Volume 33 Number 34
Produced: Wed Aug 30 6:41:13 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Bishul
[Sheldon Meth]
Children in Shule (4)
[Yisrael Medad, Rachel Swirsky, Carl Singer, Batya Medad]
Cholov Stam
[<ERSherer@...>]
Definitions and not paskening via email
[Carl Singer]
Halilah
[Bill Crumpler]
Hasggocho
[Danny Skaist]
Milk Powder
[Mark Steiner]
Shir HaMa'alot
[Jonathan Katz]
Women and t'fillin
[Barry Best]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sheldon Meth <SHELDON.Z.METH@...>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:56:18 -0400
Subject: Bishul
As with all Avos Melachos [39 primary categories of prohibited Shabbos
activities], bishul has its origin in one of the Melachos in the
construction of the Mishkan. Specifically, it traces to the cooking the
dyes used to color the various fabrics and materials in the Mishkan - a
decidedly NON-FOOD activity.
Therefore, Bishul refers to non-food cooking as well as food cooking.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <isrmedia@...>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:27:28 +0300
Subject: Children in Shule
Children belong in schule. The questions are though: at what age? for
how long a time? and under what circumstances?
That they belong in schule stems, in part, from the mitzva of Hakhel (to
be celebrated in memorance next year at Succot time). All must come
including 'taf' = young children. In the Gemara of Chagiga, 3A, the
opinion of Rabi Yehoshua of Peki'in is that the reason for bringing the
children to Temple Compound to hear the readings from the Torah is to
bestow merit on those that bring them, unlike adults, both men and
women, who are obliged to come to learn. In the Tosfot commenting on
that, begining with the words "k'dai liten sachar...", it is established
that "v'al zeh samchu l'havi k'tanim b'vet haknesset" - this is the
authority which permits us to bring young kids to schule.
An other Halachic source is the listening to the reading of the Megilla.
In the Mishna Brura, Para. Tarpat [489], Sub Para. 6, it is decided that
"it is a good custom to bring young boys and girls to hear the reading
of the Megilla". Rav Kagan in his commentary, Note 16, makes their
coming contingent on learning (which is a reason for saying outloud in
repititon the four verses). So therefore, we should be talking about
kids who can learn. That would basically exclude infants. Excluding
infants is also a result of their uncleanliness, at times. This is
confirmed in Note 17: "but they shouldn't bring too young children who
disturb one's concentration" and in the following Note 18, he bemoans
the reality that the children only come to make noise and if this is the
sole reason for bringing the kid to schule, to make noise at the mention
of Haman's name, then he shouldn't be brought.
The bottom line is that the overriding concern is that of the adult
worshippers. They are obliged to pray and their pray is a mitzva. Any
undue interference is counter- productive. If a kid is smart enough to
understand that his presence is for prayer, and he is well-behaved, no
problem. If he comes only for the candy handed out, or to show
him/herself off on the bimah, then, if he/she is a disturbing influence,
their presence ought to be limited.
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rachel Swirsky <yu211366@...>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:34:39 -0700
Subject: Children in Shule
As teacher and young woman who grew up going to shule with my mother
every shabbos I think that recent posting to this list have been
disgraceful. At my shule in Toronto it is common for parents to bring
children of all ages to shule. The shule does offer youth programming
for older children (from about age 4) but under this age children can be
found sitting with one of their parents. Parents often will bring a
small toy or easy snack for their children. Toddlers can be seen
walking from one parent to the other. We learned to respect the shule
and to understand the kedusha that is inherent to it. We also learned
to be comfortable in the shule. By watching out parents we learned how
to behave in a shule. When I have children I hope to bring them to
shule with me.
It also includes grave danger to anyone walking in the aisles
to return humashim, lest she step on a toddler in the act of
toddling.
There is also a 'grave danger' that someone might trip over tzitzis
strings that ate too long. Should we take the strings off of the
taliesim?
In the "frum world," as in the rest of the population, there
are people, BOTH WOMEN AND MEN, who absolutely cannot
stand--indeed, are utterly and completely repulsed by--small
children, both their own and other people's. Because of the
extreme pressure imposed by the frum world, from both
sociological and halachic aspects, to produce enormous
families, some of these individuals have MANY offspring of
their own. I am deeply concerned about the life chances of
the offspring they produce, [...] It can also fuel their
anger and resentment to a point that they might, G-do forbid,
take their hostilities out on the children.
There are also people who 'absolutely cannot stand-- indeed, are utterly
and completely repulsed by--' elderly men or shule presidents! Does
this mean that they too should fear for their lives? Should we keep
these people out of shule?
In my experience, which may not be a representative sampling
of "reality," some, but by no means all, of the "worst
offenders" have been relatively recent ba'alei teshuvah, with
multiple children within 12-18 months of one another in age,
in tow.
This is pure Motzei shem-ra of the worst kind. Since I got married my
husband and I have joined a shule that is mostly ba'alei teshuva. It is
the quietest shule in which I have ever had the pleasure of davening!
Children are allowed freedom of movement. It is seen as a wonderful way
to introduce children to the shule and to help them form what hopefully
will remain a strong, life-long connection. It helps them learn that
shule is not a chore and allows them to become acquainted with and
comfortable in the shule. It also teaches them proper behaviour.
As a teacher I see many children who do not feel at ease in a shule.
These children are those whose parents left them at home. When they do
come to shule they sit and talk. They are bored and do not know what to
do. Children need to experience in order to learn. You advocate
bringing them into shule only when they are able to behave. How are
they supposed to learn? Are you venomous towards people who talk in
shule? Because if children do not learn how to behave in shule they
will likely soon become those people. In my mind that is a much more
serious offence.
Rachel Swirsky
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <CARLSINGER@...>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:09:36 EDT
Subject: Re: Children in Shule
<< I respectfully disagree with Dr. Singer's assertion, which I've snipped
to minimize the amount of quoted material in this post, that the
children are "always blameless," since, past the age of a year or so, it
is NOT unreasonable to expect, and reinforce, progressive levels of
self-control in children. The trick is to know what is developmentally
appropriate to the child's age and cognitive level to expect and
reinforce. This is, IMHO, the parent's responsibility to determine AND
THEN to act accordingly. >>
Dear Anonymous
Parents raise children and especially in their tender years, I do hold
the parent responsible and the child blameless -- as much as a 4 year
old screaming in shule draws attention to himself or herself -- it's the
parent that needs to change their behavior (either when they come to
shule, how they "manage" their child, whether they take their child to
groups or leave their child as a wandering "orphan") I can't expect the
child to comprehend the situation or adjust it's behavior. Children to
progressively learn self control -- but the quick and sure solution is
to deal with the parents, not with the child's learning patterns.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <isrmedia@...>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 23:00:55 +0300
Subject: Re: Children in Shule
There is no halachik obligation to bring children to shul. It isn't a
playground. Women are not obligated to doven with a minyan and hear the
reading. Having children changes our lives; along with the stretchmarks
there may be many years when we don't get to hear the chazan. Our
children should look at going to shul as a reward for good behavior,
being able to sit quietly, say the prayers with the tzibur. There is a
major halachik problem about children in diapers who eat more than
mother's milk. When we first came to Shiloh the maon (day care center)
was used on the holidays for the young children, and the mothers took
turns watching all the kids. Now there's a very early minyan, also on
Shabbat, so one parent dovens early, and the other one late. Most
people are pretty oblivious to the noises their own child makes, but it
can seriously disturb the prayers of others. Where's the derech eretz?
Chodesh Tov,
Batya
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <ERSherer@...>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:15:25 EDT
Subject: Re: Cholov Stam
In Massachusetts, the three major milk dealers have been, for many
years, H.P.Hood, an old-line wasp company which has been in business
over 100 years, West Lynn Creamery, a company started by a Greek
immigrant family approximately 30 years ago, and Gurelick Farms, a
business started maybe 20 years ago by a Jewish family. Hood and West
Lynn both had hashgochos of the Vaad Harabonim of Massachusetts
(VH). Gurelick had no hashgacha. One day, Gurelick ran an advertisement
stating, "They [the competitors] add chemicals to their milk; we only
add natural ingredients." A few days later, either Hood or west Lynn
responded with their own advertisement, addressed to Gurelick, the gist
of which was, "Yes, you add shark liver oil to your milk, which is why
ours is certified kosher and yours isn't." The rest of the story, as
they say, is that Gurelick has apparently discontinued the adding of
whatever it was that prevented its acceptability and is now also
certified by the VH.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <CARLSINGER@...>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 21:19:04 EDT
Subject: Definitions and not paskening via email
I find, again, that the media, email, in a way overcomes the message.
Re: Bishul in this case.
(After the late Rabbi Feldman of England, who actually did this in table
form for the Av Melachas)
1st the melacha itself (#11 in this case)
The Av Melacha == Bishul --- Bakin, Cochin, brutin (bake, cook, roast)
The Toleda (looks so much like the Av Melacha that it, too is
prohibited) == heating metal or melting wax
The general rule == applying heat to change the form of anything.
(There are additional issues re: Shiur -- quantity, on several items.)
But one (1) there are multiple competent sources sometimes with
differing opinions and (2) the heftzeh and the gavrah need to be
considered.
In many cases one cannot categorically say something is forbidden or
permitted via email -- life isn't that simple and the context isn't
necessarily fully known.
Now for cutting a cake with writing on it -- a wealth of different opinions:
Forbidden
OK if you cut between the letters
OK if you cut through the letters
OK if you cut with a shinui (use a fork?)
OK (period)
Gut Voch
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Crumpler <billc@...>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:29:45 -0500
Subject: Halilah
A Jewish friend of mine has an email address: b_halilah ... Can you tell
me what that means? Thanks. Bill Crumpler
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Danny Skaist <danny@...>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:55:16 +0200
Subject: Hasggocho
<<Gershon
Let's turn the question around: was it permissible for the owner
to switch hashgachos, not for, as you call it, "competence reasons" but
simply to increase business? >>
The only reason for hashgacho is to increase business. The owner knows
that it is kosher, he wants customers to know it too and patronize him.
danny
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 21:06:22 +0300
Subject: Re: Milk Powder
Isaac Balbin writes: "As discussed in previous mail jewish, chocolate
and other products which are generally made from milk POWDER as opposed
to fresh milk, do not fall under the rubric of Chalav Akum according to
many Poskim (eg the Chazon Ish, Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank).
Concerning the Hazon Ish, this is an incorrect statement. The Hazon
Ish states explicitly that there is no difference between powdered milk
and fresh milk. The opposite view is based on the Talmudic principle
that non kosher milk cannot form cheese, hence powdered milk could not
be nonkosher. But the Hazon Ish pointed out that you can powder almost
anything--the process is utterly unlike making cheese.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jonathan Katz <jkatz@...>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 16:00:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Shir HaMa'alot
On a related question to the recent thread on "Al Naharot Bavel"...
Does anyone know when and how the paragraph "Tehillat HaShem..." began
to be said immediately after "Shir HaMa'alot~ is said before Birchat
HaMazon? They are not connected in Tehillim...
[This was discussed, but not well answered in the last volume, best
posting is in V32n70, I think. Mod.]
Jonathan Katz
<jkatz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Barry Best <barry.h.best@...>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:15:07 -0400
Subject: RE: Women and t'fillin
We are supposed to keep in a proper frame of mind when wearing t'fillin
(they have a higher level of holiness than tzitzis or a kipah or other
things we wear), we should not wear them when distracted by idle (or
worse) thoughts. In olden times, men wore t'fillin all day. In modern
times (I'm not sure when the transition took place) it has been
generally accepted that we do not keep our thoughts pure enough
throughout the day to allow wearing t'fillin. Nevertheless, men must
fulfill the positive Torah commandment to wear them, so we wear them for
a minimal amount of time. Women, who are not obligated to wear t'fillin
would be in the same camp as men who wanted to wear them all day - it is
a bit presumptuous; it implicitly sends the message, "I can keep my mind
focused on holy thoughts better than you can".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 33 Issue 34
