Volume 33 Number 33
Produced: Wed Aug 30 6:19:57 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Chalav Akum
[Harry Weiss]
Chalav Stam
[Chaim Twerski]
Gematriot
[Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Jewish Law prohibits theft of objects & services
[Yehoshua Kahan]
Kashering ovens
[Mike Gerver]
Mehadrin
[Carl Singer]
"Slavery" Postings
[Reuben Rudman]
Text of Torah (2)
[Ben Katz, Avi Levi]
Writing Wills
[Russell Hendel]
Yichud Pnuya
[Dovid Oratz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@...>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 17:41:05 -0700
Subject: Chalav Akum
> From: Daniel M Wells <wells@...>
> Cholov Akum (from a cow) is perfectly kosher from the point of the
> material content. It's the lack of supervision from the time of milking
> and processing until it reaches the hands of the customer that makes it
> Cholov Akum.
There is still a big disagreement if this is Chalav Akum. That is why
Reb Moshe uses the term Chalav Hacompanies. Others will use Chalav
Stam.
> > When I buy milk from a processing plant in the USA, I can rely on
> > mitzius
> At least 99% of the time?
> > and Federal USDA laws that the liquid contained inside the carton is
> > cow milk.
> But never have there been ANY violations - right?
There have been violations of health and safety issues, with severe
penalities, but I have not heard of a single case of substitution of
nonCow's milk.
Have there been cases of OU chickens turning out to be totally treif.
Certified Pareve prouducts as dairy. How many items have been wrong
even with the label of the reliable hashghacha.
> In a place where it is REAL difficult to get 'Chalav Yisrael' the
> chachamim were meikel to rely on local authorities to not pervert the
> milk.
>
> But in this day and age of advanced transportation and communication
> possibilities, is it so difficult to rely on the good "Old" chumros of
> using ONLY Chalev Yisrael?
The Chabad family here solution is to do without as far as milk is
concerned. Despite advanced transportation and communcation
possibilities, Chalav Yisroel milk is not availble outside of the major
Jewish communities.
> Just out of interest unlike with other animals, cow milk is apparently
> very similar in taste to pig milk (No! I've never tied it out but I did
> heard so.)
An imagine trying to hook up the pig to the m ilking machine in the
dairy among the thousands of cows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Twerski <chaimt@...>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:46:36 -0500
Subject: RE: Chalav Stam
In v33n19, Hyman L. Schaffer <HLSesq@...> asks:
: Can someone explain the precise status of chalav stam? It would seem to
: me that the federal government in the US is taking the place of the
: mashgiach (presumably only a yotze v'nichnas is required) and the
: principle of mirsas (fear of being caught adulterating the milk) is what
: makes the milk acceptable. ...
: If so, why isn't milk produced under this standard chalav
: yisrael? (It obviously isn't since R. Moshe drew the distinction between
: chalav stam and actual chalav yisrael). So what is the issue really?
In the responsa of R. Moshe regarding chalav yisroel, he shows from the
gemara that there is no need for a witness to see that the milk was
taken from a kosher animal, since even a child is valid to testify and
testimony of a child is not normally considered valid testimony.
Furthermore, if a person was standing nearby the milking so that if he
were to stand he would be able to see, then even if he did not see it is
considered "chalav yisroel". He deduces from this that all that is
needed is that the non-Jewish farmer be fearful of adding non-kosher
milk to the mixture. If so, he reasons, if the government fines farmers
for adulterating the milk, that too would be sufficient. However, that
is a novel approach and all novel ideas are not considered as reliable
as what is explicit, and that is, "milk from a non-Jew where a Jew sees
the milking (or such modification as stated explicitly in the gemara.)
That is why he considers this a "second status". In fact, however, if
R. Moshe is correct, then government induced negative incentives does
indeed have the same status of "chalav yisroel".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gilad J. Gevaryahu <Gevaryahu@...>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 14:24:36 EDT
Subject: Gematriot
I would like to add two points to the discussion (MJ v33n26) of the
proper use of Gematriot.
Halacha cannot be redacted from the use of gematriot, and even the idea
of calling a gematria a reminder is somewhat problematic. It was
suggested that we use gematria for a halacha which already existed. If
we do so, we equate Gematria and the Prophets. The rule is "midivrei
kabalah la yalfinan" (i.e., you cannot study halacha from the Biblical
prophets), but we do use the prophets to remind us of halachot which
existed before, but were forgotten. I find it hard to make real
prophetic visions, which are holy equal to gematria. Gematria is only a
literary device.
However, gematria sometimes caused things to be changed. An example
which come to mind is in tefilat "aleinu leshabeach." The sentence
"she'hem mishtachavim lahevel varik umitpalelim le'el lo yoshia" was
erased [by the censor] from most sidurim in the Middle Ages, and lately
found its way back into many sidurim. The line was censored because of
the gematria of "varik." "varik" [vav, reish, yod, kuf=316] and so is
Jesus [yod, shin, vav=316]. The Christians thought that the Jews spit at
Jesus, since 'rok' means also spittle, and it was customary to spit on
the ground during the recitation of this tefila. The double meaning,
that is Jesus in gematria, and spittle in Hebrew had to do, according to
some, with the spitting on the ground at that word. The Yiddish
expression "er kummt tsum uysshpayen" means "he comes at the spitting"
that is, to describe someone who arrived at the service as late as the
concluding of the tefila at 'aleinu.' See EJ 2:555-558.
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yehoshua Kahan <orotzfat@...>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 23:36:31 +0200
Subject: Re: Jewish Law prohibits theft of objects & services
In replying to Jonathan Schiff's question on whether "theft
is explicitly defined anywhere in Jewish law as referring to both
material objects as well as services", Russell Hendel states:
"Yes! This is a beautiful Sifrah! More! It is explicitly formulated in
the CHumash itself. The sifrah commenting on the five types of denial
listed in Lv05-21:22 says that the Torah formulated 5 types of "theft"
(a) denial of a deposit--so the initial transfer of property was by consent
(b) denial of loan---unlike a deposit only the value of money is returned
(c) theft--I take property without the persons consent
(d) witholding wages--I have stolen a service, not goods
(e) not returning a lost article--the owner doesn't know who 'has it' "
Now, I admit complete ignorance of the issue, but it would seem to me to
explain the Sifra differently: withholding wages of a day-laborer is
prohibited by the Torah. When the sun sets, and you haven't paid him
(assuming no agreements between the two parties to the contrary), you
have HIS money in your hand - literally. That is, the Torah
"confiscates" your money with the sunset, makes it his, and now you have
in your hand an object belonging to the laborer. If this explanation
can be accepted, then all five situations addressed by the Sifra are
ones where an object has been misappropriated.
Rav Berachot,
Yehoshua Kahan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Gerver <Mike.Gerver@...>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 08:14:03 +0200
Subject: Kashering ovens
Susan Shapiro writes in v33n22,
> maybe you could let the oven run on the highest for an
> hour or so, and then make sure everything you put into the oven is double
> wrapped in foil.
I'm not a posek, but I think the food would still be kosher if you
replaced the words "and then" with "or," assuming the oven was cleaned
first.
Mike Gerver
Raanana, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <CARLSINGER@...>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 09:45:03 EDT
Subject: Mehadrin
I thank both posters for the additional details re: Mehadrin in Israel.
I still remain troubled by double standards. When as a newlywed in
Philadelphia, there were several butcher shops that were run by Jews who
apparently were not Shomre Shabbos, and there were problems from time to
time.
The "party line" was something to the effect of "WE don't buy from
there, but if we closed them up, then the people who do would go to the
(traif) supermarkets."
This reflected a knowledgable appraisal of the situation at hand (then
and there) -- is the current situation (now in Israel) such?
It's troublesome at best. >>
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Reuben Rudman <rudman@...>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:01:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: "Slavery" Postings
I would like to add a few comments to the summary of Russell Hendel.
The subject of: the permission a father has to 'sell' his daughter- is
summarized quite concisely in the Sefer HaChinuch which is available in
many editions. It takes up 4 Mitvos of the Taryag (613) commandments
that form the basis of our observance. These are Numbers 43-46 in the
Sefer HaChinuch. I will paraphrase just one part of his comments: The
root (main reason) for this Mitzva is that the Al-mighty has pity on the
poor girl who was sold and on her father who (because of circumstances)
was forced to sell her and He commanded the purchaser to marry her and
make her a respectable woman (la'sasota geveret)... (and if he or his
son do not choose to marry her)... then he should assist her in
redeeming her debt (purchase price) and he should not keep her for the
full term of her indenture...And all this stems from the chesed the
Al-mighty has for his creations...
This should make it clear to all that an Amah Ivriya (an indentured
Jewish maid) is not a slave and cannot be treated as a slave. Other
restrictions on what can be asked of her also are described in the
halacha. Details concerning this and the purchaser's responsibilities
are discussed in the supercommentary to the Sefer HaChinuch, the Minchas
Chinuch (which is quite accessible in the recent Machon Yerushalayim
edition).
The unfortunate convolution of the modern meaning of 'slavery' with the
simple translation of the terms in Chumash (Amah Ivriya and Eved Ivri)
can easily lead one to conclusions that are not supported by the Halacha
(Code of Laws) or the ethical concepts that are derived from the laws
found in the Torah. One cannot simply translate a word, and then use
the English word as the basis for criticizing or even analyzing the law,
without first examining the details of that law as found in the
fundamental books of halacha (law), hashkapha (thought) or middot
(ethics). It can lead to conclusions that seem reasonable but which do
not coincide with the truth.
Reuben Rudman
Professor of Chemistry, Adelphi University
Garden City, NY 11530, USA
(516) 877-4133, (516) 877-4485 - Fax
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 17:21:55 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Text of Torah
>From: Yehonoson Rubin <rubin20@...>
>Regarding the difference between the text of "our" torah and the
>Gemaras, see the introduction to Shu't Bais Halavie, in which he claims
>[Snip]
>sort of like our Kri and Ksivs). When then dead sea scrolls were
>uncovered, bible critics were sure that they would find the "original "
>text of TANACH. In fact there are no differencess, and those scrolls
>were written at the same time or before the gemra. Therefore, it is not
>resonable to assume that ther was a diffrent text in the time of chazal.
I am not sure what Mr. Rubin is referring to in his second-to-last last
sentence, but if I understand him correctly he is completely mistaken.
There are thousands of differences between the Dead Sea Scroll texts and
our mesorah. Most are minor (ehevi letters mainly), but some are rater
substantial (such as the "missing" nun verse in ashrei, differences in
words in ha-azinu, etc.) Many of these differences, in fact, correspond
to texts that were only postulated to exist before the scrolls were
discovered, based on ancient translations of the Bible (such as the
Septuagint). In any event, these facts also make Mr. Rubin's last
sentence incorrect as well. There could very well have been different
texts, with minor variations, of the Torah in the time of chazal (as
there are today re "petzuah dakah" in Devorim being spelled in some
sifrai Torah with an aleph and in others with a heh, and the Yemenites
who have about half a dozen vav differences in their Torahs from ours).
Ben Tzion Katz
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
Ph. 773-880-4187, Fax 773-880-8226
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Levi <av_levi@...>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:47:15 IDT
Subject: Text of Torah
It is simply untrue to say that there are no differences between the Dead
Sea Scrolls and our text. There are in fact many differences.
Avi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 07:46:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: Writing Wills
I heard a lecture while I was in Philadelphia from a Baltimore Lawyer
who writes books, makes wills and give lectures on how to create proper
wills and avoid such problems as Promogeniture etc.
I hope someone else out there has already posted his name..but if not
perhaps someone can find out and post his name and any books he has
written
Russell Hendel; Phd ASA
Dept of Math Towson Univ
Moderator Rashi is SImple
http://www.RashiYomi.Com NEW NU IMPROVED
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dovid Oratz <dovid@...>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 12:38:40 +0200
Subject: Re: Yichud Pnuya
> Yichud p'nuya was permissible until prohibited by King David and his
> Beis Din after the incident with Amnon and Tamar. So at most the issur
> is midivrei kabala, not d'oraisa.
No! Yichud p'nuya TEHORAH was permissible until prohibited by King
David... P'nuyos today are generally niddah, for which yichud IS
de'Oraisa
[But the case under discussion, a bride on the day of her wedding, is
exactly a case of Yichud p'nuya TEHORAH. Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 33 Issue 33