowers -- they would graze on nature's grass 
        and  produce a reasonable amount of milk for their  trouble.  
        In  America,  however, farmers would rather  mow  the  grass 
        themselves and feed cows a high nutrition fodder designed to 
        vastly increase the cows' production of milk.  However,  the 
        cows'   digestive  system  was  not  designed  for  a   high 
        carbohydrate ration; it was tuned to digest cellulose.  When 
        man  begins  to  tinker with nature, problems  are  sure  to 

        It  seems  that  cows  react  to  the  new  feed  system  by 
        developing  a  condition called "displaced  abomasum".   The 
        theory  is  that the abomasum, or  fourth  stomach  (Kevah), 
        experiences a drastic increase in volatile free fatty acids, 
        fills  with  gas  and is displaced  within  the  cow.   This 
        results  in a sick cow, one that will either stop eating  at 
        best,  or  suffer torsion displacement of the  abomasum  and 
        die.   The  treatment  of this condition is  to  anchor  the 
        abomasum back into its appropriate place.

        [Please  note  that  this  problem does  not  exist  in  New 
        Zealand,  where  cows  subsist entirely by  grazing  in  the 

        Although  this condition seems to present itself a month  or 
        two after calving, it is usually not related to the  calving 
        process. Rather, cows begin to lactate at calving, and it is 
        at  that  time  that the feed ration  is  changed  with  the 
        attendant  problems  discussed above.  [With  the  birth  of 
        twins  the  condition can also be aggravated.  However,  the 
        primary  cause  of  the problem is the change  in  the  feed 
        Although  the  prevalence of this condition  varies  greatly 
        from  farm to farm and from region to region, the  consensus 
        of the experts consulted is that the condition may occur  in 
        between 3-5% of the dairy herd.  The condition of  Displaced 
        Abomasum  may  be  alleviated trough  massage  and  external 
        manipulation   of   the  affected  organ.     If   this   is 
        unsuccessful,   the   following  surgical   techniques   are 

        1.  Omentopexy.   An incision of 6-8 inches is made  through 
            muscle  on side of the cow and the peritoneum,  exposing 
            the  abomasum and the omentum (Chelev)  surrounding  the 
            abomasum.  A  piece of the omentum is  tucked  into  the 
            incision and sutured together with the muscle, anchoring 
            the abomasum in place.

            If the abomasum is returned to its appropriate position, 
            the buildup of gas is relieved through normal  channels. 
            If the abomasum is too distended by gas to be maneuvered 
            to its correct location, the abomasum may be deflated by 
            inserting  a needle obliquely (at an angle) through  the 
            abomasal wall.  

        2.  Abomasopexy.  An  incision is made through  the  ventral 
            (bottom)  of the animal.  The surgeon then  sutures  the 
            _outer_ wall of the abomasum to the peritoneum and there-
            by anchoring it.  Although the surgeon attempts to limit 
            the suturing the outer wall of the abomasum, the  needle 
            may  indeed  pierce  through both walls.  The  issue  of 
            deflating   the  abomasum  is  handled  in  the   manner 
            described above. 

        3.  Blind  Stitch.   No incision is made in  the  cow.   The 
            animal  is  laid  on  its back,  which  will  allow  the 
            abomasum to migrate up (to the bottom of the animal) and 
            assume  its  normal position. A large needle  is  pushed 
            through  the  side of the cow and (hopefully)  into  the 
            abomasum  itself.  The blind stitch is  then  completed, 
            anchoring the abomasum in place.

        4.  Toggle  Button.  Again, no incision is made in the  cow. 
            An  expandable toggle is popped through the side of  the 
            cow  and  penetrates  the abomasum.  The  wound  in  the 
            abomasum  causes a mild infection with fuses the  toggle 
            to  the organ and the side of the cow, anchoring  it  in 

        The  issues of Treifus of the cows by the  above  procedures 
        would be as follows:

        1.  The  puncturing the Kevah to relieve the gas may  render 
            it  a Treifa. [Please note that the oblique  penetration 
            may not be considered as a Nekev M'fulash.]

        2.  An  incision through the ventral section of the cow  may 
            be considered as cutting through Basar Ha'Chofeh as  Rov 

        3.  The  suturing of the abomasum may involve a piercing  of 
            both walls of the abomasum (Kevah).

        Staff  of  the  OU has   consulted  with  the  veterinarians 
        throughout   the  United  States  and  with  heads  of   the 
        veterinary  departments of several states.  After  reviewing 
        the  procedures  and their Halachik  ramifications,  it  was 
        concluded  that the milk supply in the United States can  be 
        considered Kosher without any question.

        The  basis of this decision was based on the  percentage  of 
        animals  involved  and whether any of the  above  issues  of 
        Treifus are applicable to this case.   The decision on  both 
        of these issues was that the percentages of animals involved 
        would  limit  the concern, and  the  procedures  themselves, 
        which  clearly  allow the animals to live for  a  number  of 
        years and to give birth thereafter, should not be considered 
        as causing the animals to be Treif. 

			-Rabbi Sheldon Blech

Janice Gelb                  | (415) 336-7075     
<janiceg@...>   | "A silly message but mine own" (not Sun's!) 


From: Sam Juni <JUNI@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 13:21:57 -0400
Subject: Dating quotas

Several posts have taken exception to my use of the term "atrocity" to
describe the practice of a short dating sequence in parts of the
orthodox community. One posting (which I read on the screen, but then
lost while trying to save it) was quite forceful in showing how this
issue pales in contrast to real historical atrocities of mass
annihilation.  I admit the word is inappropriate as such.  However, I do
want to explain where it comes from.

While the general population is rarely privy to the personal tragedies
of the dysfunctional families, mental health professionals see it all
day long.  Repeatedly, one encounters marital dyads who live in hell and
treat their children and their extended families to their misery as
well. SOMEtimes (by no means always), the discord could have been pre-
vented by the couple having known each other better before marrying.
This misery escalates into bone fide tragedies.  The divorces which come
to pass are only the tip of the iceberg.  In fact, in most respects, the
divorced couples are the "lucky ones" compared to many who remain

I do not know how it is that the system of abbreviated dating, which
seems to have worked well in the past (especially in the orthodox
circles) is beginning to fail us.  Apparently family life is pressing us
with new demands for which the traditional match-making schemes are

   Shaul Wallach (14/82) attributes the stress of current family life to
the quicker pace of life, to the increase of child mobility, and to the
dual career phenomenon.  I concur. I believe, however, there is a more
salient factor here: the advent of interpersonal intimacy among spouses.
Let me expound with some home-made sociology of the family.

   In the olden days, marriages were set up with very clear demarcations
of roles and turf.  In a sense, the marital dyad lives in two different
world whose intersection was specifically defined. Your spouse was not
your friend -- and definitely not your best friend.  Your friends were
in the pub, in the Bais Medrash (L'Havdil), in the bridge club, etc.
While true of the general population, it was more true of the Jewish
orthodox culture, with barriers such as "Al Tarbeh Sicha Im Isha" (Do
not converse excessively with women) reinforcing this structure.  Little
surprize, then, that problems of compatibility were not as prevalent.

I would probably throw in two other factors which differentiate nowadays
from those days of yore in this context.  First, there was no norm of
communication.  People did not tend to "talk things out" as much as we
do.  Therefore, discrepancies between attitudes, etc. did not surface as
much. (And what you don't know, doesen't hurt as much.)  Second, leisure
time was not plentiful.  It is idle time which allows for introspection,
re-evaluation, and fighting.

Regarding the lower divorce rate among our culture.  It is my feeling
that this cannot be used as an index of the success of the abbreviated
courtship system. (Although, it does match a statistical study I read
about two years ago in a Family journal showing that divorce rate is
higher among couples who lived together before being married.)  We have
strong tabooos against recognizing and admitting to marital discord, and
even stronger ones against divorce.  We also have very strong
imperatives against divorce when there are children.  (I share the
latter as advocate for the children.)

Let me note that these reservations have been highlighted unexpectedly
on MJ.  I received several personal posts which decry the notion that
our culture features better marital adjustment. Some of these were
apparently based on personal issues, but others came from Mental Health
Professionals.  I am chagrinned that these were not sent to MJ directly.

The argument for more extensive dating is based on the notion that more
time is needed to get to know a person and to evaluate marital
suitability.  I fail to see how one can compare the extent to which you
know another after only several meetings to the extent of understanding
that comes with a longer period.

Then, there is the issue of character-disordered individuals (and
worse).  It has been argued that, in our culture, the range of pathology
is limited, and therefore extensive dating is not necessary.  I do not
believe this is the case.

While it is true that overt unethical BEHAVIOR on the part of our youth
is small, the underlying pathology is much more significant. (I have no
idea if it in fact approaches the overall norms.)  I suspect that even
inappropriate behavior is more prevalent than we realize, but that
stigma minimizes the reporting of such events.  The usual state of
afairs, given high ethical codes, is that the unfortunate person gets
the message from our community saying "Stifle yourself."  Such stifling
works well in occasional encounters with the outside world, and may be
effective on several pre-planned dates where behavior can be rehearsed
in advance. It has less of a chance in a longer dating scheme.

     Dr. Sam Juni                  Fax (212) 995-3474
     New York University           Tel (212) 998-5548
     400 East
     New York, N.Y.  10003


From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@...>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 01:59:45 -0400
Subject: Freud & incest

To correct the allegation that Freud denied father-daughter incest.  He
did nothing of the sort. In his early work (1890's) he accepted reports
of incest produced after therapeutic intervention. Eventually he came to
believe that these "memories" were rather fantasies on the part of the
patient. The primary reason he gives for this change is that he couldn't
believe that incest was UNIVERSAL. Many years later Freud continued to
believe that incest is MORE COMMON than people usually assume. But, I
repeat, not nearly universal.

I point this out, not only because truth is important, even in
discussing a flawed thinker like Freud, but because statements about
this issue in recent years have tended to further an ideological agenda
that subtly undermines a Torah outlook: 1. By loosening inhibitions
about making dubious accusations; 2. By undermining confidence in
parental authority; 3. Most important, by encouraging the secular &
liberal Christian delusion that whenever people are unhappy, it's
someone else's fault.

Before the PC Police get me: I don't mean to deny that incest occurs.
Only that everything I read implies that it's somewhat exaggerated and,
what signifies more, that the reality is being massaged for ideological
reasons that we ought to put us on guard.


From: <frimer@...> (Aryeh A. Frimer)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 10:58:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Women and Kaddish

	After my previous posting, Rabbi Ari zivitovsky brought to my
attention an interesting article on the subject of Women and Kaddish by
Rochelle Millen in Modern Judaism 10 (1990) p191-203.
	My Brother Dov told me many years ago that when Rabbi Oskolsky
passed away, his daughters (no sons) asked Reb Moshe about Kaddish and
he permitted them to have a Minyan at home followed by Kaddish by the
daughters.  Unfortunately, nothing has appeared in print about this.


End of Volume 14 Issue 87