Volume 26 Number 26
                      Produced: Sun Apr 13  0:10:08 1997

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Chat Laws and Sexism
         [David Oratz]
         [Eli Turkel]
Cloning and Parah Aduma
         [Avraham Husarsky]
Erev Pesach food
         [Janice Rosen]
Fish on Shabbat
         [Rachel Shamah]
Flying Fish
         [Carl Singer]
Mikvaot, day or night
         [Shoshana L. Boublil]
Pareve Gelatine
         [Michael &Michelle Hoffman]
Pets on Shabbat
         [Simone Shapiro]
Shechita for a Clone
         [Daniel Israel]
The Female Chat Enactment of the Great Assembly (2)
         [Rena Freedenberg, Menachem A. Bahir]
Yeechud and Humility
         [Janice Gelb]


From: David Oratz <dovid@...>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 22:33:09 -500
Subject: Chat Laws and Sexism

 I am a bit confused by the negative reaction to the "chat laws"
discussed in recent issues. I agree they are highly sexist - they imply
that men (at least some of them) are animals and that it is wise for
women to take precautionary measures against them. Of course, men can be
asked to change, but will that guarantee the safety of women?
 When I have to walk through a "bad" neighborhood, I take whatever
precautionary measures I have to insure my safety. Of course I would
prefer that the neighborhood change, but realistically, it's just not
going to happen.  If congress were to enact a law that whites should not
walk in black neighborhoods past 10 pm without several precautions, it
would rightfully be branded a racist law - but racist against blacks,
not against whites! Why is an anti male law for the benfit of women
viewed any differently?



From: Eli Turkel <turkel@...>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 16:00:39 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Re: Cloning

   Ranon Katzoff states
>> The ultimate halacha defines a mamzer as the child born of a sexual union 
>> forbidden by scripture on the pain of death or karet. However, since 
>> cloning is *not* a sexual union, is it not obvious that no mamzer could 
>> result?

   I thought that some poskim declared the result of artificial insemination
with an outside (i.e. not the husband) donor to be a mamzer even though
there is no sexual union.

Eli Turkel


From: Avraham Husarsky <ahuz@...>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 97 17:19:03 PST
Subject: Cloning and Parah Aduma

assuming one has a kosher parah aduma which is invalidated for a
technical reason, e.g. yoke, blemish, no pure cohen to administer
etc. can one then use the genetic material to produce another.  this is
a practical question, as there is in israel currently a validated red
heifer, that has not yet reached maturity and there is no cohen that has
been raised in a state of purity toi administer the ashes assuming the
cow stays kosher until age 3.  thus, there may be a need to "produce"
another cow at a later date.  i heard of a source which notes that the
red heifer is supposed to arrive "naturally" i.e. from a regularly
colored animal.  is there a basis for this assumption



From: Janice Rosen <janicer@...>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 11:27:51 +0000
Subject: Erev Pesach food

This query may be more of a Jewish-food-anxiety question than a 
halachic one, but I hope someone one the list can offer suggestions 
nonetheless.  I will be staying with my friend's (observant, modern 
Orthodox) family in New York over Pesach and was planning to spend 
the day of the first seder visiting Manhattan.  My friend commented "It 
will be hard to eat anything for lunch there, because all the Jewish 
restaurants will be closed and we can't eat chametz or matzoh that 
Can anyone suggest a suitable portable or purchasable lunch 


From: <Mywhey@...> (Rachel Shamah)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 19:36:13 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Fish on Shabbat

 In regards to the question of being able to put the flying fish back in
water on Shabat, I found it very intresting how all responses were very
concerned if it was strickly *allowed* or not, but nobody thought of
those poor kids watching their pet wither away in front of their eyes.
 I am not saying we should EVER violate the Shabat intentionally, but
when there is a question like this - maybe the Dad could have found some
loophole.  Are these kids going to love Shabat like we as parents try to
teach them to, or will they eventually resent it if we are so strict as
to let their pet actually die?

BeWell -- Rachel Shamah


From: Carl Singer <CARLSINGER@...>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 97 15:31:21 UT
Subject: Flying Fish

Your friend should have put the fish back into the tank.  No, I'm not
paskening, just exasperated because some have tried to make Halacha so
complicated that people have forgotten common sense and act paralyzed
without a Posek around.

The disturbance and disruption of Shabbos that the "watering" the fish
for 3 hours caused much more of a problem than scooping up the fish in a
paper plate and returning it to safety.  Not too mention the Chinuch for
the children vis a vis Zar B'alai Chaim.

We are making our Torah way of life too complicated, we should learn
from our parents.  This is not a matter of Machmir or Maychil, it's a
seminal question of attitude and life style.  The Abishter didn't want
us to live in the dark on Shabbos, to be monastic or to suffer
(off-shoot sects and cults missed the point.)

This is NOT, chas v'haleelah to be less frum, less machmir or less
observant.  It is to focus on the Rebbono Shel Olam, and not on the
intricacies that our brilliant minds can conjure up.  The other week at
a Shuir a colleague of mine got all wrapped up around the axle on some
point and kept stressing how complicated this was and on and on.  To the
good, he stressed that this would mean he should study more, but to the
detriment, he was causing himself needless angst.  To repeat a thought
that causes some to cringe; the meat that my Mother bought when I was a
child (I'm 50 and grew up long before Glatt) was certainly kosher
because she got it from an erhlich Yid (who said it was kosher and) who
sat next to me in Shule.

This is a gross oversimplification, but I think that sometimes we need
to step back and understand the bigger picture.  Others can and have
said this better or with more tahm, but it needs to be repeated.

Carl Singer   <csinger@...> 

[Added from next submission: Mod.]

I neglected to add that the issue of Mukseh -- Mukseh may not be moved
for its own sake -- isn't of concern for a number of reasons, we could
certainly describe a sakoneh that the fish in the middle of the room
might create, someone stepping / slipping on it, a child eating it or
getting bitten by it, etc.


From: <toramada@...> (Shoshana L. Boublil)
Date: Tue,  1 Apr 97 01:15:58 PST
Subject: Mikvaot, day or night

>Can anyone tell me why Mikvaot are closed during the day?  My
>Grandmother tells me when she was young it was the opposite way around.
>Women never went out alone at night - so they performed this mitzvah in
>the day.

The answer I got was that the Mikva ladies found out that there was a
serious problem of women coming on the 7th day before sunset and
immersing, and that nothing they said would influence these ladies to
wait for sunset.

In Israel, there are Mikva'ot open during the daytime - usually by
pre-arrangment.  Unless you are a bride, you will probably be asked
which rabbi sent you.  This may seem unfair, but that's the situation
(unless the mikvah attendant actually knows you personally).

I'm sure the question of Mikva hours has a lot to do with the issue of
safety of women at night in various places around the world.

Name: Shoshana L. Boublil
E-mail: <toramada@...>


From: Michael &Michelle Hoffman <hoffmanm@...>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 16:48:53 +0200
Subject: Re: Pareve Gelatine

For those who were looking for an explanation to why gelatine produced
from non-kosher animals is prohibited, while gelatine produced from
kosher schechita is pareve - see Igros Moshe Y"D vol.2 Teshuvah 27.



From: Simone Shapiro <simone@...>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 11:31:43 -0500
Subject: Pets on Shabbat

I've just come into the discussion of pets on shabbes, but I have a
question regarding Tzaar Baaley Chayim (suffering endured by a living
creature) and walking your dog on shabbes.  I have heard and read some
conflicting opinions.

There seem to be two issues: the dog is muktza and using a leash is

 "Shm'iras Shabbos" permits walking a dog on shabbes if you keep the
leash taut (so you are not "carrying" the leash.)  He only discusss the
issue of carrying.  However, I have heard a rabbi say that in spite of
that you CANNOT walk your dog on shabbes.  I'm not sure if that's
because the dog is muktza or because the rabbi doesn't accept the ruling
on "carrying" the leash.

I have heard, third hand, another ruling, which is that tzar baaley
chayim overides the muktza of the animal and that you CAN walk your dog
on shabbes.

Would that mean that where you have an eruv, you can walk your dog on a
lease without violating halachah?

I have a dog and I now live in a city with an eruv and I would like to
walk my dog on shabbes if it is permitted.  (And she would very much
like to be walked.)  Is there a generally accepted opinion on this?

Sheindel Shapiro


From: Daniel Israel <daniel@...>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 22:26:06 -0700
Subject: Shechita for a Clone

Robert Kaiser writes in 26.17:
?<rachim@...> (Rachi Messing) writes:
>> 1) If you clone a sheep does it need shechita?  
>	A sheep is a sheep is a sheep, no matter who its parent's are.
>Any animal needs to be schechted to be kosher.  Does the fact that its
>DNA happens to be a copy turn it halakhically into a plant?  No.  A
>clone is no different from its DNA donor.  And its DNA donor is a normal

While there may be many reasons why a clone needs sh'chita (not the
least of which is maris ayin) I disagree with Mr. Kaiser in suggesting
the matter is so clear cut.

Consider Chullin (74b), which discusses whether sh'chita is necessary on
a foetus found inside a shechted mother.  While there are a variety of
cases in the Mishnah, the basic point I would suggest is that there is
room for claiming that if the DNA sample (and possibly the cell it is to
be implanted into) was taken from an already shechted animal, then the
animal that grows from this cell might not need sh'chita.  The operative
issue, as I see it, is whether we condsider the clone to be a "child" or
a "limb."  If it is the latter then perhaps it doesn't need sh'chita.

A more interesting case is the suggestion that it may someday be
possible to clone individual organs.  Of course the motivation is
transplants, but another possible use would be the in vitro growth of
muscle tissue from animals, that is to say, meat.  The question is would
such meat need to be shechted?  This would clearly be impossible as it
would consist of the muscle tissue alone, i.e., no neck.  Another
question would be whether the removal of a piece of this tissue would be
ever min hachai [limb from a living animal].  And if there are no lungs
can the meat (or must the meat) be glatt?

I hesitate to suggest answers to any of these questions, they are best
left to a Gadol HaDor, rather than a Katan HaDor, ;), like myself.  They
do offer some food for thought.  I just don't know if it is kosher

Daniel M. Israel		I am not the sort of person that goes to bed
<daniel@...>	at night thinking, "Gee, I wonder what I can
University of Arizona		do to make life difficult for systems
Tucson, AZ			administrators." -Eric Allman, author:sendmail


From: Rena Freedenberg <free@...>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 21:31:36 +0200
Subject: RE: The Female Chat Enactment of the Great Assembly

You know, it is funny how several different people can read or hear
something and have completely different reactions.  When I read the post
about the Chat Enactment of the Great Assembly, I didn't feel that it
was putting undue responsibility on women for men's behavior at all.  I
thought "Wow, what a great idea.  Then if the jerk gets his head torn
off for trying anything, he can't later go to Beis din and say that he
had no warning.  The women can say that he had to have heard them
talking and knew that there must be two of them."  I think that it's a
great idea for women to go to bathrooms in twos (actually I've always
done things that way instinctually).  For people who object to female
hishtadlus, why do you think that women dress tzniusly?

---Rena Freedenberg

From: Menachem A. Bahir <tjvmab@...>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 07:19:50 -0700
Subject: Re: The Female Chat Enactment of the Great Assembly

>From: <janiceg@...> (Janice Gelb)
>In Vol. 26 #14,Janice Gelb said:
>Women, I think understandably, resent having to change their behavior,
>The fact that Chazal are a source for this particular recommendation
>that falls into this category probably has little or nothing to do with
>the reaction you've been getting.

It is not a change in behavior that is called for, however thousand of years
ago both men an women did not do certain things due to less than ANIMAL
behavior. Today a Jewish person would not walk into a KKK meeting due to the
posibility of death.
The behavior of women is also dictated by our enviroment today as it was
yesterday.Acting in a wise precautionary manner is only using common
sense.It might be unfare but welcome to the real world.


From: <janiceg@...> (Janice Gelb)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 13:59:38 -0800
Subject: Yeechud and Humility

In mail-jewish Vol. 26 #19, Paul Merling says:
>       Janice Gelb in vol 26:14 writes " The idea that a woman has to
> bring a buddy to the bathroom with her---." Who told her that there was
> ever such a Takannah? 
> [and then he goes on to explain the actual Takannah in great detail]

The passage he quotes from me was in response to a post by Russell
Hendel in vol. 26 #11 in which Hendel quoted a "Chat Amendment made by
the Prophet Sages of the so-called Great Assembly of Ezra the Scribe
[...] Under this amendment, women are asked to chat in the bathroom
with each other so that possible molestors will infer that they are not

Janice Gelb                  | The only connection Sun has with this      
<janiceg@...>   | message is the return address. 


End of Volume 26 Issue 26