Volume 34 Number 10
Produced: Mon Jan 15 4:40:04 US/Eastern 2001
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Is Change Bad - Kosher (3)
[Carl Singer, Elazar M Teitz, Binyomin Segal]
Is Change Bad - Yeshiva (3)
[Elazar M Teitz, Barak Greenfield, Leona Kroll]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <CARLSINGER@...>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 12:43:34 EST
Subject: Is Change Bad - Kosher
>Personally, I have given up worrying about cans of
>peas where the ingredient list is only "peas" or "peas and water". It
>just doesn't seem right to me to not buy products that are perfectly
>fine, just because a canner -- who meets health standards -- doesn't pay
>to have a hechsher on a can of peas.
I'd like to agree with you -- because life was simpler, once. but
"peas" are not only "peas and water" -- They are "peas and water" canned
and processed (cooked) in a certain way in certain vessels,
I am not in the food services industry, so I cannot speak to the
complexity or the details of modern food canning, but there are issues
of concern that need to be investigated -- and a hechsher is likely
necessary.
Kol Tov
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 15:18:18 +0000
Subject: Re: Is Change Bad - Kosher
Stan Tenen writes: " Personally, I have given up worrying about cans of
peas where the ingredient list is only "peas" or "peas and water". It
just doesn't seem right to me to not buy products that are perfectly
fine, just because a canner -- who meets health standards -- doesn't pay
to have a hechsher on a can of peas. "
If the peas involved were raw, I would agree. However, they are
cooked. Can Mr. Tenen attest that the utensils used in that process
were kosher, and not used in the cooking of non-kosher products? Case
in point: it was accepted, until a few years ago, that frozen
vegetables did not require supervision for Pesach -- until it was
discovered that the same lines were used for breaded vegetables.
Furthermore, food technology has changed in other ways not
reflected in the ingredients. As an example, many foods are grown on
enzymes which are of animal origin. Whether or not this renders the
ensuing product non-kosher is a halachic issue; but reading the
ingredients will avail nought.
Cost is *not* the issue. Proper supervision to eliminate the
above, and similar, problems is so minimal as to necessitate no increase
in the price of the products, and the cost to the producer is more than
made up for by the kosher consumer's purchases..
Elazar M. Teitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:06:21 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Is Change Bad - Kosher
Stan's recent posting had in it alot of vague and misleading statements
that can lead to improper halachik information.
* This is not helpful. Requiring hechshers on many products that didn't
* require them previously adds expense, inconvenience, and uncertainty.
* It also reduces our personal responsibility. And it doesn't always
* protect us from non-kosher, as the listings in the kosher certification
* booklets and updates constantly warn us about. Mislabeling is not so
* uncommon that it can be neglected, so the responsibility still falls on
* each of us.
in these sentences, stan says things that we all can agree to -
hechshers where they are unnecessarey are counterproductive (though
perhaps it means the cost can be spread further, and hence reduced to
some degree) and hechsherim in general are not perfect. while this is
clearly true, it does not relate to whether peas (or anything else)
require supervision.
* There are problems with new chemicals and additives, but in
* most cases this could be dealt with through normal consumer laws on
* proper labeling.
Here stan seems to admit the reason for stricter supervision
requirements today, and perhaps he is correct that these things COULD be
dealt with through legislative efforts. But until that legislation is in
place hashgacha is needed to insure kashrut. current laws allow a number
of things to be in food that need not be listed in the ingredients, but
would still be sufficient to make the article non-kosher.
* Personally, I have given up worrying about cans of
* peas where the ingredient list is only "peas" or "peas and water". It
* just doesn't seem right to me to not buy products that are perfectly
* fine, just because a canner -- who meets health standards -- doesn't pay
* to have a hechsher on a can of peas.
"doesn't seem right to you" is not a halachikly valid or persuasive
arguement. That you have given up worrying about the kashrut of peas is
unfortunate, but does not change the halachik concerns. do you know what
else is canned in that cannery? (pork and beans perhaps). do you know
what the machinery is coated with to avoid sticking? (lard perhaps). i
don't actually have any particular knowledge of canned pea production -
perhaps it indeed does not require certification, but there are
certainly possible reasons why it might require that certification.
further, i don't know what health standards have anything at all to do
with kosher supervision.
* There are risks with all choices.
* It's also not sensible to think that avoiding all unhechshered products
* like vegetables (where full ingredients are listed) because there is
* still risk of mistakes, etc. To think we can be perfect is a result, I
* believe, of what Jonathan Grodzinski posted in his last paragraph,
* below.
And there are halachikly acceptable risks, and halackikly unacceptable
risks. There are situations where you might be considered an ones
(forces) and some where you might be a shogeg (loosely - accident) and
some where you would be considered having done it purposely - meizid. If
knowing that there is a chance it isn't kosher, you simply "do your
best" and read the ingredients, when there is another similar product
available with supervision - it seems to me you are playing russian
roulette and would be considered to have consciously chosen to eat
whatever is in that can.
binyomin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 15:22:31 +0000
Subject: Re: Is Change Bad - Yeshiva
Mr. Tenen writes further:"Universal _higher_ education has been, in my
opinion, an unmitigated social and spiritual disaster. I'm not an
elitist, but I do believe that Torah learning requires a meritocracy.
When we pump anyone who can pay through any school, all we're doing is
diluting the quality of the school, and of the learning of its students
-- and worse, of our own future leadership. . . .Yes, it's necessary to
have an education, and an education must be available to everyone. But
the education must be appropriate to the ability of the student. This
becomes increasingly important as the level of education increases. We
really don't want to certify everyone who is pushed into brain surgery.
We only want the best and the brightest. Torah learning is just as
important, and just as serious, as brain surgery. In my opinion, it has
been extraordinarily destructive to the functionality and effectiveness
of Torah Judaism to let students graduate believing they know more than
they actually do, and to allow students to graduate who are not capable
of really mastering subjects."
This is certainly not a Torah outlook on Jewish education. The
ideal is, in the words of Yeshayahu, "v'chol banayich limudei Hashem
(all your children will be students of Hashem)." Unlike university
studies, to which Mr. Tenen makes an analogy, the study of Torah is an
obligation, a mitzvah, and is not limited to those of superior
intellect. Further, it is a study from which one does not "graduate," so
that we are not producing holders of watered-down degrees, as are our
secular schools of undergraduate studies. The closest to graduation we
have is smicha (ordination), which has certainly *not* been watered
down. Compare, e.g., a 1990's musmach (ordainee) of Yeshiva University
with the average musmach of 40 and 50 years ago, and it is no
comparison, in favor of the present.
Mr. Tenen agrees that all deserve basic education. At what point does
Torah knowledge cease being basic and start becoming advanced? I can't
speak for Mr. Tenen, but I have been studying Torah since earliest
childhood, and am still looking forward to the day when I can be
considered to have completed the study of the basics.
As for the "dilution" of future leadership, it is not clear what he
means by that term. If the reference is to rabbinical leadership, the
problem is magnified by Mr. Tenen's approach. The biggest problem we
have in this regard is *not* poorly prepared musmachim. It is an
uneducated laity, lacking an appreciation of both Torah knowledge and
Torah discipline for living, who make the decisions as to who should be
our leaders. If more would be Torah-educated, and if those educated
would be better educated, the criteria applied for selecting leaders
would be more proper than they are today, and we would have more
appropriate leaders.
Elazar M. Teitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Barak Greenfield <DocBJG@...>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 18:32:26 -0500
Subject: RE: Is Change Bad - Yeshiva
In MJ v.34 n.8, Stan Tenen <meru1@...> writes:
> In the case you mention here, of more people attending yeshiva, this is
> definitely not good IMO...
> Universal _higher_ education has been, in my opinion, an unmitigated
> social and spiritual disaster. I'm not an elitist, but I do believe
> that Torah learning requires a meritocracy. When we pump anyone who can
> pay through any school, all we're doing is diluting the quality of the
> school, and of the learning of its students -- and worse, of our own
> future leadership.
The purpose of teaching and learning Torah is not to breed future
leaders of Israel. We study Torah because God commanded us to, and He
commanded all of us in that regard, not just the elite that Mr. Tenen
approves of.
> We really don't want to certify everyone
> who is pushed into brain surgery. We only want the best and the
> brightest.
> Torah learning is just as important, and just as serious, as brain
> surgery. In my opinion, it has been extraordinarily destructive to the
> functionality and effectiveness of Torah Judaism to let students
> graduate believing they know more than they actually do, and to allow
> students to graduate who are not capable of really mastering subjects
> that require real mastery.
We don't need more brain surgeons, and certainly not underqualified
ones. We do, however, need as many people studying Torah as so desire,
because as Jews, that is what is asked of us.
> Yeshiva education beyond the basics is in my opinion
> counterproductive. We need to see to it that every student who _is_
> qualified does get a full education, and that every student who is
> not qualified is told that they're not qualified, and guided to
> activities where they are qualified.
In other words, students who are not among Mr. Tenen's best and
brightest are asked to stop studying Torah.
> We can't maintain quality of leadership by telling everyone
> that they're ready to do brain surgery when they're not. We also can't
> attract the 90% of disaffected Jews when the majority of our leadership
> is second- or third-class.
Again, God asks all of us to study Torah, for its own sake, not
necessarily to accomplish some other goal. Yeshivos exist to teach Torah
to those who wish to learn, and that is a prerogative belonging to
all. They are not officer training schools to be open only to a select
few.
Barak
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leona Kroll <leona_kroll@...>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 23:35:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Is Change Bad - Yeshiva
Stan Tenan wrote:
"Yeshiva education beyond the basics is in my opinion
counterproductive. "
Rav Kirzner, zichrono l'vracha, made the opposite arguement- that in
this generation Torah education must be universal and include at least
one year post high school, and preferably more for men. In past
generations- as we've all heard before- people learned more just from
their environment. Personally, I believe it. I remember seeing in Jewish
Action magazine an article on Sara Schneirer, zichrona l'vracha, which
included a schedule for the first Bais Yacov Teachers' Sem., and this
was a program designed for women who had received NO FORMAL JEWISH
SCHOOLING whatsoever. The amount of knoweledge anyone would need as a
prerequisite for that program is pretty extensive- these were not women
who needed to learn aleph-beis. They had considerable background even
w/o formal schooling. We need a comprehensive universal Torah education
that will help nurture the emunah our grandparents had almost naturally.
Back to the subject of your post- it is true that many people consider
themselves more knowledgeable than they are- we're all guilty at times-
but over all I think that there is a lot of good, solid learning going
on and the increasing numbers involved in Torah has led to some very
advanced yeshivas and sems as well as some designed for everyone else-
the larger the pool of applicants the more selective people can be, and
this had led to a greater variety of programs with some stressing
learning and others stressing middot, personal growth, developing a love
of Israel, etc. Still others combine Torah and professional skills in a
frum atmosphere. Its all ultimately good for the community.
The elitist approach to learning doesn't work. IMHO, it is what led
thousands of disenfranchised Jews to the Haskalah and we're still
suffering the results today. We can't afford an all-or-nothing
approach. Not everyone is fit to be a rav, true, but we're all Jews and
we all inherited the Torah from our fathers and we have a right and an
obliation to nuture our relationship with our Hashem.
"We need to see to it that every student who _is_ qualified does get a
full education, and that every student who is not qualified is told that
they're not qualified, and guided to activities where they are
qualified. "
I think that most communities are starting to take this approach, but
they have perhaps a broader definition of the basics than you would
agree with. More and more yeshivas are developing programs in
computers,etc., for people who have reached a point where they are not
inclined towards still higher Torah learning, or simply need to make a
parnossa. Why not? we need both Yissacher and Zevulun.
"I know this is going to sound off-the-wall and extreme, and without
much discussion it will appear unjustified. But I believe that we would
today have a secure Israel, and full unquestioned sovereignty throughout
Eretz Israel including Jerusalem, if we hadn't been so intent on
repopulating our yeshivot after the devastation of the last century."
By the way, Barak' father was frum- he m'karved my friend's rav some
twenty years ago. Now look what Barak is doing- trying to give away
Jerusalem, calling for a secular revolution, etc. I don't understand
your theory at all. Are you suggesting that it is the widespread
availability of Torah that pushed him over the edge? That he was turned
off by mediocre rabbis? How? His father was able to m'karv others, but
not- apparently-his son. I wish it were as easy as blaming the school
system, but the problems in Israel today are much deeper and much older.
Back to what I said before- I firmly believe that elitism led to the
Haskalah taking root, and this is why we have an anti-religious left
among Ashkenazim today who care more about being liked by goyish nations
than about holding onto the land- it is the direct result of our
snobbery and lack of Ahavas Yisroel. Sephardim were always a little less
elitist and today they are less polarized as a community than
Ashkenazim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 34 Issue 10