Volume 18 Number 41
                       Produced: Mon Feb 13 22:42:52 1995

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Amah/ Har HaBayit
         [Joseph Steinberg]
Fish after Meat (2)
         [Lon Eisenberg, Josh Backon]
         [Moshe Goldberg]
In which Adar was Purim?
         [Akiva Miller]
Keys on Shabbat
         [Zvi Weiss]
The Real Adar
         [Moishe Kimelman]
Till 120 years old
         [Nicolas Rebibo]
Titles (3)
         [Zvi Weiss, Avi Feldblum, Uri Blumenthal]
Worcestershire Sauce (4)
         [Andy Goldfinger, Shalom Kohn, Ira Rosen, Aryeh Blaut]


From: Joseph Steinberg <steinber@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 17:51:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Amah/ Har HaBayit

It is almost universally accepted that the Har Habayit of today is
LARGER than it was during Temple times. (I am referring to the portion
enclosed in the walls of the HAr HaBayit not the physical mountain.)

The shiur of the Chazon Ish is very nice -- but for the many decades,
centuries, or even millenia before he calculated it -- a smaller shiur
seems to have been used.

    | | ___  ___  ___ _ __ | |__      Joseph Steinberg
 _  | |/ _ \/ __|/ _ \ '_ \| '_ \     <steinber@...>
| |_| | (_) \__ \  __/ |_) | | | |    http://iia.org/~steinbj/steinber.html
 \___/ \___/|___/\___| .__/|_| |_|    +1-201-833-9674


From: Lon Eisenberg <eisenbrg@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 08:45:07 +0000
Subject: Re: Fish after Meat

Although I totally agree with Ben Rothke <yafo!<ber@...>:
>What I find curious is that no one in the frum world will eat the two together
>while that same individual will smoke cigarettes.

I may have an explanation about:
>that it is not ostensibly dangerous to eat fish/meat together

The Mishnah Berurah, in discussing "mayim emza`iyim" (rinsing hands
between fish [or cheese] and meat), which the Mehaber says is requred
between fish and meat, explains that people today are lenient because
people are different today and the danger is not as great as it used to

Lon Eisenberg   Motorola Israel, Ltd.  Phone:+972 3 5658438 Fax:+972 3 5658205

From: <BACKON@...> (Josh Backon)
Date: Sun,  12 Feb 95 10:32 +0200
Subject: Re: Fish after Meat

Ben Rothke recently mentioned that medical science has no evidence that
eating fish is dangerous while eating meat. Not so fast :-)

Very recent research has found that stearic acid found in beef may
actually lower LDL cholesterol (see: American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition 1994;60 (Suppl): 1044s ). On the other hand, fish contains
eicosapentaenoic acid which has been found (paradoxically) to INCREASE
lipid peroxidation (J Invest Dermatology 1994;103:151; Intl J Vitamin
Nutrition Res 1994;64: 144; Journal of Nutrition 1992;122:2190; Journal
of Lipid Research 1991; 32:79). In addition, there may be an interaction
in the liver (P450) between stearic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid. So
let's not ridicule what Chazal said about eating fish and meat together.

P.S. We all *know* that the medical remedies in the Gemorra are NOT to
be used as they are *primitive*. I suggest one reads the January 21st
issue of NEW SCIENTIST (36-40) "Eating away at disease ?" and then read
the gemorra at the end of Gittin.

Josh Backon


From: Moshe Goldberg <mgold@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 14:04:17 +0200 (EET)
Subject: Re: Hashgachot

> From: <harry.weiss@...> (Harry Weiss)
> In Israel the situation in much different.  The non religious
> (frequently anti religious) Government often dictates to the Rabbanut
> what they must give Hashgacha.

I see this as a biased generalization that should have no place in
mail-jewish, according to our standards. At the very least, it needs
some documentation.  Otherwise, I assume that it is not true.

     Moshe Goldberg  --   <mgold@...>


From: <Keeves@...> (Akiva Miller)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 03:41:30 -0500
Subject: In which Adar was Purim?

Megillas Esther points out, in several places, that the incidents
leading to Purim were scheduled for, and occurred in, "the twelfth
month, which is the month of Adar." Now, if that year had two Adars, and
these things happened in the second one, wouldn't we refer to it as the
*thirteenth* month? -- To me, this is pretty convincing evidence that it
was in Adar Rishon, or that there was only one Adar that year.


From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 15:03:16 -0500
Subject: Keys on Shabbat

I seem to recall that Rav Regensburg ZT"L in Chicago spoke about this
matter.  A key that is a functional part of the clasp of an actual belt
(Not a piece of string) holding up a pair of pants is certainly
considered part of the clothing and can be worn anywhere on Shabbat...
However, a key that is a piece of Jewelry -- where the "Jewelry aspect"
is solely because of gold and silver plating -- MAY be a question as the
"Jewelry" serves no functional purpose and there is some discussion as
to whether the "precious metal" is sufficient to render this a piece of
Jewelry.  In the case of the clasp, the key *is* functioning as a piece
of clothing -- regardless of the fact that it is also a key (the proof
being that it is necessary to take the belt apart in order to open the
door).  This is probably why the belt is a "better" alternative.



From: <kimel@...> (Moishe Kimelman)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 16:57:39 +1100
Subject: The Real Adar

In # 34 Richard Friedman wrote:

>     Can anyone out there bring logic, history, or sources to resolve this
>conundrum, which, appropriately for the season, might be phrased as "Which
>is the real Adar and which is the 'adar' one?"

See Nedarim 63a where R' Meir rules that the first Adar is called "The
First Adar" while the second is simply called "Adar". R' Yehudah holds
that the first is called "Adar" and the second called "The Second
Adar". This is significant in the writing of Gittin, where the date of
writing must be clearly written in the get. It seems that birthdays
(other than perhaps 3rd and 12th for girls, and 9th and 13th for boys)
didn't concern Chazal that much.



From: <nre@...> (Nicolas Rebibo)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 11:07:54 +0100
Subject: Till 120 years old

I recently read in a newspaper that the oldest French woman (which is
also the oldest woman in the world) was born on February 21st 1875.
Therefore she is going to be 120 years old next Tuesday (February 21st

I have also looked at her birth date using the hebrew calendar, I found
16 Adar I 5636. Using this date, she will be 120 years old on this
Thursday (February 16th 1995).

Her birth date seems to be reliable (several different sources).

I was wandering about how the age limit as indicated in the Torah (120
years old) had to be understood.

Nicolas Rebibo


From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 14:50:09 -0500
Subject: Titles

Re Leah Gordon's comments re titles.
The title "Rabbi": actually indicates 2 very different things:
1. The Rabbi has (in this country, at least) completed a program in Judaic
  Law and Talmud that is considered (normally) challenging and is, therefore
  able to claim a certain measure of scholarship.
2. The "Legal" right to "pasken" Religious matters.  This is related to what
  is referred to as "heter hora'a".

Now, if a woman has completed an equivalent program of Judaic Law (and I
do NOT mean simply voluntary studying) and has a degree to attest to
that (e.g., a Master of Philosophy in Talmud...) then there is no reason
for her not to list that as a "qualification" in terms of the
information that she seeks to present.  However, if a person has no such
"title", then there is no basis to "add" one on -- or to complain if a
someone else DOES have such a title.

In terms of 2. above, this is a matter of Jewish Practice such that
women are not eligible (the reasoning is best suited for a distinct
thread) to receive the "authorization" that Semikha connotes.

I am not sure what Ms. Gordon is complaining about.  If a woman DOES
have a "title" then by all means no one is stopping her form using it.
If she does NOT have a title, then why should they get a special "perk".
The issue is NOT just that people have "studied" for some time.  The
title conveys the idea of participation in a rigorous program with set
standards.  Just beause a woman (or a man) studies on his/her own does
not convey a right to a title.

I fail to understand what sort of "parallel structure" is needed.  There
already exist academic programs where women can receive degrees/titles.
It sounds more as if Leah Gordon wants to grant titles to people who
have studied on their own...


From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 21:50:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Titles

Zvi Weiss writes:
> In terms of 2. above, this is a matter of Jewish Practice such that
> women are not eligible (the reasoning is best suited for a distinct
> thread) to receive the "authorization" that Semikha connotes.

When Rabbi Berman spoke at congregation Ahavath Achim two weeks ago as a
Scholar in Residence, this very question came up during the question and
answer period on Motzia Shabbat. Unfortunately I did not catch the full
answer (as I was getting the refreshments ready), so I would be very
grateful if one of our members who was there and remembers the answer
could summarize what he said. Basically though, the impression I got was
that much or most of what the average Rabbi does in the way of psak
halakha and horaah, a qualified woman can do as well. It is mainly when
you get to the level of significant "new" psak, that there MIGHT be a
problem, or that there is a difference of opinion in the halakhic
liturature. But, again, this was from hearing only part of the answer,
so I hope someone who was there will reply.

Avi Feldblum
<mljewish@...> or feldblum@cnj.digex.net

From: <uri@...> (Uri Blumenthal)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 95 21:51 EST
Subject: Titles

In short - title "Rabbi" means that the person who has it, is allowed to
pronounce halakhic decisions [in the area of his smichah]. Nothing more,
nothing less. It does *not* indicate the amount of knowledge that person
acquired [except, of course, that he has at least the minimum required].

Uri.		<uri@...>     N2RIU


From: Andy Goldfinger <andy_goldfinger@...>
Date: 13 Feb 1995 11:29:00 +0200
Subject: Worcestershire Sauce

David Charlap asked about Lea and Perrin's Worcestershire and Steak
sauces.  I called the Baltimore Vaad HaKashrus, and here is their

Both sauces contain anchovies.  The Worcestershire sauce is labled
OU-Fish since the concentration of anchovies is high enough to forbid
eating it with meat.  The steak sauce has a lower concenrantion, and it
is permissbile to eat it with meat, so there is no "Fish" qualification
to the OU.

From: <skohn@...> (Shalom Kohn)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 17:25:03 -0800
Subject: Re: Worcestershire Sauce

Lea and Perrins sauce contains anchovies; hence the "fish" designation.
(By the way, that is a development in o-u practice only about 5 years
old.)  Heinz sauce (I think) does not, and so the o-u on the bottle has
no similar caveat.

I am not personally familiar with the o-u's rationale for the steak
sauce, but the rule that we do not use mix things together so there
should be become me-vual bi-rov is more precisely "ain mi-vatlim issur
le-chatchila" (we do not dilute a prohibited substance a priori).  Thus,
we do not mix treif with a large quantity of kosher in order to permit
the treif to be eaten.  Fish, however, is not treif; so if there is less
than the 1/61 of fish in a substance, and in practicality the flavor is
not present (i.e. not nosain ta'am, which may require more than 60 times
for spicy things like anchovies, see Yoreh Deah 98:8 in Ramah), we may
be able to consider the entire substance "not fish."  An analogy is
Yoreh Deah 99:6, that if some milk falls into more than 60 times its
volume of water, that mixture can be placed into meat a priori, because
it is no longer deemed dairy.  On this reasoning, the anchovies in the
steak sauce are so minimal that, even considering the greater stringency
of "danger" to "prohibition" (issur) which underlies the rules about
mixing fish and meat, the steak sauce is OK.

From: Ira Rosen <irosen@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 95 8:24:56 EST
Subject: Worcestershire Sauce

	The magic ingredient in this concoction is anchovies.  It is not
exclusive to Lea and Perrin's brand, but is found in all true
Worcestershire sauce.  As far as I know, the presence of the anchovies
does preclude the use of the sauce when cooking meat/poultry.  There
are, if I'm not mistaken, artificially flavored Worcestershire sauces
that are usable with meat/poultry (check with your local market).
	As for the steak sauce, Lea and Perrin's also includes
Worcestershire sauce in its barbecue sauce - also labeled OU (not
OU-fish).  When I asked a rabbi, he did say that it was probably batel
b'shishim, and it could be used with meat/poultry.  He did not seem
concerned with the fact that Worcestershire was deliberately added (at
least he didn't mention this).
	By the way, the barbecue sauce is excellent on broiled fish.

-Ira Rosen

From: <AryehBlaut@...> (Aryeh Blaut)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 02:54:19 -0500
Subject: Worcestershire Sauce

I asked an O-U rep. a number of years ago and they do rely on bitul
(nulification) for this.

Aryeh Blaut


End of Volume 18 Issue 41