Volume 34 Number 90
Produced: Sun Jun 24 6:59:27 US/Eastern 2001
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Cholov Yisroel Milk
[Ari Z. Zivotofsky]
Dairy Inspections
[Rabbi Yisroel Finman]
External Ice Dispenser on Shabbos (2)
[Carolyn Lanzkron, Isaac Balbin]
Hallel & Zionism
[Shalom Carmy]
Kabbalah as a source of Halachah...Tcheilet in tzitzit
[Eli Lansey]
Kiruv Rechokim
[<JoshHoff@...>]
Nach
[Dovid Pernikoff]
Nakh
[Seth & Sheri Kadish]
Private Statments by Torah Leaders
[Andrew Klafter]
Summary of Teamim
[Russell Hendel]
Testifying Bird
[<DTnLA@...>]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Z. Zivotofsky <zivotoa@...>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 11:27:59 +0300
Subject: Cholov Yisroel Milk
In Volume 34 Number 78 on Fri Jun 15 Rabbi Yisroel Finman wrote:
> Every farmer's milk is tested, batch by batch, for the inclusion of
> foreign matter, ie, medications, blood, water and milk from non
> acceptable animals.
I checked with a veterinarian who also worked for many years in the
dairy industry. He agrees that there are indeed many tests performed on
the milk. But he could not think of any one that would test for a
species difference assuming the other species is not present in huge
quantities. Can you please clarify in what way it is tested to detect
the presence of milk from non acceptable animals?
Ari Zivotofsky
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rabbi Yisroel Finman <NISHMAT@...>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 14:51:28 EDT
Subject: Dairy Inspections
Rabbi Yisroel Finman <NISHMAT@...>
> All milk sold commercially in the United States is subjected to
> rigorous USDA inspections.
According to the USDA web site http://www.usda.gov, it is only
responsible for the safety of meat, poultry, and egg products.
The mission statement of the Food Safety and Inspection Service
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/background/fsisgeneral.htm goes into
much detail about meat, poultry and eggs, and does not so much as
mention `milk' or `dairy'. I think I'm pretty safe in concluding
that the USDA plays no role in the regulation of milk.
Sorry for that.
Dairy inspections are indeed performed as I posted but are regulated by
individual state dept. of agriculture. Having worked in the dairy
industry in only three states, i can only personally testify to the
procedures that I have witnessed first hand. By looking through the
materials on individual state's dept. of agriculture websites, one can
peruse state standards. I will assume that all states have similar
regulations since dairy products are shipped interstate.
Also, one might choose to look into Igeres Moshe.Reb Moshe paskened that
government inspection in the United States removes cow's milk from the
category of cholov akum and into a category of cholov company. That all
such milk is free from chashash and one can indeed rely on government
inspection to insure that milk is free of unwanted substances.
rabbi yisroel finman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carolyn Lanzkron <clkl@...>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:07:38 -0400
Subject: RE:External Ice Dispenser on Shabbos
Hello,
In the discussion of ice dispensers on Shabbat, Andrew Klafter said:
>Other authorities do not consider ice formed on Shabbos to be nolad,
>but rather only consider water formed from ice to be nolad.
Does that mean that those who follow this opinion never use ice in
drinks on Shabbat?
CLKL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Isaac Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 08:21:02 +1000
Subject: Re: External Ice Dispenser on Shabbos
> From: Andrew Klafter <andrew.klafter@...>
> Other authorities
> do not consider ice formed on Shabbos to be nolad, but rather only
> consider water formed from ice to be nolad.
(I am at work, so if anyone needs the actual sources, I'll email them)
Many rule there is no Nolad if the ice is dropped, for instance, into a
cup of water once removed because nothing new is "seen/created". There
are opinions to the effect that there is no Nolad whatsoever because ice
isn't a permanent form, and exists as such because it is placed in a
particular environment, and removing it from that environment isn't
Nolad. The comparison is made to placing some Kigel (no, I won't call it
Kugel---ever!) which contains jellified fat near a warm source.
If I remember correctly there is in fact a Machlokes Rishonim on whether
it's the Issur of Nolad (Rashi from memory according to the
understanding of some Achronim) or rather the issur of
crushing/grinding.
There is a very nice responsa in Tzitz Eliezer about ice in general
which I read quite a while back and elucidates this matter. (all
responsa in Tzitz Eliezer are so beautifully written, wouldn't it be
nice if others could write so well).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@...>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 00:04:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Hallel & Zionism
> While Rav Kotler may have been adamant against the state it does seem
> that his father-in-law R. Isser Zalman Meltzer [may have differed]. I
> believe that he was connected with the Rabbanut in Israel and I once
> heard that he said that Jews in the old city should recite Hallel after
> they were saved.
There are grounds to hold that R. Isser Zalman was not negative about
the State. But is telling Jews who are saved from captivity to say
Hallel a proof?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eli Lansey <elansey@...>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 19:32:32 -0400
Subject: Kabbalah as a source of Halachah...Tcheilet in tzitzit
<<<What I find disconcerting, though, is that many of those who wear the
Techelet Tzitzit do not follow the prescriptions of Shulchan Aruch
(whereby each Tzitzit corner has five sets of knots, interspersed by -
accoring to many opinions - 7, 8, 11 and 13 windings of the Shamash
thread), but instead have Tzitzit which seem to have something like 11
sets of double knots interspersed by 10 sets of windings (I may be wrong
about the exact numbers). I've asked what the source for this diversion
from Halachah Pesukah is, and was told it's kabbalistic in nature.>>>
While I am not suggesting not to follow the Shulchan Aruch, there are
many other opinions regarding how to wrap the strings in tzitzit. A few
sources for different methods: Gemarah Brachot 9b see the Tosaphot, also
see the RaMBa"M in Hilchot Tzitzit, Perek 1, and the RAiVi"D on that
RaMBa"M (as well as the Shulchan Aruch, of course) to name a few.
Eli Lansey.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <JoshHoff@...>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:37:37 EDT
Subject: Re: Kiruv Rechokim
It seemed ok for the pasuk to refer to a Jew as rachok- "...Shalom
shalom larachok velakarov..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dovid Pernikoff <talmid@...>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 07:38:42 -0700
Subject: Re: Nach
> From: Leona Kroll <leona_kroll@...>
> 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.
I am skeptical about the above - assuming folding a tallis takes about a
Minute (usually less ) reviewing Tanach each month in a 1/2 hour for
anyone less than the GRA seems impossible ( Supposedly the Rogatchover
Goan used to Review Mishanyoth in 6 hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Seth & Sheri Kadish <skadish@...>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 21:52:19 +0200
Subject: Re: Nakh
Something sounds funny here, because the numbers just don't add up.
Even to just "review" Tanakh each month is physically impossible "while
folding taleisim"! (Even if you've already studied Nakh *very*
thoroughly.) Here are the numbers:
I have been working for several years on an entirely new bekiut system
for reviewing Nakh; I currently have initial drafts for all but two of
the sefarim, and hope to complete drafts for the rest before the chagim,
IYH. The plan is flexible, but one option it allows for is to finish
all of Nakh in a year. To be on target for this requires roughly 40-50
pesukim on a typical day, which take perhaps 20-25 minutes to read out
loud with the te'amim, and to occassionally consult a commentary or
translation for a difficult phrase here and there. More exactly: 14,830
pesukim (not including Tehillim) divided by 354 days (=12 Hebrew months)
comes out to ~42 pesukim per day. (Tehillim itself requires an
additional six month cycle, with approximately one average-length mizmor
per day.)
Bekiut in Nakh is definately something you have to sit down seriously
for! (Or at least you have to fold your tallit with very great care :-)
Seth (Avi) Kadish
Karmiel, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew Klafter <andrew.klafter@...>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:22:43 -0400
Subject: Private Statments by Torah Leaders
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...> v34n76
> >Otherwise, we descend to the level of "Rav X was told by Rav Y that Rav
> >Z had said ..." And what can we deduce from that?
> From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...> v34n38
> I'd say pretty much what the Gemarah deduces from similar citations. That
> is, rarely accepted on its face without examination from all directions.
The difference is that the statements in they Talmud by Amoraim were
public teachings, and were intended to be repeated and debated; it is
analagous to transcripts of public lectures in our times. Nowadays,
when the standard method of making a public statement to call a press
conference or write a letter to the editor of a widely read publication,
rumors about private statements by Torah leaders should be either
entirely disregarded or at least taken with a proverbial grain of salt.
(By the way, can anyone explain the origins and precise meaning of that
metaphor? I've never totally understood it.)
-Nachum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:14:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: Summary of Teamim
Perets Mett in v34n75 makes 4 comments about my summary of Teamim. Some
of these comments are correct and some are matters of opinion and
controversy. Allow me to answer
This appeared recently.
> I would just like to add that familiarity with the Cantillations could
> avoid this problem. The rules for cantillations in Psalms are rather
> easy (PROVIDED you are only interested in where to PAUSE).
>
> * The following are major pauses: Ethnachta, Sof Possok
> * The following are secondary pauses:
> All Revia; Oleh VeYored,Tipchah,Shaleshelt, Pazer
COMMENTS:
1) Perets states
<The primary pause within a posuk in sifrei Eme"th (=Iyov, Mishlei,
T'hilim) is definitely the Oleh V'Yored (if the posuk has one).>
This is similar to the question of whether a SEGOL or ETHNACHTA take
precedence in ordinary laining. I believe there are two views on this
(just as there are two views on Oleh VeYoreid)
2) Perets states <A Tipcho (Tarcho Meaylo)) in Taamei Eme"th is conjunctive;
the writer presumably meant the disjunctive D'chi which, while looking
like a tipcho, always precedes the first vowel of the word. >
Correct. In passing: Since the DECHI goes with an ethnach I didnt think
there any confusion in referring to it as a Tipchah. Technically the
Tarchah is never called Tipchah.
3) Perets states: < Revia immediately preceding an Oleh VeYoreid is only
barely disjunctive. >
Correct (I was thinking of the other 2 revias)
4) Perets states: < Shalsheleth can be conjunctive!>
But Shalsheleth is only conjunctive in 8 cases. My rules were dealing
with the majority of cases and are useful.
I thank Perets for his emendations (particularly the revia koton). I
reiterate that knowledge of Teamim is helpful when understanding how to
pause in prayer
Russell Hendel; http://www.RashiYomi.Com/mj.htm (my Mail Jewish Archives)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <DTnLA@...>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:30:14 EDT
Subject: Testifying Bird
The Mishna in Sota (6:1) writes that (according to R. Eliezer) if the
husband warns his wife not to be secluded with a man and there are no
witnesses to the seclusion, yet a "passing bird" told him of the
seclusion, it is enough to render her a Sotah. I always wondered about
that bird until I read this article on the CNN.com site:
Woman seeks divorce over mynah indiscretions
June 19, 2001
SHANGHAI, China -- A Chinese woman has launched divorce proceedings
against her husband after the family's pet mynah bird reportedly spilled
the beans on his marital indiscretions. According to the Xinmin Evening
News, the woman first suspected something was amiss when the bird began
repeating words apparently picked up from her husband's secret telephone
calls to his lover after she returned from a month-long visit to her
parents. She said words such as "divorce", "I love you", and "be
patient" had become an increasingly frequent feature of the feathered
telltale's idle twitterings. She said the bird became particularly
talkative when the phone rang. The woman, from the southwestern city of
Chongqing, said she already suspected her husband was having an affair
but the mynah's loose talk was the final nail in the coffin. According
to the paper last week she took her case -- along with the bird
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 34 Issue 90
