Volume 34 Number 82
                 Produced: Wed Jun 20  6:44:34 US/Eastern 2001

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

BST and Milk
         [Janet Rosenbaum]
Hilchos Kiruv Rechokim (2)
         [Rise Goldstein, Ralph Zwier]
Male headcovering
         [Bernard Raab]
         [Leona Kroll]
Orthodox Rabbinic
         [Andrew Klafter]
R. Isser Zalman Meltzer
         [Eli Turkel]
Talit on head
         [Menashe Elyashiv]
Tiqqun of the moderator's tiqqun
         [Ira L. Jacobson]
Vilna Gaon and Ramchal were not Sabbataens
         [Andrew Klafter]
Washing Dishes on Shabbos
         [Moshe Feldman]
         [Janet Rosenbaum]


From: Janet Rosenbaum <jerosenb@...>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 22:38:47 +0200
Subject: Re: BST and Milk

>  > re the quality of Cholov Yisroel milk - I think it is appropriate to
>point out here, with pride, that one of the Cholov Yisroel companies
>(New Square) is one of the rare / only companies AFAIK (esp. in the
>Northeast) whose milk is BST free (BST is a bovine growth hormone which
>cows are injected with, about which questions have been raised).

I don't know about c"y companies specifically, but something like 2/3 of
all American companies are rBST-free because of the American consumer
reaction.  Most major supermarkets don't carry rBST milk.

[BST is the natural hormone in the animal, and rBST is the recombinant
form created by genetic engineering.  "BST"-milk is actually from cows
injected with rBST.  Btw, my research didn't reveal any particular
health risks with rBST, though of course there is always an unknown
risk.  The major problem is economic --- America already has a milk glut
with the government buying up the excess.  It doesn't need more milk.
The only people who profit are the biotech companies who sell more
hormones to farmers who need to buy the hormones to remain competitive.]



From: Rise Goldstein <Rbg29861@...>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 10:53:35 EDT
Subject: Re: Hilchos Kiruv Rechokim

Andrew Klafter wrote:  

>  The most important mitzva which motivates us to do kiruv and allows us
>  to be successful is Ahavas Yisroel (To love fellow Jews).  [...]  The kiruv
>  "professionals" who are successful are not necessarily the most learned,
>  eloquent, or inspiring.  They are, on the other hand, those who forge
>  sincere friendships with Jews.  By "sincere friendship" I mean becoming
>  friends with an unobservant Jew not because you are interested only in
>  his neshoma in order to Mekarev him, but because you wish to spend time
>  with him and enjoy being his friend, regardless of whether or not he
>  will become observant.

IMHO, this is a critically important point.  However, another important
point involves the definition of "success" by a meqarev.  Does it relate
to the quantity of mitzvot that a meqarev is able to persuade someone to
undertake?  Does it also have to do with the ability of the "protege(e)"
to integrate himself or herself into the "mainstream" observant world,
however one chooses to define that?  What about that person's
relationships with family members and friends who were part of his or
her social network before he or she was persuaded to became observant?

What about the person's psychological adjustment?  In other words, does
the obligation of a meqarev end with persuading someone to become ever
more observant, even if, in the process (or perhaps as an antecedent to
becoming observant), the person is clearly seen to have serious
psychological issues?  Or, is there an obligation to make sure those
psychological issues are addressed as well, by referral if necessary or

Citations to appropriate meqorot would be greatly appreciated.

Rise Goldstein (<Rbg29861@...>)
Los Angeles, CA

From: Ralph Zwier <ralph@...>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:57:51 +1000
Subject: Re: Hilchos Kiruv Rechokim

>The Lubbavitcher Rebbe, zt"l, once heard someone use the expression
>"kiruv rechokim" ("drawing near those who are distant") and he
>instructed that one can never call a Jew "Rachok" ("distant").

I do not know the context in which the Lubavitcher Rebbe's statement was
made, but I doubt that our original poster meant to say that the
Rechokim were far from G-d; it seems to me perfectly acceptible to refer
to someone as being far from halachic practice, or far from observant
Judaism since these are things which are readily observable, just so
long as the person making the observation does not become judgemental
about what that means.

Ralph Zwier                        Voice    61 3 9521 2188
Double Z Computer                    Fax    61 3 9521 3945


From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:53:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Male headcovering

>From: <Joelirich@...>
>I did a Tikkun Leil Shavuot shiur on this topic and have a fairly
>extensive source handout. If anyone wants a fax copy they can email me
>offline. FWIW my theme was that we must differentiate between what is
>halachically mandated and what our acts say about us and we must
>constantly reevaluate. For example-is a 5% income differential enough of
>a reason to not wear a kippa at work?

I always thought that a main reason for not wearing a kippa at work is
the distraction it would cause, the unwarranted attention it might
attract, and the unknowable message it would send. Clearly, however,
this is job-specific. I would love to hear about experiences along these
lines from list-members. (Israelis exempted.)

Bernie R.


From: Leona Kroll <leona_kroll@...>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 23:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Nach

In HaYom Yom (a Chabad sefer with Chassidic vorts for each day of the
year) it is mentioned that the early CHassidim reviewed all of Tanakh
each month (while folding their talisim). Now, to be able to review it
each month one would have to have learned it thoroughly before ( and
these were chassidim of the Ba'al HaTanya, so they grew up going to
non-chassidic yeshivas, so obviously it was not just a Chabad thing to
learn Tanakh.).

I think in general we just cover less ground in our learning than past
generations and so certain things have been cut from the schedule.


From: Andrew Klafter <andrew.klafter@...>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:45:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Orthodox Rabbinic

> >From: Andrew Klafter <andrew.klafter@...>
> >according to their [i.e. the Gentiles'] erroneous beliefs.  In the same
> >manner as we have just explained [shall we consider] those who cling to
> >the ways of their erroneous Karaite parents.  Therefore it is proper to
> >direct them [the Karaites] to return in repentance [to Orthodox Rabbinic
> >Judaism] and to draw them with peaceful words until they return to
> >complete strength of the Torah."
> From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
>        Just one slightly picayune comment re the otherwise well-written
> last post.  Inserting the word "Orthodox" before "Rabbinic" in
> reference to the Rambam is anacronistic at best.  (It would be like
> calling the Rambam a Democrat or a Republican, terms which came into
> existence hundreds of years after his time.)  Rabbinic would have been
> sufficient. 

Let me explain my use of the word Orthodox here.  I do not intend to be
using it to distinguish from Reform and Conservative.  I am using it to
distinguish from Karaism.  The Karaite religion should be understood as
a heterodox movment because its central teaching was to challenge
rabbinic authority and the authenticity of the Oral Torah.  Some
scholars, particularly Reform and Conservative ones who have an interest
in discrediting the legitimacy of Orthodoxy, point to the Sadducee cult
as a precedent for the teachings Karaite movement.  This is quite faulty
scholarship, however.  The Karaite heresy was not continuous with the
Sadducee cult at all.  The Karaite had a distinct beginning, in 767 in
Babylonia, and represented a specific challenge to the religious status
quo at the time of its inception.  Its founder, Anan ben David, was
inspired to form this movement only after he was rejected for
appointment as the new Exilarch.  His younger brother was appointed over
him.  Anan had a traditional Rabbinic education and had aspired a very
traditional role in which he would have been called on to support and
strengthen the authority of the Gaonic interpretation of Talmudic law.
Therefore, I believe Orthodox is an appropriate term to describe the
existing rabbinic hegemony that Anan sought to usurp.



From: Eli Turkel <Eli.Turkel@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:05:03 +0200
Subject: R. Isser Zalman Meltzer

    I am looking for some biographical information about R. Isser Zalman
Melzer (father-in-law of R. A. Kotler).  I know that he moved from
Russia to become head of the Eitz Chaim Yeshiva in Jerusalem. Does
anyone know more about his activities in Israel and in particular his
relations with the rabbanut in Israel.

Eli Turkel


From: Menashe Elyashiv <elyashm@...>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 16:00:59 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Talit on head

in many Israeli Sefardi synangoges or Yeshivot - everyone covers their
head on weekdays because of the head Teffila (Teffilin) - it is rare to
see some one juggling a hat on the back of his head.  On non-teffilin
days some wear hats (mostly Yeshiva types) & others cover with Talit.


From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:33:44 +0300
Subject: Tiqqun of the moderator's tiqqun

At 10:06 11/06/01 +0000, the moderator wrote:

>[Many/most shuls today instead of having people read/study the text
>known as "Tiqqun Leil Shavu`ot" run a series of shiurim on assorted
>topics, and that set of shiurim make up the Shavu`ot night activity. In
>some shuls it will be called the "Tiqqun Leil Shavu`ot". Mod. ]

If they do so, then they are not being precise, and I might add, would
be misleading someone who is accustomed to reciting TLS, comes to their
shul, and instead gets to hear a shi`ur.  And imagine if he had walked
for two hours to get there.

The shul that I used to frequent announced that the tiqqun would begin
at ___ hour, followed by shi`urim beginning at __ hour.  It is accurate,
precise and clear.  No one would be misled.

                 IRA L. JACOBSON


From: Andrew Klafter <andrew.klafter@...>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:05:35 -0400
Subject: Vilna Gaon and Ramchal were not Sabbataens

David Curwin wrote:
>I happened to come across an article recently discussing Rabbi Moshe
>Chaim Luzzato's connections to the Sabbateans. I know that it is not
>entirely clear that he did follow Shabtai Tzvi, but some major
>rabbinical figures of his day, including Rabbi Yaakov Emden, did seem to
>accuse him of Sabbatean tendencies. I also know that the Vilna Gaon had a
>lot of respect for Luzzato. Does anyone know if the GR"A had any
>particular stance in the Sabbatean controversy? Did anyone ever accuse
>him of sympathies for the movement because of his support of the

It is safe to say that the Vilna Gaon's praise for the RaMCHaL should be
good evidence for us that the Gaon did NOT believe that RaMCHaL was a
Sabbaten, and should not give us much suspicion that his sympathies stem
from being a secret Sabbatean.  Emden's accusations are not entirely
compelling.  Furthermore, Emden retracted his accusations about RaMCHaL
later, after RaMCHaL's death, and said something to the effect that
"Moshe Chaim Luzzato was such a humble and righteous person that he will
certainly forgive me for falsely accusing him."  (R. Berel Wein has
aptly said of this statement by Y. Emden that "it may have been both
self serving and untrue!")

I am unaware of anyone accusing the Vilna Gaon of Sabbateanism.  I am
aware of the Gaon being accused by contemporary Chassidic figures of the
times of being a "philosopher" (Shaar HaYichud VeHaemuna Ch.) and "too
philosophical" (? Sadditchover, quoted and analysed by Norman Lamm in
his excellent book on Krias Shema), but that's about it.  Aside from
that, the Gaon's orthodoxy has not been seriously challenged.

Andrew B. Klafter, MD (Nachum)
Department of Psychiatry-University of Cincinnati


From: Moshe Feldman <MFeldman@...>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:18:35 -0400
Subject: RE: Washing Dishes on Shabbos

From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
> I understand that the av-melacha (basic shabbat labour) with using a
> sponge is s'chita (wringing). Here since the sponge is synthetic, it
> would only be d'rabannan (Rabbinic). In our case we also do not have
> the intention to launder the sponge (although a clean sponge makes the
> washing up easier) - but to wash the dishes.  I guess this is "p'sik
> raisha d'nicha lai" (an unavoidable indirect action that is
> beneficial), which is only allowed for d'rabannan acts.
> Could this be the basis of the above p'sak, and if so, why do not more
> people rely on it?

Why assume that the melacha involved is schita m'shum libun [squeezing
which is prohibited as part of the laundering process], as opposed to
schita m'shum m'farek [squeezing which is prohibited as part of the
threshing process].  If the latter is the case, then the issue is not
whether you have intent to launder the sponge (this is not your goal),
but whether you have intent to remove the soapy water from the sponge so
that it is applied to the dish (you do have such intent).  If so, the
schita should still be prohibited.

Kol tuv,


From: Janet Rosenbaum <jerosenb@...>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:18:23 +0200
Subject: Yoatzot

In response to the earlier inquiry wrt taharat hamishpacha questions, 
the address of the Nishmat Yoatzot Halacha is



End of Volume 34 Issue 82