Volume 30 Number 87
                 Produced: Thu Jan 13  6:21:21 US/Eastern 2000

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Cholov Yisroel (3)
         [Jonathan J. Baker, Janet Rosenbaum, Daniel Cohn]
Christian Prayers
         [Joseph Tabory]
         [Frank Silbermann]
Ed Psych and Rabbanim
         [Chaim Shapiro]
Gezeirot and Shabbat dancing
         [Mark Steiner]
Humrot and Hinnuch
         [Yosef Gilboa]
Mezonos Rolls
         [Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
Philathropy & Fraud
         [Zev Sero]


From: Jonathan J. Baker <jjbaker@...>
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 14:07:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Cholov Yisroel

I haven't read the teshuvah in a long time, but roughly speaking
the logic is as follows.

1) It is the halacha that one must drink Cholov Yisroel.
2) Cholov Yisroel has generally meant milk whose production was 
supervised by Jews.
3) The reason for that supervision is so as to avoid adulteration.
4) In the United States, fear of the USDA and the Pure Foods Act
keeps non-Jewish farmers and dairies from adulterating their
5) Commercial milk (chalav hacompanies) in the US, thus, is just
as unadulterated as Jewish-supervised milk.  Therefore, IT IS 
6) As a chumra, though, since we should support Jewish dairies, 
one should buy Jewish milk.  I think he states this in terms of
baal nefesh yachmir (as for what a baal nefesh is, that's a whole
different discussion).

So what R' Moshe did was to REDEFINE what constitutes Cholov Yisroel.
People who drink, e.g., Dairylea, are drinking Cholov Yisroel JUST AS
MUCH AS people who drink, e.g., Goldenflow.

I don't know where the term Cholov Stam comes from.  Cholov Akum is
forbidden.  Cholov Hacompanies IS Cholov Yisroel, hence kosher.

Now, there are those, such as Chabad, who following R' Dworkin, don't
ACCEPT R' Moshe's teshuva.  For them, cholov hacompanies is treif.  But
to say that cholov hacompanies is not cholov yisroel, while citing R'
Moshe, is a distortion.

For example, we will generally buy Jewish milk if we think about it, on
the weekly shopping trip to Boro Park.  But if we're in the middle of
making some mac-and-cheese, and we run out of milk, we'll go to the
corner store for regular milk rather than spend an hour shlepping to
Boro Park and back.  (There are no kosher restaurants, let along kosher
markets, in Park Slope).

So, please don't accuse people of inventing terms to make themselves
more comfortable drinking cholov akum, when in fact, they don't hold
that it is cholov akum.

Yes, it's one of my hobbyhorses.

    Jonathan Baker        |  Calendar curiosity: 10 Tevet can't fall on Shabat,
    <jjbaker@...>     |  but if it did, it trumps Shabat.
  New web page, featuring Rambam Resources: <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker>

From: Janet Rosenbaum <jerosenb@...>
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 23:59:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Cholov Yisroel

Moshe Rappoport <mer@...> writes:
> 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.

i discussed this or a similar case with a rabbi awhile ago, and as i
understand it, there are definite legal limits in the quantities of milk
additives.  i don't know the numbers, but i recall it being well below

it was pointed out that were these additives problematic, and the milk
not intended by the company for jewish consumers (and thus it wasn't
supervised), they would be bitul, by the lack of supervision ironically.


From: Daniel Cohn <dcohn@...>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:21:53 +0100
Subject: Re: Cholov Yisroel

Does anybody know whether it is a scientifically proven fact that cheese
or butter can not be made from non-kosher animals milk, as chazal I
think assert?


From: Joseph Tabory <taborj@...>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 06:08:03 +0200
Subject: Re: Christian Prayers

There is a considerable amount of scholarly material on jewish
antecedents of christian liturgy, including the kaddish as an antecedent
to the prayer mentioned in the post. This is done mostly by christian
scholars. the only "jewish" value in it is that it may be used to date
some prayers which are otherwise known to us only from later sources.

Joseph Tabory
Department of Talmud, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 59200, Israel
tel. at office: (972) 3-5318593
email:  mailto:<taborj@...>


From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 100 20:14:03 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Chumros

In Vol.30 #73 Joseph Tabory quoted Rv Elimelach Bar-Shaul, saying 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

The difference between a marriage chumrah versus a religious chumrah is
that we are free at any time to ask our spouses which additional actions
please them.  The ketubah does not require bringing flowers, but we
don't have to guess whether our spouses would like occasional roses.  We
can observe with our own eyes whether they bring pleasure or a violent
allergic reaction.  We cannot do this with G-d.  Therefore, I would say
that their are two types of mitzvot for which Chumrahs are
inappropriate: (1) Chukim, and (2) gezerot whose reasons no longer

A Chuk is a law which would be nonsensical to do -- save for that G-d
commanded it.  To do _more_ of a Chuk than what G-d commands, is
therefore, by _definition_, nonsensical.  (I am told that Kashrut falls
into the category of Chuk; that it is wrong to look for reasons behind
the prohibitions.  Therefore, there is no reason to presume that G-d
wants our restrictions to be increased.)

With respect to a gezera whose reason no longer applies -- the repeal of
which would require a Sanhedrin greater in number/quality than that
which issued it -- the continued existence of the law is an unfortunate
consequence of our sorry state of gulus.  Golus, and its consequences,
is not a state that we should wish to see deepened.

It is only with respect to the mishpatim, the laws whose purpose we
understand, that we are competent to judge whether more than our
halachic obligation would be beneficial.  Anyway, that's my view.

Frank Silbermann


From: Chaim Shapiro <Dagoobster@...>
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 13:24:47 EST
Subject: Ed Psych and Rabbanim

While I mentioned this in passing in a previous post, it bears
repeating; we can no longer afford Yeshiva Rabbanim whose only
qualifications are from their Yeshiva.  Things are too complicated in
the Year 2000.  There are too many issues that our young Yeshiva
children are facing.

Yes, most Rabbanim mean well, and yes, they know how to learn, but is
that all we need from them?  Many Yeshivas try and encourage personal
relationships between the Rabbanim and their Talmidim, in order to
discuss personal issues.  I have spoken to children who tell me how this
Rebbe and that Rebbe destroyed a young person's life (let alone
Frumkeit).  I don't care who you are, or how well intentioned, without a
basic understanding of the developmental stages children go through, you
will probably do more harm than good.

It is time that we demand that all Yeshiva Rabbanim take, at the very
least, Ed Psych courses.  I don't care if they do so in College
classrooms, or by bringing professionals into the Yeshivas themselves.
We can play around no longer, or we will lose a generation of children!

As an aside, I was speaking to a few young men who attend a certain
Yeshiva.  These boys assert that according to Yeshiva policy, a high
school boy can no simply approach a Rebbe with a problem.  Instead, they
must first speak to the 19 year old dorm counselor who determines
whether the problem is worthy of the attention of a Rebbe.  Only on the
recommendation of the dorm counselor is an audience with the Rebbe
arranged.  I cannot describe how dangerous a policy like that is!  As
poorly qualified as some Rabbanim are to handle these problems, a 19
year old is even worse!  What if a child is not comfortable talking to a
person just three years older than himself?  What if the dorm counselor
makes a mistake and doesn't consider a problem serious, when in fact, it
is?  Are they waiting for a boy to kill himself in his dorm room (C'V)?
It is time to wake up and smell the cocaine on our children's clothing!

Chaim Shapiro


From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 20:28:26 +0200
Subject: Gezeirot and Shabbat dancing

Eli Turkel writes:

<< "I am still confused how one decides what belongs in each category. The
rule seems to be things we do against the gemara are in category II.
Not the most precise of rules.

Dancing on shabbat
Using medicines on shabbat

Many people dance on shabbat on the assumption that today nobody fixes a
musical instrument. On the other hand almost no one allows medicines on
shabbat (except on certain circumstances) even though we don't make our
own medicines." >>

	It is true that there is a statement in Tosafot Betza to the
effect that the gezeira against dancing on Shabbat does not apply today
because we don't know how to fix musical instruments, even though this
is a clear case of a gezeirah enacted to prevent another action.

	However, the Remo, O.H. 339, though alluding to this idea, seems
to reject it, for he states that the real reason that we don't attempt
to prevent people from dancing on Shabbat is that it we try, they will
violate the law deliberately.  He makes no such statements about cheese
made from "cholov akum", mayim aharonim, etc.  So I think that the Remo
could not adopt the view of Tosafot.

	Let me here repeat that there is no such thing as "cholov akum".
This is a popular shortened, and censored, version, of the Mishnah's
expression: "cholov shechalovo goy v'ein yisroel ro-ehu."  The
expression "cholov hacompanies" appears many times in the Igros Moshe.
R. Moshe made it up.  "Cholov stam" is another way of saying "cholov
hacompanies" but it is misleading, because "stam yeynom" means wine
acquired from a Gentile, where we don't know for sure if it was touched
by the Gentile.  Milk like this would be forbidden according to


From: Yosef Gilboa <bfgilboa@...>
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000 18:40:25 -0800
Subject: Re: Humrot and Hinnuch

> From: Shlomo Godick <shlomog@...>
> So far in this discussion on chumrot the emphasis has been on the extra
> sacrifice (for good or for bad, according to the viewpoint of the
> poster) required in observing them.
> But I would like to be dan l'chaf zchus [judge favorably] and think that
> the sincere Jew who observes a chumrah is very likely motivated by love
> as well.  Just as a doting husband will go out of his way and be lifnim
> m'shuras ha-din for his beloved wife (or vice versa), so will a Jew "in
> love" with his Creator (cf. Rambam in Hilchos Yesodei Ha-Torah) want to
> do more than the letter of the Law requires.  And I think it is this
> aspect of chumrot that we should emphasize in our explanations to
> children.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile considering the important principle, also
strongly recommended by Rambam, of striking the golden mean. Through the
ages, Haza"l have frowned upon excessive expression of our love for God,
especially in public. Using your analogy of husband and wife, we all
agree that expressions of mutual love should be confined as much as
possible to the private domain. So observance of humrot should be
confined to those who have the spiritual and emotional maturity to
distinguish sincere love from simple exhibitionism ("yohara" in
Rabbinical terms). For this very reason, it has been stated many times
that an individual may impose a humra on himself but not on his family
or his community. If he is convinced of his own sincerity, it does not
guarantee that his family or his community are eligible for this kind of
excessive piety. It seems to me that too often we put the cart before
the horse by assuming that the very acceptance of a humra will somehow
make us into "better" Jews. The opposite is true - until one reaches a
level of true piety by study, introspection, etc. that assures him that
he is free of all self-seeking tendencies - he has no right to accept
humrot. And if he does, he should keep it to himself.

Yosef Gilboa


From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 00:21:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Mezonos Rolls

> From: Rose Landowne <ROSELANDOW@...>
> <<  (Similar issues at smorgasbords, with most caterer's now
> offering bread and washing before.)  Clearly, different communities have
> different view / standards on this matter.
> Carl Singer >>
> Apropos of that, what do people do?  Wash for the smorg and then bench
> and wash again for the seudat mitzvah, or can it count as participtaing
> in a seudat mitzvah if you've washed before the chuppah?
>  Rose Landowne

What I have done for some time is to wash before the smorg with the
express intention that it is to be considered one meal with two
different parts.  As far as I know, you are still taking part in the
seudas mitzvah and can bentch with the mezuman since that was your
original intention.  I consider it similar to a shul banquet where on
washes, starts the meal, watches a video or hears speeches, then
continues the meal and benches with the group.

Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore" | Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
 Jews are the fish, Torah is our water | Zovchai Adam, agalim yishakun


From: Zev Sero <Zev@...>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 22:32:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Philathropy & Fraud

Avi wrote:
>[I think the question might be is the "sources" above that were
>"tainted" the people or the money? If it means the money, then Joel's
>question sort of goes away, but I would ask, what exactly does it mean
>that the money is tainted? I sort of understand it in my gut, but when I
>try to analyze, I'm not sure it holds together.

To me, `tainted money' means that the money belongs to someone other
than the donor.  On the one hand, accepting such a donation is the same
as buying a hot watch on the street.  OTOH, if the true owner of the
money cannot be traced, accepting the donation could be considered
`kematzil miyadam', i.e. `rescuing' the money from being used by the
thief.  At least it's being used for a good cause.

Zev Sero                Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day;
<zsero@...>       set him on fire and he'll be warm for the
                        rest of his life.   - Ankh-Morpork proverb


End of Volume 30 Issue 87