Volume 35 Number 37
Produced: Mon Aug 6 6:02:09 US/Eastern 2001
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Adoption
[Stuart Wise]
Do women have different cognitive styles
[Janet Rosenbaum]
Dumbwaiter
[Carl Singer]
Gelatin in Medicines?
[Stuart Wise]
the Lottery
[Janet Rosenbaum]
Obligation to enjoy physical world
[Alexander Seinfeld]
Phrases which mean more than their individual words
[Russell Hendel]
Shabbat Guidance for non-Jews
[Eric Simon]
Tevilas Keilim
[Ephraim Stieglitz]
Veyiten Lechah
[Dov Teichman]
Worcherstershire Sauce (4)
[Nadine Bonner, Joshua Hosseinof, Stuart Cohnen, Joshua
Hoffman]
Yoatzot
[Beth and David Cohen]
Info: Facilities in W.Mass. and Cape Cod
[Jeff Zucker]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Wise <swise@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:42:03 -0700
Subject: Re: Adoption
> Stuart Wise <swise@...> and Anonymous (in mail.Jewish Vol35Num 27)
> restate the advantages of adopting non-Jewish children. Stuart goes
> further by optimistically stating:
>
>> Usually family members will take them in or formally adopt them.
>
> Usually!!! Even if true, this begs my earlier question about the remaining
> Jewish children who need loving, nurturing (in religious and every other
> sense) homes in observant families and communities. Where does following a
> "nonJewish only" adoption policy leave these children?
>
> Sam Saal <ssaal@...>
I would just like to clarify, as a other list member privately made the
same point, that while I can't say for sure, it would seem that the
Jewish children not adopted are older or have some problem. In any
case, I haven't seen any advertisements about adopting noninfant kids
without some sort of special need or problem.
There is no point in forcing a Jewish child on a couple who don't feel
they can adequately care for a special-needs child. Sadly, those
looking to start families want to replicate natural child rearing by
adopting babies -- and to find Jewish babies in America or even in
Israel is no feat. I heard years ago that social workers stand outside
delivery wards to be there when a single Jewish mother gives birth to a
child she wants to give away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Janet Rosenbaum <jerosenb@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 15:09:50 +0200
Subject: Do women have different cognitive styles
Russell Hendel wrote:
> While learning Daf Yomi last week (Kidushin Daf Pay) Rabbu Weinreb of
>Shomrey Emunah Baltimore pointed out that the SOURCE for the statement
>"Women are light headed" clearly occurs in a context discussing sin and
>in that context has absolutely nothing to do with their intellectual (or
>cognitive?) ability.
What about the idea that women have binah yeteira, whereas men have more
chochma?
Janet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <CARLSINGER@...> (Carl Singer)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 20:05:00 EDT
Subject: Dumbwaiter
What first struck me w/ the question was that the stairs were dangerous
-- if that's the case, dumbwaiter or no dumbwaiter, you or your landlord
MUST fix the steps.
Kol Tov
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Wise <swise@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:45:46 -0700
Subject: Re: Gelatin in Medicines?
> From: Philip Brooke <Philip_Brooke@...>
> I'm looking for feedback on the topic of gelatin in medicines,
> specifically vitamins. I know this is a rather contentious issue, but I
> was wondering what the differing views are. I had heard that the Rov
> (Soloveichik) had permitted gelatin in medicines, but then again he's
> frequently misquoted. Any sources would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
I recently heard from R' Heineman, and I believe I am recalling
correctly that since medicine is not considered "derech achila" -- the
manner in which one eats--there is no shaila, though people who are
careful not to consume anything that might render their souls unclean
would try to avoid it anyway.
Vitamins present a different problem, though, is they are not intended
to make a person better, according to R' Heineman to the best of my
recollection
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Janet Rosenbaum <jerosenb@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 00:38:29 +0200
Subject: the Lottery
Has anyone written responsa forbidding playing the lottery? If so, what
was their reasoning? I was just in Mea Shaarim and noticed for the
first time the residents lining up at the Lotto booth.
Janet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alexander Seinfeld <aseinfeld@...>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 15:46:42 -0700
Subject: Obligation to enjoy physical world
It says in the Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud) that one who refuses to try
a (kosher) physical pleasure when offered will be held accountable. I
believe the reference is Kiddushin Ch. 4, please correct me.
There is a tale of a modern Chassidic rebbe in Israel who in his old age
had his son or talmid fly him to Switzerland and back, with no apparent
business. When he returned, his talmidim asked him what was the point,
and he replied, "I was afraid that when I die, God might ask me 'How did
you like my Alps?', and I wouldn't be able to answer him" - the point
being that he wanted to impress the above obligation on his students.
Can anyone give me a correct source and/or details of this story - is it
true, who was the rebbe, where is it written, etc. Thanks.
Rabbi Alexander Seinfeld
Aish Hatorah of San Francisco and the Greater Bay Area
2275 Ramona St., Palo Alto, CA 94301
tel: 650-566-9000
<aseinfeld@...>; http://www.aish.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:33:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: Phrases which mean more than their individual words
Bob Werman raised (somewhat jokingly?) in v35n20 the following question:
>If chas veChallila and chas veShalom mean the same [they do], do we
conclude that Challila and Shalom are identical?
Since Challila means far away, do we conclude that shalom occurs when
people are separated?<<
Actually the phenomena referred to is a serious issue in Parshanuth. It
occurs when a PRHASE OF WORDS acquires a NEW MEANING that transcends the
meaning of the individual component words. I give two examples: One From
the academic literature and one from the Rashi website.
A famous article (Sorry but I forget where) pointed out that TOY GUNS
are not guns!(They LOOK like guns but do not FUNCTION as guns)
On the Rashi Website we refer to phrases like TOY GUNS as illustrating
the rule of NEW MEANINGS. A famous example would be the phrase ON THE
FACE OF. This phrase occurs in reference to specific people 4-5 times in
the Torah and on all but one of them Rashi comments that ON THE FACE OF
means DURING THE LIFETIME OF(Gn11-28a,Nu03-04a, Ex20-03a, Dt05-07a see
http://www.RashiYomi.Com/means-29.htm).
YOu can look up all examples of NEW MEANINGS on the BY RULE page of the
Rashi website indicated below.
Russell Hendel; http://www.RashiYomi.Com/by-rule.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eric Simon <erics@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:08:06 -0700
Subject: Shabbat Guidance for non-Jews
> From: Mike Stein <mike@...>
> When I invite non-Jewish friends to my home for dinner on shabbat, there
> is necessarily a certain amount of explaining -- now we're going to do
> this, why we do that, don't turn off the bathroom light .... For many
For simple explanations, all I say is: "basically, the general rule is
don't turn anything on or off, and as for kosher stuff, don't worry, my
wife and I will take care of the dishes."
> of them a few words suffice, but there are some who would really
> appreciate the opportunity to read ahead of time in a little more depth
> about what they are going to experience.
For those who want to read ahead of time -- the pamphlet sized book on
Shabbat by R Aryeh Kaplan (and NCSY publication?) is absolutely superb.
-- Eric
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ephraim Stieglitz <ephraim@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:02:21 -0400
Subject: RE: Tevilas Keilim
> - I'd been taught that a keli purchased ONLY for the contents - like a
> soda bottle - need not be toiveled - since the bottle has no importance
> on its own; one desires only the contents. But a vessel that has its own
> significance, even for one use, must be immersed. No "one free bite"
> here.
How would you apply this to disposable items like aluminum baking pans
which are most certainly not purchased for their contents, but are
usually (though not always!) discarded after one use?
/EJS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <DTnLA@...> (Dov Teichman)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 11:16:55 EDT
Subject: Veyiten Lechah
Russell Hendel <rhendel@...> writes:
<<(a) WHY DO WE SAY MAGAYN AVOTH AND VEYITEN LECHAH ON FRI/SAT NIGHT?Is
it to avoid demons or is the purpose to force the congregation to stay over
so that latecomers should not go home alone and be exposed to unnecessary
danger (Rambam, Prayer 9:10-12 and Mishneh Lemelech)>>
I looked up the Rambam but i found nothing about "Veyiten Lecha". What
is the source/reason for the custom to say it on Saturday Nights? I
doubt it has to do with latecomers because Nusach Sfard (yes, Chassidic)
says "Veyiten Lecha" after Havdala at home, not in Shul.
Dov Teichman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nadine Bonner <nfbonner@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:24:15 -0400
Subject: Worcherstershire Sauce
If you read the list of ingredients on the bottle, I think you will see
that in the Lea and Perrins sauce, anchovies are pretty high up, since
it is a premium sauce. There is enough fish in the sauce to classify it
as OU-Fish. If you look at the store brand, you'll find that anchovies
are near the bottom of the list -- they may have waved an anchovy over
the bottle so they can call it worcester sauce. There is so little
anchovy in the sauce that it is bitul and the sauce is pareve. It is
also one reason the sauce costs about half as much as Lea and Perrins.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joshua Hosseinof <hosseino@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:28:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Worcherstershire Sauce
Some of the brands contain less than 1/60th anchovies hence the OU
Pareve designation, others contain more than 1/60th anchovies hence the
OU Fish designation. While we generally say "Ein mevatlin issur
lechatchila" (we do not nullify a prohibited substance except after the
fact) - in this case the anchovies are not a prohibited substance in
relation to the rest of the ingredients in the sauce, since they are
perfectly permitted on their own.
What the OU is trying to tell you is that according to them, you may use
the OU Pareve sauces with meat, even though (or because) they contain
less than 1/60th fish ingredients.
Josh/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Cohnen <Stuart.Cohnen@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:30:35 -0400
Subject: Worcherstershire Sauce
You need to keep in mind that we are not dealing with Tarfus here, nor
with B'sur B'cholov (milk and meat). The prohibition of fish and meat is
based on Sakuna (danger). I don't think anyone holds you can't be
mivadal (less than 1/60) the fish to the rest of the sauce. This is the
opinion of the OU, which is why its marked "Pareve"
Stuart (<cohnen@...>)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <JoshHoff@...> (Joshua Hoffman)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 10:26:03 EDT
Subject: Re: Worcherstershire Sauce
Would bittul apply here? Since the problem of fish and meat is sakanah,
bittul shouldn't apply, because 'chamirah sakanta me-isurah.' Or perhaps
we can say there is no longer a sakanah and we observe the separation
because of a taknah. There is an article about fish and meat by Fred
Rosner in the current Tradition in which he discusses various issues
in regard to the fish/meat separation question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Beth and David Cohen <bdcohen@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 13:40:37 -0400
Subject: Yoatzot
Saul Davis wrote in Vol. 35 # 31 that many of the principles concerning
women enunciated by Chazal especially in the Gemara are no longer
applicable, and that therefore there should be no impediment to women
taking on the halachic role of posek nowadays. (If I have not correctly
understood the argument, please forgive me).
This flies in the face of what the Rav (Rav YB Sleveitchik zt"l)
articulated in a kecture at the Rabbinical Council of America convention
in the 60's. (I believe a transcript is available on the Young Israel of
Brookline web site. It was the Rav's contention that these were not
sociological descriptions subject to change as society evolved, but
rather unchanging ontological descriptions of the inherent halachic
nature of humans, and as such could not be summarily ignored because of
changing conditions. (This is the point where the Rav's followers part
ways with the "Rackman Beit Din for Agunot")
David I. Cohen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <zucker@...> (Jeff Zucker)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 14:58:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Info: Facilities in W.Mass. and Cape Cod
I am planning a trip for a few days to Tanglewood and Cape Cod. Could
anyone give info on kosher food, restaurants, shuls etc. in or near
these places or in the Berkshires? Please reply off-list. Thanks very
much.
Jeff Zucker
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 35 Issue 37
