Volume 35 Number 11
                 Produced: Mon Jul 16  5:01:01 US/Eastern 2001

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Beitzim Shelonu
         [I. Balbin]
Can of Peas/Can of Worms
         [Tobias Robison]
Eggs left overnight without their shells (2)
         [Daniel M Wells, Josh Backon]
Eggs Over Night
         [Bill Bernstein]
My [RH's] 2 cents on Repeating [sic] Repeating words [sic]
         [Ira L. Jacobson]
Natural/Synthetic Fabric Implications
         [Leah S. Gordon]
OU and Kashrus
         [Chaim Shapiro]
OU Dairy
         [Moshe Feldman]
R. Isser Zalman Melzer
         [Eli Turkel]


From: I. Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 08:56:06 +1000
Subject: Re: Beitzim Shelonu

> From: SBA <sba@...>
> From my brother, a mashgiach for RAZ Beck -the (Charedi) rav of Melbourne:

> The Rov shlita doesn't allow eggs+onions peeled overnite at our
> shops+caterers.  However, if we put a bit of salt on it, mix with
> something or leave it with the shell - then he permits it.

I'd rather Mr Abeles described Rav Beck Shlita as the Moro D'Asro of
Adass Israel Congregation. There are many "Charedi" Poskim in Melbourne,
both who approve Kashrus supervision and just "plain" Poskim.  Readers
will be aware that being "Charedi" is either a self-imposed
nomenclature, or one ascribed by others, or a combination of both.
Having said that, no one should infer that Rav Beck isn't a significant
Posek in Melbourne. I highlight the implications of - the rav of
Melbourne - with an inserted (Charedi) which might possibly give
outsiders the impression that there isn't anyone else. I'm confident Mr
Abeles never intended such an impression.


From: Tobias Robison <trobison@...>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:03:04 -0400
Subject: Can of Peas/Can of Worms

Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
wrote about the inclusion of L-Cysteine as a dough conditioner in
certain commerical bakeries:
>It now comes from an animal source which is controversial at the least
>as to its kashrus.... [Gershon's kashrut expert friend was] upset that
>a "way was found" to permit it despite his and other rabbis'

Generally speaking, I think Gershon made a good point about about how
difficult it is to trust one's ability to discern the ingredients, by
reading the label. But I think his example undermined his conclusion:

> This is ONE example where the consumer in this techno-society MUST
> rely on the certifying organizations.

In fact, Gershon's anecdote suggests that the certifying organizations
may have failed us this time.

Is there in fact a problem with the current formulation of L-Cysteine?


From: Daniel M Wells <wells@...>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 13:21:40 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Eggs left overnight without their shells

Check out:

And especially for 'master bakers' see note 18.


The wiff of those freshly baked rolls at Grodzinski's in London will
forever be one of my favorite memories of London.

From: Josh Backon <BACKON@...>
Date: Thu,  12 Jul 2001 15:45 +0200
Subject: Re: Eggs left overnight without their shells

This prohibition (peeled eggs, onions, garlic, etc.) left overnight is
based on a gemara in Nidah 17a and l'chatchila one shouldn't leave these
unpeeld items overnight (see: Kaf haChaim 115:72, Chelkat Yaakov Yoreh
Deah 39, Minchat Yitzchak VI 74) unless part of the peeled vegetable is
left attached. B'diavad, if there is financial loss, it's permitted
(see: Minchat Yitzchak IV 108; Shevet halevi VI 111).

BTW I see you're from England. The Minchat Yitzchak was the Dayan in
Manchester UK about 20 years ago so I'd assume his psak would hold for
your community.

Josh Backon


From: Bill Bernstein <bbernst@...>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:02:10 -0500
Subject: Eggs Over Night

I took a look at the Igros Moshe (Yoreh Deah Gimmel, I think) where he
discusses this issue. This apparantly is based on a Gemoro in Nida where
Rebbe Shimon ben Yochai mentions things that are injurious to health if
peeled and left overnight, viz. eggs, onions, and garlic.
After some discussion, reb Moshe zt'l mentions that this is not found in
either Tur or Schulchan Oruch and quotes someone to the effect that this
is a "rabbim vs. yachid" issue.  He mentions another authority who asks
why Jews aren't particular about this and brings a citation from the
Yerushalmi to the effect that all this is because of "ruach rah" and
this is not an issue in our time so much.  Finally Reb Moshe paskens
that while it is proper to be stringent, l'dina (according to halakha)
it is no problem.

Personally I find it disturbing that something that could well remain in
the venue of individual chumra/midas chassidus is now making its way
into the general jewish world via kashrus authorities.  And I get the
feeling that this movement is based on the idea of "well, hashgocha X
does this so we need to also" although in fairness I have never asked
about it.

Bill Bernstein
Nashville TN


From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:52:04 +0300
Subject: Re: My [RH's] 2 cents on Repeating [sic] Repeating words [sic]

Russel Hendel wrote in mail-jewish Vol. 34 #96 Digest and mail-jewish Vol. 
35 #1 Digest:

>First compare the Rambam Laws of Shma 2:11 < The repeatition of verses
>in the recitation of the Shma is disgusting (but not prohibited like the
>repetition of words --the talmud gives as a reason that it would appear
>to be addressing two deities >

I enjoyed Russel's imaginative rendering of the Rambam.  But Halakha 11
of Chapter 2 of the Laws of Qeri'at Shema` is somewhat different.  It
goes (using the excellent translation of R' Boruch Kaplan, Moznaim,
1989) as follows:

"One who reads [the Shema] out of order does not fulfill his obligation.
This refers to the order of the verses.  However, were one to reverse
the order of the sections, even though it is not permitted, I hold that
he does fulfill his obligation, since these sections are not sequential
in the Torah.  To recite a verse and then repeat it again is improper.
One who reads a word and then repeats it, such as one who recites Shema
Shema, should be silenced."

The Rambam seems to say just the opposite of Russel--to wit--both that
the reversal of the order of the sections is not permitted, and the
repetition of a verse is also improper.

Despite Russel's claim, nowhere does the Rambam refer to the reason
given by the Talmud.  Indeed, the Rambam is totally bereft of such
references.  In fact, the Rambam does not even state explicitly that
reciting "Shema` Shema`" is *prohibited*; only that the reciter should
be silenced.

If we wished to believe that the only things that the Rambam held to be
prohibited were those in which he used the word "prohibited," we would
have him permitting all sorts of prohibited acts.

(BTW, the reference to Vol. 34 #80 Digest should have been to Vol. 34
#81 Digest.)

                         Ira L. Jacobson


From: Leah S. Gordon <lsgordon@...>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 07:44:35 -0700
Subject: Natural/Synthetic Fabric Implications

David Ziants:
>something for halachic purposes. I.e. if it looks like a natural fabric,
>it should be considered so (even d'oraita), even if it is synthetic.

I know this was mentioned re sponges on shabbat, but does it apply to
shatnez?  I.e. would fake wool thus be treif mixed with linen?  I
thought that this was not the case...?



From: Chaim Shapiro <Dagoobster@...>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:52:32 EDT
Subject: OU and Kashrus

>The OU claims that
>      "A. The law does not always require listing ingredients or all
>      ingredients used, especially when used in relatively small amounts
>      or in amounts less than the law requires to be listed on the
>      package. "  (Kosher Primer available on their website).

I emailed the FDA.  They assured me that this is not the case in the US.

Yes, certain foods may be listed under the heading of flavoring or the
like, however, there are only a limited number of ingredients that can
be so listed.  All ingredients not covered by flavorings, etc, must be
listed no matter what their percentages!  I invite all interested
parties to check for themselves at FDA.GOV

      Chaim Shapiro


From: Moshe Feldman <MFeldman@...>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:16:31 -0400
Subject: RE: OU Dairy

As per Eli Turkel, it behooves us to do our research before we
speculate.  Here is some information from

<<Nonetheless, if dairy and non-dairy products are both made with heat,
non-dairy items will be labeled OU-D. A product manufactured on dairy
equipment has a different set of halachic rules than a product that contains
dairy ingredients. The product may be eaten after a meat meal, but it may
not be eaten together with meat. Because of this distinction, some kashruth
organizations have established a special category of products made on dairy
equipment, and have instituted a D.E. symbol. To avoid confusion, the OU has
chosen not to use the D.E. categorization. We feel that many people will not
be familiar with the ramifications of this halachic status.  

<<It is important to note that dairy ingredients or dairy residual
material often are present in products at very low levels. According to
halachah, a dairy component which is less than one part in sixty may be
botel nullified.  Nonetheless, as a matter of policy, the OU will not
imply a product is pareve by printing an OU without a "D" on the label,
even though the dairy component is at trace level.

Why have we adopted a policy which seems more stringent than halachah
requires? There are a number of reasons: 

A.  The halachah measures the ratio between dairy and non-dairy
ingredients by volume and not by weight. Generally, in industrial
settings, ingredients are measured by weight. As a result, it is often
difficult to receive an accurate calculation from a manufacturer of the
percentage of dairy ingredients by volume, since companies do not
measure ingredients by volume.

B.  It is difficult to monitor the levels of ingredients used in
products. Even if a precise calculation of ingredient ratios is made,
how would we know that the company does not change the percentages in a
given product? Because of the complications in overseeing a bitul
(nullification) situation, the OU does not wish to rely on bitul.

C.  There are instances when, according to halachah, a trace ingredient
is not nullified because of the critical function of the item. In order
to decide whether the principle of nullification applies to an
ingredient, it is first necessary to fully understand the effect of that
ingredient on the food product in question. Because of the intricacy of
the halachic principles, as well as the complexity of food technology,
the OU requires the OU-D label on all foods containing dairy
ingredients, irrespective of the amounts used.

Consumers often call our office to inquire if a dairy ingredient is
botel. A case in point are the many brands of tuna that are labeled OU-D
because of the presence of sodium caseinate (a milk derivative) which is
used in vegetable broth. May one eat OU-D tuna within six hours of a
meat meal? The difficulty in responding to this question reflects some
of the issues raised above. We have made numerous attempts to evaluate
the levels of sodium caseinate in tuna, but have found it difficult to
make conclusive statements. Some companies have had difficulty
calculating the volume of sodium caseinate. Other companies have given
us their calculations, but we have found that the formulae change and
the levels of ingredients do not remain constant. As such, we are
reluctant to make definitive statements about the percentages of casein
in tuna. >>

Kol tuv,


From: Eli Turkel <turkel@...>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 08:49:58 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: R. Isser Zalman Melzer

A while ago I had asked about R. Isser Zalman Melzer's attitude towards
the government of Israel as opposed to his son-in-law R. Aharon Kotler.
I recently purchased be-derech etz hachai which is a 2 volume set of
quotes about R. Melzer.

First, he was a relative of R. Pesach Frank, chief rabbi of Jerusalem
who helped get him the position at Etz Chaim. The head (menahel) of Etz
Chaim was R. Tukachinsky who was friendly with the Israeli
rabbinate. The opening speech at his welcome in Jerusalem was made by
R. Kook with whom he seems to have remained friends. They had both
learned together at Volozhin. He was also friendly with the Brisker Rav
who commented that R. Meltzer was close with his father R. Chaim and was
one of the few who understood him.

some interesting comments.
- He wrote (1937) to Rav Katz chief rabbi of Petach Tikvah strongly 
advocating that the Agudah be involved in building the state of Israel
so as not to leave the entire government to non-religious Jews.
Later he was one of the influential rabbis who convinced Agudah to
participate in the state and the government.

- In answer to question whether a town to remain under British
jurisdiction or apply for self-government which meant that Jewish
leftists would have a major say he replied that Jewish government
is always better than nonJewish government.

- Rav Herzog, chief rabbi of Israel gave a hesped for R. Meltzer
in which he quoted R. Meltzer as strongly advocating receiving
a small section of Israel from the British on the grounds that
after 2000 years of no Jewish land a small state is better than none.

- He quoted meilah 17: that R. Shimon Bar Yohai complained that Hagar
had seen an angel 3 times while he only saw a "shed".
He commented that during the war of independence he would accept any
miracle even that of a "shed". He also commented on the greatest of
G-d who gave Jews far from G-d the strength to give up their lives for
a Jewish state.

- He paskened that an umarried Yeshiva boy learning in Israel
keeps only one day of YomTov

I had asked whether he was in Rechovot. In terms out that R.  Raphael
Zvi Yehuhah Meltzer (his son?) built a yeshivah in Rechovot.  The
opening ceremony was attended by R. Herszog and R. Kotler.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel


End of Volume 35 Issue 11