Volume 44 Number 31
                    Produced: Fri Aug 20  5:50:32 EDT 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Beer and Yayin Nesach
         [Andrew Marks]
Dairy Bread
         [Bernard Raab]
Dairy challa
Hijacking of Language
         [Saul Mashbaum]
Mock Weddings
         [William Friedman]
Orlando, FL Information
         [Avi Feldblum]
Parve, Dairy and Fleishig
         [Batya Medad]
Roshei vs Rashei (and Rashi)
         [Boruch Merzel]
Sleeve Length
         [Gershon Dubin]


From: Andrew Marks <machmir@...>
Subject: Re: Beer and Yayin Nesach

> From: Daniel Lowinger <Daniel.Lowinger@...>
> A classic example is the prohibition applied to wine of Goyim being
> not kosher. People would say that the same prohibition should be
> applied to beer and the like of today however as the Rabbinic
> prohibition was only applied to Wine it stays there, so too with
> milchig bread.

I'm not really sure why anyone would say that there should be a
concept of yayin nesach by beer today.  Yayin nesach is based in the
concept of stam machashava shel goyim l'avodah zara.  We are afraid
that the goy might be dedicating the wine to avoda zara when he
handles it.  Though I'm not an expert on avoda zara, but I am not
aware of any that uses beer or of which a decent number of goyim
should be suspected.


[I believe that the issue is not Yayin Nesach (which would be a Torah
level prohibition) but rather the Rabbinic level prohibition of Stam
Yanum. It is that prohibition that could be argued should be extended to
beer. Mod.]


From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:50:43 -0400
Subject: Dairy Bread

Many years ago Yankee Stadium boasted of selling "kosher hot
dogs". Their boast, however, did not extend to what I was told were
dairy buns.

Today, I understand, there are quite a few ball parks and even football
stadiums which have reliable kosher food stands. One of the first was in
Baltimore, where I once "chapped" a mincha together with my hot dog
during an Orioles game. Any other personal experiences to share?

b'shalom--Bernie R.


From: <dziants@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 23:46:48 +0300
Subject: Re: Dairy challa

Yakir <yakirhd@...> mentioned about those challot sold in
bakeries that are "b'chezkat chalavi", usually due to having been
baked in ovens in which dairy products had also been baked
(previously), and further added:

> This is sometimes indicated by signs and by the sales personnel if you
> ask or if they think it is important to a particular customer. However
> it is certainly not always obvious.  It is beyond my expertise to go
> into the halachic principles involved but suffice it to say that, as far
> as I know, even taking various opinions into account, this can cause
> serious problems, e.g. dunking the challa into chicken soup.

I don't think the problems are as serious as Yakir makes out.

Where I live, "b'chezkat chalavi" is mentioned on the kashrut
certificate, together with a note qualifying the halacha of not eating
the bread etc., with meat, but not having to wait after meat.

When I once asked about the issue of baking bread in this manner, I
understood the following line of argument (from the ashkenazi Rav):

1) Lehatchilla (on the outset) one should not eat this challa with meat,
but if one (for example unknowingly) does eat the two together, it is
not the end of the world. It is not necessary to say anything to the
host if in someone else's house, as it is not like eating actual milk
and meat and one does not traif the dishes etc. It is more of a kind of
accepted stringency not to eat at the same time, meat and products that
are "b'chezkat chalavi".

2) Thus there is no "stumbling block" involved, and so there is nothing
wrong with making the bread this way.

3) Sephardim can be more lenient on the issue of "b'chezkat chalavi".

I didn't understand on what aspects, sephardim can be more lenient.  I
think this "accepted stringency" might be within the glosses of the
Rama, thus only applies to ashkenazim. Can anyone please help me here?

Also, is anyone on this list able to present sources to qualify, (or
possibly refute) the above line of argument?

David Ziants
Ma'aleh Adumim, Israel


From: Saul Mashbaum <smash52@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:39:30 +0200
Subject: Re: Hijacking of Language

I think that Martin Stern's clever and humorous response to an inquiry
about his "partner" deserves a yasher koach. It would seem that
government offices should post notices saying "The right of the clerks
in this office to use language supportive of promiscuity as the societal
norm will be strictly enforced. Expressing dissenting opinions is not
appreciated, and will be regarded as torture of our utterly innocent

I found the postings of Jeremy Rose and Bill Bernstein on this matter

The case Martin cites is an excellent example of the totalitarian nature
of much political correctness, which of course presents its position as
promoting tolerance and acceptance. I can't criticize a position I find
morally repulsive, or even mildly imply disappoval. Any deviation from
the pc line I do express may, of course, be vilified and
demonized. Heads you win, tails I lose.  You can shove your position in
my face; if I don't like it, I have the right to remain silent :) :(

I know that this sounds bitter, and I am. The essentially sound
principle of treating everyone with courtesy and respect has been
transformed and I believe perverted into a demand that all express
approval of a decline in morality.

I think that Martin is fighting the good fight in a proper way.

Saul Mashbaum


From: William Friedman <williamf@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:22:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Mock Weddings

Batya Medad wrote:
>I remember from my youth movement/counselor days being told that "mock"
>weddings are assur, since just going through the motions/words
>constitute a halachik wedding.  Can't say if really true or "urban
>legend" of sorts, but we were told of a couple who needed a real divorce
>after one of those ceremonies.  Now, amongst you lurkers, and
>non-lurkers, there definitely are a few someones who worked on programs
>with me and may be able to give more details.

I've never understood the ban on mock weddings.  SA EH 42:1 -- Ain
ha-isha m'kudeshet ela lirtzonah [a woman is only betrothed with her
consent/desire].  You can't tell me that it's the desire of any of these
young women to actually to be married to these guys, not to mention that
there's also no intention from the guy's side.  (Yes, the Rema there
does say not to rely on umdanot [estimations] or "hochachot hamochichot
shelo kiv'na l'shem kiddushin" [proofs which prove that she didn't
intend kiddushin], but that's in the case where she first commands the
man to be m'kadesh her and then claims afterwards it was sechok b'alma
[just a joke] -- in the case of mock weddings, there is no such
statement of "kidshani".)  Also, IMO, any poseik or rabbi who ruins a
woman's chances to marry a cohen (or possibly deprive her of a week of
sheva berakhot if she ends up marrying a divorcee or widower) because of
a joke or a mock ceremony has acted with complete insensitivity and

As a consultant on a mock wedding at a Jewish camp once, the bigger
halakhic problem I found was keeping the kids from reciting the "sheva
berakhot" with shem and malkhut, in order to avoid real berakhot
levatalot.  (Although I suppose one could have argued chinukh in order
to support them reciting the berakhot with shem and malchut, in that
particular environment it was more important to me to teach them about
berakha levatalah and shem lashav.)



From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 05:23:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Orlando, FL Information

Does anyone know the status what restaurants in Orlando, FL are under
reliable supervision (I remember seeing a Kashrut Alert that one of the
restaurants lost it's supervision) and is there a weekly minyan anywhere
in the Orlando FL area?

Thanks in advance, and a good Shabbat to all,



From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:40:03 +0200
Subject: Parve, Dairy and Fleishig

      am writing from Israel, I do not know what the situation is

      Many of the challot sold in bakeries (including those with
      mehadrin hechsherim) and even in supermarkets (when not Angel,
      Berman etc) are "b'chezkat chalavi". This is usually due to having
      been baked in ovens in which dairy products had also been baked

It's more serious, or more dairy, than you think.  It's not just a
matter of previous chalavi baking in the oven.  First let me preface my
remarks by saying that a few years ago I worked in a bagel business
where besides the real bagels, they baked pastries and bourekas.  Some
of the pastries and bourekas were dairy.  It had a badatz hechsher.
They never claimed to be parve.  But you should know that both
"non-dairy" and dairy were baked at the same time in the same oven.
Also, baking "paper" was re-used, which is the case in most if not all
commercial bakeries.  Therefore, if it's not certified as parve,
consider it dairy.

Now to continue, in the same vein, but fleishig and parve...  (I think
I'm the one who started the dairy cake thread.)  As a public service...

About how parve is falafel when shwarma's sold at the same stand?  In
Israel, at least, many of the places provide a "salad bar" and even if
they don't pieces of meat can fall in the salads, and the serving
implements touch the meat.  So, when you really think about it, can you,
or would you consider yourself parve and have ice cream or coffee with
milk afterwards?  I wouldn't, and I asked a neighbor who had a parve
falafel place for a number of years.  I asked him if my "psak" was
neurotic or correct.  He told me (his real training is as a rav) that I
was correct.  Meat does get mixed with the salads.



From: <BoJoM@...> (Boruch Merzel)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:04:05 EDT
Subject: Re: Roshei vs Rashei (and Rashi)

In mj Vol 44 #18 Jack Gross writes: 

> So, I maintain, a root aleph, when deprived by the Mikra of vowel point,
> is entirely silent and nonfunctional in the reading of the word.
> Examples (* indicating an inactive aleph or heh)
>     R*uveni:      There is no preceding vowel for the aleph to
> influence.  It's there because that's how Reuven is spelled, even though
> it is inactive in the pronunciation of this adjectival form
>     Ma* (what or not):     silent ("non-consonantal") final Heh, but the
> mem still has a patah.  Note that the following word gets a dagesh
> (chazak).
>     Likra*t:         patach followed by aleph nacha followed by closing
> consonant.>>

Of course, an Aleph with no vowel is a silent letter.  And, of course,
an Aleph or a Heh following a patach does not change it to a T'nuah
G'dolah.  But the Rashi I cited does point out that an aleph with no
vowel can effect the previous letter and its vowel and points us to the
correct pronouciation of the word.(i.e. Kametz Gadol under preceeding

In the case of the word "Rashei", I believe that the Aleph does exactly
that: shows the Kametz to be a kametz godol, since the Aleph, of course,
cannot be considered a nach nireh,.  Therefore, the shin is not

Mr. Gross, by citing "ho-Ru-veni" (not R'uveni) has cited an example
that surely does not prove his point.  The Minchas Shai points out that
this is a very unusual construction, (because of the definite article,
and the resh not able to accept a dagesh) the aleph and its vowel "U"
become the vowel for the Resh.  This is similar to the word "y'ru"
(plural imperative of "revere" , T'hilim 34:10) where, again the aleph
and its vowel together become the vowel for a resh, so that the aleph
still has an effect, thru' its vowel "U", on the pronounciation of the

The Rashi In Makos that I cited, I believe, provides us with inisight in
understanding the effect an unvoweled Aleph can have in a word.  After
all, Rashi---no small Baal Dikduk--- was always keenly aware of the role
of dikduk in understanding our Torah.  Be that as it may, it would seem
to me that Mr. Gross, who himself is obviously a Baal Dikduk, and I are
not really in disagreement on the originial issue.  I am pleased that we
both arrive at the same conclusion of a Kametz gadol.

Boruch Merzel 


From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:48:49 GMT
Subject: Sleeve Length

From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
<<I have been loosely following this "sleeve length" discussion and was
mostly surprised the the conversation seems to be implicitly directed
towards women and girls alone.  Many of us men publicly expose our upper
arm every morning when we put on teffilin at the start of prayer.  Is
there a halachic basis (I am aware of the social one) for the difference
in notions of erva [loosely "nakeness"]>>

There are halachic guidelines for erva for both men and women.  

For men it's the erva area only that needs to be covered.  (For
berachos, one needs to place a separation (e.g. an elastic band on
underwear) between one's heart and the erva, and for shemone esre one
needs to cover one's heart.)

For women, it is considerably wider, including hair for a married woman,
a tefach of usually covered skin, and (singing) voice.

So yes, there are halachos of "tzenius" for men, but they are much less
restrictive than those for women and do not include the upper arm, which
IS erva for women.



End of Volume 44 Issue 31