Volume 34 Number 98
                 Produced: Mon Jul  2 16:53:46 US/Eastern 2001

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

"Beytzim shelanu" (Overnight Eggs) (3)
         [Michael Hoffman, Rachel Smith, Rose Landowne]
Islam is not idolatry
         [Art Werschulz]
         [Edward Ehrlich]
         [Idelle Rudman]
School Curriculums and Nach
         [Russell Hendel]
Torah & Sefer Yehoshua
         [Ben Z. Katz]
We are all Orthodox Pharasaic Rabbinites
         [Andrew Klafter]


From: Michael Hoffman <hoffmanm@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 19:25:13 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Re: "Beytzim shelanu" (Overnight Eggs)

>From: Elihu Turkel <ETurkel@...>
>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?

The Gemara in Niddah 17a mentions a number of things that if one does
them one is "mischayev benafsho vedamo berosho", and eating eggs that
have passed a night without their shell is one of those terrible
things. (Also peeled onions and garlic that have passed a night are

This gemara is not brought in the rambam or the shulchan aruch, but it
is mentioned l'halacha in the acharonim, such as the Pri Chadash. Rav
Moshe ztl discusses it in one of the later volumes of the Igros Moshe,
as does the Minchas Yitzchok in vol. 6.

In certain Chassidishe circles this is one of the most important
halochos, and I have heard in the name of the Klausenburger that not
being mapkid on this is a source for all kinds of terrible illnesses.

All major "heimishe" hechsherim in Israel (such as Eidah, Sheeris, Landa
etc.) are makpid on this halocho, but as far as I know, no major
hashgocho outside Israel are machmir on this.

Michael Hoffman

From: Rachel Smith <rachelms@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 06:34:18 -0700
Subject: RE: "Beytzim shelanu" (Overnight Eggs)

Peeled (shelled) eggs that have lain overnight should not be eaten
because of sakana (danger).  The same applies to peeled onions and
peeled garlic.  I don't recall offhand if this is brought in Shulchan
Aruch, but I heard in a lecture on the topic that the major kashrus
agenices are careful about this.  Some hold that the prohibition doens't
apply if the food is changed from its raw state (e.g. egg yolks or
whites separated, onions or garlic used as ingredients; some consider
garlic or onion powder to be sufficiently changed from the raw state to
allow its use) 


From: Rose Landowne <ROSELANDOW@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:55:26 EDT
Subject: Re: "Beytzim shelanu" (Overnight Eggs)

The caterer at our shul once told me that the hashgacha he uses does not
let him use eggs which have been broken the day before because there is
a danger of shaydim.

Rose Landowne


From: Art Werschulz <agw@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:57:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Islam is not idolatry


> ... the author ... said some things which led me to think that he
> thinks that Islam is a form of idolatry.  For example, he wrote,
> "Jews do not worship Allah."  

I have a book called "The Scholar's Haggadah" (published by Aronson, I
think), which contains various Pesach haggadah texts "in parallel".
(IIRC, the texts were Ashkenazic, Sefardic, Yemenite, and Italian.)
Anyway, the Yemenite version has Arabic piyyutim written in Hebrew
characters (much as is done with Ladino or Yiddish), using the word
"Allah", which the author translates as "G@d".

While I'm at it, you'll notice the typographic convention that I used
a moment ago for writing the English version of the Deity's name.  I
don't remember where I saw it originally.  Its advantage over the
usual variant, which uses a hyphen, is that hyperactive word wrapping
mechanisms won't do a line break after the second character in the
trigraph.  I have no hope for, and little interest in, its universal
acceptance, since the other mechanism is firmly entrenched.

Art Werschulz (8-{)}   "Metaphors be with you."  -- bumper sticker
GCS/M (GAT): d? -p+ c++ l u+(-) e--- m* s n+ h f g+ w+ t++ r- y? 
Internet: <agw@...><a href="http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~agw/">WWW</a>
ATTnet:   Columbia U. (212) 939-7061, Fordham U. (212) 636-6325


From: Edward Ehrlich <eehrlich@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 16:58:00 +0300
Subject: Orthodoxy

Carl Singer wrote:

> 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.

The word "Orthodox" probably had extremely negative connotations in the
context of 19th century Protestant Germany where Reform Judaism
originated.  The word "Orthodox" would have been associated with the
various Eastern Churches such as the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox
Churches which were perceived as more Catholic (large "C") and foreign
than the Roman Catholic Church itself.

The word orthodox means a strict adherance to a certain belief or dogma
and is a poor choice to label traditional Judaism with its emphasis on
practice and not dogma.  Relatively few articles on this list, for
instance, are dedicated to the question of what a Jew should BELIEVE,
compared to the many on what a Jew should DO.  The expression
"Ultra-Orthodox" has been fading out of use over the last few years to
be replaced by "Haradei".  Maybe it's time to replace "Orthodox" with
"Observant" in English or "Shomeir Mitzvot" in Hebrew.

The following might be a bit off topic, so I full understand if the
moderator decides to delete it [As submitted, this is fine. Mod.], but
one of my dreams is that the words "Orthodox, Conservative and Reform"
would suddenly dissappear.  Their use has created unnecessary divisions
within the Jewish people by causing discussions within the Jewish world
to concentrate on the labels and not more substancive issues.

Ed Ehrlich <eehrlich@...>
Jerusalem, Israel

To: Edward Weidberg <eweidberg@...>

From: Idelle Rudman <rudmani@...>
Subject: Re: Sadducees

Actually, the Rambam's source is the Gemara, don't have the exact citation
now.  Zadok was high priest in the time of David, and that is a source of
the name.  Along with the priestly family, there were those who became

See the EJ article on Sadducees.

Idelle Rudman, MLS, MA, Librarian		    tel: 212-213-2230 x119 
Touro College, Women's Division                     fax: 212-689-3515
Graduate School of Jewish Studies	            <rudmani@...>
160 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY  10016


From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:39:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: School Curriculums and Nach

Leona Kroll v34n82 suggests that we are not teaching nach because we are
curtailing our school schedules.

< 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.>

This statement of hers seems to have gone unnoticed; I think we should
spend a few issues on it. WHAT IS GOING ON IN YESHIVA HIGH SCHOOL
CURRICULUM? I e.g. have seen schools that have cut the length of the
Yeshiva day so that the Yeshiva kids can compete in basketball.

Here is a simple question that can act as a springboard for discussion:
(a) How many hours per day/week are devoted to Limuday Kodesh (b) What
proportion is given to Chumash, Nach, Dinim, Gmarrah, politics and
modern problems.(c) What proportion SHOULD be given to these topics.

I think this is a serious issue. 

In passing at a recent dinner I spoke to AMIT officials who produce the
TNACH YOMI lessons. They told me of their great success with the Chumash
series. Now, however, they spend money on writers and printing but
people are not as interested. This is creating a situation where the
project is now operating at a loss.  I suspect that the people who
wanted Chumash but not Nach probably have children they are sending to
Yeshiva whom they dont care if they learn nach. Thus we create a
viscious circle.

At any rate I really think this should be discussed.

Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.RashiYomi.Com/


From: Ben Z. Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 06:16:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Torah & Sefer Yehoshua

>From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
>>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?

The only way to do this in a serious way is to use some form of an
allegorical/non-literal approach.  We know that other ancient near eastern
societies speak of a flood.  Therefore, there was a dramatic flood in the
ancient near east that the Bible puts to use to teach a lesson, or as the
Rambam says "...the story of the flood ... [was] recounted in order to
bring proof for the following correct opinion: verily, that there is a
reward for the righteous; verily there is a God that judgeth on the earth"
(Guide, Book 3, chapter 50, Pines translation, p. 640).  I know
that this approach will not be to the liking of many on this list, but
suffice it to say that the allegorical approach (esp. for the first 11
chapters of Bereshit) has a distinguished pedigree.  Ralbag clearly says
that the nachas in the gan eden story is an allegory for the imaginative
faculty (vehanachash hu mashal lekoach hadimyoni - Rav Kook edition, p.
56).  In fact, this approach was so popular in the Middle ages (we
"moderns" are not the only ones who have difficulty "reconciling" the Torah
with "science") that in 1305 the Rashba issued a decree banning all
allegorical interpretation of Torah (to no avail).  

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: Andrew Klafter <andrew.klafter@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:18:04 -0400
Subject: We are all Orthodox Pharasaic Rabbinites

      From: Idelle Rudman <c>

      The term "Orthodox" to distinguish those Jews who maintained the
      traditional beliefs and rituals from those who changed, came into
      use in the nineteeth century. It is not applicable prior to that
      time period.  Therefore, not only was the Rambam not Orthodox,
      neither was the Vilna Gaon.  The terms came into use to
      distinguish between the different streams of religious Jewish

      The term used for Judaism to identify traditional Jewish belief in
      contra-distinction to the the Karaite movement is Rabbinite.  This
      term describes Judaism that looks to its rabbinate to lead, to
      deal with the halakhic issues basing their decisions on the Oral
      Law, the Talmud.  The latter, as already described, was rejected
      by the Karaites.  Therefore, the term "Orthodox" as defining a
      distinction between Karaites and Rabbinites is invalid.

      The Sadducees were not a cult, but a priestly family descended
      from the high priest, Zadok.  The high priesthood was maintained
      by that family, and their great power was rooted in their
      position.  They maintained that the cornerstone of the Law was in
      the Written Law, and not the Oral Law.  This, of course,
      distinguished this sect from the Pharisees, who were the teachers
      and scholars, the Tana'im and Amora'im of the Talmud.  The
      Karaites were not directly influenced by the Sadducees, but some
      elements of the latter movement remained current, as well as other
      sectarian practices, and these were incorporated by the Karaites.

      The legendary story of the origins of Anan ben David can be found
      in an article in the Encyclopedia Judaica.  There are very few
      hard facts known about his origin.

NOT a cult?  Just a family?  How about the conversion of Rabbi Yochanan
Cohen Gadol to the Sadducees?  The Sadducees most certainly were a
religious movement with a heterodox belief system, rejecting the Torah
She Be'al Peh (Oral Torah).  If you find "sect" more appropriate than
"cult" I don't think this would change my argument.

As far as the term "orthodox", I think it IS appropriate to use that term
to describe the Rambam.  The contemporary connotation of the term, which
is to distinguish traditional Judaism from modern heterodox movements
(Reform and Conservative), should not prevent us from using that term to
distinguish normative Judaism from other heretical movements in Jewish
history.  "Orthodox" is used to describe (lehavdil) schismatic Christian
Churches, and is also used to contrast traditional Islam from modern
Islam-inspired movements.  It is used in psychoanalysis to distinguish
drive theory from ego-psychology, object-relations, and self-psychology.

Why should this term be restricted to the modern Jewish period?  It was
not "Orthodox Jews" who even invented the term.  It was used upon us as
a label by the Reform movement.  Why not make use of this term to
clarify our position that Orthodox Judaism is normative/traditional
Judaism, and that heterodox movements (Karaite, Sadducee, Christianity,
Reform, Conservaitive) are nothing new in Jewish history?



End of Volume 34 Issue 98