Volume 34 Number 66
                 Produced: Sun Jun  3  9:25:13 US/Eastern 2001

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Canned Peas (2)
         [Jacob Sasson, Feldman, Mark]
Hashgachot (3)
         [Ben Katz, Sam Saal, Barak Greenfield]
Hilchos Kiruv Rechokim
         [A. Seinfeld]
Minchas Elozor
         [Paul, Judy or Miriam Shaviv]
Sefer Masaos Yerushalayim
         [Dov Teichman]
A Yellow Cloth - Calling for the Denmark Response
         [Micha Berger]


From: Jacob Sasson <jacobsasson@...>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:51:38 -0400
Subject: Canned Peas

> The second problem is that the Shach and Taz there both say that
>the leniency of eating the dairy/meat equipment food with the        
>opposite type is only if it was already cooked in the D/ME.  Even     
>according to the Bes Yosef one is not permitted to cook food in      
>dairy equipment for use with meat.  This renders the logic of        
>packaging dairy equipment food as pareve problematic.

What they mean is that one is not permitted to intentionally cook in a
dairy pot if it is known that the food will be eaten wit meat.  This is
obvious.  If however, one does not know with what he will eat the food,
it may be cooked in any pot.  The logic of packaging dairy food as
pareve is therefore not problematic since the company has no idea with
what it will be eaten.  IMHO it would only be problematic on certain
types of food (poultry seasoning) that are always used on meat/dairy.

Jacob Sasson

From: Feldman, Mark <MFeldman@...>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 15:03:32 -0400
Subject: RE: Canned Peas

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
> This is the crux of the problem.  If one hears, from a reliable souce,
> such statements as "Kellog's Rice Krispies is kosher even without a
> hechsher", and let us grant that the statement is true.  What is the
> shelf life of that assurance?  If and when they decide to reformulate
> or purchase something from an alternate supplier, will you know?

Your example is factually incorrect.  Kellogg's is kosher because it
*does* have a hechsher--that of the Vaad Harabonim of Massachusetts
(K-VH).  For some reason, Kellogg's refuses to put the K-VH symbol on
its products; the K on Kellogg's products is given by K-VH.  If
Kellogg's loses its hechsher, the K-VH will make sure to let us know.
(I'm sure the news will spread very quickly in this age of the

Kol tuv,


From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:20:46 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Hashgachot

There are aspects to the hashgacha issue being discussed that are
usually not mentioned.  While kashrut organizations don't SAY that food
without hashgacha is traif, they certainly IMPLY it with their "not
recommended" comments (which is pejorative; a more neutral designation
would be "we don't know" or "we can't speak to that product's kashrut
one way or the other", etc.).  Second, the OU (among other
organizations) routinely publishes lists of mislabeled products.  Of
course, any one can make a mistake.  But, on the one hand, we are
suppossed to be able to rely on the symbol and not read ingrediants
because it's too complex.  On the other hand, the symbol itself can be
in error, so we are forced to check ingrediants (or at least I and my
wife do), esp. when in suspicious circumstances (e.g., a label says
"real butter flavor" and the product is designated "pareve").  Finally
many of these organizations overstep their bounds, such as paskening re
women's tefillah groups, not allowing belly dancers in the
establishment, not allowing competition, etc.

Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
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: Sam Saal <ssaal@...>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 07:08:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: re: Hashgachot

Harry Weiss <hjweis@...> wrote:

>There is another issue.  Some have raised the OU letting people use
>their symbol without paying.  It is more than an issue of a free ride.
>The one thing that makes any hashgacha worthwhile, is its ability to
>insure that the symbol is used only with the organization's permission.
>Trademark laws prevent someone from using a registered symbol without

>When an organization allows someone use their sybmol, they need an
>enforacable contract with the company that only allows the symbol
>to be used in accordance with the contract.  If the OU or any other
>organzation allowed other private labels to use they symbol with entering
>into a contractual arrangement, they would be giving up their trademark
>protection, with a legally enforceable contract to insure the symbol's

While true, there is an easy and common way around this. The trademark
owner charges a nominal fee (say, $1) which makes a valid contract and the
manufacturer must abide by it. This protects the trademark itself.

Lawyers: did I get that right?

Sam Saal         <ssaal@...>
Vayiphtach HaShem et Pea haAtone

From: Barak Greenfield <DocBJG@...>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 19:46:45 -0400
Subject: RE: Hashgachot

Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...> writes, in response to my post on
hechsher companies:

> <<The problem, rather, lies with us. We either engage in a continual
>  game of religious keeping-up-with-the-Schwartz's >>
>         I don't.  Do you?  Does anyone you know?  This is a much
> repeated but very silly observation IMHO.

Are you joking? Do you think that people do not feel pressure to be as frum
as those around them? I am very happy to hear that you don't, but what is
truly "silly" is your ignoring the fact that it exists. Do you think that
this "much repeated" observation is about something which is a complete

> <<The hechsher companies exist to provide us with information on the
>  ingredients and processing methods of food products--not to be our
>  poskim. >>
>         NOT.  There is not enough room on any food package for the
> information you're looking for.  The vast majority of kosher consumers
> are looking for that little OU or OK or Star K or Chof K or whatever.
> That little symbol, sir, is a psak. It says I have investigated the
> circumstances under which this product is manufactured and, according to
> the standards I (or my agency) employs, it is kosher.

Exactly, sir, and I don't want their psak. I am interested in the
factual results of their investigation, but not in the standards they
have set, because the pass-fail system of hechsher requires that I
either adopt their standards or none at all.

> If you want to
> know what halachic standards they use, ask them; most people couldn't
> care less

Really? Perhaps we should do an informal poll of members of this list and
see if they are so uninterested.

> << Most people are interested in whether a product meets their standards
>  of kashrus--not those of the hechsher company's rav in charge>>
>         Most people wouldn't know a standard of kashrus from a mi
> sheberach.  Is it kosher or is it ain't and don't bother me with the
> details.

Most people would become quite interested in the details if they found
out that hechsher companies were adopting chumros that prevent them from
eating various foods. I wouldn't be so quick to dumb down the kosher



From: A. Seinfeld <aseinfeld@...>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 01:58:45 -0700
Subject: Hilchos Kiruv Rechokim

Another member of the list and I have been communicating off-line about
the halachos of kiruv. This seems an appropriate topic for the season,
as one pre-requisite for receiving the Torah seems to be that we be
"like one man with one heart" - today, the Jewish people are fragmented
into many hearts.  The amount of machlokus is extraordinary. We have
much work to do, on all fronts. One of those fronts is Jews who are far
from Daas Torah. For the sake of opening up an important discussion,
here are some basics:

The Chafetz Chaim (in the sefer Chizuk haDat) mentions three categories
of Torah mitzvos that compel us to try to bring other Jews back to

    1. ahavat Hashem - love of the Almighty - which requires us to make a
        kiddush Hashem and to prevent a hilul Hashem.
    2. tochacha (rebuke)
    3. misc. mitzvos bein adam l'chaveiro (obligations to other indivduals)

These latter two are mentioned in the Torah (Viyikra 19:13-18, 25:14, 25:17,
25:36; Dvarim 22:1-4) in conjunction with specific types of individuals:

to your "brother" - don't hate him, strengthen him, return his lost object
     (His soul is considered "lost" so we must return it to him.)
to your "neighbor" - don't stand by his blood, love him
to your "compatriot" - judge justly, don't speak lashon hara about, rebuke,
     don't turn away from him
to your "enemy" - return his lost object (Shemot 23:4-5)

Now, in which of the above categories are Jews who eat shrimp or drive on
Shabbat (for example)?

  shogeg (one who sins accidentally or unknowingly) and a tinuk shenishba
    lvein hagoim (one who had been kidnapped and raised by non-Jews, i.e.,
    doesn't know any better) - is still your brother, compatriot, neighbor -
    therefore we are obligated to fulfill all of the above mitzvos for him.

  avar aveira b'meizid - (sins intentionally and hasn't done teshuva)
    because his yetzer hara got ahold of him - he is no longer "your
    brother" and mutar (even a mitzva) to hate him (i.e., his ways)
    but ussur to embarrass him or speak lashon hara about him.
    Must judge him favorably and we are required to rebuke him, to love him,
    and to return his lost object to him. (Gamara Avoda Zara 26b and Tos).

  matmid b'aveira - (sins intentionally and habitually bcs of yetzer hara)
    no longer "your neighbor" for the mitzva of "don't stand by his blood"

  mumar shlo l'teavon - (sins intentionally and habitually because he just
    doesn't care about that mitzva) - major maklokus on what his status is.
    Don't need to judge him favorably and are exempt from rebuking him if he
    won't accept it.

  mumar l'hachis - (sins intentionally and habitually out of maliciousness)
    major maklokus again - most hold we should hate him, speak lashon hara
    about him, judge him unfavorably. Some say still required to return his
    lost object (in this case, his soul)

  apikorus - (denies Hashem and/or the Torah) - no longer "your neighbor"

  kofer machmat taut - (denies because of an error in his learning) -
    Rambam holds he's like an apikorus, Raavad holds he's like a shogeg

Rambam holds in several places that we must try to bring Jews back to
     mitzvas - that we err on the side of caution in terms of what a given
     Jew's status is as per above. See Deos 6:3, Hagahos Maimonius 1.

The Chafetz Chaim holds that we are required to try to bring Jews back to
     halacha; see Beer Mayim Chaim 4:14 and 10:30.

The Chazon Ish z"l writes in YD 2:16 that the mitzva of preventing hilul
     Hashem in this day and age should be fulfilled via kiruv rechokim.

    Further, in 3:28, the Chazon Ish writes that a person doesn't have the
    status of "mumar" until someone has tried to rebuke him. He goes on to
    say that in our times, people don't know how to give rebuke. This
    statement is sometimes misconstrued as meaning that we therefore have no
    obligation to do kiruv rechokim. In fact, pshat is that since we don't
    know how to give rebuke, everyone who sins remains in the status of
    shogeg and we are obligated to rebuke them.

How to rebuke? There are many halachas, but it boils down to speaking to a
person in the way that they will hear it. If that means you need to hold a
social event just to get them to come in the door, then so be it (as long as
it be kosher, obviously).

Hope this has been a helpful summary. It is far, far from complete. Each one
of us has the obligation to try to help our fellow Jews who don't know what
Shabbat is, don't know what Sukkot is, never opened a Chumash or a Gamara.

May we merit to learn Torah together!

Rabbi Alexander Seinfeld
Aish Hatorah
2275 Ramona St.; Palo Alto, CA 94301
<aseinfeld@...>, http://www.aish.com


From: Paul, Judy or Miriam Shaviv <shaviv@...>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 23:00:00 -0400
Subject: Minchas Elozor

The Minchas Elozor's anti-Zionist credentials are certainly beyond
challenge, but there does not seem to be any hint that his position on
observing second day Yomtov in Eretz Yisrael was influenced by his views
on Zionism one way or another. I'm also not sure that his position on
Eretz Yisrael could be summarised as "he didn't believe in Eretz Yisrael
as a place unless the Moshiach brought him there", although I respect
Jeanette Friedman's family connection and obviously close knowledge.

 Like many Haredim, especially the Hungarians, his opposition to Zionism
was to do with the question of authority and secularization in Jewish
communal and political life, and less with the issue of settling the
Land of Israel before the Messiah. In this he followed the Hatam Sofer.

The Hatam Sofer was an enthusiastic supporter of settling the Land of
Israel in the nineteenth century, and his followers played key roles in
the pre-Zionist Yishuv. The issue of pre-empting the Messiah and of the
'Three vows' really only emerged as a major anti-Zionist theme as late
as the 1950's, with the publication of the late Satmarer Rebbe's sefer
'Vayoel Moshe'. {And before other contributors start sending
anti-Messianic quotes from early anti-Zionist Rebbes and Rabbis, they
should check their sources, as many of these quotes originate in a work
called 'Dovev Sifsei Yeshenim', the contents of which have been clearly
shown to have been forged in Brooklyn in the mid-1950's!]

A slightly different summary of the MInchas Elozor's views on 2nd day
Yomtov can be found in 'Darchei Hayyim veShalom', a compendium of his
minhagim and psakim, paras #524 - 526, in the 'Hilchos Yomtov' section.
There are also some references to his Sheelot and Teshuvot, but I don't
have access to them at the moment and haven't been able to check out the


From: Dov Teichman <DTnLA@...>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 21:40:39 EDT
Subject: Sefer Masaos Yerushalayim

FYI a yiddish translation of the sefer "Masaos Yerushalayim" was
published in 1984 in Jerusalem under the title "Die Reise Kein
Yerushalayim" translated from the origional hebrew by R' Menachem Mendel

Dov Teichman


From: Micha Berger <micha@...>
Subject: A Yellow Cloth - Calling for the Denmark Response

As I hope you all heard by now, the Taliban are requiring that Afgani
non-Moslems (a population that is primarily Hindu) must wear a symbol on
their shirt pockets. Allegedly this is to aid Islamic police in applying
those religious laws specific to Moslems.

That alone is an eery echo. In our case, the Nazis told us those yellow
stars were to help identify those who may require extra police

Now they specify the symbol: piece of yellow cloth.

For years we Jews asked where was the world while the situation in
Europe deteriorated until millions of us were killed.

By the same argument, we are obligated to speak up now.

This is a call to action: I'm asking the global Jewish community to pick
up the guantlet. Push your government to action, push the world to learn
from its mistakes.

Each of us ought to wear a yellow piece of cloth on our shirts. No one
will miss the comparison when they see Jews wearing a bit of yellow
cloth on their shirts.

Perhaps we can embarass the world into doing for them what they didn't
do for us.

Micha Berger
(973) 916-0287        


End of Volume 34 Issue 66