Volume 34 Number 93
                 Produced: Tue Jun 26  5:46:31 US/Eastern 2001

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

"Beytzim shelanu" (Overnight Eggs)
         [Elihu Turkel]
Cholov Yisroel Milk
         [Josh Backon]
Critique of Vayoel Moshe
         [Paul Merling]
Ein Navi Be`iro
         [Mark Steiner]
         [Barak Greenfield]
Interesting source material
         [Shmuel Himelstein]
L'shon Haqodesh (was Lashon Hakodesh)
         [Ira L. Jacobson]
NT origin?
         [Shmuel Himelstein]
         [Carl Singer]
Orthodox anti-Zionism, Vayoel Moshe etc
         [Paul Shaviv]
Succah on Shemini Atzeret
         [Paul Merling]
Torah & Sefer Yehoshua
         [Bernard Raab]


From: Elihu Turkel <ETurkel@...>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:50:40 -0400
Subject: "Beytzim shelanu" (Overnight Eggs)

I was recently shown an advertisement for a kosher cruise which listed
"no suspicion of overnight eggs" ("Bli ch'shash shel baytzim shelanu")
among the stringencies enforced. I have never heard of this one. Anyone
know what this refers to?

Elihu Turkel, Psy.D.
Coordinator: Psychological Testing and Adult Psychology Internship
North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System, Hillside Hospital


From: Josh Backon <BACKON@...>
Date: Fri,  22 Jun 2001 13:10 +0200
Subject: Cholov Yisroel Milk

The term "Cholov Yisroel Milk" reminds me what old timers used to call
Mayim Acharonim: "mayim acharonim VASSER" :-)

Vasser in Yiddish = water

Josh Backon


From: Paul Merling <MerlingP@...>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:44:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Critique of Vayoel Moshe

 I would suggest that Hershy read Hatikufa Hagidola by Rav Minachem
Kasher for a respectful critique of the Vayoel Moshe. Eilu Vieilu Divrei
Elokim Chaim.


From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:09:36 +0300
Subject: Re: Ein Navi Be`iro

Further to prophets and cities:

It is not impossible that the proverb, "ein navi be`iro" or whatever is
actually a Medrash which was never written down in the collections of
the Oral Law available.  (Just as there were many prophecies that were
not written down in Scripture.)  The medrash might have been known to
Matthew or Jesus (who, according to the Talmud, studied with the
Tannaim), who then wrote it down.  The late Professor Saul Lieberman
discovered a number of Medrashim that had escaped beeing written down by
Jews, but found their way into Patristic literature.


From: Barak Greenfield <DocBJG@...>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:59:01 -0400
Subject: RE: Hechsherim

Eli Turkel <Eli.Turkel@...> wrote in response to my post:

> Some hechsherim tried different symbols for dairy and dairy equipment
> (DE) products. They found that it caused more problems than it helped.
> Despite the claims here 90% and more of consumers do not want or care
> about the details of the hechsher. Once they accept a hechsher thats it.
> While it is true that a small minority wants more details these
> organizations found that most consumers get overwelmed by the details
> and that more details actually do harm. In addition with the existing
> possibilities of error more details compound the possibility of errors.

Are you saying that if people realized they could eat DE after a meat
meal, but that the OU decided to hide the necessary information from
them, they'd be OK with that? Why would someone want to be essentially
prevented from eating something after a meat meal when so many
authorities permit it?



From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:26:37 +0200
Subject: Interesting source material

In 5709 (1949), the first Israeli elections were held. In those
elections, all the religious parties ran under a single slate (one might
have imagined Mashiach had come!).

As part of that election campaign, the following "Da'as Torah" was

We are thankful to Hashem that we have been zocheh ("merited") in His
great mercy and kindness, to see the first buds of It'halta DiGeula (the
beginning of the redemption), with the establishment of the State of
Israel.  This was from Hashem to show us that a favorable time has
arrived, which obligates us to girld our loins, so that our land and
state should be built as a holy entity ...

Please note the following signatories (among many others) who signed that
appeal, even with it's "It'halta DiGeula" statement:
Rav Yechezkel Sarna
	Rosh Yeshiva of Chevron
Rav Zalman Sorotzkin
Rabbi Yehiel Michel Tukechinski
	Rosh Yeshiva of Eitz Chaim
Rav Yehiel Slezinger
	Rosh Yeshiva of Kol Torah
Rav Yaakov Henich Sinkivitz
	Rosh Yeshiva of Sefat Emes
Harav Eliyahu Romm
	Rosh Yeshiva of Me'ah Shearim.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach

The full text and the list of all the Rabbanim who signed it are to be
found In Kol HaTor by Rav Menachem Kasher, pp. 374-378.

It would certainly seem that the views of the Satmar Rav, z"tzl, were
not accepted by all of Gedolei Yisrael...

Shmuel Himelstein


From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:42:39 +0300
Subject: Re: L'shon Haqodesh (was Lashon Hakodesh)

Andrew Klafter has distinguished the sanctity of the Hebrew language of
various periods by the following translated quotes:

>HaMilon HaIvri Shel Avraham Even Shoshan (They Hebrew Dictionary by 
>Avraham Even Shoshan) gives the following definitions:
>"LASHON HAKOKDESH (The Holy Language): 1. An expression for the Hebrew 
>Language because of the fact that this is the language in which the Holy 
>Scriptues were written.  2. The langugue of the Torah, the Hebrew in which 
>the Holy Scriptures are written."
>"LASHON CHACHAMIM ("The language of the sages"): An expression for the 
>Hebrew Language in which the which was spoken by the sages of the Mishna, 
>and in which the Mishna, Tosefta, Braitot, and Talmudic expressions were 
>written, to be distinguished from LASHON TORAH, or LASHON HAKODESH."

I find no contradiction between the first definition of l'shon haqodesh
and the possibility that the term refers to the Hebrew language in all
forms.  That definition just indicates *why* it is called such.

I do have some difficulty with the other definitions, and therefore am 
willing to concede the point.

At least I hope he concedes that the term is not "LASHON HAKODESH," but
rather l'shon haqodesh. My reference here, of course, is to the fact
that in the nismakh construction, the qamatz of lashon becomes a shewa.

And this is of course in accordance with the rules of grammar, in all
forms of Hebrew, whether biblical or post-biblical, however their degree
of sanctity may be perceived.


From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:59:23 +0200
Subject: NT origin?

Israelis often refer to someone who is marvelous as "Melach HaAretz" -
i.e., "Salt of the Earth." If I'm not mistaken, this, too, is from the

Shmuel Himelstein


From: Carl Singer <CARLSINGER@...>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 08:18:02 EDT
Subject: Re: "Orthodox"

Idelle Rudman is certainly correct.

I may be demonstrating my manifest ignorance or faulty recall -- but I
recall the term "Orthodox" as having its origins in the (shall I call
them) political efforts of the Reform movement to label itself centrist
(or primary.)  Thus by refering to Torah Observant Jewery as "right
wing" (Ortho = right, as in straight, as in orthogonal, but has taken on
the connotation) it helped place itself in the main stream -- rather
than left.

BTW -- from my PC's dictionary

Orthodox Judaism noun (1904) : Judaism that adheres to the Torah and
Talmud as interpreted in an authoritative rabbinic law code and applies
their principles and regulations to modern living compare conservative
judaism, reform judaism 
(C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

We could go further in that terms like "frum" have grown to new meanings
and usage.  As I child (long, long ago) I recall my Father (ztl)
referring to a person as "a shayna yid" -- literally "a beautiful Jew"
-- and it summed it up in a very special way.

Certainly no contemporary of the Rambam, the Vilan Goan, .... would have
called them "frum" -- it would have been superfluous.

In contrast, about a year ago, perhaps a bit longer, one of the kosher
agency magazines included an article with he term "FFBYE" Frum From
Birth - Yeshiva Educated" -- it led me to wonder how many other things I
could add to further classify and thus divide the Jewish community --
not to overburden but here was one that I recall :) FFBSPAT -----Frum
>From Birth, Says Please and Thank You.

Kol Tov,
Carl Singer


From: Paul Shaviv <pshaviv@...>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:54:07 -0400
Subject: Orthodox anti-Zionism, Vayoel Moshe etc

Some brief (and final) responses to discussion:

1. By some slip, in my submission to MLJ #83 I referred to "R' Moshe
Hayim Sonnenfeld", instead, of course, to R' Yosef Hayim Sonnenfeld
z"l. I apologise, and am grateful to Berl Nadler of Toronto for pointing
out my mistake.

2. If indeed there was a seven-hour debate at the Knesiah Gedolah in
Marienbad, it shows the depth of disagreement among the participants.
Had everyone shared the same view, there would have been no debate.  I
believe that - in general - only the Hungarians remained resolutely
anti-any form of Jewish autonomy in Eretz Yisrael, and , indeed it was
from among the Hungarian Yerushalmis that Neturei Karta was created.
The rest of Aguda, whatever their arguments about the nature of
leadership in the Yishuv (and, of course, in every other Jewish
community), were completely in favour of unrestricted immigration for
all Jews.

3.  In essence, the *real* nature of religious anti-Zionism was a
continuation of the post-Emancipation arguments about the secularisation
of Jewish community life, authority and leadership, and - as I have
tried to argue - far less about pre-empting the Messiah. This
'Messianic' argument emerged as a major theme way *after* 1948, and a
little industry then got busy trying to retroactively rewrite
history. [A very successful little industry, in my view!]. The Old
Yishuv was a society fleeing the Emancipation which thought that the
still-traditional Ottoman rule in the Holy Land would give them
protection against all the perils of Modernism, only to find that the
Zionist Yishuv and changing world history brought it to their doorstep.

3. A very good illustration of this is the following passage from the
autobiography of the famous Yerushalmi maggid, R' Benzion Yadler, which
relates how the Old Yishuv retreated from Ivrit, not because it was an
everyday use of 'Lashon Hakodesh', but because they realised that it had
become an instrument of secularisation no different from other modern
(European) languages, whose study was forbidden. (There is ample
evidence, incidentally, that Hebrew was an everyday language in
Jerusalem throughtout the nineteenth century.)

	"In the year 5664 (=1904) the strength of the Hofshi'im grew, and they
extended the use of 'Ivrit'.  Those who desecrated the Sabbath in public,
spoke Ivrit; and would sell different kinds of drinks on the Holy Sabbath
with the cry 'Hatzi grush bakbuk!'.  It was a great affliction of the soul
to the old Rabbanim of Jerusalem ...  that all the desecrators of the
Sabbath, the consumers of forbidden food, used Ivrit.

	The great Rabbonim of Jerusalem in that generation expressed their
opposition to the study of Ivrit; declaring that it was Ivrit that was
spoken by the public desecrators of the Sabbath; that it was through the
medium of Ivrit that the Sabbath was actually being desecrated; and by Ivrit
they attracted the hearts of the youngsters to secular education.  Because
of this, we were not to speak Ivrit; it would be better to speak Yiddish,
and not to be classed with the Sabbath-breakers."

(B.Z. Yadler, B'Tuv Yerushalayim, ed. B. Landau, Jer., 1967, p 74 ff:)

There are clear parallels with the attitude to languages in the European
Orthodox communities.

3. An important critique of the Satmarer Rebbe's argument regarding the
'Three vows' is Rabbi Norman Lamm's article 'The ideology of the Neturei
Karta according to the Satmarer point of view',  in TRADITION, way back in
Fall 1971, Vol. XIII, #1.  It should be noted that, even if you wish to
"pasken from Aggadata", the Jewish undertakings contained in the vows are
dependent on the nations of the world treating the Jews fairly. Who could
argue, in 1945, that that was the case ???????

Have a great summer - I'm signing off, and signing Report Cards!

Paul Shaviv
Headmaster, CHAT - Community Hebrew Academy of Toronto
200, Wilmington Avenue,, Toronto, ON M3H 5J8,Canada
Tel: +416-636-5984 x 225 /  Fax: +416-636-7717


From: Paul Merling <MerlingP@...>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:26:22 -0400
Subject: RE: Succah on Shemini Atzeret

Reb Zadok of Lublin, wrote a Sefer called Meishiv Zedek (usually
available in a set with all of his other Sforim)which gives the info
Yossie desires. One of the reasons given there is that there is a
prohibition of Bal Tosif/adding to the Mizvos, if one eats in a Succah
on Shmini Azeres which is not Areiva Alav/pleasant to eat in. Reb Zadok
also shows that the Ashkenazi Minhag is based on the Midrashim (of Erez
Yisrael origin) which allude to this custom.


From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:45:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Torah & Sefer Yehoshua

>From: A. Seinfeld <aseinfeld@...>
>I agree with Dr. Katz that archaeologists have explored the historicity of
>the conquest more than any other part of Tanach. However, my personal
>experience from teaching is that the most challenging part of the Torah
>archaeologically (or geologically) is the Flood. Anyone else share my

I agree. This has been the hardest part of chumash for me to understand and 
reconcile with physical reality. Any ideas?


End of Volume 34 Issue 93