Volume 30 Number 73
                 Produced: Thu Jan  6  6:56:16 US/Eastern 2000

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Boiled Wine - Yayin Mevushal - According to Chabad
         [Joseph Geretz]
Boiling Wine
         [David Charlap]
Cholov Yisrael and Categories of Gezarot
         [Binyomin Segal]
Cholov Yisroel (3)
         [David I. Cohen, Moshe Rappoport, Steve White]
         [Joseph Tabory]
Mei Peyrot (Fruit Juice) Rolls (2)
         [Yossie Abramson, Mendy Chitrik]
Torah Misinai
         [Avi Feldblum]


From: Joseph Geretz <jgeretz@...>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:22:39 -0500
Subject: Boiled Wine - Yayin Mevushal - According to Chabad 

 Susan Shapiro wrote:
> As for the wine, boiling temperature is boiling temperature, and
> according to my husband, the idea is that it "ruins" the wine and
> makes it so a non-Jew wouldn't use it for idol worship.

Correct, although I've always understood that Chabad holds a higher
temperature is necessary in order to give the wine the status of Cooked
/ "Ruined". Can someone confirm or deny this? And if this is in fact so,
please provide some details?


Joseph Geretz
Focal Point Solutions, Inc.


From: David Charlap <shamino@...>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 17:56:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Boiling Wine

Susan Shapiro wrote:
> As for the wine, boiling temperature is boiling temperature, and
> according to my husband, the idea is that it "ruins" the wine and
> makes it so a non-Jew wouldn't use it for idol worship.

Actually, it ruins the wine for some Jewish uses as well.

If I remember correctly, boiled ("mevushal") wine may not be used in the
Temple for sacrificial purposes.

I think there are some communities that don't permit it for other ritual
use (such as Kiddush) as well.  (But that custom is not widespread,

[I don't remember all the details, but once gave a shiur on this. There
are a number of reshonim who do not permit it's use for Kiddush, and I
think there is even one opinion (Ramban?) that you do not make a Hagafen
bracha on it (although that might have been on "specially sweetened
wine"). Mod.]

-- David


From: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:35:39 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Cholov Yisrael and Categories of Gezarot

I think that my disagreement with Mark Steiner may be because I have not
seen the Hazon Ish inside.

  * My opinion is that any gezeirah which is regarded as not applicable
  * because of changing times, even though a Sanhedrin has not been convened
  * to abrogate the gezeirah, must be in the "second" category of gezeirah.

There seems to be much more to this second category than simply
"changeable". I was just pointing out that Yekkes could agree that there
is a category of "changeable" gezerot without accepting all of the Hazon
Ish's explanation for it.

As Mark pointed out there are many examples of gezeirot that rishonim
felt were changeable. The Hazon Ish has one explanation for it, with
ramifications re Cholov Yisroel and re Mayim Achronim. Others may agree
that there is a changeable category without accepting all the "baggage"
of the Hazon Ish.



From: David I. Cohen <BDCOHEN613@...>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 13:54:05 EST
Subject: Cholov Yisroel

In Vol. 30 # 62, david Goldreich wrote:
>>Because of this incident, my (already considerable) respect for this rav
>>increased even further.  I presume that he normally drinks cholov
>>yisroel, but chose to drink cholov stam to avoid making me uncomfortable
>>or embarrassed. <<

    Why did you presume that he normally drinks cholov yisrael? Perhaps
he actually holds that cholov stam does in fact equal cholov yisrael in
that locality. And should it not tremendously increase your respect for
this rav, that having thoroughly studied the halchic issue, he was able
to make a personal decision as to the halachic requirements, despite the
fact that in certain circles, he would be denigrated for so acting.
    IMHO, that's a Rav deserving of respect!!
    David I. Cohen

From: Moshe Rappoport <mer@...>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000 16:33:58 +0100
Subject: Re: Cholov Yisroel

I recall reading an article in the New York Times about 2-3 years ago
(in their section on Media and Advertising) about 2 milk companies that
were slugging it out for market share in the Western Massachusetts area.

One company ran an ad showing a vial of yellowish liquid and claimimng
that the competitor was putting this much fish-derived vitamin 
supplement into each quart of milk.

If I remember correctly the ad was allowed by the FTC (as fair trade)
because the facts were correct.

 From what I hear about the food industry from Rabbonim, Mashgichim and
manufacturers, food production has changed radically in the last 30 
years as foods are chemically enhanced for various reasons. It seems
that often no 2 batches of product contain the same ingredients - 
as the technologists try out substitutes which increase shelf life -
lower the price etc.

I don't know how much leeway there is in State and Federal standards
for milk, but perhaps it would be prudent to use supervised milk merely
to avoid these other complications which are relatively new?

Moshe Rappoport

From: Steve White <StevenJ81@...>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 16:27:34 EST
Subject: Cholov Yisroel

I personally think I've had my fill of the substantive arguments on
"chalev hacompanies," but that may be because I read about 30 issues of
MJ in the last three days while home sick with a wicked flu.  But I feel
some need to bring up a couple of issues:

1.  As one poster alluded to, depending on "chalev hacompanies" still
depends on government supervision being reliable.  Last I heard, people
were only relying on the following governments outside Israel: US,
Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand.  Elsewhere "chalev hacompanies"
status was "chalev akum."  It is important to update this list so that
people know the facts on the ground; I'll volunteer to assemble
responses from overseas (or frequent traveler) posters at

The only criterion (to keep it within the rules of this list): Whether
the current community consensus in these countries is that government
supervision is sufficient to bring "chalev hacompanies" under this
shita.  For example, even those who use real (sic) "chalev yisrael" in
the US agree that commercial milk in the US falls under that shita --
they just disagree as to whether to hold by the shita.

2.  Second: I found Rabbi Shemtov's spiritual argument very interesting,
and if ever I find myself in Montevideo, I'd love to talk about it with
you.  But how about this for an alternate derekh: There are times when
the KB''H needs us to focus on certain issues, and times when He needs
us to focus on other issues.  Perhaps right now He has made it
relatively easy for us to deal with milk so that we can deal with other
issues requiring more serious attention now.

Kol tuv,
Steven White


From: Joseph Tabory <taborj@...>
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 18:34:35 +0200
Subject: Re: Chumros

I don't entirely agree with the following idea which I heard in the name
of Rabbi Elimelech Bar-Shaul (ro maybe I heard it from him). He said
that when people get married, the chasan signs a kesubah which outlines
his obligations to his wife. Anything that he does beyond that is a
"chumrah".  But, of course, in the relationship between husband and
wife, the real relationship is developed far beyond what the ketubha
obligates. Take it away from there.

Joseph Tabory
Department of Talmud - Bar Ilan University
tel. at office: (972) 3-5318593
email:  mailto:<taborj@...>


From: Yossie Abramson <yossie@...>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 00:37:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Mei Peyrot (Fruit Juice) Rolls

> From: Jonathan Grodzinski <JGrodz@...>
> I was annoyed at having my decision making taken away from me. If I 
> want  to eat a roll without washing, I would far prefer to do so with a
> "Mei  Peyrot" roll. I might prefer to wrap my hands and eat it. I might
> even prefer to eat it separately from my meal as I might a piece of cake, 
> and  in such a situation everyone would agree that a "Mei Peyrot" roll
> requires no washing.

As far as I can recall, one of the reasons that you have to wash EVEN by
a Mei Peyrot roll is the fact that it looks like regula bread. So eating
it like cake won't solve the problem. The only way it would help, is if
it in no way looked like bread, and you weren't eating it like bread
(i.e. a meal).


From: Mendy Chitrik <MChitrik@...>
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 01:37:02 EST
Subject: Re: Mei Peyrot (Fruit Juice) Rolls

Jonathan Grodzinsky writes:

> I might even prefer to eat it separately from my meal as I might a
> piece of cake, and in such a situation everyone would agree that a
> "Mei Peyrot" roll requires no washing.

I would like to note that not EVERYONE would agree that a roll made by
"Mei Peirot" would not require washing. On the contrary: since every one
else eats these rolls for Keviut Seudah, there is a Halachic problem of
Batlah Daato Etsel Kol Adam (His way of usage is void since it
contradicts the common use), which is brought down in the Shulchan Aruch
specifically concerning this issue of bread.

Actually the whole idea of making a Mezonos on a "Mezonos Bagel" and
"Mezonoz Rolls" are contradictory to the basic reason of making Mezonos
on them. The Heter for not washing on "Mezonos Bagels" comes from the
din of "pas habah bekisnin", which used to be a form of bread that
people would only eat occasionally, and since it was not eaten as a
"main part" of the meal it was not "important" enough to be called
bread, and therefor it is Mezonos.

In the definition of "pas Habaah Bekisnin" we find three different
opinions (see Tur orach chaim 168) the majority of Rishonim hold that it
would mean a bread that is filled with fruits, therefore people would
eat it only as an appetizer or after meals as a desert, but never as
Bread which served as the main food for the meal (And therefor only
sweet fruits as noted by the Magen Avrohom and the Bach, though the Taz
does not agree on that). The second opinion is a dough that was made
with fruit juice (it seems that all agree to the above definition but a
number of Rishonim add another reason). A third opinion is that "pas
habaa bekisnin" is a sort of bread that is hard and dry so that people
eat very little at a time (pretzels or the sort) (held by only one
rishon) . In the Shulchan Aruch (168, 3) The Mechaber says that we take
all opinions as Halacha and all three types of bread do not require

But when the Mechaber mentions the opinion that defines "pas habaa
bekisnin" as a bread which is made with "mei peirot", the Rama adds that
the "mei peirot" or fruit juice have to be so much as they are nearly
more than the amount of flour that is in the dough, so that the dough
should taste as a sweet cake ("lekach"). Only then it would be Mezonos.

The Shulchan Aruch Harav (in his Shulchan Aruch 168, based on the Magen
Avraham) actually requires that there should be more Juice than
flour. And in his Siddur he writes that any Yere Shamain should not eat
bread made with "mei peirot" without washing beforhand, and in severe
cases one can make Mezonos if there is more Juice than actual flour.

The reason behind this requirement is; that every bread that people eat
as BREAD and they are Kovea Seuda on (in contrary to cake) is Hamotsie
and requires washing. Only bread as "pas habaa bekisnin" is mezonos, and
it is Mezonot BECAUSE it is eaten only for Idun Vetaanug (enjoyment and
pleasure) and NOT for a seudah. (Even this type of bread-cake if one is
koveea seudah on it, by eating more than the amount of four Beitzim
approx. 240 grams, he is required to Wash and say Hamotzi, this amount
of four Beitzim INCLUDES all the food eaten in this Seudah with this
bread, so put on the scale the Lettuce, The Lax and the cream cheese...)

To conclude: Not all the Rishonim agree that one can make Mezonos on a
"mezonos bagel. Even those who do agree on that, it is required
according to the Rama that the taste of the Mei Peirot should be so
significant as in a sweet honey cake (Lekach). And even when one eats
these very sweet breads, when he is Kovea seudah and eats more than four
"Kabeitzim" he should wash before, say Hamotzie and Birkas Hamazon.

So for the next Shabas Meal we can all buy to Mezonos Bagels for Lechem

Mendy Chitrik


From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 06:58:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: RE: Torah Misinai

On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Russell Hendel wrote:

> Since this is a doctrinal belief I would
> like to reopen it and would encourage an extended conversation. Gilad

That this - the claim that there is not a single letter difference
between the Torah we have and the Torah that HaShem gave to Moshe - is a
"doctrinal belief" is itself I believe a matter of at least controversy.

> 2)"We are not expert in FULL and DEFICIENT": I recently gathered all
> Rashis on FULL and DEFICIENT spellings. Following Rav Hirsch I showed
> there are two ways that Chazal deal with these: a) the deficiency

For an interesting opposing opinion about Maleh and Chaser see the Ibn
Ezrah (Ibn Ezrah Haruch in Toras Chaim edition, I haven't checked to see
if it is in the regular mikraot gedolot) on the beginning of the Aseret
Hadibrot (Ten Commandments) - Shemot 20:1.

Avi Feldblum
mail-jewish Moderator


End of Volume 30 Issue 73