Volume 35 Number 70
                 Produced: Sun Dec 23  8:03:22 US/Eastern 2001

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

         [Avi Feldblum]
Another poultry case
         [Beth and David Cohen]
Bar/Bat Mitzvah
         [Frank Reiss]
Copyright in Jewish law
         [I Kasdan]
Copyright limits
         [Shmuel Himelstein]
For Sacramental Use Only
         [Akiva Atwood]
Grape Juice (2)
         [Josh Backon, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
Hazzan leading mourner's kaddish when both parents are alive
         [Howard Berlin]
Jewish law and corporations
         [I Kasdan]
         [Mark Steiner]
         [Leah S. Gordon]
Mikva Shampoo: Postscript
         [Freda B Birnbaum]
Peanuts on Pesach
         [Shmuel Himelstein]
Strategies in Response to Intermarriage
         [Moshe and davida Nugiel]
Tune of Ma'oz Tzur
         [Freda B Birnbaum]


From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 07:44:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Administrivia

Hello All,

Looks like I let time get away from me again. It is hard to imagine that
it has been a full month since I have been able to get to even log in to
mail-jewish. I have a long weekend ahead of me now, as I am off work till
Wednesday, so I will be trying to do a bit of catch-up now. Once that
happens, I find I am better able to keep up with things, so I hope we will
not have this type of long "intersession" again for a while. Life has been
very hectic at work, but in today's economy, it is better to be working
very hard than not working at all! I'm still working of trying to find the
middle path there, though.

Avi Feldblum
mail-jewish Moderator


From: Beth and David Cohen <bdcohen@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 08:41:24 -0500
Subject: Another poultry case

A number of posters in response to a query about a famous mid-20th
century poultry case referred to the famous Shechter case, an important
New Deal case.
    However, there was an equally famous and more significant case for
the Orthodox community coming from Boston in the 1940's. The Rav (Y.B.
Soloveitchik) became the rav of the Vaad Hair of Boston in 1932. As part
of his kashrut supervision, he required a type of band be put on kosher
chickens he supervised with the expense of $.01 per chicken to be paid
by the owners. In 1941, the Rav was accused of personally keeping the
money.  After a 14 month investigation, the Rav was totally vindicated
by Judge Abraham K. Cohen.

The details can be found the biography of the Rav by Rabbi Aaaron

David I. Cohen


From: Frank Reiss <freiss47@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 06:57:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Bar/Bat Mitzvah

I am looking for sources to study with my daughter for her Bat Mitzvah -
How did the Bar/Bat Mitzvah get started/established, why 13 (12), why
not 14... etc...

This could form the basis for her Dvar Torah.



From: I Kasdan <Ikasdan@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 07:44:38 -0500
Subject: Copyright in Jewish law

In mail-Jewish 35:65 -- 
<<Regarding the question about a siddur translation being in the public
domain.  Public Domain is a concept particular to U.S. and international
law.  I have not heard that concept applied to Halacha.  Wouldn't this
fall under the category of Hasagas G'vul, no matter how old it was?>>

For an article regarding the concept of copyright in Jewish law see


From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 14:35:49 +0200
Subject: Copyright limits

Someone pointed out to me recently (not in a Mail-Jewish context) that
the King James Bible is still in copyright to this day. It seems that
the Crown has a copyright on it in perpetuity. I don't know how
operatively they enforce this, but I was shown a printed King James
Bible which acknowledges that it is printed with permission of the
Crown. Then again, that copyright might only apply to King James Bibles
printed in the United Kingdom.

Shmuel Himelstein


From: Akiva Atwood <atwood@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 16:09:12 +0200
Subject: RE: For Sacramental Use Only

> Last Shabbos I came across a bottle of Kedem grape juice, purchased in
> the U.S., with the statement "For Sacramental Use Only" on the label.
> I think this must be shmitta-related, but I don't have a very good
> explanation.  Has anyone else come across these statements, and can
> anyone explain the reason for them?  Thank you.

It's TAX related -- regular wine/grape juice is taxed by the states, but
sacremental wine is exempt from tax



From: <BACKON@...> (Josh Backon)
Date: Tue,  20 Nov 2001 14:10 +0200
Subject: Grape Juice

Grape juice has the same din as wine and requires a hechsher. This can
be seen from Yoreh Deah 123:11 re: raisin wine (defined as raisins
soaked in water) as stam yeinam; and Orach Chaim 272:2 re: kiddush
(squeezing cluster of grapes to make "wine").

Josh Backon

From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahem@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:20:50 -0500
Subject: RE: Grape Juice

>From: Wendy Baker <wbaker@...>
>Just a historical note here.  In my youth in the 1940's and 50's
>everyone drank Welch's grape juice and ate grape jelly and didn't use
>grape juice for kiddush.  Now it's quite the other way.  What happened?

I asked my rabbi and he said that there was quite a bit of ignorance in
the United States about a number of items.  Two others were shaatnez and
women covering their hair.  The basic halacha is that "stam yainam"
(which was made a takana based on "yayin nesech") applies as soon as the
liquid is separated from the mash ("Yotzei la'bor" - goes into the press
recepticle).  Thus, even though people drank Welch's then, it was in

Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz - <sabbahem@...>


From: Howard Berlin <berlin@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 07:08:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Hazzan leading mourner's kaddish when both parents are alive

Does anyone know the source for a Hazzan (or any other shul officer) not
wanting to lead the saying of the mourner's kaddish if both his parents
are still alive? In our shul, the Hazzan, in the absence of the Rabbi,
usually "organizes" the minyan (gives the page numbers, etc.) and
sometimes is the reader (he is usually the fastest). One person, often
not one required to say kaddish, generally leads the rest of those
saying kaddish because (as I was told) some of the mourners might make
mistakes in their pronounciation, etc.

Is this abstention a minhag? Does it rise from the Kabbalah (the evil
eye, etc), or is there a biblical prohibition?

It seems to me that this practice is not uniformly practiced by
observant Jews. (Or is it?)

Kol  Tov....

 /~~\\       ,    , ,                      Dr. Howard M. Berlin, W3HB
|#===||==========#***|                5-string bluegrass banjo player
 \__//                   You can tune a banjo but you cannot tunafish


From: I Kasdan <Ikasdan@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 07:57:45 -0500
Subject: Jewish law and corporations

Robert Schoenfeld asks (in mj:35/65): 

<< How did Halachah affect such partnerships and could they continue
into forms such as corporations?>>

For an extensive discussion of corporations in Jewish law see "Jewish
Law and Modern Business Structures: The Corporate Paradigm" by  Michael
J. Broyde & Steven H. Resnicoff, located at


From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 14:39:33 +0200
Subject: Re: Kitniyot

    A few words on "kitniyot."  Though I can't locate this now, I have
seen a letter by R. Moshe Feinstein, z"l, who tells us that in his
location peanuts (not just peanut oil) were used on Pesach.  I have no
idea whether in Lithuania they thought that peanuts grow on trees, but
in any case, most of the usual reason given for not eating kitnyot would
probably not apply to peanuts.  And it's true that there are sources
which allow the use of oil derived from "kitniyos".

There is an interesting issue concerning peanuts, though.  The Yiddish
word for peanut is "fistashke" (cf. Weinreich's dictionary), shortened
in some dialects to "stashke" (I believe R. Moshe uses the latter form).
The Arabic word for pistachio is fistuk.  The Israeli Hebrew word for
peanut is "botnim", and on the word botnim (Gen 43:11) Rashi says he
doesn't know what they are but cites a source that they are pistachios!
I'm not a linguist or a botanist but there is plenty of room for major
league confusion here.

    In any case, the role of the Eda Hareidis (and its predecessors in
Jerusalem) should not be overlooked in the kitniyot saga.  They are
extremely strict with regard to every possible question regarding

(a) Definition of kitniyot--even cotton seeds are regarded by the Eda as
forbidden; ironically so, because one of their benefactors from
Williamsburg, Zupnick (the plaza in front the Eda offices is called
Zupnick Plaza) made a fortune from selling "Zupnick Nut-Ola" which
old-timers will remember from Pesach--it was of course cotton seed oil.
You can forget about peanuts.  I believe that one of the reasons is the
large Sefardic population here who eat kitniyot altogether on Pesach and
the fear that they might influence the Ashkenazim.  I should point out
in this regard that NOT all Sefardim eat kitniyot on Pesach, and that in
Baghdad, righteous housewives used to prepare the rice for Pesach by
checking it grain by grain, I'm told, starting Chanukah.

(b) Kitniyot derivatives: I have in my possession (don't ask me to find
it) a little pamphlet documenting the "kitniyot war" between Rav Kook
z"l and the Jerusalem rabbonim, when the former was Rav of Yaffo
(Jaffa), i.e. before Zionism became an issue (i.e. Rav Kook was called
the "Yaffer Rav" and was considered legitimate; after all, the Chofetz
Chaim recommended him the position, I'm told).  Rav Kook certified for
Pesach a factory which produced sesame oil by first toasting the seeds
and then pressing them.  The idea was that even if the seeds had been
wheat kernels, they could not become chometz after toasting, a fortiori,
the oil derived from the seeds, which as I said is permitted by some
authorities.  The Jerusalem rabbonim, including I believe R.  Yosef
Chaim Sonnenfeld, z"l, regarded this as a serious breach and went public
with their condemnation of R. Kook.  This I believe was the first of
many conflicts between the two groups. I believe that this story is also
behind the inordinate strictness of the Eda Charedis on this
matter--i.e. the kitniyot issue became mixed up with ideology as
symbolic of many other changes and technological "fixits" the "Zionist"
rabbis wanted to introduce, and still want to introduce today (such as
the "gramma-phone").


From: Leah S. Gordon <lsgordon@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 05:36:22 -0800
Subject: Kitnyot-Derivatives

While we're discussing peanut oil, why is it that corn oil was "never"



From: Freda B Birnbaum <fbb6@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:43:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Mikva Shampoo: Postscript

I discussed this with a friend of similar age last night, and she
suggests that the issue about hair-conditioner etc. may have more to do
with what gunks up the mikva and whose residue is harder to clean than
with any issues regarding the tevila itself.

Freda (retracting her claws) Birnbaum


From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 15:34:07 +0200
Subject: Peanuts on Pesach

Rav Moshe Feinstein discusses peanuts vis-a-vis kitniyot in (among
others) Igrot Moshe Orach Chaim III, p. 370. There, he points out that
the prohibition against kitniyot is based on what the local custom was,
and one does not add anything to this list. He stresses that last point
at length. One does not add to the list based on "logic."

Thus to facilely say that peanuts are prohibited because they are
legumes is an invalid argument. In essence, Kitniyot does not equal
"legumes," but is a class of items which were collectively known as
"kitniyot." According to Rav Moshe, the fact that a particular plant can
be used to make oil or flour is totally irrelevant (as he points out
about potato starch).

In fact, I vaguely [remember] Rav Moshe stating that where he was in
Europe they did use peanuts on Pesach.

He does end this Teshuvah by saying whatever applies to peanut should
apply to peanut oil as well - i.e., it depends on one's Minhag.

Shmuel Himelstein


From: Moshe and davida Nugiel <friars@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 17:03:31 +0200
Subject: Strategies in Response to Intermarriage

I have recently heard the following argument, and I would like the Mail
Jewish readership to send their comments.

This was set forth as an example given in a discussion decrying the
permissiveness in Jewish Values nowadays, and the negative results for
the Jewish people which this permissiveness engenders:

"In the old days, if someone chas v'shalom married out of the faith,
their parents would sit shivah for them, and the family would have
nothing to do with them again.  Nowadays, we treat this family member
with "love," and we continue to accept him/her as part of the family.
This sends the message to the siblings that intermarriage is really not
such a terrible transgression. And this lenient attitude towards
intermmariage is passed on to the next generation as well."

Is there validity to this view?

Moshe Nugiel


From: Freda B Birnbaum <fbb6@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:49:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Tune of Ma'oz Tzur

In v35n68, it is asked:

> A while back, someone told me that one of the popular niggunim for
> Ma'oz Tzur (the only one that I've ever heard, actually) is taken from
> a tune used for a church hymn.  I don't know how to explain the tune
> that I'm referring to through text, but has anyone heard this before,
> to confirm or debunk?

As I can't tell for sure what tune you mean, this may be off the track,

There is a Christian hymn entitled "Rock of Ages" which starts off, "Rock
of Ages, cleft for me, let me hide myself in Thee" and goes on with some
vivid Christological references.  The tune to this, however, is different
from the one with which I am most familiar.

Freda Birnbaum, <fbb6@...>
"Call on God, but row away from the rocks"


End of Volume 35 Issue 70