Volume 40 Number 76
Produced: Thu Sep 25 5:43:00 US/Eastern 2003
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Airplane Eggs
[Martin D Stern]
Airplane eggs
[Josh Backon]
Arch of Titus
[Josh Backon]
Equal Importance
[Ari Trachtenberg]
K'daas u'k'din [sic]
[Dov Kay]
Kreplach--and Round Challah
[<FriedmanJ@...>]
Motion Sensors - A simple solution?
[Joel Wiesen]
Tashlich on Shabbat
[Joshua Hosseinof]
Where is our fidelity to Halocho? (4)
[Andy Levy-Stevenson, Jay F Shachter, Janice Gelb, Perry Zamek]
Woman's Role Under the Chuppa
[Perry Zamek]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <MDSternM7@...> (Martin D Stern)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 07:01:15 EDT
Subject: Re: Airplane Eggs
In a message dated 23/9/03, Shelly Shalev <shshalev@...> writes:
<< The glatt kosher meal included an omelette (of sorts) â^À¦ [and] had
undergone a specific processing to insure that there would be no problem
of "linat leilah" - which I take to mean - being held overnight.. >>
It is impossible to have glatt kosher dairy products since only cattle
have lungs which need checking for adhesions, eggs and milk do not.
As regards "linat leilah", eggs being held uncovered overnight, this is
one of the things prohibited because of sakkanah, danger, other examples are
peeled onions and garlic. The danger is apparently obviated if these items are
coated in liquid. These are mentioned in the gemara but the nature of the
'danger' is not always clear, nor whether it applies in 'our countries' (compare
tosafot on the non-use of mayim acharonim). Yet another is water left uncovered
overnight because of the possibility that a snake may have drunk from it
(again this may not apply in countries free of poisonous snakes).
Because of the principle of 'chamira sakkanta mei'issura, dangerous items
are treated halachically more strictly than prohibited ones', many people are
careful to avoid these and that is the significance of the statement on the
hechsher.
Martin D Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <BACKON@...> (Josh Backon)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:45 +0200
Subject: Re: Airplane eggs
Based on a gemara in Niddah 17 prohibiting leaving peeled eggs (and
onions and garlic) out overnight due to sakkana (danger), this
prohibition is brought down as halacha in the Shulchan Aruch YOREH DEAH
116. However, many poskim are lenient re: shelled eggs in the
refrigerator especially if there would be financial loss (see: Minchat
Yitzchak IV 108; Iggrot Moshe YD III 20).
Josh Backon
<backon@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <BACKON@...> (Josh Backon)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:56 +0200
Subject: Re: Arch of Titus
Actually, the first Jew in 2000 years to walk under the Arch of Titus
was a relative of mine who served in WWII as an army chaplain and
daavened Mincha with his group under the Arch in July (?) 1944. I think
it was someone from the Jewish Brigade who 2 years later (1946)
scribbled "Am Yisrael Chai" on it.
Josh Backon
<backon@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 12:59:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Equal Importance
From: Meir Possenheimer <meir@...>
>>> Ari Trachtenberg writes:
>>> Where exactly does our tradition say that the two sexes are equally
>>> important?
>
>Perhaps he would refer to Rav S R Hirsch's zt"l Horeb , translated by
>Dayan Dr Grunfeld zt"l, where he will find the following (p 305):
>
>"G-d has divided the sexes, giving each specific tasks in the fulfilment
>of life. Both tasks, if fulfilled in purity, are equally sublime,
>equally holy".
But are they equally important?
> ...with reference to the female sex, inter alia:
>"the Sages also attribute to it complete spiritual and intellectual
>equality with the male"
This runs contrary to poopular notions of women being on a "higher
spiritual level" than men. I am not sure what the basis for these notions
are (maybe bereshit rabba?).
Kol tuv,
-Ari
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dov Kay <jkay@...>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:07:21 +1000
Subject: K'daas u'k'din [sic]
<<so those of us who are shomer mitzvos k'daas u'k'din- we should say
very clearly- this is not our way and we are proud of the tradition
passed on to us, and it is our job to protect it from outside forces, no
matter how well meaning they may appear to be.>>
I assume you mean "k'das u'k'din", as in "k'das Moshe v'yisroel". For a
groom to say "k'daas Moshe v'yisroel" would probably also be "atzas
HaYetzer" [counsel of the evil inclination]!
Dov Kay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <FriedmanJ@...>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 06:16:45 EDT
Subject: Kreplach--and Round Challah
For the first time this year I have heard of a custom to eat
kreplach on erev Yom Kippur. Does anyone know of a reason?
Yes, because you are supposed to eat the kapparah, and the kreplach are
filled with chopped chicken meat from the chicken.
BTW, let's explode another ch"urban" myth
They've always told us in school that challahs are round because galgal
chozer b'olam. As a former baker's wife, I can also tell you that the
volume of challah production more than quadruples for the yomim noraim.
Unlike many other bakers, my husband's policy was never to bake and
freeze, and we had to bake fresh each night for yom tov. Each braided
challah, even by a major pro, takes a minimum of 90 seconds to shape. A
round challah takes about 10 seconds, about one tenth the time. So if
you have to produce 1,000 challahs as opposed to the normal 250-300 that
you do for a regular shabbos.....you tell me why the challahs are
round....tho I have to thank the people who came up with that elegant,
almost halachic by this point, myth.
Why are challahs round? because it takes too long to make braided ones
for yom tov.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Wiesen <wiesen@...>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 08:37:23 -0400
Subject: Re: Motion Sensors - A simple solution?
Can't one just cover the sensor with a piece of masking tape and paper
or tin foil?
Shabbat Shalom,
Yehuda
Joel P. Wiesen, Ph.D., Director of Testing, APR Testing Services
27 Judith Road, Newton, Massachusetts 02459-1715
(617) 244-7405
http://APRTestingServices.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joshua Hosseinof <jh@...>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 08:49:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Tashlich on Shabbat
In Yalkut Yosef vol 5 (Rav Yitzchak Yosef, son of Rav Ovadia Yosef), he
says that the Sephardic practice would be to say Tashlich on the first
day of Rosh Hashannah even if it falls on Shabbat. However, he adds the
caveat that if there is no Eruv in the town or by the Tashlich area,
then they should wait until the second day. As the Sephardic standards
for a kosher eruv are much stricter than for Ashkenazim, the effect is
that in practice Sephardim will also wait until the second day for
Tashlich.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Levy-Stevenson <andy_twrr@...>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 08:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RE: Where is our fidelity to Halocho?
From: Yakov Spil <yspil@...>
> My wife and I shudder to go to chasunas today because when the kalla
> comes over for everyone to dance for the choson and the kalla- the
> women's side all transfer to the men's side and I am left with nowhere
> to stand! It seems that the mechitza is nothing but a symbol. Has
> anyone else had similar experience?
Why is it a problem for you to stand ... not dance, stand ... in a mixed crowd?
Is there a halachic objection as opposed to chumra, or breaking of social norm?
Fidelity to halacha I understand, but not the other possibilities.
Andy Levy-Stevenson
<andy@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jay F Shachter <jay@...>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:12:09 -0600 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Where is our fidelity to Halocho?
For eighteen years after I moved to Chicago, until his death a couple
of years ago, I would occasionally learn Torah from Rabbi Aaron
Soloveichik, who not only had no partition separating men from women,
but who also had mixed seating, when he married his late wife Ella in
July 1948.
Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
6424 N Whipple St, Chicago IL 60645-4111
(1-773)7613784
<jay@...> ; http://m5.chi.il.us:8080
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Where is our fidelity to Halocho?
Yakov Spil <yspil@...>
> Our sages never sanctioned a chupah to have an element of harei ata
> mekudash li... This is what the conservative do, and they do not bat an
> eye at it because they have no allegiance to halacha, so those of us who
> are shomer mitzvos k'daas u'k'din- we should say very clearly- this is
> not our way and we are proud of the tradition passed on to us, and it is
> our job to protect it from outside forces, no matter how well meaning
> they may appear to be.
The above statement about the Conservative movement is incorrect. First
of all, there is no standard Conservative practice for the bride to
participate in the wedding service. Second, the Conservative movement
does work within halacha. I suggest that you do more research about the
Conservative movement if you're going to make public comments about its
practices.
You could also have easily made your point without this insultingly
phrased comment. I would have hoped that before the yomim noraim, we
would be extra careful in our public utterances.
[My apologies here, as that line should have been edited out when I was
putting the issue together. Mod.]
Shana tova,
Janice
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perry Zamek <jmarksmn@...>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:30:29 +0200
Subject: Re: Where is our fidelity to Halocho?
Yakov Spil wrote:
>Likewise is my reaction to the posts for an "equalized marriage
>ceremony." This is so outside of the bounds of our traditional sources
>and if this is a list that discusses issues in the format of halacha-
>this is not right.
Although I can understand Yakov's position on this matter (and on the
issues of tzniut, which I will not discuss here), I would respectfully
differ from his view of the matter - the discussion here was clearly to
determine whether or not certain changes in the Chuppah ceremony are
permissible within the context of halacha. The fact that the
Conservative movement has made changes to introduce egalitarian elements
is irrelevant here.*
Halacha is not "set in stone," unchanging throughout all time. Halacha
*does* respond to the needs of each generation (that is why we need to
rely on our poskim). That being the case, one who asks whether or not a
certain change is permitted (and acts according to the psak/ruling he
receives) is actually being faithful to Halacha, even if the psak
appears to contradict an existing halachic practice.
(*There was a Mail-Jewish discussion some years ago which, I think,
discussed whether certain Halachic decisions were made as a result of,
or in order to reject, Conservative practices.)
Shana Tova
Perry Zamek
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perry Zamek <jmarksmn@...>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:50:09 +0200
Subject: Re: Woman's Role Under the Chuppa
I wrote:
>"Surely people who are using the services of a civil marriage celebrant
>are not going to also have a Huppah and Kiddushin. The usual reasons for
>Jews using a civil celebrant are based on some level of rejection of
>Jewish tradition (e.g. marriage with a non-Jew)."
Nadine Bonner commented:
>That is untrue in many countries still using the Code Napolean. In
>Belgium, a civil wedding is required although a religious ceremony is
>not. <snip>
>As there are large Jewish populations in Brussels and Antwerp, I imagine
>they are bound by the same law. I don't know the situation in France.
Hanno Mott wrote:
>Not true. One reason, at least in the states, for having a civil
>ceremony before the religious, is to be able to file an immigration
>petition for a spouse to start the time running on what can be a long
>process now-a-days,. There are also other reasons to accelerate the
>legal status of marriage to obtain certain civil benefits.
Nadine's point is, of course, correct. In those countries where the sole
*legal* form of marriage is a civil ceremony, the religious ceremony (of
whatever religion) is purely to satisfy the couple's religious
scruples. In that case, the civil ceremony is seen by all parties
(except the State) as being a formality which has no binding status in
religious law. I was commenting, however, on the Australian situation,
in which one has a choice between a number of valid options: to marry in
the registry office, to have a non-denominational "ceremony" performed
by a marriage celebrant, or to have some form of religious
ceremony. Each of these is sufficient in itself to establish that the
couple are legally married, and so my comment that one who opts for a
marriage celebrant ceremony is unlikely to *also* have a proper chuppah.
Hanno's point is similar - again, the intention in having a civil
marriage is purely to obtain certain legal benefits prior to the
chuppah, even if the couple do not, in fact, live together. The couple
(if they are Orthodox) probably do not see themselves as married until
they have a Halachic wedding.
By the way, I have seen an interesting application of this approach.
Consider the case of an Orthodox couple who are both United States
citizens living in Israel, but who would like to have their chuppah in
Israel and yet avoid the Rabbanut bureaucracy. They could fly to the
United States, stay there with their respective families to establish
the necessary residence period, and have a civil ceremony. They could
then return to Israel as a legally married couple (in the eyes of
Israeli law), and have their chuppah and reception. Not unheard of,
although somewhat expensive.
Shana Tova
Perry Zamek
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 40 Issue 76