Volume 44 Number 78
                    Produced: Tue Sep 14  5:20:02 EDT 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Ain't gonna work on Saturday
         [Mimi Markofsky]
"b'chezkat chalavi" bread
         [David Ziants]
"Dead Sea" sect
Rabeinu Tam Tefilin
         [Jack Gross]
Teaching Evolution or Abortion
         [Yitzchok  Kahn]
Work on Saturday
         [Carl Singer]


From: <AUNTIEFIFI@...> (Mimi Markofsky)
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:55:26 EDT
Subject: Ain't gonna work on Saturday

Regarding the discussion on caterers "working" on Saturday - if the
kitchen is run properly, there is no need for the caterer to do anything
but be a "face" for the host/hostess.  I have many Shabbos luncheons at
the shul in which I have the exclusive catering rights.  My staff
prepares everything prior to Shabbos so that all they have to do is
place the platters out on the tables that morning.  Waitstaff handles
their jobs in their usual fashion.  I simply stand around and observe.
If there is something I see that isn't done the way I would like, I make
a statement about it rather than ask them to do something - just as one
might say "It's very dark in here" to get a non-Jew to turn on lights.

BTW, my contract does not call for me to be at the shul on Shabbos for
functions.  However, the catering committee has told me that they prefer
it when I am at the functions.  Therefore, for good PR and shalom bais,
I walk to the "company" shul rather than my "family" shul.

Mimi Markofsky
Elite Kosher Catering


From: <dziants@...> (David Ziants)
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:32:16 +0300
Subject: Re: "b'chezkat chalavi" bread

[Note: There was a series of email exchanges between David and Gershon,
and rather than send the back and forth exchange to the list, I asked
them to summarize the final conclusion of their exchanges. Mod.]

Gershon and I had a number of email exchanges on our postings concerning
bread, and he asked me to summarise this so that it is suitable for
publishing to the list. His latest public posting on the subject is
quoted below.

The subject digressed from "Dairy Challa" to the subject of bread that
is not fully "dairy", and what was called "b'chezkat chalavi". This
digression was started with a posting that mentioned challa that is
baked in an oven that milk products were baked in immediately
before. Gershon gave his posting, unaware of the digression (there was
no change in the "subject" line) and assumed that my response was
referring to bread that is completely milky. I think now, he would
prefer to retract this posting of his, or at least some of it.

His main point now is that the term "b'chezkat chalavi" doesn't appear
in the Shulchan Aruch, and thus we need to define it ourselves for the
point of view of our discussion.

>From the point of the discussions, and my knowledge to date, I can see
three possible definitions of "b'chezkat chalavi" (there might be other
definitions and of course would be happy to hear this, if there are):

1. Parev bread that is baked in an oven that milk products were baked in
   immediately before, as the example mentioned above. It seems that not
   everyone thinks that this should be defined as "b'chezkat chalavi".

2. Bread that is baked on clean trays that were previously used to bake
   milk products. I have seen this referred to as "dairy equipment" by
   members of this list.

3. Bread that is baked on (maybe not totally clean) trays with the base
   covered with baking paper, after the tray being used to bake milk

(I do not know what the specific issues are for the different
establishments where I live that are designated "b'chezkat chalavi", and
whether any of these definitions are relevant or not.)

Concerning definition 1:

It seems that here in Israel, the general ashkenazi practice is to use
separate ovens for meat and milk and most people I know (both chareidi
and Modern Orthodox) do this. Does the baking of parev immediately after
milk in uncovered pans become an issue, according to this stricter
opinion, so that the parev is then "b'chezkat chalavi"? (If the answer
here is "no", then possibly this definition falls apart.)

Gershon (and others in private discussion) seem to indicate that the
practice in the USA - and I think that this was also the practice in UK
- is not to insist on separate ovens. Gershon stated that baking
something in an oven in which something dairy had previously been baked
is permitted in our type of oven, since only "re'ach" of milk was
released and this does not make the oven milchig. This in turn is
different than baking something in an oven together (i.e. at the same
time) with something milchig which is an issue of ze'ah (and re'ach
lechumra). According to this lenient opinion, it seems the challa is
fully parev. What if some milky substance splashes on the sides of the
oven and the oven wasn't totally cleaned before baking parev?

Concerning definition 2:

A number of people that I was in correspondence with, mentioned the
concept of "noten ta'am bar noten ta'am", i.e. the "taste" of the milk
that is absorbed within the baking trays becomes a second degree in the
parev that is baked afterwards. Sephardim treat this as totally parev,
and it seems that this is the simple ruling of the Shulchan
Aruch. Ashkenazim do not consider this totally parev, and would not eat
this at the same time as meat. What I meant by this as an "accepted
stringency" is in the way the Rama, or other Ashkenazi poskim would
state: "We are strict in our countries on this issue of ...." I don't
know how the ashkenazi practice is stated in the sources, but wouldn't
be surprised if this type of wording is used. I do understand that this
is a long standing tradition and not the "latest chumra". AFAIK,
ashkenazim do not carry the law any further then not eating such food at
the same course as meat, and so have no qualms in baking bread this way.

Concerning definition 3:

This didn't specifically come up in my recent discussions, and maybe
someone can tell me whether this has the same laws as definition 2.

I want to state, that my knowledge on these issues stems from asking
she'elot at different times, and discussions with people. I have not
(yet) looked these things up in Yoreh Deah, and am not sure that I am
qualified to do so. Thus I am always open to learning from people the
different concepts and how they effect our halacha l'maaseh (= practical
halacha). With this, I am happy to share the knowledge I gain, with less
knowledgeable people on the list, and I pray to hashem that the
information I give is correct.

David Ziants
Ma'aleh Adumim, Israel

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Subject: Dairy challa

<<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".>>

I was with you most of the way, but not when you say it's an accepted
stringency.  I don't recall if it's a Mishna or a Gemara, but it's a
siman in Shulchan Aruch and definitely not the latest chumra.

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

As above, it's a clear halacha in Shulchan Aruch (YD 97).  The halacha
is that bedi'avad, it's OK to eat it and it doesn't traif up the kelim,
(although if there's enough milk in there it might make the oven
rack/pan dairy).  So there is definitely "something" wrong with making
bread lechatchila this way.

<<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?>>

The "stringency" as above is from well before the Shulchan Aruch.  The
difference in practice stems from a difference in interpretation of
"bedi'avad" but without sefarim in front of me I can't be more specific
than that.

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

I tried <g>!



From: <chips@...>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 22:18:52 -0700
Subject: Re: "Dead Sea" sect

>  [Some have argued that the reason these tefillin were "nonstandard"
> is because the Dead Seac Sect, whoever they were, were not mainstream
> Jews, but this is a tendentious argument.  Had the tefillion been the
> same people would have argued how our traditions have been constant
> for 2 millenia.]

I am unaware of any frum group that uses the items found in the caves by
the Dead Sea as a proof of anything about our traditions. The only thing
I've heard even relating to this is that the fragments found of Tenach
have the same words as ours. But even that was not presented as proof of
authenticity of our texts.

I would be most interested in seeing links to frum groups that use these



From: Jack Gross <ibijbgross@...>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 21:52:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Rabeinu Tam Tefilin

> From: <DTnLA@...>
> ..The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 34:2) says that if one wears both Rashi
> and R"T simultaneously (as the Arizal did) he must have in mind not to
> be yotzeh with whichever pair is not in accordance with the halacha and
> they should be just like leather straps. ... I believe the Mekubalim would
> argue with this halacha as they hold that both are needed as the Zohar
> says, and there is no doubt that both tefilin are correct.

Here is one of those conflicts between "Nigla" and "Nistar".

The Zohar, even assuming it expresses the opinion of a Tanna, is only
one input to the process of Talmudic decision, and the decision in T. B.
Menachos is that interchanging the position of the "inner" and "outer"
Parshios (switching Kadesh with Yehaya Ki, and/or Shema with VeHaya Im)
renders the tephilla (at least in the case of Shel Rosh) unfit.  Since
that is precisely the difference between Rashi and R.T., the opinion in
the Zohar that both are kosher, or both are necessary, is in effect
rejected by the Talmud Bavli.

So, why are those who don both simultaneously with the intention that
both be for fulfillment of the Mitzva not to be adjudged as rejecting
accepted halacha?  I don't see why this is any different from deciding
to follow Beis Shammai instead of Beis Hillel -- whether based on no
source or on a source that one claims is superior to the talmud.

There's another issue: The purpose of the Tenai (condition) is to avoid
violating Bal Tosif (the prohibition of 'adding" to a mitzva).  But the
Shel Yad is kosher even if the four parshios are unconnected (hence
unordered), and a case has been made that it is therefore kosher even if
they are attached in the "wrong" order.  Hence, the Shel Yad of Rashi
and that (supposedly) of Rabbeinu Tam are both kosher, even if not

Thus the condition "not to be yotzeh with whichever pair is not in
accordance with the halacha" still leaves one intending both pairs as
fullfilment of the Mitzva, since both are "kosher".  A better phrasing
would be "if the halacha is that the Rashi tephilla is kosher, then I do
not intend the other one for fullfilment of the mitzva, and otherwise I
do intend the other pair for fullfilment of the mitzva", and to state
that condition separately for Shel Yad and for Shel Rosh.

-- Yaakov Gross


From: Yitzchok  Kahn <mi_kahn@...>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:24:50 -0500
Subject: Teaching Evolution or Abortion

I am becoming a NYC public high school history/social studies teacher. I
am wondering how I am supposed to deal with the issue of teaching the
evolutionary origins of man, which to me are kfirah. How do I teach
abortion? If there are any teachers out there who have asked shaalos and
dealt with these issues I'd love to hear from you. In general, I'd love
to hear from frum public school teachers.

Ksiva Vachasima Tova,
Yitzchok Kahn


From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:56:13 -0400
Subject: Work on Saturday

> Similarly, if caterers are allowed to get money for preparations before
> shabbos then if I were an financial adviser and a client wanted to meet
> me on shabbos to discuss investments, then there would be no problem,
> because all my preparation would have been done before hand....
> My question is, why is it that some professions can work on shabbos,
> while others can't??

Again we're missing an important distinction between halachic WORK and
the generic EMPLOYMENT (loosely called "work").

With the Chazzan, Ba'al Koreh, Rabbi, and yes, the caterer, what they
are doing on Shabbos does NOT fall under the rubric of halachik WORK.

With the financial advisor and his / her client what they are doing
might be fall under a category of (halachik) WORK -- certainly what
they're doing isn't Shabbosdik..

Separate is the issue of employment and remuneration.  It's generally
accepted that the employment contract involves both preparing for and
performing something.  The remuneration part, I believe, involves
remuneration only for those activities NOT done on Shabbos and Yom Tov
usually the preparation.  If we're talking about an on-going activity --
say a pulpit Rabbi or a shule chazzan under a multi-year contract we
have a different dynamic than with a 1-time activity -- say some
davening for Yom Tov or layning for a single event.

The question of would they get paid if they prepared but didn't perform
-- is interesting -- let's say the chazzan gets sick or the ba'al koreh
sleeps late.  I'll leave that unanswered.  One might argue that they
didn't fill the employment contract (prepare and perform) -- but one
might also argue that they fulfilled the part for which they were being

I don't have a answer - just the question.

Carl A. Singer


End of Volume 44 Issue 78