Volume 15 Number 13
                       Produced: Wed Aug 31  0:01:40 1994

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

After-Death Experiences
         [Nadine Bonner]
Dairy products (Good for the Jews?)
         [Amos Wittenberg]
Dairy products and Jewish values
         [Moshe E. Rappoport]
Dor Yeshorim and Cystic Fibrosis
         [Seth Ness]
Double Wrappings
         [Ari Shapiro]
Judaism and Vegetarianism
         [Jules Reichel]
Kashrut and Eggs
         [Barry Fruendel]
         [Irwin Keller]
Meru: Names, Bagels, and Bulls
         [Sam Juni]
Religion and Science
         [Jonathan Katz]
The Ultimate Curse
         [Hayim Hendeles]


From: <n.bonner@...> (Nadine Bonner)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 20:48:48 -0400
Subject: After-Death Experiences

  I'm not going to make a big deal of this, but if Michael Shimshoni had
read my original post, I stated that patients lying on tables in
operating rooms reported conversations outside the operating theatre and
in the hallways.  Yes, in modern American hospitals (most of Dr. Sabom's
research took place in Florida), when you enter an OR, you are totally
isolated from the hallways or anything else outside the operating
theater (I didn't notice originally that he posted from Israel where
that is not necessarily true).  Patients who are technically dead report
floating down the hallway watching their relatives react to the news of
their deaths.  There are many documented stories, and they're all in the
literature so I'm not going to go into it. I just like to be understood

Nadine Bonner


From: <awittenberg@...> (Amos Wittenberg)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 13:06:53 -0400
Subject: Dairy products (Good for the Jews?)

   Richard Schwartz argued his case for abstaining from dairy products.
Quite apart from the fact that 'Eretz Yisro'el is praised for, among
other products, milk ('eretz zovas cholov [a land flowing with milk]),
it seems to me that there is a s'tiroh [contradiction] in Richard's
agruments.  His arguments #1-#5 say "milk is bad and you don't need it"
while his argument #7 says "there are excellent replacements for milk in
your diet".

   Implicitly, argument #7 says that you DO need milk in your diet, but
it can be replaced by something else.  This is a convincing argument if
the argument contra milk is #6 (the ethics of the dairy industry), but
not if the contention is that milk is an unnatural, wrong nutrient that
HKB"H does not intend us to consume.

   The better remedy for #6 is not to cut out milk from our diet but to
achieve a humane dairy industry.

Amos Wittenberg
 ... <awittenberg@...> ...


From: Moshe E. Rappoport <mer@...>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 94 16:42:49 SET
Subject: Dairy products and Jewish values

In a very informative article, Joshua W Burton  writes: (excerpted)

>>  The really interesting thing is that the ability to produce lactase into
    adulthood seems to be less than ten thousand years old,  ..........

>>  ..........     Guessing the distribution
    of lactose tolerance in Neolithic times by the spread of cow-and-plow,
    the gene may have first appeared in our very own Fertile Crescent in
    the sixth or seventh millennium BCE.  Oddly, the conjectured Nosratic
    superfamily of languages is nearly that old, and also spread with the
    cow and plow.  So, very roughly, anyone whose forebears spoke a Semitic,
    Hamitic, or Indo-European language can probably cope with milk.

My questions to the readers of this list is, is there a practical
way to be a modern scientist, while still sticking to a 5744 year old
universe, at least when talking to other Jews,(with the usual disclaimers
about 1) the world having been created in an "old" state, 2) The world
may have aged quickly at some points along the way.)

I'm actually curious how you cope inwardly with the "apparent
contradiction" between our Mesorah and modern scientific belief.

Since my job doesn't involve any backward time projections, I don't
have the problem myself. I was curious how others deal with it inwardly.


Moshe Rappoport


From: Seth Ness <ness@...>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 01:53:40 -0400
Subject: Dor Yeshorim and Cystic Fibrosis

It turns out that genetic testing for cystic fibrosis is very unreliable
as there is no strong correlation between specific mutations and the
presence or severity of the disease. So testing for CF is useless and
could break up marriages for no reason. In addition, i would wager that
a child born today with CF will live a long, natural lifespan.

Seth L. Ness                         Ness Gadol Hayah Sham


From: <m-as4153@...> (Ari Shapiro)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 14:00:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Double Wrappings

Yisef Bechhofer writes:
<As Eli Turkel pointed out (I believe), the need for double coverings
<(this is from memory, so please correct me if I am wrong) is only a
<"meat that disappears from the eye" issue. If you are watching your own
<food heat in a non-kosher oven or microwave, a double wrap seems quite
The reason behind double wrapping is simple.  There is a general principle
that ayn kli bolea mi kli bli rotev, a vessel cannot absorb from another
vessel without liquid being present.  Therefore if you use a non-kosher 
oven , if you double wrap the food it will not become treif because while
 the outer wrapping will absorb from the oven walls this cannot be
 transferred to the inner wrapping (and to the food) without a liquid

Ari Shapiro


From: <JPREICHEL@...> (Jules Reichel)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 19:50:31 -0400
Subject: Judaism and Vegetarianism

I particularly noticed Richard Schwartz's statement that, "over 70% of
the grain produced in the United States is fed to animals destined for
slaughter, while an estimated 20 million people die annually due to
hunger and its effects." This is IMHO a common type of vegetarian
assertion but it always troubles me. The reason that a lot of grain is
fed to animals is that they can eat the whole plant. For example, we can
eat those pretty kernels of the corn. I love it. Our friend the cow eats
and digests the entire plant, leaves and all. It's not malice that the
cattle eat so much of the grain, it's because we can't and they
can. It's not a correct way to calculate. What percent of the human
edible food is our friend the cow eating? Not 70% as Richard's source
suggests. More likely 0%. Similarly, the 20 million people who die from
hunger would not be fed if I stop eating steak. In fact, not one death
would be prevented. It sounds like "eat your food, they're starving in
Europe".  "O.K. I finished, I hope that they feel better now". I'm
actually very happy that there is a growing vegetarian movement and I
truly believe that it is helpful for the Jewish community to be
supportive. I just wish that the logic from the environmental movement
and the animal rights movement didn't have to drift in.



From: <Dialectic@...> (Barry Fruendel)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 18:30:48 -0400
Subject: Kashrut and Eggs

> (1) When baking with eggs, we are supposed to break the eggs into a
> separate bowl to make sure there's not a blood spot, which would tref up
> everything.  If so, why are we allowed to eat hard-boiled eggs, since
> there might have been a blood spot in one of those too?

when you can check you do. When you cant you rely on the chazaka (halachik
assumption) that the vast majority of eggs have no spots


From: Irwin Keller <keller@...>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 19:46:59 -0400
Subject: Liquer

I think I recall a discussion on this net regarding kashrus and liquers. I
know there was discussion regarding beer and kashrus. Several liquers
produced by kosher manufacturers have hechshers on them. Last year I saw an
egg nog liquer that had a hechsher on it. Other liquers are considered
acceptable even they do not have such a hechsher ie. a certain coffee liquer
that we are familiar with, etc. Excluding thoose that obviously are Yayin
Nesech (a grape product) such as brandy, how do I know what is and what is
not acceptable. Is there a list that is published? My sister-in-law asked me
to make inquiries as she is planning a Bar-Mitzvah soon and wants to know
what would be appropriate to get. Thanks! 


From: Sam Juni <JUNI@...>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 19:30:13 -0400
Subject: Meru: Names, Bagels, and Bulls

My apologies to Stan Tenen of Meru for my typos in my musings on his
AOJS presentation.  Poor typing skills, worse proofing skills, an
asssociational style of discourse, and an affinity for late night
internetting all combine to promote paraprxes (slips of the finger) in
my posts.  I did start calling Stan by his correct name, but halfway
through the post, his name mysteriously transformed into "Steve."  I do
not know a Steve Tenen, but if I did, I'm sure he would be a great guy.

Yes, it is true as well that Torus (the bagel) is a key concept in the
structure rather than Taurus (the bull).  I did not intend to evoke the
astrological constellation consciously. I did wonder, in retrospect, how
long it would be before the typo was noticed.  (I did get one private
note about it almost immediately after my post). I must say that I mused
about the possibility of a reader erroneously taking the Taurus image
literally and "running with it" and coming up wih something interesting.

Please do not take my jocular tone as disparaging.  I think this work is
significant, despite some areas of apparent disagreement between myself
the research line.  Let me also stress that the overlap between Meru's
work and Discovery which I posited was limited to only one facet of the
research.  Despite the fact that I do not relate to all of the presented
faets, my overall reaction to the research is to be intrigued and impres-


From: Jonathan Katz <frisch1@...>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 94 09:16:25 EDT
Subject: Religion and Science

Eli Turkel, fairly enough, comments on my assertion that:
"nothing is valid unless it can be tested scientifically"

I'll admit, perhaps this statement is too strong. While I still stand
behind the bulk of my previous postings on the subject, allow me to 

   I don't mean to say that anything which cannot be tested is completely 
invalid. Obviously there are things which are valid yet can never be
tested, and there are things which are valid which haven't yet been
   What I object to, however, are people who CLAIM to be objective and
scientific, but are not. For example: when the kaballah (or Talmud) 
says that people see things when near death, I don't get offended.
That is merely a belief of theirs which (as not being fundamental to
Judaism) I can either accept or reject.
    Nowadays, however, so-called scientists argue that one MUST believe
in NDE's because they are scientifically proven. This is what I object
to. People who A) don't realize that there is nothing scientific about
what they are doing, yet claim to be scientific and B) assume that
EVERYONE must believe in NDE's or else they are "not Jewish". 
It is these two attitudes that I fight against.
Jonathan Katz
410 Memorial Drive
Room 251B
Cambridge, MA 02139


From: Hayim Hendeles <hayim@...>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 94 12:36:50 -0700
Subject: The Ultimate Curse

When referring to an exceedingly wicked person, the custom is to mention
the individual's name followed by the phrase "Yimach Shemo Vzichro" (may
his name and memory be obliterated). Presumably, this is based on the
verse "Vshem Reshaim Yirkav" (may the name of the wicked rot).

I was wondering if someone could explain the significance behind this
ultimate curse. While other languages resort to profanity, or expressions
sanctioning blatant and horrible curses, in Loshon Hakodesh (G-d's
Holy Tongue) it is sufficient to "obliterate" the name. It seems to
me that there is something far, far deeper to this, then what meets the
eye. For if this is the ultimate curse in G-d's language, it must
indeed be the ULTIMATE curse.

If anyone could shed some light on this topic, I would appreciate it.

Hayim Hendeles


End of Volume 15 Issue 13