Volume 44 Number 62
                    Produced: Sun Sep  5 22:06:51 EDT 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Auctions & Shabbos
         [Bernard Raab]
Charedi papers
         [Tzvi Stein]
Dealing with "unknown ingredients" in products
         [Carl Singer]
Decline and Need for Chizuk with Regard to Nusach Hatefilloh
Elite -  Parve and Milchik
         [Ben Katz]
Nusach Questions
         [Elazar M Teitz]
Parve, Dairy, and Fleishig
         [Ira L. Jacobson]
"Taking Over" a Shule's Minhag
         [Carl Singer]
Vegetarianism (2)
         [Ari Zivotofsky, Binyomin Segal]


From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:53:14 -0400
Subject: Auctions & Shabbos

>From: Jonathan Baker <jjbaker@...>
> >The wife of R' Gornish (a major local rav) was there every Saturday
> >evening after they bought their house, buying furniture.  As long as
> >*you* aren't writing anything, apparently it's fine.

As many posters have already noted, it isn't "fine". But there are two
possibilities here:

1. Rebbitzen Gornish walked to the auction site while it was still
Shabbos in order to view and examine the items she may wish to bid on.
Then, when bidding started it was after Shabbos.

2. Rebbitzen Gornish had a mind of her own and "paskened" for herself.

Personally I prefer to believe option 1 but I have known some option

b'shalom--Bernie R.


From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Subject: re: Charedi papers

The "first initial" policy was pointed out to me by a fellow "Anglo"
with a journalistic background, so I'm not sure how well known it is.
Yes, males get first names.

Here's an even better one you might not know about... the charedi papers
will never show a female in a photograph (although they will show
ficticious ones in drawings accompanying children's features).  That's
something even more subtle than the "initial" policy.  I remember seeing
a photo from a chareidi paper of the "Madrid Conference" (on Middle East
Peace) and there was a quite obvious (if you looked hard at it) female
delegate who had been crudely transformed into a mustachioed male with a

I won't go so far as to defend these policies, but look at the position
these papers are in.  They have to cater to a quite small and extremely
demanding clientele, so they have to do everything they can to not
offend anyone.  Charedi papers are really quite unusual beasts in the
journalistic world.  They will run a front page story on the death of a
relatively obscure rabbi who died of natural causes, yet they managed to
cover the entire Clinton impeachment without once mentioning what the
president actually did.

As for the first initial being pointless as a disguise, I've often
wondered the same thing about women living alone who use their first
initial in the phone book.  As for the paper, it's probably a
combination of disguise (it's amazing the things that many people don't
notice) and "face saving".


From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 06:41:36 -0400
Subject: Dealing with "unknown ingredients" in products

> b) what about the other ingredients? if he doesn't know them, then
> presumably he hold they are Botel (annulled). If so, then presumably so
> is the alleged Grape. Why bother with asking in the first place?

I'm told that a common (?) practice when dealing with proprietary
formulations (as happens in the flavoring industry) is to provide the
kashruth supervising agency with a list that not only includes ALL
ingredients found in the product but many others that aren't -- i.e.,
the product is composed of a proper subset of the ingredients on the
list -- the supervising agency uses this "oversized" list as its basis.

An aside -- many of the interesting or problematic products that we
spend much energy on are not "mother's milk" -- they are "boutique
products" that we could more than likely survive without.  I doubt that
I'll ever read a headline (in the Jewish Press, of course) "100's starve
in Boro Park as Benedictine shortage persists."  Certainly the kashruth
of some liquor or another is of great interest to producers and
distributors (and kashruth agencies) who have $$$ vested -- but when in
doubt one can abstain or find a alternative.

Carl A. Singer


From: <Phyllostac@...> (Mordechai)
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 03:56:57 EDT
Subject: Decline and Need for Chizuk with Regard to Nusach Hatefilloh

I am happy to see the discussion here about nusach hatefilloh. It's nice
to know that some people are concerned about it.

It seems, unfortunately, that there has been a decline in knowledge and
practice in this area in recent years, however.

I know that the Cantorial Council of America (CCA) has been raising the
alarm about this serious problem for a while already and has had public
programs about it. I think they may be introducing some educational
materials to try to improve things soon as well.

I am curious to hear from the Mail-Jewish family around the world if
others have been noticing this problem as well and how they have been
dealing with it.



From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:02:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Elite -  Parve and Milchik

>From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
>Today's Israeli press contained a story about an Elite Company product,
>claimed to be Parve, which turned out to be Milchik. The product was not
>This fact emerged when a child allergic to dairy products reacted after
>eating the so-called Parve product.

         There was an article in the New England Journal of Medicine
about 15 years ago about the same phenomenon.  The amount of dairy to
trigger an allergic reaction is very small and can get in to properly
supervised pareve products.  I don't therefore understand why the Elite
product should now be considered milchik.  (As an aside, I was amazed
that the NEJM article used the word pareve without any explanation or
footnote.  When I checked at the time, it was in the dictionary with
citations going back to the late 1940's I believe.)  This also argues
against the microscopic standard for bugs and other things in

Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
e-mail: <bkatz@...>


From: Elazar M Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:05:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Nusach Questions

> Baruch Schwartz wrote <<< ... in hazarat hasha"tz it is correct to
> begin in the weekday mode and to switch to the melody of shabbat minha
> at the end of the kedusha, and to continue thus until the conclusion
> of hazarat hasha"tz and tzidkatcha tzedek. ... The use of the mode for
> "atah ehad veshimkha ehad" etc. for avot, gevurot and kedusha is an
> error (although pointing this out to adults is usually hopeless). >>>

> I can't speak for other adults, but for me, yes, pointing out such
> things is hopeless. UNLESS you can explain or document your views in
> some manner. Virtually this entire post consists of telling us what to
> and what not to do, with not a single authority cited, and almost no
> attempt at explanation.

     Authority is very difficult to cite; I have never seen "Hilchos
Nusach" for the tunes to be used.  I can, however, attest Baruch
Schwartz' description was the norm until about thirty years ago, and
still is in places such as Telshe Yeshiva, where adherence to nusach is
insisted upon.

     As to an explanation, I believe it is that whenever a weekday
k'dusha is said, the weekday tune is used until the end of k'dusha.
This is certainly the case on Rosh Chodesh, and in Musaf of Chol HaMoed.
(Note that on Hoshana Rabba, when the k'dusha is that of Yom Tov, the
Yom Tov nusach is used for the b'rochos preceding it as well.) Thus,
since Mincha on Shabbos has the weekday k'dusha, the special tune is not
used until the last line of k'dusha.

Elazar M. Teitz


From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 14:06:05 +0300
Subject: Re: Parve, Dairy, and Fleishig

Batya Medad stated the following on Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:26:28 +0200:

      The rabbi said you can use the same ones on Pesach.  Then we asked
      him if he had ever washed one after his kids' tiyulim (when
      they're covered with sandwich remnants.)  Later on, he changed the

This brings up interesting questions on the qualifications for giving
pisqei halakha.  It reminds one of the pesaqim given many years ago
permitting the use of electricity on Shabbat, by well-meaning rabbanim
who were basing their judgements on lack of information.

I am reminded that one spring several years ago, I happened to meet a
respected talmid hakham, a rav shekhuna, in the street, and asked him,
by the way, what is the problem with glucose on Pessah.  His response
was, "I'll give you the phone number of an expert on the subject.
Please ask him."

It is always refreshing to find people who are aware of their
limitations.  And it is disheartening to find those who are not.

IRA L. JACOBSON         


From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 06:51:55 -0400
Subject: "Taking Over" a Shule's Minhag

>> 1 - the ONLY individuals I have ever seen try to "take over" the nusach
>> or minhagim of an established shul were Lubavitchers. That is, on more
>> than one occasion, I have seen Lubavitchers try/insist on davening
>> nusach ari from the amud, or using the Lubavitch style hagbah even
>> though that is clearly NOT the established minhag of the shul.

> Well, I use this in reverse. I know that this is what Lubavitch do, and
> so when I am in their Shule, which is every Shabbos :-) I answer and do
> "my own thing" in a reasonably loud voice. After all, they will not be
> offended by me exercising my practice, in the same way that they think
> that I won't be if they exercise theirs!

As some clever pundit proclaimed -- fight fire with fire and you both
get burned.

Both of these situations:  

purposely not adhering to a shule's established minhag and 
purposely davening (aloud) differently from the rest of the congregation 

Are against halacha.  (And socially outrageous.)

On those rare occasions when I daven at the neighborhood Lubavitch
Minyan (either they've called ahead of time asking that I help them make
minyan or the weather is really bad) I do my own thing quietly -- the
only "conflict" has been Friday nights when they start dancing in a
circle and try to draw me in -- I step aside and out of the way -- only
when pressed by an overly persistent dancer who grabs at my arm will I
respond "that's not my Father's minhag."

Carl A. Singer


From: Ari Zivotofsky <zivotoa@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:00:43 +0300
Subject: RE: Vegetarianism

In Volume 44 Number 56, Prof Joseph Tabory wrote:

"I think that Rabbi A.Y. Kook was a vegetarian."

This is a common misconception and it is definitely not true.

He was NOT a vegetarian. He may have eaten meat only on shabbat, but he
definitely ate meat. I verified this with Rav Sha'ar Yashuv HaKohen, son
of the Nazir who was very closr with Rav Kook.

From: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:27:29 -0500
Subject: RE: Vegetarianism

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 06:11:22 -0400 (EDT), Joseph Tabory wrote:

> I think that Rabbi A.Y. Kook was a vegetarian.

I can not say from personal experience what Rav Kook was or
wasn't. However, in an article (Tradition 23(1) Summer 1987 pp. 82-90)
about vegetarianism, Rabbi J. David Bleich quotes extensively from Rav
Kook NOT approving of vegetarianism in our day. He attributes to Rav
Kook four reasons why it is inappropriate:

1. before worrying about animals, worry about other more important
problems (like poor people)
2. there is a natural desire for meat that will come out in other less
appropriate fashions (violence) if meat is not eaten 
3. practicing our dominion over animals helps us understand our
responsibility as masters of the world 
4. having the moral outlet of carrying for animals allows a person to be
crueler to humans 

I am certainly NOT describing these very well (not to mention that I am
quoting a secondary source). For anyone interested, I suggest the
article cited above, or the sources he cites from Rav Kook: HaPeles 3:11
pp. 657-659 which I gather is quoted at length in Mishnat HaRav
pp. 209-212

> In the commentary to the siddur known as Olat reiyah, an anthology of
> his commentaries relevant to the siddur, we find that he explains the
> passage "vearva lashem minhat yehuda viyrushalayim kiymei olam
> ucheshanim kadmoniot" as meaning that in the future world, the
> vegetable offering of the mincha will be as pleasing to G-d as the
> animal offerings in ancient times. I think that some controversy arose
> over this because people understood that Rabbi Kook was implying that
> animal sacrifices would never be renewed.

I don't know what controversy may or may not have ensued, but the source
you are quoting is all but absolutely explicit. But not particularly
relevant to our conversation, as it is referring to the world to come,
not current practice. In my mind he is coming to explain why the phrase
quoted above refers only to the mincha sacrifice. And he says (my
attempt at translation):

"Animals, that are brought on the alter, are fixed (tikun) through their
being offered to G-d. Since they do not have daas (intellect/free will
with which to choose good) they can only reach this spiritual height by
having an action done to them, by having their blood and fats - which is
the essential part of the nefesh (lifeforce) - offered to G-d. This is
not true of man, who has a heart that understands, he can understand the
act of a sacrifice and draw close to G-d with his intellect. However, in
the future, the influence (shefa) of daas will spread and enter even
into animals, (and as a result) 'there will be no slaughter on my holy
mountain because the whole land will be filled with knowledge (daas) of
G-d'. The offerings that will exist at that time will be the Mincha,
from plants"

Hope this helps -


End of Volume 44 Issue 62