Volume 44 Number 12
                    Produced: Thu Aug 12  5:35:12 EDT 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Abuse (4)
         [Leah Perl Shollar, Josh Backon, Steven Oppenheimer, Martin
Cryptic Torah
         [Bernard Raab]
Dairy bread
         [Israel Caspi]
Dina d'Malchusa Dina
         [Harlan Braude]
Dropping the dime
         [Abbi Adest]
Kashrus and London Bet Din
         [Mimi Markofsky]
Kosher bread in the US
         [Stephen Phillips]
Mixed Weddings
         [Shoshana Ziskind]
One more time: Rashei- vs. Roshei-
         [Martin Stern]
Shiva for "Outmarriages" Is based on Error
         [Akiva Miller]


From: Leah Perl Shollar <leahperl@...>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:58:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Abuse

Speaking as a parent and educator, I am hurting to hear that someone
would hesitate to call for help when they suspect abuse.  There is
nothing that justifies looking away, delaying, or stalling.  A life is
at stake.  That overrides all other concerns.

As an aside, the correlation between suffering abuse as a child, and
later going off the derech is extremely strong.  A workshop I attended
by Rabbi S.  Russell put the figure at 80%.  That is a frightening and
sobering number.  Al taamod b'dam rayacha.


From: <BACKON@...> (Josh Backon)
Date: Tue,  10 Aug 2004 17:14 +0200
Subject: Re: Abuse

If there is any indication of child abuse, one is halachically required
to notify the authorities (See: article by Rav Rabinowitz in Sefer Halacha
u'Refuah I page 366, as quoted in the Nishmat Avraham Choshen Mishpat
Siman 424).

Josh Backon

From: Steven Oppenheimer <oppy49@...>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 19:40:17 -0400
Subject: Abuse

There have been many issues raised under the subject heading "Dropping
the Dime."  For a clarification of many of these issues and responsa
from some well-known poskim, see my article in The Journal of Halacha
and Contemporary Society (RJJ Journal), Fall 2002, "Confronting Child

Steven Oppenheimer, DDS

From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:03:13 +0100
Subject: Abuse

on 10/8/04 11:25 am, Anonymous wrote:

> Not 100% on point, but when a school administrator I know contacted a
> world reknown Rosh Yeshiva who was the Posak for this schoo re:
> reporting suspected child abuse - -the response was quick, immediate and
> certain -- you must report!

I hope that this was in a case of suspected child abuse. If there were
clear evidence of actual child abuse by a known person, then asking a
sha'alah would have been incorrect, the criminal should have been
reported immediately. In cases of pikuach nephesh, he who asks a
sha'alah is a fool and a rav who is asked because he has not made this
clear to his congregation is an accessory to the crime. If anyone does
not believe what I have written they should consult their LOR
immediately before they are put in the invidious position of having to
ask about an actual case.

Martin Stern


From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 23:50:01 -0400
Subject: Cryptic Torah

From: Mike Gerver
>...there would have been no need for the Torah to explain that
>"an eye for an eye" did not mean literally taking someone's eye out if
>he caused someone else to lose his eyesight. The Jews who were receiving
>the Torah would already have understood that this phrase was legal
>terminology specifying that someone who damages someone else's eye has
>to pay just compensation.

Unfortunately, this does not explain why the Torah chose to retain the
cryptic designations of Hammurabi rather than saying directly what was
intended. Inevitably, the unschooled would assume that eye-for-an-eye
meant exactly that, as they do to this very day!

b'shalom--Bernie R.


From: Israel Caspi <icaspi@...>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 08:43:05 -0500
Subject: Dairy bread

Avi's recollection of the Arnold's dairy bread history is somewhat
different from mine. I do not recall a time when the OU endorsed dairy
bread. Arnold's line of dairy bread was certified kosher by the
Triangle-K, presumably for the reason Avi suggests, i.e., that the
wrapper marking was a sufficient siman to satisfy the halachic
requirement for dairy bread. But about a year ago, the arrangement with
Triangle-K ended and Arnold's began putting a plain K-Dairy on its
wrappers. Now, for those who do accept that the word "dairy" on the
wrapper is a sufficient siman to permit dairy bread, the problem still
remains: which rabbinic authority is certifying the product as being
kosher  As Avi states, the 'K' is just a letter and cannot be relied
upon for kashrut purposes unless and until one knows on whose authority
the kosher claim is made. So I asked the question of Arnold's. They
could not provide me with a letter of kashrut certification but did make
the claim -- in writing -- that all their products are kosher under the
supervision of the OU. But can that unsupported self-serving claim be
accepted as fact? So I contacted the OU which merely acknowledged
receipt of my inquiry and promised a substantive response 'soon'. The
response never came.  Therefore, the question remains, is the dairy
bread produced by Arnold's Bakery kosher and which rabbinic authority
certifies it as such?

Further -- I agree with other posters that there is a general ban on
dairy bread. But there are 2 notable exceptions: the one is what we
are now discussing -- where there is a siman to allow people to
recognize the bread as in fact being dairy; the other is when eating a
dairy meal on Shavuot.

--Israel Caspi

[It has also been pointed out to me in a private email that the original
hechsher was not OU, but a different hechsher (but not the triangle
K). My recollection is more on the removal of the named hechsher from
the dairy breads and the plain K-dairy on the dairy breads, and that
being quite a number of years ago, not just a year ago. It is also
possible I am thinking of a different brand, but I clearly remember the
discussions at the time about the different opinions and exactly the
issue Israel brings up now, can one continue to treat the K-dairy as if
it is the same as the previous named hechsher with the caveat that the
named hechsher no longer accepted the marking as sufficient to permit
the dairy aspect. Avi]


From: Harlan Braude <hbraude@...>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 08:39:04 -0400
Subject: RE: Dina d'Malchusa Dina

> dina d'malchusa dina applies (only?) to monetary issues -- 
> technically speaking it isn't THE basis for, for example, 
> obeying traffic laws or

In a shiur I attended in 1980 (YU), Rabbi Hershel Schechter stated that
the violation of traffic laws (.e.g., driving over the speed limit,
etc.) is a violation of "dina d'malchusa dina".


From: Abbi Adest <abbishapiro@...>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:16:53 +0300
Subject: Re: Dropping the dime

I'm glad to hear that a world renowned posek wasn't in a quandry about
protecting children.

Just out of curiosity, does anybody know of specific responsa regarding
this issue and mesira in general? Carl brought up that dina d'malchuta
dina applies only to monetary issues, but I can't believe it would be
halachically sanctioned to not follow other basic laws of the land.


From: <AUNTIEFIFI@...> (Mimi Markofsky)
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:53:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Kashrus and London Bet Din

I recently asked a kashrus question about sushi products and someone
responded that they had provided services as a moshgeach in London.  I
am now faced with the problem that a product I use professionally has
changed their hechsher from the O-U to the K-LBD (London Bet Din).  My
local Va'ad said they need to learn more about the K-LBD and why the
product company made the switch before I can use it in my kitchen (it is
a vital series of product to my company).  Does someone out there have a
contact at the K-LBD that would be able to provide the information?  You
can reply privately to <EliteKosherInc@...>

Mimi Markofsky
Elite Kosher Catering


From: Stephen Phillips <admin@...>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:07:50 +0100
Subject: Kosher bread in the US

Further to the discussion about Arnold's bread, am I right in thinking
that the bread of bakeries in the United States such as Arnold's (which
I believe is not a Jewish bakery) is not Pas Yisroel [bread made by a

Stephen Phillips


From: Shoshana Ziskind <shosh@...>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:44:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Mixed Weddings

On Aug 11, 2004, at 7:19 AM, William Friedman <williamf@...> 

> Martin Stern wrote:

>> As I have written previously, I tend to agree with Ed's analysis but
>> I fear William is being somewhat short sighted in his. Intermarriage,
>> by and large, is the end of the line in assimilation and, where it is
>> a Jewish male who is marrying a non-Jewish female as in the majority
>> of cases, there is not even the possibility that future generations
>> may return to Judaism. Thus invoking halachic categories of the
>> seriousness of sins is really not an appropriate paradigm.
> I'm not sure what Martin means by "end of the line"; it's certainly not
> necessarily true that by intermarrying the Jewish partner definitely
> ends his or her interest in Judaism -- witness the many publications
> discussing the blessings of mixed unions, and the fact that often the
> result of trying to figure out how to raise kids in such a relationship
> results in the Jewish partner exploring Judaism more thoroughly.  (I
> knew a Jewish woman whose devoutly Catholic husband encouraged her to
> explore Judaism, since he couldn't understand how someone could be so
> indifferent to her faith.)  And if by "end of the line" Martin means
> that the Jewish line ends (as in the cases of Jewish men and non-Jewish
> women that he cites), so what?  It seems to me that such a case is
> _best_ of all possible intermarrying worlds, not the worst, since we
> needn't worry about outreach to the children.

I'd like to see sources about how many intermarriages involving a Jew
end up with more Jewish observance because everything I've seen points
to the opposite; that they choose the other religion to raise their
children (G-d forbid if the mother's Jewish) or try to do both and just
confuse the children or do neither. I'd also like to know about which
publications are discussing blessings of mixed unions. I can't imagine
any Orthodox ones doing that although yes there have been people who
have intermarried and have become frum. I knew a woman who converted and
became more religious than her Jewish husband.

IMO, there IS no "best of all possible" intermarrying worlds.  They're
all horrible but for different reasons. So in this scenario where you
have a Jewish father and a non Jewish mother let's say the child is
raised as a Jew.  Then he looks into Judaism more and discovers that
he's not considered a Jew unless he converts! What a blow to the child!
I can't even imagine how confused he would be and what an identity
crisis that would provoke.  We end up in a situation that when a Jewish
man marries a non Jewish woman we hope that if they have children he
doesn't raise them as Jews.

Because of intermarriage I now have a sister-in-law who technically
isn't my sister-in-law. If they have children I'll have nephews and
nieces who aren't really my nephews and nieces.  Isn't it weird to have
a situation where you have relatives who aren't really relatives?

All the best,
Shoshana Ziskind


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:34:12 +0100
Subject: One more time: Rashei- vs. Roshei-

on 10/8/04 2:37 am, <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu) wrote:

> Martin Stern explained his reasoning several times, based on
> rules. Martin's principal error is that he based his conclusion on
> rules and not on the reading Massoret (i.e., reading tradition). The
> starting point in the Hebrew Grammar (and I assume in other languages
> as well) is the language as spoken for thousands of years. Grammarians
> tried, based on the used language, to formulate rules to explain the
> language. So, if Martin formulate a good rule, but that rule applies
> 98% of the time, it is not that the 2% is wrong, it is rather that the
> rule as formulated has some exceptions.  it is Martin who needs to
> rethink his rule. This is called a methodological error.

Gilad is quite correct that these phonological rules invariably have
exceptions which is why I drew attention (mail-jewish Vol. 43 #70) to
the most interesting discussion of the problem of identifying the type
of a kamats found in chapter 8 (The Qamats Qatan structures) of Werner
Weinberg's "Essays on Hebrew" where, as an introduction, he writes:

"There are three ways of identifying a qamats as a qamats qatan: one is
etymological - tracing back the history of a given qamats to a Semitic
/u/; another is phonological - considering such factors as a closed or
open syllable, the place of stress, the proximity of another /o/ sound;
the third is morphological - focussing on the grammatical pattern of the
word which contains the qamats. This essay concentrates on the third
approach because it is most practical: the first requires an expert
knowledge of Semitic languages, and the SECOND IS UNRELIABLE (my

Martin Stern


From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 07:57:18 -0400
Subject: re: Shiva for "Outmarriages" Is based on Error

In MJ 44:04, C. Halevi wrote <<< The following is taken from the Jewish
Book Of Why, Vol. 2, by Rabbi Alfred J. Kolatch. ...  it became
widespread practice to sit Shiva for one's child who converts, despite
the fact that outstanding scholars, including Joseph Caro, author of the
Code of Jewish Law, insisted that doing so is not the law and hence is
not appropriate conduct. >>>

I had never heard this before. Can anyone provide a citation for exactly
where it is that Rav Caro objected to this practice?

Akiva Miller


End of Volume 44 Issue 12