Volume 49 Number 06
Produced: Tue Jul 19 11:57:17 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Contributing Heat (4)
[A Seinfeld, Gershon Dubin, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz, Martin
Stern]
Do not call list
[Carl A. Singer]
Family splitting for the summer
[Tzvi Stein]
Fickle finger of fate
[Joel Rich]
Jewish drinking events
[Michael Poppers]
Leaving the family for YomTov
[Joseph Ginzberg]
Mixed Swimming
[Mark Symons]
Rosh Yeshiva or Communal Rabbi
[Stuart Pilichowski ]
Semikha - Limitations
[Aliza Berger]
The whole nine yards
[Harlan Braude]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: A Seinfeld <seinfeld@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:56:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Contributing Heat
> The Gemara in Tractate Shabbos gives many examples of materials
> that may not be used to cover a pot of hot food for Shabbos since
> they are Mosif Hevel (contribute heat). As do many families, my
> wife and I use a slow cooker ("Crock Pot") to keep our chulent
> hot. Now -- the metal shell of a slow cooker certainly
> contributes heat. Yet -- the practice is common. Why are we
> permitted to do this (or are we)?
> -- Andy Goldfinger
Until 1995, many people used a two-piece crock-pot to cook Chulent for
Shabbat. In 1995, some changed their practice when Rav Shlomo Zalman
Auerbach (Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 2:34:5) ruled that using a two-piece
crock-pot violates the rabbinical prohibition of Hatmana. Since the
outer pot contains the electric coils that heat the inner pot, Rav
Shlomo Zalman asserts that one is Matmin (enveloping) the inner pot with
the outer pot, which warms the food in the inner pot. This ruling
resonated in many circles, as reportedly this was the last ruling issued
by Rav Shlomo Zalman before his passing. There is even some folklore
associated with this ruling: the crock-pots of many leading rabbis
suddenly became inoperable on the Shabbat after Rav Shlomo Zalman issued
this ruling.
Nevertheless, some people still use a two-piece crock-pot to prepare
Chulent for Shabbat. Their Halachic basis is that the outer pot does not
completely envelop the inner pot, as the former does not cover the
latter on its top. The Rama (O.C. 253:1) rules that one violates Hatmana
only when the material completely envelops the pot, including its
top. The cover of the pot is not considered to be "enveloping" the pot
since its function is simply to cover the pot and not especially to add
warmth to the food. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe O.C. 1:95)
presents a similar line of reasoning in his ruling that storing hot
liquids in a thermos does not constitute Hatmana.
Source: http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/bishul5.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:11:24 GMT
Subject: Contributing Heat
The prohibition of using something that "contributes heat" is only when
the food is **completely** enveloped in that substance. That was the
case in the time of the Gemara when the pot would be removed from the
fire and wrapped completely in blankets and the like to keep it warm.
Virtually all crock pots do not completely enclose the food container
(although there are authorities who suggest putting something at the
bottom of the outside shell to raise the inside pot so LESS [i.e. part
of the sides] is covered).
Otherwise, you would likewise not be able to leave food on the blech,
since the fire is contributing heat.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabba.hillel@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:51:11 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Contributing Heat
Many people use a bag inside the crock pot to contain the food. I do
not know if this is because they are avoiding the problem or to make the
pot easier to clean.
I also know of people who line the inside with aluminum foil or leave a
wad of foil on the bottom to create a slight air gap in order to avoid
this problem. This is done eve though the food is in a removable inner
(nonmetallic) pot.
A situation in which there is a removable inner container (usually
ceramic type - not metal) would seem to be similar to putting a blech on
the oven.
I think that the metal is considered a good conductor of heat but not a
"mosif" Since metal conducts heat in both directions, it would cool down
just as quikly as it heated up, if the "fire" (heat source) went out.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore"
<Sabba.Hillel@...> | The fish are the Jews, Torah is our water
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:09:51 +0100
Subject: Re: Contributing Heat
The main hetter would seem to be that the crock pot does not completely
surround the inner cooking pot since the latter is not covered on
top. To obviate the opinion that this is not sufficient, one can raise
the latter by putting some small (non-inflammable) object, such as an
empty can, under it thus raising it slightly so that part of its side
walls are uncovered as well.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl A. Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:26:24 -0400
Subject: Do not call list
At 06:00 AM 7/15/05, Carl Singer wrote, Vol. 48 #99 Digest:
>>I recently got a most annoying sing-song telephone call (taped) from a
>>telephone service which is affiliated with a tzedukah (and / or donates
>>all of its profits to this tzedukah.) At the end of the message was a
>>disclaimer that THEY were exempt from the do-not-call lists because they
>>were a tzedukah. Really?
>Yes, I think so. I think there are some non-Jewish charities, either
>very large ones or associations of smaller ones, who said they depended
>on phone solicitation. Maybe some Jewish Federations were in on that,
>but I'm sure they were a small part if at all.
>Meir
Does anyone have a definitive answer -- i.e. is a not-for-profit when
engaged in an unrelated BUSINESS ACTIVITY (not soliciting tzedukah)
exempt from the do-not-call lists.
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 18:17:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Family splitting for the summer
> From: <Dagoobster@...> (Chaim Shapiro)
> I have wondered about the family split that goes on in so many frum
> homes for the summer when the wife and kids go to the country and leave
> their husbands at home. Any thoughts on how this effects Shalom Bayis,
> parenting, etc?
I think it's devastating to both Shalom Bayis and parenting. I can't
fathom the priorities of the people who do this. That obviously goes
even more for parents who live in separate places (even Israel and
America is quite common) and even people who work so many hours or
commute so long that they are literally never home except for Shabbos.
I refuse to believe that the only option they have is to starve.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:37:19 -0400
Subject: Fickle finger of fate
> I recall a person commenting that there are a great many Rishonim who
> are just as important as Tosfos, but that Tosfos has achieved greater
> prominence since it has been printed on the daf. Would people care to
> comment on this? That is -- is there something about Tosfos that makes
> it more important than other Rishonim (excluding, of course Rashi).
> -- Andy Goldfinger
The fickle finger of fate (or,as we call it, hashgacha pratit,). Do you
know who decided which Tosfot appeared on the daf and why?
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <MPoppers@...> (Michael Poppers)
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:35:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Jewish drinking events
In M-J V48 #87, Ed Ehrlich responded to H., a/k/a/ Dasi (Mrs. Hadassa,
not Mr.), Goldsmith:
>>I was very disturbed to see an ad in a Jewish newspaper for the "Scotch
>>Whisky Tasting Extravaganza," to take place in three locations in the New
>>York area. For a $50 admission charge, one can taste "Fifteen of the
>>World's Finest Scotch Whiskies," presented by a world-renowned Master
>>Distiller.
>>In my humble opinion, these kinds of events can lead to terrible
>>tragedies - specifically drunk driving accidents/deaths...In addition,
>>there is the potential for a chillul Hashem in front of the non-Jewish
>>workers at these venues when they witness Jewish people drinking and
>>getting drunk.
> I understand Mr. Goldsmith's fears but they might be exaggerated. I
> attended two wine tasting festivals held in Jerusalem over the past few
> years. They were very pleasant and civilized evenings with no signs of
> raucous or drunken behavior and attended by both observant and
> non-observant Jews....
I appreciate hearing Mr. Ehrlich's experiences. Reading Dasi's post 10
days ago and Ed's reply, I still wonder whether such events are per se
appropriate. Do they fall under the rubric of appreciating the wonders
of the Divine creation, or are they closer to non-Jewish hol'lus
(merriment)? At any time, but especially at this time of year (with
some significant events related to the destruction of the Temple and the
subsequent Exile that we still are in), wouldn't we want to avoid
hol'lus and enjoyment for the sake of enjoyment? Just a thought.
All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Ginzberg <jgbiz120@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:51:59 -0400
Subject: Leaving the family for YomTov
>a) One of the major mitnaged criticisms of Chassidut was the fact that
>too many of the chassidim would leave their families and travel to the
>Rebbes for holidays and other occasions leaving the wives to fend for
>the family.
It has always been my understanding that at the time of the rise of
chassidus and in the cradle of its origin, most of the orthodox Jews
lived on farms or in very tiny shtetl's, spending most of the year
withouta minyan. For Rosh Hashana and the subsequent holidays, they
would leave their families and go to the closest place that had a
minyan. Because of the difficulty of traveling, they would often stay
from Rosh Hashana until after Sukkos, and this was common behavior.
This "norm" is what made the rise of chassidus posssible, because
otherwise what family would allow the father to leave home for so long?
What poor man would spend the time and money to travel to a Rebbe, when
the funds were in such short supply at home? It also helped the spread
of chassidus, because over this prolonged exposure it was easier to
teach and convince people of the correctness of this derech.
Yossi Ginzberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Symons <msymons@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 20:43:41 +1000
Subject: Mixed Swimming
> From: <DTnLA@...> (Dov Teichman)
> I once asked Rabbi Hershel Shachter that same question. He told me the
> prohibition of mixed swimming is due to the immodest dress and the
> prohibition of seeing immodesty. I then asked what about if the women
> are fully covered like the old swimming costumes. He replied that the
> very nature of the clothes being wet and clingy is also problematic. He
> mentioned a certain Rov who, due to his extremely poor eyesight, would
> take off his glasses and swim even if there were women around since he
> couldn't see anything anyway.
But what about the women seeing him immodestly dressed?
Mark Symons
Melbourne, Australia
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Pilichowski <cshmuel@...>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:00:56 +0000
Subject: Rosh Yeshiva or Communal Rabbi
I believe a (pulpit) Rabbi carves out whatever niche he wants for
himself. He can make his claim to fame as a great speaker, a short
speaker, a great baalei chesed, an unbelievable facilitator, a great
maggid shiur, a wonderful explainer of suggyot, a posek par excellance.
His fame for his expertise will follow wherever he goes. (Of course the
opposites are true just as much if not more.)
At a wedding I attended the following had honors (kibbudim) under the
chuppah:
The Rabbi (the chatan's pulpit rabbi)
The Rosh Yeshiva (the chatan's RY- where he studied in Israel)
The Rebbe (the actual man the chatan went to for his learning and life's
questions.)
ah bi gezunt
Stuart Pilichowski
Mevaseret Zion, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aliza Berger <alizadov@...>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:43:35 +0200
Subject: Semikha - Limitations
Rabbi Teitz wrote:
> S'micha today means exactly that the person has been found qualified, in
> knowledge and in yiras shamayim, to answer questions of Jewish law.
This is precisely why Orthodox rabbinical schools ought to offer
semikha training and semikha to qualified Orthodox women. As Rabbi
Teitz says, the definition of semikha is quite limited. Functions women
cannot perform, such as forming part of a minyan, are not included in
the definition.
Aliza
Aliza Berger-Cooper, PhD
English Editing: www.editing-proofreading.com
Statistics Consulting: www.statistics-help.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harlan Braude <hbraude@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:10:24 -0400
Subject: RE: The whole nine yards
> However, we see myriad examples in today's society of those
> who consider themselves TOJ who (apparently) violate (or seek
> permission to violate / validation for having violated) some
> prohibition (or failure to do some positive commandment.)
>
> What does this imply about the overriding framework /
> attittude towards Torah observance?
I like Rabbi Berel Wein's quip: Don't confuse Jews with Judasim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 49 Issue 6