Volume 40 Number 48
                 Produced: Thu Aug 28  5:43:50 US/Eastern 2003

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Abstain from any Involvement with Half of this List
         [Frank Silbermann]
Avoiding woman--Standards of Modesty
         [Russell J Hendel]
Blessings of Thanksgiving
         [Perry Zamek]
Conversation with your Wife
         [Tzadik Vanderhoof]
Kosher and Halal
         [Immanuel Burton]
Kosher MREs
         [David Charlap]
kosher MREs
Kosher slaughter does not require a prayer to God?
         [Ed Greenberg]
Milk and Meat
         [Irwin Weiss]


From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 07:03:19 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Abstain from any Involvement with Half of this List

I once was in a shir on a Talmudic topic that divided the night into a
number of "watches."  One of them was described as "when a man converses
with his wife."  I was told that this was a euphemism for sexual

In that case, one might interpret the Pirke Avot "Do not engage
excessively in conversation with the wife" as counselling moderation in
sexual activity.

(Of course, that would make the second part -- "How much more so with
respect to another man's wife" something of an understatement.)

Frank Silbermann
New Orleans, Louisiana


From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 23:02:16 -0400
Subject: RE: Avoiding woman--Standards of Modesty

Several postings, Yaakov Spil(v40n42), Shimo Lebowitz(v40n41) Tzaddik
Vanderhoff(v40n39) reacted to my citation of my recent posting on the
(alleged) equality of treatment of Charedi and non-Charedi Rabbis to
modesty issues.

Several people seemed to be unaware of what I said. Checking the mail
jewish archives (search for HENDEL MODESTY) will show the relevant
postings (The mail jewish archives url are found at the bottom of mail
jewish digests)

After reading these postings I see there is some confusion on what I was
trying to say so let me recap it. What I said had 3 easy steps

In the first step I pointed out that there were two legal FORCES in
Jewish law(a FORCE is an idea not something done in practice--the two
forces are): (a) a requirement of modesty which BY ITSELF would require
people to abstain from any scene, object or act which naturally arouses
people; (b) a requirement for husbands to make their wives (physically)

My second point is that ACTUAL Jewish law (in practice) reflects a
balance of these two forces. Since all denominations of orthodoxy
acknowledge these two forces it follows that close examination of any
Rabbis decision would reveal multiple issues We therefore expect basic
agreement between the various denominations of orthodoxy (with
individual lattitude in all denominations)

My third point paradoxically echoes what the postings responding to me
said: Namely, that is wrong to eg stereotype Charedi as being ultra
strict on modesty and it is wrong to stereotype modern orthodox on being
liberal. Indeed it must be wrong because there is not one force but two
and their is a constant interplay between the two forces.

Here are two simple examples which I hope clarifies this: True a charedi
synagogue might object to a women coming dressed to shule with her knees
exposed but a modern orthodox (or even Conservative) Rabbi would EQUALLY
object if say a woman walked in with her mid-section exposed (And after
all as long as a square handbreadth of thighs and breasts are not
exposed you could probably recite the shma in her presence). The point
is that the Charedi and Modern orthodox dont differ in VALUES but rather
in NORMS: People simply do not walk into synagogues with their
midsections showing; similarly people do not walk into charedi
synagogues with their knees shown. It is not a question of LAW but
NORM. Both the Charedi, Modern and Conservative Rabbi would protest if
they saw someone walk in with loud dress (loud being relative to their
norms). Hence ALL Jewish groups would uphold the same STANDARDS of
modesty in the synagogue (And I dont think this sameness is

Here is the second example: Suppose you are at some social gathering
(say a sheva bracoth).  Suppose someone walks in loudly dressed.  (chose
your definition of loudness) Suppose further that everyone knows that
this womans husband just lost his job and their son is undergoing

My point is that we all know that she is dressing this way to keep her
husbands spirits up. I doubt any Modern Robbi would go over and embarass
this poor woman. And here is the catch, I challenge anyone on this list
to reasonably argue that any Charedi Rabbi would embarass this poor
woman. (This example clearly shows how the requirements of marital
happiness override modesty standards since if everything was allright in
their marriage the loudly dressed woman would probably get a few
(justified) COMMENTS)

So my statement stands. Charedi, Modern and Conservative Rabbis have the
same standards. They may differ in experience and norms. They also may
differ in questions of balance. But the basic guidelines are the same
(And I dont think this is acknowledged)

The statement which originally brought his on was a call for all Rabbis
to encourage more social gatherings (like parties) so that people can
meet and help out the singles situation. I dont think anyone opposes
this--of course Charedi parties might differ (in NORMS only) from
Conservative parties ...but the concepts are the same.

I hope this clarifies my position...I further believe I and the people
responding to my previous posting all agree (that stereotyping is wrong)

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


From: Perry Zamek <jerusalem@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:53:50 +0200
Subject: Re: Blessings of Thanksgiving

Alex Heppenheimer  wrote:
>If I recall the rules correctly, there are only three points in the game 
>where your winnings are guaranteed: after the fifth, tenth, and fifteenth 
>rounds (as well as if you choose to walk away with your current winnings 
>at any other time). At any of the other rounds, you can end up losing some 
>or all of what you've won if you get a wrong answer. So I would venture 
>that there can certainly be no question of saying a berachah for each 
>individual level in this game.

A similar response was received from a friend in a private e-mail.

I don't have references here at the office, but I would argue on the
following basis. The din is that one who finds an object (I assume, with
some significant value) makes a bracha (as in my original
question). This is true, even if the object will be seized by the
authorities later on. In other words, the bracha is on the present
(happy) situation, not on what may happen in the future (loss later on
in the game.

>Furthermore, Mishnah Berurah 223:2 states that if one hears several pieces 
>of good news all at once, then one berachah covers all of them; and in 
>Shaar HaTziyun there (sec. 2) he opines that this applies even if they 
>weren't literally "all at once," just that he hadn't yet recited a 
>berachah for the first one. So it would seem to me that the contestant 
>should hold off on the berachah until the end, and then make one berachah 
>for all of his or her winnings.

If I understand the MB correctly (on the basis of your quote), this is a
bediavad (after the fact) situation -- really you should have made the
bracha a number of times, but you didn't, so now say just one bracha for
all of them.

But in our case, why is there a need to hold off? Say the beracha
immediately, even though there is the "risk" of losing the money later.


Perry Zamek


From: Tzadik Vanderhoof <tzadikv@...>
Subject: Re: Conversation with your Wife

Rena Freedenberg wrote:

>Pirkei Avos [NOT "just" some people,
>mind you] warn men to limit their CONVERSATION with their wives and kal
>v'chomer with other women. The wording that the mishna uses is "al
>tarbeh sichah" - meaning to minimize conversation.
>Rabbeinu Yonah's commentary on this mishna says that speaking with women
>can bring him to aveira and bitul Torah. Rashi says that it can cause
>bittul Torah, bring machlokes on klal Yisrael [between his wife and that
>of his chavrusa], and cause the husband to sin in the situation when his
>wife is nidah. The ikkar tosfos yom tov brings down the same reasons
>from midrash shmuel. Rav Ovadia Bartenura [whose commentary you might be
>more familiar with] says that we know by the wording [Haisha instead of
>just isha] that Yosi ben Yochanan [whose name the mishna is in] was
>speaking of a man's wife.
>In contrast, the obligation to make one's wife happy was not speaking of
>conversing with her.

I don't think it's sufficient to just quote the Mishna and some halachic
commenteries on it and just leave it at that.  The reason I like this
list is because it is generally focused on practical applications to
halachos.  I am willing to bet that if any man here were to ask their
Rav whether they should limit converstaion with their wife, they would
get a resounding "No".

In most of our situations, the time we spend talking with our spouses is
already limited *way* beyond what it should be, especially if you don't
consider the time talking about "household business" matters.  I saw a
study where the amount of time the average married couple talks about
non-"business" matters is about 10 minutes a day.  Add to that the fact
that most men come in contact with a lot of other women during the day,
much more than was the case in the time of the Mishna, and it will come
out that we need to do all we can to spend *more* quality together time
with our spouses, certainly not limiting converstaion with them.

As for the statement, "the obligation to make one's wife happy was not
speaking of conversing with her" I would have to respectfully but very
strongly disagree.


From: Immanuel Burton <IBURTON@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:54:52 +0100
Subject: RE: Kosher and Halal

In MJ v40n46, Keith Bierman quoted the following from a Google 

> One differentiation between *Halal* and *Kosher* is that before
> slaughter, *Halal* requires the praying to Allah. *Kosher* does not
> require a prayer to God before slaughtering.

Doesn't the blessing made before shechitah count as a prayer?  An
explanation I once heard from a Moslem is that they recite some brief
prayer before slaughter in order to ensure that the slaughter is done in
the name of Allah.  Isn't that the purpose of the blessing made before
shechitah?  I belive that this is the reason that some Moslems will eat
kosher meat, as it was slaughtered by a monotheist and in the name of
the one God.

Immanuel Burton


From: David Charlap <shamino@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 00:16:34 -0400
Subject: Kosher MREs

Dave Eckhardt wrote:
> Aren't there companies that sell kosher "MREs" (army-style field 
> rations)?

Absolutely yes.  Here's one brand that I've eaten and found to be very good:


This brand is what the US military uses this brand for kosher MREs.
They also make civilian versions (which have only a 1 year shelf life
instead of the 3+ year shelf life required of military MREs.)

-- David

From: .cp. <chips@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: kosher MREs

Yes , they do exist.
But nowadays they can be problematic on airline flights due to the
increase in security concerns.

In addition to an article in Kashrus Magazine,


From: Ed Greenberg <edg@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 07:52:15 -0700
Subject: Kosher slaughter does not require a prayer to God?

> One differentiation between *Halal* and *Kosher* is that before
> slaughter, *Halal* requires the praying to Allah. *Kosher* does not
> require a prayer to God before slaughtering.

Is this true? I can't imagine that there is no bracha before an Shochet
does his thing.


From: Irwin Weiss <irwin@...>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:02:58 -0400
Subject: Milk and Meat

I saw this note on the internet.  Is this impermissible mixing of milk
and meat? Is it ok since it is Pikuach Nefesh? Is it not really "milk"? 

FDA: Milk protein new tool to fight contaminated meat
Last Updated: 2003-08-25 8:55:39 -0400 (Reuters Health)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says it is
safe to spray lactoferrin, a milk protein, on to beef carcasses to fight
disease-causing bacteria such as E. coli O157:H7.

Scientists with aLF Ventures, a Salt Lake City company, had found that
spraying lactoferrin on raw beef carcasses inhibits the growth of E.
coli, salmonella and campylobacter and prevents them from attaching to
meat surfaces.

aLF Ventures plans to sell lactoferrin, a naturally occurring protein
found in milk.

The FDA issued its endorsement Friday in response to a petition filed by
aLF Ventures asking the agency to affirm lactoferrin is safe for
consumers. The company also submitted scientific data showing that use
of lactoferrin is safe for individuals who are allergic to milk, the
agency said in a statement.

"Innovative technology is a critical building block in preserving the
strong foundation of the U.S. food supply," said Lester Crawford, deputy
FDA commissioner. "We must continue to encourage scientific research and
new technology to maintain this nation's safe food supply."

E. coli O157:H7 -- which can result in kidney failure and death -- is
among the most dangerous of some two dozen harmful bacteria that cause
an estimated 76 million cases of foodborne illness annually in the
United States.

The amount of added lactoferrin that remains on the beef after spraying
is comparable to the amount of lactoferrin that naturally occurs in the
beef, aLF Ventures said.

The company also submitted scientific data to the U.S. Agriculture
Department, which has authority over meat labels.

aLF Ventures is a joint venture between Farmland National Beef and DMV
International, a unit of Dutch-based Campina AG .



End of Volume 40 Issue 48