Volume 52 Number 94
Produced: Sun Oct 29 17:53:55 EST 2006
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Female mashgiach for kashrus (7)
[Perets Mett, Michael Gerver, Goldmeier Home, Joel Rich, Orrin
Tilevitz, Gershon Dubin, Orrin Tilevitz]
Grammar Question from Another List
[Janice Gelb]
Hoshanot after Shacharit - Nusach Ashkenaz
[Gershon Dubin]
Important note re ElAl and Kashrut
[Shmuel Himelstein]
Mashgichim vs Jewish or Frum owners
[Bernard Raab]
Powerful consolation it may be, but it is not based on the text
[Jay F Shachter]
She-al Hameis Nigzerah Gezairah Sheyistakach min Haleiv
[Joel Rich]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:45:02 +0100
Subject: Female mashgiach for kashrus
Orrin Tilevitz wrote:
> Very inteesting. I am glad to see that list members are too
> enlightened to raise their eyebrows, but I am told by a mashgiach
> friend that none of the major supervisory organizations employ
> mashgichot. I don't know if that's their policy. The hava amina
> would be that the a woman may be relied on in her own kitchen but not
> for public food either because she necessarily eats her own cooking or
> based on some prohibition of women taking public positions.
Orrin unfortunately omits saying which town or country he is writing
from, so we don't know where this policy obtains.
I can say thought that in England it is not uncommon for women to be
employed by kashrus organisations for hashgocho.
Perets Mett
London
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Gerver <mjgerver@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:49:21 +0200
Subject: Re: Female mashgiach for kashrus
Orrin Tilevitz writes, in v52n93,
Very inteesting. I am glad to see that list members are too
enlightened to raise their eyebrows, but I am told by a mashgiach
friend that none of the major supervisory organizations employ
mashgichot. I don't know if that's their policy. The hava amina
would be that the a woman may be relied on in her own kitchen but
not for public food either because she necessarily eats her own
cooking or based on some prohibition of women taking public
positions.
For what it's worth, one of my daughters has occasionally worked as a
mashgicha for the Washington (DC) Vaad, which I think is generally
considered a reliable kashrut organization, and she tells me they have
plenty of other mashgichot working for them. She wonders whether not
using mashgichot is a "New York thing."
Mike Gerver
Raanana, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Goldmeier Home <gldmeier@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:38:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Female mashgiach for kashrus
> The hava amina would be that the a woman may be relied on in her own
> kitchen but not for public food
A) many smaller communities rely on women as mashgichot for public
functions. I personally know of one such frum community.
B) That statement is directly contradicting a basic halacha of "eid
echad ne'eman bi'issurin". Women are trusted even for public functions.
The hava aminah is terrible and k'neged halacha. The reason many larger
cities do not use women is much more basic. The kollel husbands need
jobs and starting out they took mashgiach jobs as a means of support.
as well, the role of a mashgiach is to be a boss and protector of
halacha, and the larger communities have said it's not tzanu'a for a
woman to be a boss nor in tight quarters with the men. This is heard
first hand, not from a friend of a friend.
shaya goldmeier
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 06:01:57 -0400
Subject: Female mashgiach for kashrus
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
> Very inteesting. I am glad to see that list members are too
> enlightened to raise their eyebrows, but I am told by a mashgiach
> friend that none of the major supervisory organizations employ
> mashgichot. I don't know if that's their policy. The hava amina
> would be that the a woman may be relied on in her own kitchen but not
> for public food either because she necessarily eats her own cooking or
> based on some prohibition of women taking public positions.
Is this hava amina your own or that of your mahgiach friend or of the
organizations?
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 03:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Female mashgiach for kashrus
"Rich, Joel" <JRich@...> wrote:
> Is this hava amina your own or that of your mahgiach friend or of the
> organizations?
Not sure what your question is, but there is a tshuva in the Igrot Moshe
directed to a widow who wanted to take over her husband's hashgachot.
The tshuva says she could not be the machshir, in deference to the
Rambam's position on serara (women taking a leadership position in the
community) but it was fine for her to be the mashgiach, because the same
considerations did not apply. So evidently there is such a hava amina.
I'd be interested to know of any other organizations who employ
mashgichot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:04:16 GMT
Subject: Female mashgiach for kashrus
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
> I am told by a mashgiach friend that none of the major supervisory
> organizations employ mashgichot. I don't know if that's their policy.
> The hava amina would be that the a woman may be relied on in her own
> kitchen but not for public food either because she necessarily eats
> her own cooking or based on some prohibition of women taking public
> positions.
Tell your mashgiach friend to look up the teshuva in Igros Moshe where
he specifically permits mashgichos.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Female mashgiach for kashrus
In response to
> I am told by a mashgiach friend that none of the major supervisory
> organizations employ mashgichot.
Gershon Dubin wrote
> Tell your mashgiach friend to look up the teshuva in Igros Moshe where
> he specifically permits mashgichos.
My friend, who was simply reporting what he heard, is not the point.
The question, if what he heard is correct, is why these organizations
don't employ mashgichot, particularly in view of that tshuva. I'd be
interested in hearing from their spokesmen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 05:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Grammar Question from Another List
Chevre:
Someone on another Jewish list to which I belong asked the following
question but no one had a suitable answer so I thought I would post the
question here.
In the parasha for this past Shabbat, there's a problem that I had
never noticed until I was going over the section with the ba'alat
kri'ah Friday night. In Gen. 2:23, in the second creation story, Adam
says "l'zot yikarei ishah," usually translated something like "this
one shall be called Woman." However, the gender of the verb "yikarei"
is masculine, while the pronoun (zot) and the predicate noun (ishah)
are both feminine. I know that there are occasions where the gender or
number of the verb does not agree with that of the subject, but my
impression has been that that generally occurs where the
"incorrectly"- gendered or -numbered verb precedes the subject noun,
so it's as if the text tells us the verb before focusing on what the
subject is. (There are also more midrashic explanations for some of
these instances.)
I did not see this question addressed at all in any of the following
sources: Mikra'ot G'dolot, JPS Torah, Cassuto, Malbim, Speiser (Anchor
Bible), or R.E.Friedman. Indeed, the very fact that none of these
sources even addresses the question makes me wonder whether there's a
very simple grammatical reason.
Can anyone explain this?
-- Janice
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:00:01 GMT
Subject: Hoshanot after Shacharit - Nusach Ashkenaz
A local minyan here wanted to do hoshanos after hallel, so they asked a
shaila when they started up the minyan.
They were told that since they were a new minyan, and the minhag to say
after musaf was not that solid, they could indeed "adopt" the more
convenient practice.
I was told, but don't now remember, whom they asked.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <shmuelh@...>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:35:42 +0200
Subject: Important note re ElAl and Kashrut
On October 24, 2006, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel issued the following
advisory (my translation from the Hebrew):
"Note! We wish to draw to the attention of those who wish to fly El Al
to "Chul" [i.e., countries outside Israel], that they must insist and
confirm that the flights which they reserve through El Al are covered in
terms of the Kashrut of the food through all the stops. This warning
comes after it was found that under the arrangement known as "Code
Sharing," whereby they are agreements with other airlines, El Al
passengers are transferred to the flights of foreign airlines, and
kosher food is not served as a matter of course UNLESS THE ONE WHO MAKES
THE RESERVATION DOES SO SPECIFICALLY FOR KOSHER FOOD FOR ALL THE
FLIGHTS. (in the Hebrew this is Bold and Underlined). Those travellers
who want kosher food must confirm that on all their flights kosher food
is served even if this was arranged through El Al, and thus prevent
problems."
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 22:34:38 -0400
Subject: Mashgichim vs Jewish or Frum owners
>From: Art Werschulz :
> > The paradox is that we may be better assured of an establishment's
> > kashrus if is owned by a goy or a nonobservant Jew than if it is
> > owned by an observant Jew.
>
>One advantage of having a non-Jewish kosher establishment is that
>you're less likely to run into a situation where the proprietor thinks
>he knows more than the Rav HaMachshir.
This may sound right and work for a while, but experience teaches
otherwise. There is a famous incident of a kosher Chinese restaurant
which was operated by an Asian owner under the hashgacha of the local
Vaad. The owner managed to smuggle in non-kosher ducks under the nose of
the mashgiach for a period of time. He was just determined to meet the
demand for ducks in an era when the kosher duck supplier had gone out of
business. From his point of view a duck is a duck (if it quacks like a
duck...). When the mashgiach finally noticed that his invoices were from
an unfamiliar supplier, he was shut down and forced to sell to a frum
operator.
In another incident in the same area, the Jewish but non-frum owner of
another restaurant was caught pouring non-kosher wine into kosher wine
bottles. The fact is that no mashgiach can see everything that goes on
in an operating business. Many authorities believe that a frum owner
with a lifelong reputation as a yirat shamaim is a better bet than an
army of mashgichim. I totally agree with that observation.
Bernie R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jay F Shachter <jay@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:04:24 -0600 (CDT)
Subject: Powerful consolation it may be, but it is not based on the text
One of the contributors to v52n93 quoted Genesis Rabba 84:21 ("She-al
Hameis Nigzerah Gezairah Sheyistakach min Haleiv") and then commented as
follows on the powerful consolation he found in its choice of words:
> An interesting Diyuk [distinction -- jf("y")s] is that it says
> "Sheyistakach min Haleiv" and it doesn't say Sheyistakach min "HaRosh"
> - forgotten from the heart, but not from the mind. Interestingly,
> forgetting is a function of the mind and not of the heart. While one
> might forget a thought, there is no functional equivalent of
> forgetting when it comes to emotions of the heart. So it's an
> interesting play on words that the emotional pain will be 'forgotten.'
> To me, this is powerful consolation: one never forgets the deceased,
> it's just that the intense raw pain will some day be forgotten.
We may indeed find consolation in this thought, but if we do, we must do
so without attributing it to the cited passage in Genesis Rabba. The
distinction that the mail.jewish contributor wishes to make between
"leiv" ("heart" -- i.e., emotion) and "rosh" ("head" -- i.e., thought)
is not a distinction that exists in the language of Genesis Rabba, where
"leiv" is used idiomatically to connote the inside of something, or the
inferred internal state of something, without distinction between
affective and cognitive states.
Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
Chicago IL 60645-4111
<jay@...> ; http://m5.chi.il.us:8080
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 06:08:03 -0400
Subject: She-al Hameis Nigzerah Gezairah Sheyistakach min Haleiv
From: <azqbng@...> (Baruch C. Cohen)
> Does anyone have any ideas as to "how" this Shikcha - forgetting works?
> Are there any interesting articles, stories, or Divrei Torah that
> explain this phenomenon?
I did some research on this general topic for a yahrtzeit shiur LZ"N avi
mori vrabi avraham ben efraim zll"hh. The 12 months is derived from a
passage and I concluded that it is likely inherent in the creation, thus
perhaps not subject to sociological statistical psychological analysis
(at least for halachik purposes)
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 52 Issue 94
