Volume 25 Number 81
                      Produced: Sun Jan 12 23:53:26 1997

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Artscroll's Sixth Commandment Mistranslation
         [Aaron D. Gross]
         [Zvi Weiss]
Cheese & Milk
         [Kenneth H. Ryesky]
Loss of milk hechsher on Garelick Farms "Natural" Milk
         [Jeremy Nussbaum]
Milk containing shark
         [Arlene Mathes-Scharf]
Pringles and the OU
         [David Herskovic]
Purim Edition - Second call
         [Sam Saal]
Selling Chametz (was Beer for Havdala on Motzei Pesach)
         [Carl Sherer]
Shark's Cartilege (was Cheese)
         [Yaacov Fenster @ZKO3-2/T43]
Translation of "na"
         [Michael Menahem Pitkowsky]


From: Aaron D. Gross <adg@...>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 10:27:52 -0800
Subject: Artscroll's Sixth Commandment Mistranslation

Has anyone ever heard an explanation why Artscroll consistantly
translates "lo tirtzach" as "You shall not kill" instead of "You shall
not murder"?  This is in all their siddurim, the Stone Chumash, and
everything else I've seen of theirs.  I just don't get it.

The former is probably the most widespread mistranslation in Tanach, and
widely used by hostile critics to demonstrate how inconsistant and
arbitrary the Torah is (chas v'shalom!), "See!  Even YOUR Bible says not
to kill, now explain why the Israelis don't disarm."

There is a significant difference between killing and murder, and the
English language even has accurate terminology making this easy to
describe (on the other hand, explaining the difference between avodah
and melacha is more difficult in English).  Why didn't Artscroll use
"murder" when that is clearly the more accurate translation?

A distant second place for famous mistranslations is "virgin" for 
"almanah", but thankfully Artscroll didn't do that!

   Aaron D. Gross -- http://www.pobox.com/~adg  


From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@...>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 10:54:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Cheese

 I believe that the RamBam rules quite clearly that EVEN IF the cheeses
is made with a "vegetable Rennet", it is still subsumed under the decree
of Gevinat Akum.  In this respect, it is a DIFFERENT decree from the one
for milk.  Based on this Rambam, the only way to produce Kosher Cheese
is to actively involve a Jew in the production and (I think) also have
the Jew supply the Rennet.  Many years ago, I recall that there was talk
of a relatively small company in the Chicago area producing Kosher
Cheese and the arrangements to be made were extensive.
 I would also suggest that anyone interested check out the Tosaphot in
Avodah Zarah that discusses this decree in some detail (as well as the
Gemara that tries to figure out exactly WHY the decree was formulated).
Note that this appears to apply only to "hard" cheese -- R. Moshe ZT"L
has a responsa on cottage cheese which distinguishes pretty clearly
between the different cheeses involved...



From: <KHRESQ@...> (Kenneth H. Ryesky)
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 22:11:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: RE:  Cheese & Milk

For whatever it may be worth, approximately 11 years ago I was a
procurement analyst for the Department of Defense, and was assigned to
the activity which procures food for the military.  Certain types of
subsistence must be procured by the Department of Defense in conjunction
with the United States Department of Agriculture.  Having had occasion
to interface with the Department of Agriculture, and knowing the degree
of control it exercises (and the invasiveness with which it exercises
it), it is my personal and humble opinion that no milk of any animal
other than a cow could have inadvertently gotten past by the Agriculture
inspectors, and that there was no financial incentive for any milk
producers to try to slip any such milk past the Dept. of Agriculture.
There was an extremely high probability of detection, and an almost
absolute probability of significant financial and legal sanctions if a
milk producer would be detected.  Accordingly, it is my humble opinion
that any purported cow's milk which was inspected by the Department of
Agriculture was in fact just that, without question or doubt.

Approximately eleven years have passed since I occupied that official
position.  I have heard nothing which would cause me to change the
foregoing assessment.  Nevertheless, as the U.S. Government changes the
way it does business, we must periodically re-evaluate the efficacy of
the supervision by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

 -- Kenneth H. Ryesky, Esq.


From: Jeremy Nussbaum <jeremy@...>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 01:15:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Loss of milk hechsher on Garelick Farms "Natural" Milk

> From: Carl Sherer <sherer@...>
> in Boston.  Shortly before I got to Boston, one of the dairies
> (non-Chalav Yisrael) had their hashgacha lifted because they started
> advertising that they were adding shark cartilege to their milk.  (For
> those who do not deal with such things regularly, claims have been
> advanced in recent years that shark cartilege has an anti-cancer effect.
> AFAIK there is no conclusive proof as to the efficacy of shark cartilege
> as a cancer preventer or cure but this is not the place for that
> discussion).  This raises couple of issues in my mind:
> 1. In light of the Boston incident I referred to, may we continue to
> drink chalav stam in the United States in reliance upon the government
> regulation (or at least those of us who rely on Rav Moshe Feinstein
> zt"l's tshuva regarding chalav stam)? (Chalav stam is milk without a
> special Chalav Yisrael hashgacha).
> 2. Does anyone know how the situation with the dairy in Boston was
> resolved? My recollection was that they got the hashgacha back on the
> basis that the shark cartilege was batel beshishim (it's presence was
> nullified by the fact that there was sixty times as much milk in the
> mixture as shark cartilege).  Can anyone confirm that?

As a current resident of Brookline, it's funny to hear how the actual
case was transmuted in the telling.

First, let's get the facts of the case straight.  Garelick Farms wanted
to use all natural vitamins in their milk (all milk is fortified with
added vitamin A and D, which are fat soluble).  They used fish oil as
the source.  They could not get enough other fish oil, and started using
shark oil, at least part of the time.  They did not advertise the source
of their vitamins other than that they were from natural sources.  The
certification they were receiving was from the Massachussetts Va'ad
Harabonim.  Their certification was revoked.

Sometime after that, R. Gewirtz from the Young Israel of Brookline
publicly announced that the milk was kosher since the shark oil that was
added was nullified.  I think he cited a known posek, but I do not
remember at the moment whom.

They still do not have official kosher certification.  A rival dairy
company ran an ad campaign in which they stressed that Garelick Farms
added shark oil to their milk, and even lost their kosher certification
for it.  There was the threat of a lawsuit from Garelick Farms over the
ads, and the ad campaign stopped soon after it started.  (Their was
something fishy about those ads anyway. :-) ) I enjoyed hearing a
commercial that stressed the negative value for a product to be
considered non kosher.

I recall reading that there are well known kashrut organizations that
will not put their certification on a product that has distinctly non
kosher ingredients in it, even if it is bateil and is actually kosher.
I recall that one product of that nature is one variety of celestial
seasonings tea, vanilla maple, which does not have official
certification from the star k.

I have not heard anyone cite this incident as a reason not to use non
jewish milk in the US.  In our day of complicated food technology, even
fresh fruits and vegetable can have kashrut questions associated with
them, so it is very helpful to have people conversant with the food
processing industry and with kashrut keeping an eye on what is going on,
even on "safe" items.

Jeremy Nussbaum (<jeremy@...>)


From: Arlene Mathes-Scharf <ajms@...>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 18:51:15 -0500
Subject: re: Milk containing shark

The milk company alluded to by Carl Sherer is Garelick Farms. They lost
the hecksher on their own brand on milk products because they are using
fish liver oil most likely from shark to provide the added Vitamins A
and D.  They are doing this because they list "All-Natural" on their
label and are therefore required to have all ingredients from natural
sources.  The private label milks and other products that they produce
are still certified to be kosher by the Rabbinical Council of New

Arlene Mathes-Scharf    | 
<ajms@...>        | The Internet's Premier Independent Kashrut
http://www.kashrut.com/ |             Information Source


From: David Herskovic <100114.750@...>
Date: 10 Jan 97 08:17:22 EST
Subject: Pringles and the OU

The ingredients listed on packets of Pringles (in the UK) includes 
'Emulsifier: E471'.

I have a book called 'The New E for Additives' which lists the ingredients 
behind all E numbers. In it there is a chapter titled 'Is It Kosher' which 
lists all non-kosher additives and included in the list is the above E 
number. Yet Pringles has an OU Hecsher.

The book does however make the point that there is an "apparent paradox that 
some foods are approved by the Rabinical authorities but contain additives 
which are on the banned list. In all cases this means that the food has been 
checked back to source, additives and all, and it has been prepared in 
accordance with Jewish principles."

Why is this so? And is this lchatchila (ideal, first choice) or is it done to 
expand the kosher range of foods so that consumers are not tempted towards 
non-kosher varieties?

[Whilst on the subject, as food technology is nowadays a complex subject do 
Kashrus authorities have the neccesary know-how to rule on complicated and 
fast changing issues? And are there forums for authorities to swap and 
discuss information?]

David Herskovic


From: Sam Saal <saal@...>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 08:46:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Purim Edition - Second call

This is the second call for submissions for this year's mail.jewish Purim

As in the past, there will be a (hopefully, large) collection of random
Purim Torah. Please send all submissions to me by the first week in Adar.

In addition, this year's community effort is entitled "The Halacha of the
Internet" and I'm still looking for people to help contribute to it.
Please volunteer by sending me email and I'll send details. If any ne has
any cute/fun/usefull(?) Java aplets that might be relevant, I especially
want to talk to you.

Sam Saal      <saal@...>
Vayiphtach HaShem et Pea haAtone


From: Carl Sherer <sherer@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 21:48:27 +0000
Subject: Selling Chametz (was Beer for Havdala on Motzei Pesach)

Benjamin Waxman writes (regarding using beer for Havdala on Motzei 

> As for the technical problem of where to get the beer-if it was sold
> to a non-jew before Pesach, with the stipulation that beer reverts to
> its original owner immediately after the holiday, then there is no
> problem.

If I'm not mistaken, this would not work for purposes of mechiras
chametz (selling chametz).  I believe that chametz must really be sold
and *cannot* revert automatically to its owners on Motzei Pesach, or
else it would not be deemed sold.  See OH 448:3 and the Biur Halacha
there starting "mechira gmura" (which says that the chametz must
explicitly be *repurchased* from the non-Jew after Pesach, i.e. that it
cannot "revert automatically").

-- Carl Sherer

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer


From: Yaacov Fenster @ZKO3-2/T43 <fenster@...>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 01:56:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Shark's Cartilege (was Cheese)

> 2. Does anyone know how the situation with the dairy in Boston was
> resolved? My recollection was that they got the hashgacha back on the
> basis that the shark cartilege was batel beshishim (it's presence was
> nullified by the fact that there was sixty times as much milk in the
> mixture as shark cartilege).  Can anyone confirm that?

Nope, the dairy didn't get their hashgacha back, and as a matter of fact
one of it's competitors is using the "Kosher" issue as a PR issue.  Most
of the discussion up till know seems to assume that there are only two
types of milk "Yisrael" and "Stam". But as the above case shows, there
is a third type, "Stam with Hashgacha" which while it isn't "Yisrael",
would seem (depending on the supervision) to be reliable.


From: Michael Menahem Pitkowsky <pitab@...>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 97 21:48:19 PST
Subject: Translation of "na"

>There are 8 times in Chumash when the word NA is said by G-d. In 3 of
>them the Stone English translation uses the word NOW(Gen 13:14,15:5,Nu
>12:6);in 3 cases the word is translated as PLEASE (Gen 22:2,
>31:12,Ex11:2) and in 2 cases the word IS OMITTED in translation (Ex 4:6,
>Gen 18:21).

I checked the new Jewish Publication Society translation and "na" is
never translated.  Everett Fox translates "na" as "pray" in Gen. 13:14,
15:5, 22:2, Ex. 4:6 and 11:2.  He translates Gen. 18:21, "airdah na" as
"now let me go down".  Whenever I have a question about the translation 
and/or use of biblical word, it always is worthwhile to look in the
_Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament_ by Brown, Driver and
Briggs (better known as BDB).  They translate Gen. 18:21 as "I will go 
down now".  In general they say that "na" has numerous meanings, each
depending on the specific context.  Maybe Fox got his inspriration from
the BDB because they often translate it as "I pray".  For another example
of a word with multiple meanings compare "bayit" in Gen. 17:23, Gen.
12:15, and Kings I 3:1.  JPS translates them respectively as "household",
"palace" and "House [God's]".  For more examples see the book _Notes on
the New Translation of the Torah_, ed. Harry Orlinsky, JPS, pp. 25-26.

Name: Michael Menahem Pitkowsky
E-mail: <pitab@...>


End of Volume 25 Issue 81