Volume 23 Number 52
Produced: Sat Mar 23 23:28:49 1996
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Dairy Equipment Marking
[Steve White]
Does the end justify the means ?
[Jamie Leiba]
Kiddush by a non-religious Jew
[Josh Wise]
Kiddush through Non-religious (V23#49)
[Nahum Spirn]
Psalm 97 (3)
[Stan Tenen, Robert A. Book, Stan Tenen]
Siamese twins
[David Charlap]
teaching Torah Sheba'al Peh to non-Jews
[Barry Parnas]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <StevenJ81@...> (Steve White)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 12:31:43 -0500
Subject: Dairy Equipment Marking
In #48, Stanley Weinstein writes:
>A lot of products are now marked ou-d, but in fact aren't dairy but just
>dairy equipment. Is there a way to tell the difference? Does someone
>publish a list?
>stanley
Your respond:
>[My understanding is that the OU dairy equipment marking is OU-de, not
>OU-d. Mod.]
This is not correct. Rabbi Yaakov Luban, Sr. Rabbinic Coordinator of OU
Kashrut, has told me personally -- and has also written in public settings (I
want to say in _Jewish Action_) that OU chooses not to use the DE
designation, because they feel that many people will not understand exactly
what that means for using the product. Instead, they prefer to be strict and
use the "D" designation for all such products, and for people to treat them
as dairly. I know Kaf-K uses "DE"; I'm not sure about anyone else.
Steve
[I stand corrected. Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jamie Leiba <leiba@...>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 17:49:00 -0500
Subject: Does the end justify the means ?
I've learnt that in Jewish Hashkofo, there is no such concept as "the
end justifies the means". This is expression imported from elsewhere.
Hashem takes care of the end, we must administer the means in a way
compatable with the values of Torah.
I find it so painful to witness the degeneration of our beloved State of
Israel to the point where the State is funding all kinds of anti-Torah
activities.
In the past few years I have read much about the actions that the
current government is taking with respect to: marriage, schooling,
forbidden burials in Jewish cemeteries, , archeology digs in burial
sites, "pluralizing" the makeup of Religious councils, funding trips
abroad for forbidden marriages, overtures to the Reform/Conservative
movement, not to mention paying the salaries of certain MK's who spend
almost every waking hour fighting against Torah. The list goes on and
it is very upsetting. My discomfort is compounded when I see that many
of these activities are either originated by, or are sanctioned by the
Ministry of Religion.
Should we be giving money to this administration through wills, State of
Israel bonds, etc. (I don't know the answer - and am *NOT* advocating
that anyone stops) ? The government seems to be using a portion of the
money we give to intentionally combat and quell the growth of Torah in
Israel, and to promote anti-Torah activities. Yet, in the end much good
is also being done with this money.
Does the end justify the means ? Should we be closing our eyes and
continuing to send money, a portion of which we know is going towards
blatantly anti-Torah activities, justifying this by saying that in the
end, our money still helps fuel Israel's economy and infrastructure
development ? I don't know what the proper Jewish hashkofo is in this
case, and would like to hear some of the issues before asking a shaila
from my LOR.
Jamie.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Josh Wise <jdwise@...>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 13:10:02 EST
Subject: Kiddush by a non-religious Jew
Regarding kiddush by a non-religious Jew, Ed Frankel writes:
>Two things are troublesome to me in this question.
>
>1) Since when is it anyone's concern how religious another may be? After
>all, are we not bidden to judge one another l'chaf zechut (leniently)
>
>2) It would seem that it is the mitzvah that is the concern, not the person
>to perform it.
The religiousity of another Jew is of concern - up to a point. There is
the concept that a "M'chalel Shabbat B'Farhesia" (Somebody who
desecrates Shabbos in public) is considered to be like an Aku"m (an idol
worshipper). Nowadays, however, it unclear who in fact "earns" such a
title. Most non-religious people nowadays are considered "tinokim
she'nishbu" (lit. children that were abducted at a young age) basically-
they don't know better. But, if somebody that clearly knows a tremendous
amount of Torah, yet is still irreligious *may* fall into the former
title, in which case he *may not* make kiddush for you. Therefore, one
probably shouldn't cross-examine everybody that is about to make
kiddush, (because of "dan l'chaf z'chut" as Ed pointed out), but it is
important to know that it is not a simple issue.
p.s.: It is very difficult to say who is and who is not a "M'chalel
shabbos b'farhesia", so unless a qualified halachic authority has
specifically placed somebody in that category, one should assume that a
particular non-religious person is not.
Josh Wise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nahum Spirn <spirn@...>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 00:22:22 -0600
Subject: Re: Kiddush through Non-religious (V23#49)
Ed Frankel is troubled by the question. He says a) we should judge
people favorably; b) the mitzvah should be what counts, not the person.
In regard to (a) - Of course we should judge people favorably.
Every Jew has a chezkas kashrus, a presumption of being observant. The
quesion is what if you KNOW the person is not observant.
In regard to (b) - To be yotzeh (fulfill) a mitzvah through
another, we require that the motzee and the yotzeh have proper
intention, the latter fulfill his obligation, and the former to enable
the latter to fulfill that obligation. The problem with the
non-religious person is he may not be making kiddush in order to fulfill
a religious obligation altogether; he may do doing it as a "cultural"
thing.
Assuming he IS doing it to fulfill a mitzvah, and has the right
intention, one could be yotzeh through his kiddush (with the exception
of the unusual case of a Jew who has the halakhic status of a gentile
because of certain INTENTIONAL, consistent violations of certain
important aveiros...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 07:34:45 -0800
Subject: Psalm 97
Psalm 97
I appreciate David Charlap's comments, but I think he missed the point
of my posting.
1. I know that persons who indulge in apologia do not believe that they
are doing so. Declaring the standard explanation non-apologetic does
not make it so.
2. Regardless of whether it is apologetic or not, the idea that Elokim
refers to "powers" is still the standard explanation.
However this does not explain why HaShem should be "exalted" over Elokim
- regardless of the fact that Elokim can refer to the "powers" aspect of
God. After all, we are most emphatically instructed (and we proclaim
throughout the day) that HaShem "and" Elokim are Echod. How can one
aspect of Echod be exalted over another aspect of Echod?
What sort of Echod is this? Is there an accepted distinction between
HaShem and Elokim? Since we cannot speculate on the qualities of God,
how can we say that the HaShem aspect of Echod is exalted over the
Elokim (or "powers") aspect of Echod?
BTW, I thought that Shad - dai was the Name that referred to the Power
of HaShem? How does Shad - dai "differ" from Elokim?
Again, I am asking because I have what I believe is an insight, but I do
not want to set it up for easy criticism without first asking what our
tradition teaches.
B'Shalom,
Stan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert A. Book <rbook@...>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 18:33:33 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Psalm 97
Stan Tenen <meru1@...> writes:
>Just before the (Ashkenaz) chazzan's part, Psalm 97 says:
>"For You, HaShem, are supreme above the earth; exceedingly exalted above
>all powers." (Artscroll Ashkenaz Siddur, p.310-311.) The Hebrew word
>translated "powers" is actually Elokim.
>
>Is there a traditional teaching of how and why this is so? I am NOT
>interested in the standard, apologetic, explanation that Elokim can
>refer to powers in general (or any other easy out.) The sense of the
>verse is clearly that HaShem is "exalted" over Elokim.
FWIW, the Silverman Siddur translates this as "... exalted far above
all who are worshipped as gods," presumably refering to idols, etc.
--Robert Book <rbook@...>
University of Chicago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 15:51:57 -0800
Subject: Psalm 97
Psalm 97:
These ideas on how HaShem could be "elevated" over Elokim is based on
the nature of the two words, the Sh'ma, and my work on B'Reshit and the
alphabet.
The word that we use as a substitute for the pronunciation of HaShem is
Adin, "pedestal." A pedestal is a high platform that extends vertically
above the earth-plane. This is also why HaShem is identified with the
word Lord. A Lord, an A-don-i, is set up on a pedestal, above the
world. (HaShem, in this sense, can be understood to be identified with
the personal experience of the Transcendent as an Infinitely brilliant
Exquisite Singularity at the apex of the meditational experience.)
Elokim is sometimes translated "powerS" because it has the masculine
plural ending, Yod-Mem. Of course, Elokim does not refer to a multitude
when it refers to God, as in the beginning of B'Reshit. El - oh refers
to God, by itself. The Yod-Mem ending indicates that El - oh ("god",
"these/those", "conscious-flaming") acts throughout the Yod-Mem, the
"sea." The sea here is generic and archetypal. A sea is a vast
expanse. Thus Elokim refers to the infinite Expanse of God in the
universe. The infinite "sweep" of All-There-Is is designated by the
word Elokim.
The Sh'ma teaches us that HaShem "and" Elokim are Echod (Utterly sharp,
Unitary, Singular - Absolute Unity). How can an Infinite Extent "and"
and Infinite Expanse be equal to Absolute Unity? It appears that the
HaShem name and the Elokim name are totally different in character. An
Extent and an Expanse are, in a sense, orthogonal to each other - and
this provides the clue. The names are complementary.
In mathematics and physics there are many complementary entities and
_many_ analogs of this. Perhaps the most familiar is the uncertainty
principle which says that the uncertainty in the position of a particle
multiplied by the uncertainty in the velocity of a particle is equal to
Planck's constant. delta s times delta v equals h. (A simpler, related
understanding makes waves and particles complementary.)
This _geometric_ model suggests that we could understand the Pedestal
aspect of HaShem as an infinite extent, and we can relate this to a
radius extending from the origin of a (cylindrical) coordinate system.
Likewise we could understand the Expanse aspect of Elokim as an angular
sweep. When we make an equation of these properties, we get:
HaShem times Elokim equals Unity.... or....
r times theta = 1.
This is a well known spiral curve. (It was known in Egypt at the time of
our sojourn there.) It is asymptotic to the line y=1 which Extends
Infinitely and it Sweeps out from an Infinitely deep spiral around the
origin of the coordinate system. This is the reciprocal or hyperbolic
spiral. It mimics embryonic growth. It moves smoothly between an infinite
linear extent and an infinite angular sweep. Symbolically, HaShem-Elokim
"squares the circle" and cracks the primary spiritual riddle of the ancient
world.
The spiral form, when projected onto a dimpled-sphere (as defined in
B'Reshit 1.1), produces a model human hand in the form of a Tefillin
strap which generates all of the letters of the alphabet. Each letter
is seen in outline when an gesture with the same meaning as the name of
the letter is made. Pointing into one's mouth displays a Peh, which
means mouth, and, etc.
This form is traditionally referred to as the "Arm of God." We bind a
remembrance of this Arm of God, which guided us from Egypt, on our arm
every morning.
There is, of course, much more to this than fits here.
B'Shalom,
Stan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <david@...> (David Charlap)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 96 11:53:31 EST
Subject: Siamese twins
Eli Passow <passow@...> writes:
>
> Recent articles in Time and Life magazine discuss the Siamese twins,
>Abigail and Brittany Hensel. They have 2 heads, 2 hearts, 1 liver, 2
>arms, 2 legs, and 1 set of sexual organs. Question: If these girls were
>Jewish, could they marry ? If so, could they marry more than one
>man?
I recall a gemora discussing something similar. It talks about a man
with two heads - does he count as one or two people for a minyan. They
concluded that he counts as one person. The rationale was that if you
prick one head with a pin, the other will feel it. Therefore it is one
person with two heads and not two people with one body.
Anyway, getting back to the Hensel twins, I don't know if they could
marry. But I would assume that they would only be allowed to marry one
man. Just like the two-headed man counting as one for a minyan, I would
expect a two headed woman to count as one woman for marriage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <BLPARN@...> (Barry Parnas)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 12:13:02 -0600
Subject: Re: teaching Torah Sheba'al Peh to non-Jews
Along the lines of questions about teaching Torah Sheba'al Peh with
non-Jews, I am wondering what you know about discussing the teachings of
our sages with non-Jews. For example, a friend is struggling with how
to understand some tragic event in light of G-d, or she is trying to
under- stand male-female relationships. The explanations of our sages
naturally speak directly and clearly to these subjects and would help
this person to understand Life more clearly and accurately; however, the
source of the explanations of Torah Sheba'al Peh. In general, it seems
that teaching Torah Sheba'al Peh to non-Jews in enjoined. The broad
question is, what constitutes teaching Torah Sheba'al Peh? It is not
clear to me what is prohibited, and, unless broadly interpreted, not
every oral discussion can be considered "teaching." Specifically, does
helping a non-Jew with wisdom from the oral Torah impinge on a halachic
consideration?
Barry Parnas
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 23 Issue 52
