Volume 26 Number 15
                      Produced: Fri Mar 28  0:38:03 1997

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Arneves and Shafan
         [Paul Merling]
Care of Pets on Shabbos
         [Ezriel Krumbein]
Food Cooked by a Jewish Non-Observer of Shabbos
         [Immanuel Burton]
Lunar eclipse
         [Chaim Shapiro]
Mishloach Manos
         [Paul Merling]
On the kashruth of Dairy Products
         [David Mescheloff]
Pet on Shabbat
         [Phil Chernofsky]
Pets on Shabbat
         [Tszvi Klugerman]
Pets on Shabbos
         [Bernard Merzel]
Simanei Taharah and Wallabies
         [Alan Rubin]
Throwing Candy
         [Gabrielle Aboulafia BenEzra]
Tsaar Baal Chaim on Shabbos
         [Paul Merling]
Web Article on Codes
         [Sam Fink]


From: Paul Merling <MerlingP@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 97 12:18:00 PST
Subject: Arneves and Shafan

There has been much discussion about these Maale gera animals. No one
seems to have mentioned an article from Rabbi Tendler in a recent
edition of Tora Umada where he conjectures that these 2 forbidden
animals are different species of camel. If he is correct, all the
problems fall away.


From: Ezriel Krumbein <ezsurf@...>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 23:21:17 -0800
Subject: Care of Pets on Shabbos

> From: Steven Steinerman <steinerm@...>
> I have a friend who kept a fish (a Tiger Shark fish) in a aquarium
> and last week for some reason the fish leaped out of the aquarium
> through a small gap in the fishtank cover.  Since this happened on
> shabbos , my friend did not pickup the fish and put it back into the
> aquarium.  Instead, he and his 4 children poured water over the
> fish in attempt to keep it alive until after shabbos (3 hours
> latter). Sad to say, the fish died while the children watched.
> My question is could he not have just put the fish back into the
> fishtank in order so the fish would not die and suffer in pain.
> What are the relevant laws involved in protecting pets on shabbos
> (ie could a person hold a dog's lease to prevent  the dog from
> running to a street and  possibly getting hit by a car)?

Thank you for postiong this question.  I wouldn't have thought to learn
the halochos otherwise.  It is a befeirush (explicite) Shmiras Shabbos
Khilchosah  Chap. 27 section 28.  Unfortunately Rav Newirth quotes both
sides (i.e. it is allowed to put the fish back if you think it will live
and others who say it is not permitted to move the fish because it is
Muktza).  Apparently it is unclear if tzar baalei chayim supersedes
Muktza or not.  See also his note on chap. 27 sect. 25 relating to
animals that cannot eat unless you open their mouth for them.  There he
seems to say it is permissible.

Ezriel Krumbein


From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 15:44:00 +0000
Subject: Food Cooked by a Jewish Non-Observer of Shabbos

I have heard on several occasions that food cooked by a Jew who
desecrates Shabbos in public may not be eaten, and has the same status
as Bishul Akum (food cooked by a non-Jew).  Can anyone provide a source
for this as I have been unable to find one?

Secondly, does it make a difference if the person in question was never
brought up in an observant environment as opposed to someone who was
brought up keeping Shabbos but has decided to cease doing so?

Thirdly, if it is indeed the case that food cooked by such a person may
not be eaten, is that person committing a transgression when he eats his
own food which he has cooked himself?

 Immanuel M. Burton                 |               Tel: +44 (0)181-802 9736
 Better Properties Limited          |               Fax: +44 (0)181-802 9774
 129, Stamford Hill                 | 
 London N16 5TW                     |       Email: <iburton@...>


From: Chaim Shapiro <ucshapir@...>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 22:28:34 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Lunar eclipse

	Can one make kiddush lavana during a full lunar eclipse?
Normally we do not say kiddush lavana when it is cloudy and the moon is
not visible.  Although the light of the moon is not visible during an
eclipse, on a clear night the orb and shape is very visible.  And
considering that the moon has no light of its own anyway, must one see
what is no more than reflected light, to say the bracha?  Chaim


From: Paul Merling <MerlingP@...>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 97 16:33:00 PST
Subject: Mishloach Manos

     The Rema in Laws of the Purim banquet (695: 4) states that a woman
should send Mishloach Manos(Purim food gifts) only to a woman, and a man
sends only to a man. The reason given is that if we will allow cross
gender Mishloach Manos, this can bring to a chshad or worry that the
woman has received Kiddushin (first part of Marriage Process) from the
sender, as it was the custom in many areas to send sivlonos (gifts)
after Kiddushin.  Can this chshad or worry be operative today when we do
not separate Kiddushin from Chuppa? If there was Kiddushin there was
Chuppa and he would not be sending her a gift he would be living with
her. The Aroch Hashulchan gives another reason for the Rema's din. He
states that by sending a gift one creates a Kiruv Hadaas(intimacy) with
the woman one sends to. If he is right one should not send Mishloach
manos to the opposite sex. What do todays Poskim say about this.
         It appears that in the Rema's time, kiddushin and chupa were
still separated. When did we combine them as we do today? This combining
trend is accelerating as many people have their Tnayim(conditions and
penalties) done right before the Chuppa. In reality the Tnayim or
Shiduchin make no sense if done prior to the Chuppa as it is unlikely
that anyone would write the Tnayim and then break the agreement a few
minutes later.


From: David Mescheloff <meschd@...>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 08:10:13 +0300 (WET)
Subject: On the kashruth of Dairy Products

Several weeks ago there was a lengthy discussion on the list concerning
the kashruth of milk with additives, cheeses, etc.
I would like to recommend to our Hebrew readers an excellent booklet put
out recently by "Tnuva", Israel's largest agricultural product marketing
co-op, written by Tnuva's Rabbi Zev Veitman.  It covers all the basic
issues thoroughly, briefly, with both ancient and modern references and
with the latest information about changing food technologies.
The 57-page booklet (including Tnuva promotional material in good taste -
pardon the pun - and details of why each product may be given a different
"level" of kashruth certification), called "Kashruth He-chalav
u-Mutzarav", can be obtained free by sending a request to 
Neta Ben-Menachem, Customer Service Manager,
P.O.B. 9128
Petach Tikva 49190
(Fax:  03-9392205)

Best wishes to all for a happy and kosher Pesach!
David Mescheloff


From: Phil Chernofsky <philch@...>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 13:45:57 +0300 (IST)
Subject: Pet on Shabbat

Concerning the fish that jumped out of the aquarium...

Sh'mirat Shabbat K'Hilchato says in the name of the Chazon Ish that one
may definitely pick up the fish and return it to the water on Shabbat.
What makes this statement noteworthy is that it is described as a
lenient opinion of someone known as being super-strict in halachic

 Phil Chernofsky, associate director, OU/NCSY Israel Center, Jerusalem
 Tel. 5384206   Fax: 5385186   Home: 5819169   Email: <philch@...>
 Mailing address: Israel Center, P.O.B. 37015, Jerusalem 91370, ISRAEL
    Visit our Torah Tidbits web site - http://www.cyberscribe.com/tt


From: <Klugerman@...> (Tszvi Klugerman)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 02:00:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Pets on Shabbat

In a message dated 97-03-16 09:28:43 EST, Steven Steinerman
<steinerm@...> wrote regarding  Care of Pets on Shabbos

 << What are the relevant laws involved in protecting pets on shabbos  
 (ie could a person hold a dog's lease to prevent  the dog from  
 running to a street and  possibly getting hit by a car)?>>

 I believe that the issur of mukzeh is tiltul, namely it is prohibited
to pickup the object to carry it. There are ways to lift the object to
get to other objects nearby and the such. I recall reading somewhere
that to push an animal or restrain it by the leash would not be a
violation of mukzeh since the animal is not being lifted. It would be
prohibited however, to pick up a lap dog or a cat.  But to even push a
cow or horse would not be prohibited.

I wonder if derech shinui, using a varied method, it would have been
permitted to pick up the tiger shark and return it to its tank?



From: <BoruchM@...> (Bernard Merzel)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 20:41:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Pets on Shabbos

Steve asks about friend whose fish leaped out of aquarium on Shabbos,
and permitted fish to expire rather than move it.  Obviously his friend
was concerned about the fact that a Baal Chayim, a living creature, is

Steve asks: what should friend  have done?

See "Shm'iras Shabbos K"Hilchasah" Perek 27 Siman 25 Note 85 which
discusses question of Tzaar Baaley Chayim (suffering endured by a living
creature) and more specifically Siman 28 which discusses the actual
issue of a fish leaping out of the water, and permits returning it to
the water becuase of Tzaar Baaley Chayim, though a more stringent
opininon is mentioned .  Note 98 mentions the lenient(e.g. Chazon Ish)
and stricter authorities.

See, too, the Aruch Hashulcahn, Siman 308, S'if 68, who suggests that in
some extraordinary situations, Muktzah may be moved "K'lachar Yad", in a
(lit.)back-handed manner, i.e. an unusual manner.

I would think that the fish could have been saved.

Boruch M.


From: <arubin@...> (Alan Rubin)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 97 21:36 GMT0
Subject: Simanei Taharah and Wallabies

Mottel Gutnick asks
> Is the rock wallaby the only instance of
> another animal, in addition to those listed in Shemini, in which only
> one siman taharah is present, or are there others as well that my
> teacher did not know of?

My understanding is that hippopotami and the various species of Peccary
all have cloven hooves and do not chew the cud.  Now you could argue
that these all belong to the pig family and therefore do not violate the
" 'proof' of the divine authorship."  However, if you argue that any
animal with cloven hooves that does not chew the cud is by definition a
pig then the so-called proof becomes merely a tautology.

Alan Rubin     <arubin@...>


From: <NklsNdimes@...> (Gabrielle Aboulafia BenEzra)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:29:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Throwing Candy

 Steven White writes:
 > In our shul, there is a policy only to allow use of soft foods, such
 > as the Sunkist candies, Hershey's Kisses and Hugs or raisins. >>

Our shul is a sephardic shul where this tradition is a major part of an
aufruf, or of a barmitzvah, anniversary announcements, etc. We use
Sunkist candies, Sorbee's, Hershey Kisses & Hugs. In addition, we use
candied almonds, raisin, other nuts, which are put into those very small
zi-loc type baggies. (so that we aren't destroying food.)

Our hazan keeps two hard-hats which are decorated with magen dovid's and
two pairs of clear safety glasses at hand, which he and the honoree don
as soon as the honoree has finished the blessing. It is an unspoken rule
in our shul that nothing is thrown until they are suitably
protecting. It never fails to draw a laugh from the visitors to our

Gabrielle Aboulafia BenEzra


From: Paul Merling <MerlingP@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 97 11:51:00 PST
Subject: Tsaar Baal Chaim on Shabbos

Steve Steinerman (VOL 26:10) relates a sad story of the death of a pet
fish due to worry about the MUKTSA of animals on Shabbos. He also asks
about leashing an animal on Shabbos to protect it. The Shulchan Aruch
specifically permits the walking in a public domain with a leashed
animal on Shabbos (though with a short leash.) I can only infer from
this Halacha that the Muktsa of animals on Shabbos is related to a fear
of the Torah Isur of working an animal on Shabbos but where there is
Tsaar Baal Chaim (pain to animals) or in order to feed the animal, the
Muktsa is not operative. The Chazon Ish did permit the milking of cows
on the Shabbos because of pain to animals as long as the milk was
spilled out. At the same time, it is well known that the Chazon Ish held
that pain to animals does not push aside even a Rabbinic ordinance. Is
there a distinction between Muktsa and other Rabbinic laws? Perhaps
someone can enlighten me.


From: Sam Fink <samf@...>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 22:48:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Web Article on Codes

For those of you with an interest in the Torah Codes, I wish to point out 
an excellent article which is now available on the Web.  It is an 
excellent response to the Messianics and others who believe that "Jesus 
is encoded in the Torah"



by Rabbi Daniel Mechanic (In consultation with Doron Witztum and Harold Gans)

Address: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/codes/jesusfr.htm

Sam Fink
Los Angeles Free-Net Steering Committee


End of Volume 26 Issue 15