Volume 44 Number 45
Produced: Thu Aug 26 5:52:04 EDT 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
40 days after birth
[Leah Aharoni]
Ashkenazi-Sefaradi
[Chana Luntz]
Hijacking of Language
[Yisrael Medad]
Marking Meat and Dairy
[Batya Medad]
New Mother Not Leaving House?
[Martin Stern]
Non-Jews at a Seder
[Mike Gerver]
Parve, Dairy, and Fleishig
[Joshua Hosseinof]
Stroller Clarification / Eruv
[Leah S. Gordon]
"Unmarried Girls" [sic]
[Adina Gerver]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah Aharoni <leah25@...>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:08:20 +0200
Subject: 40 days after birth
In my husband's Yemenite family, women try not go out in public for a
month or so after the birth except for the brit and doctor's visits.
I have heard the 40-day minhag mentioned many times in their mixed
(mostly) Yemenite-Moroccan community.
Leah
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana Luntz <Chana@...>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:10:09 +0100
Subject: Ashkenazi-Sefaradi
Yisrael Medad wrote:
>I caught this in Chana Luntz's posting:
>>the Sephardim have no real source for holding anything
>>other than R'Chaim Na'eh (the larger shiurim tend to be an
>>Ashkenazi thing).
>Somehow, I think that Rav Naeh was himself Ashkenazi. I am fairly sure
>that his son (or grnadson?) was our neighbor in Bayit Vegan. Can any
>listmate correct me or confirm?
Sorry, I was rather imprecise if it implied that Rav Na'eh was in fact
Sephardi. My understanding is rather that the tradition in Jerusalem
and elsewhere by the Sephardim was always for a tefach which
corresponded to the measurement identified (more recently) by Rav Na'eh
and which has now generally been called by his name (to distinguish it
from the tefach of the Chazon Ish etc). Prior to that, (according to
the Sephardim), it did not need a name, because nobody among the
Sephardim called it into question, so it was just a tefach (it was, I
understand, based on a measurement of the Rambam, in fact, but one has
to understand the terms into which the Rambam was himself doing the
conversion, since he didn't use centimetres or inches of course, but the
Sephardi tradition was that they knew what the Rambam meant by his
tefach and that corresponds to the tefach identified by Rav Na'eh).
Kind Regards
Chana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 21:32:51 +0200
Subject: Hijacking of Language
Shoshana Ziskind expressed annoyance that the HaModia English edition
couldn't even detail the reason for McGreevey's resignation "in a
carefully worded way".
I don't read that edition, but it is standard practice for all the
Hareidi press, dailies and weeklies, not even to indicate the fact that
their reporters, those that are, are female and will not print first
names so as to avoid anyone knowing that Reish is Rachel or Rivkah or
that Chet is Chana.
Yisrael Medad (in my other hat as vice-chairman of Israel's Media Watch
www.imw.org.il)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:24:56 +0200
Subject: Re: Marking Meat and Dairy
(The explanation of M = milky; P = parve is at
M also is for meat. I'd never use it to identify food for that reason.
Personally I prefer dairy and fleishig or basari and chalavi.
Batya
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:40:17 +0100
Subject: Re: New Mother Not Leaving House?
on 24/8/04 10:32 am, Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...> wrote:
> Martin Stern wrote <<< The custom among Ashkenazim, as I understand it,
> is that the new mother does not go out (except in emergency situations
> of course) until she has gone to shul at a time of kriat hatorah, when
> her husband is a chiyuv (entitled to an aliyah). >>>
>
> This is new to me. Do you understand this to be an actual Minhag (i.e.,
> one which we're obligated to follow), or simply the current practice in
> your community? Any idea what the reasons might be?
This is as far as I know a universal minhag among Ashkenazim, whether it
is absolutely obligatory should be referred to the LOR. There are
probably several reasons but the only one I have heard is to resume
one's normal routine with some element of holiness, i.e. going to shul
to hear kedushah.
> Also, could you please clarify what you mean by <<< until she has gone
> to shul ... when her husband is a chiyuv >>>
>
> Do you mean that (A) new mothers do not go out until the husband has a
> yahrzeit or has to say "hagomel" or other similar situation, or (B) the
> wife's recovery and arrival at shul is a big enough simcha to justify
> entitling the husband to an aliyah, or (C) the practice in your
> community is for the husband to say "hagomel" on behalf of the new
> mother.
(A) is certainly not the case. Whether the husband say "hagomel" on her
behalf or she does so herself (which is not a widespread custom) is not
the criterion since birkhat hagomel does not depend on kriat hatorah, so
(C) is also not the case. I know of some families who gather a minyan in
the house so that the yoledet can do so without going out. I am not
certain but (B) probably is at least partially relevant. Perhaps some
other readers can provide further information.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <MJGerver@...> (Mike Gerver)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 18:52:45 EDT
Subject: Non-Jews at a Seder
>From Immanuel Burton, in v44n38,
In Mail.Jewish v44n25, Mike Gerver wrote:
> I might also add that, after 3000 years, there is surely not a single
> non-Jew in the world whose direct ancestors did not include slaves to
> Pharaoh in Egypt who were freed at the time of the Exodus.
What about direct descendents of the Egyptians who were doing the
enslaving? Or populations that were genetically and
geographically isolated from the Middle East at the time, bearing
in mind that long- distance travel is a fairly recent activity.
All those people are also descended from slaves in Egypt. I didn't say
"descended on the paternal line," or anything like that. I just said
"descended," meaning along any line. Everyone alive today is descended
from everyone who was alive then (except for people who had no children,
or whose descendents all died out within a few generations).
And there are no populations that have remained genetically or
geographically isolated from the rest of the world for 3000 years, or
even for 1000 years, then or now. Not even Australian Aborigines, or
Native Americans. Remember, Eskimos in the New World were always in
contact with Eskimos in Siberia, since they migrated to the New World
several thousand years ago.
Rapid long distance travel is a fairly recent activity, but long
distance travel is a very ancient activity. Walking 10 miles a day, it
only takes 7 years to walk a distance equal to the circumference of the
earth. And if even one person in a million has children who are born at
least 2000 miles from his or her own birthplace, that's enough to ensure
that everyone in the world is descended from everyone in the world after
3000 years.
Mike Gerver
Raanana, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joshua Hosseinof <JHosseinof@...>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:19:05 -0400
Subject: re: Parve, Dairy, and Fleishig
Regarding the possible pieces of meat falling in the salad bar at the
schwarma stand - Isn't that what the laws of bitul are intended for? I
was perplexed when my wife insisted on labeling our jar of mustard in
the fridge as "meat". As far as I can see there were no pieces of meat
in it, it had sufficient volume of mustard in it that even if there was
a small piece of meat, meat juice/fat that fell it was nullified by more
than 60:1 of the mustard. My wife's logic was that it was like that
someone had taken a knife or spoon, and spread the mustard on the cold
cuts or hot dog, and then put the knife or spoon back in the mustard.
Even still as long as there is a sufficient quantity of mustard versus
any meat, the mustard should still be considered 100% pareve. And in
this scenario you can not even claim that any piece of meat that fell in
was intentionally placed there. The salad bar scenario seems to be the
same situation, so I don't see what justification there is to consider
it meat, other than a general desire to go beyond what is required by
the halacha about this particular issue.
Joshua Hosseinof
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 08:11:52 -0700
Subject: Re: Stroller Clarification / Eruv
Chana Luntz writes:
CL> What if the wife is breastfeeding/nursing? All the medical
CL> literature recommends breastfeeding in many cases up to a year
CL> (by which time many children are walking) - so this is most of
You don't need to explain/convince me of this one...my older son nursed
until almost age 3, and my younger one is [still] going strong at age 2.
However, I have always been able to go out for at least an hour or two
and have my husband amuse the baby in other ways, even as a newborn.
(As an aside, the literature recommends "until age 2 years or later as
mutually agreeable to the child and mother" from the World Health
Organization. The American Academy of Pediatrics does say at least
until 1 year.)
My babies, who were big eaters, and would marathon-nurse for very long
periods of time, could still make it an hour to two hours without Mommy.
Although I did have a small stockpile of breastmilk in the freezer for
each kid, using it was very rare.
By the way, there may well be shuls farther away than the 1-2 miles that
a usual toddler could toddle. :) My older son did manange an eruv-less
walk of 1.25 miles at age 14 months, but I think that's about the limit
in terms of distance and age that I would think appropriate.
Sometimes (we have an eruv now and live about a mile from shul) that
same boy at age 6 doesn't mind a spin in the stroller....
CL> Remember of course that one cannot express milk on shabbas, so
CL> even to leave a baby with an expressed bottle makes for a fair
CL> amount of long range planning - and also adds an added burden
Well...as you know, doesn't one always try to have a bit of milk on hand
for emergencies? I think for the first six months or so with both kids,
I pumped first thing in the AM for a few oz to put in the freezer just
in case. And neither of my kids ever had bottles on a regular basis; I
was lucky enough to have daycare close enough to work to go over and
nurse.
CL> on the wife, to take the time out of her busy week to express
CL> as well as to give the baby its regular feeds(and in my
CL> experience, one may if very busy/stressed not have enough to
CL> express - in the case of my second one, I couldn't manage to
CL> express until around five months, and by then he flat out
CL> refused to take a bottle).
Did you try pumping before feeding? I think that's the way to go. The
baby will always take what s/he needs if you don't restrict breast time,
and then you've gotten the easier let-down for the freezer stash. It's
true that you may be making less fatty milk initially, so the frozen
milk may be slighlty less caloric and slightly more prone to spoilage
than otherwise.
CL> It is far simpler and more pleasant (and gives the woman far
CL> more freedom) to be able to take baby with her (on the
CL> assumption she can always find somewhere private to nurse)
This is undoubtedly true. And, btw, you can always find somewhere to
nurse, because you can always be somewhere yourself. I would never
"hide" to do so. Even in the most "covered-up" of middle-eastern Arab
countries, women are expected to be able to breast-feed on demand.
CL> than to leave him behind. I can only recall the first time I
CL> left my oldest - he was about a month old and we left him with
CL> my parents and went off to a shabbas kiddush, and must have
CL> only been gone an hour and a quarter. But despite him having
CL> fed right before we left, he apparently screamed the entire
CL> time, and nothing my parents could do would comfort him - we
CL> came home to see them standing waiting at the front door, with
CL> the baby screaming his head off, and he only quietened after
CL> he latched on and fed like there was no tomorrow. It was
Well, that does happen sometimes. I had to leave my Caltech graduation
early (without walking for the degree) because it was dragging on and I
was concerned (this was before ubiquitous cell phones, so I had no true
data) that my baby was needing to nurse.
I'm not in any way advocating for separation from babies or cessation of
breastfeeding!! Just for shared/fair parenting. Oh, and when I had
young nurslings, I would have been using a sling/carrier, not a
stroller. :) Maybe we should change the whole eruv discussion....
But this actually focuses on the issue to me--the problem is really with
toddlers/preschoolers. They are the ones who need more distracting
during davening, or more stroller-using in many cases, or less
specific-mommy-time but more daddy-time.
Would you feel better if the discussion were limited to kids between 1
and 4 years old? Because that's the age group I was thinking of. While
it is true that toddlers sometimes need to nurse, it's not usually as
desperate as a hungry baby.
--Leah S. R. Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Adina Gerver <gerver@...>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 21:04:58 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: "Unmarried Girls" [sic]
Ken Bloom <kabloom@...> wrote:
> It seems that the female half of the population of my college campus is
> still "girls", and it will continue to be that way as long as I foresee
> it. Maybe they'll turn into "women" when they get married. Or maybe, the
> girls of my generation will be "girls" all their lives - after all, we
> have a good 20 years of training using that word.
[snip]
> Maybe we should be agreeing with Leah, but making the change just feels
> so unnatural for my generation.
>
> (I'm 21.)
I'm 25 and, granted, I was on a different college campus than Ken, and,
yes, some people persisted in calling women "girls," but I don't think
it's so unnatural to make an effort to call adult, unmarried women
"women" rather than girls, even if they're on a college campus. But it
is unfortunate that there's no non-infantilizing equivalent of the
informal "guy" for adult men.
Adina
P.S. Thanks to those who responded to my previous query about the Rambam
and health care.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 44 Issue 45
