Volume 58 Number 31
Produced: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:02:30 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
chukkot hagoyim - or minhag hagoyim
[Martin Stern]
controlled modesty and slavery
[Elazar M. Teitz]
halacha of modest dress
[David Tzohar]
ignorance of sexual matters (4)
[Batya Medad Jeanette Friedman Mordechai Horowitz Yisrael Medad]
liquor alert
[Steven Oppenheimer]
making ice cream on shabbat (4)
[Carl Singer Perry Zamek Josh Backon Shoshana L. Boublil]
marriage and separation
[Martin Stern]
modesty and separation of the sexes
[Martin Stern]
OU certification Of Glenmorangie Whisky.
[Immanuel Burton]
southern comfort kosher
[Rav Semelman Shmouel]
the Emmanuel girls' school controversy
[ Batya Medad]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 20,2010 at 05:01 AM
Subject: chukkot hagoyim - or minhag hagoyim
On Tue, Jun 8,2010, Carl Singer wrote:
> It would seem that adopting or copying the (religious) practices of gentiles
> is halachically unacceptable.
Copying their RELIGIOUS practices is the crucial point. Where a practice is
merely a custom with no religious associations there should be no problem.
Otherwise Jews should abstain from using mobile phones or driving motor cars
(like the Amish)!
On the other hand, very few Jews object to citing Scriptural passages by
their chapter and verse despite the fact that this form of reference was
invented by Stephen Langton, later Archbishop of Canterbury and Chancellor
of England, and in many cases is fixed by a Christian understanding of the
text, in opposition to the Jewish one; the separation of Shabbat from the
rest of the Creation story is the most glaring example.
> BUT if an existing practice is subsequently adopted by gentiles - why should
> it necessarily become unacceptable and thus abandoned?
This is somewhat unclear.
For example, at one time it was customary to put sweet smelling branches on
the bier at a funeral yet, today, there is strong opposition to such a
practice since it is the custom of non-Jews to use flowers. Perhaps this
particular case was a reaction to the attempt by the Reform movement to
revive a practice that had fallen into disuse and was seen as an attempt to
copy non-Jewish custom.
Another case is conducting weddings in shul which was the practice in
earlier times yet generated considerable opposition, especially among the
Hungarian Orthodox in the nineteenth century, for much the same reason.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 20,2010 at 01:01 PM
Subject: controlled modesty and slavery
Responding to the comment
> Someone explained "the marriage act" to her a few days before the wedding.
> ...That chassidishe group is very strict and controlling. The theory
> behind the last minute instructions to the chattan, (and all males,) is that
> he shouldn't think about it until he is permitted to do it. The Kallah is
> given a few days to adjust to the idea...
Russell J Hendel wrote,
> I am in a state of shock that this is official policy of these groups.
>
> It would appear to me that these practices violate the Biblical prohibitions
> of slavery.
We are enjoined from selling a Jew in the manner that slaves are sold, on a
selling block, in public. We are also prohibited from working him b'farech,
defined as work without a specified limit or work which is unnecessary
(make-work). To which prohibition does Dr. Hendel refer?
Furthermore, Dr. Hendel proceeds to describe the essence of slavery as
sexual control. This is a novel idea, given that the purchaser of a Jewish
slave is obligated to support the wife and children of his purchase, with no
rights whatever with respect to them, and (except for the slave who is sold by
Beis Din [the court] for being unable to repay a theft), the purchaser has
absolutely no say in the sexual conduct of that slave. Contra Dr. Hendel's
statement, it is exactly the control of the labor of the slave which is the
essence of slavery.
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Tzohar <davidtzohar@...>
Date: Mon, Jun 14,2010 at 02:01 AM
Subject: halacha of modest dress
There is a common misconception of how the halacha relates to modesty in
dress that I have written about before but I will emphasize once again. The
rules of modern dress are not relative to societal norms. They are the same
if the Gentiles wear burkas and veils or where they wear halter tops and
miniskirts.
The basic minimum rules are that a woman's body must be covered in the following
places:
1 The hair of a married woman must be covered though it is permitted to leave a
tefach (about 3 cm.) uncovered.
2 the neckline may not be below the collar bone.
3 the sleeves must cover the arm to the elbow
4 the skirt must be long enough to cover the knee
In addition:
5 all clothes must be loose fitting
6 there is a dispute about pants. Some say if the pants are obviously made
for women they are permitted others say all pants are forbidden because of
"beged gever" (transgender dressing)
These laws can be found in the Shulchan Aruch-Orach Chayim and Yoreh Deia
and later codes and responsa. CYLOR [consult your local Orthodox rabbi]for all
specific questions.
David Tzohar
http://tzoharlateivahebrew.blogspot.com/
http://tzoharlateiva.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 20,2010 at 12:01 AM
Subject: ignorance of sexual matters
Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...> wrote:
> Batya in v58n22 states
>> Someone explained "the marriage act" to her a few days before the
>> wedding... The theory behind the last minute instructions to the chattan,
>> (and all males,)is that he shouldn't think about it until he is permitted to
>> do it. The Kallah is given a few days to adjust to the idea. This has been
>> their way of doingthings for a long time. It's nothing new at all.
> I am in a state of shock that this is official policy of these groups.
> It would appear to me that these practices violate the Biblical
> prohibitions of slavery...
This same group requires all members from the age of 16 or 17 to sign an
annual agreement contract to abide a very complex and complete list of
rules.
Their education is mostly reading and memorizing, very little actual
writing, certainly nothing creative. Curiosity and creativity are
considered problematic.
Batya Medad
http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeanette Friedman <FriedmanJ@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 20,2010 at 09:01 AM
Subject: ignorance of sexual matters
Russell wrote:
> Rather the ESSENCE of slavery is control of someone's sexual life. Both
> Jewish slaves (sold in lieu of prison terms) and non-Jewish slaves are owned
> SEXUALLY by their masters who can USE THEM to procreate with other slaves
> and produce more slaves. It is this fundamental freedom...the freedom of
> sexual choice which the slave has lost. (If you carefully think about it
> slaves have not lost anything else)
> But if groups are controlling people they are bordering on slavery. (True
> slavery would involve forced sex to reproduce which is not present here).
> If I deprive my adult child of knowledge needed to make sexual choices I am
> treating him/her like a slave. Being controlled by another adult is an
> intrinsically painful experience even if physical pain is not used.
Why are you so surprised?
Freedom also means a choice of marrying who you want and divorcing them if
you don't like that person, (it's even in the UN Bill of Rights!) even in
the case of women not liking the way their husbands smell (see the Talmud).
That was changed by watching the goyim and stealing from the Catholics so
now women are no longer free--not to decide who to marry or get divorced.
Is it any surprise they want everyone ignorant? My first husband thought
babies came out of belly buttons.
Jeanette Friedman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mordechai Horowitz <mordechai@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 20,2010 at 11:01 AM
Subject: ignorance of sexual matters
Russell wrote:
> So I cannot buy "this is their way of life" This is not matzoh meal in soup
> (which some groups dont allow) and this is not an issue of styles of prayer.
> This is an issue of the fundamental freedoms which we must all possess.
> I could go on but perhaps this will generate some discussion. The issue I
> am raising is "Where do we draw the line on the 'custom' argument...at what
> point do we decry practices as so abhorrent that we can't put up with them"
Simple answer is these groups no more represent or follow Torah Judaism than the
Reform. As I've argued before wearing a streimel or a black hat no more gives
you the right to make up your own Torah than a PHD does.
Mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Mon, Jun 21,2010 at 02:01 AM
Subject: ignorance of sexual matters
Further to Martin's criteria of text based on actual experience, and the
mascara example, consider the situation of a husband being informed that
his wife has become a niddah in the midst of the sexual act. The law is
that sex with a niddah is punishable by karet (death by G-d) and so if
he extracts himself while still in firm erection, he's guilty.
The solution, as the Rambam details is:
"Haya m'shamesh im hatehora, v'amrah lo 'nitmeiti', lo yifrosh miyad v'hu
b'kishuyo...ele keitzad ya'aseh? noetz tzipornei raglav b'karka
v'shoheh v'eino mizda'zei'ah, ad sheyamut ha'ever"
(translation: While having sexual intercourse with one who is pure, she
informed him 'I have become impure', he may not separate himself
while erect...but what shall he do? he should dig his toenails into the
ground [no mattresses in the 12th century - YM] and keep still for a
while without thrashing about until his member becomes soft [lit.:
'dies' -YM].
Source: Mishneh Torah, Sefer Kdushah, Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah, Chapt. 4,
Halacha 11.
Would your average unmarried Yeshiva Bachur 'know' what this is about?
Yisrael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steven Oppenheimer <steven.oppenheimer@...>
Date: Thu, Jun 17,2010 at 07:01 PM
Subject: liquor alert
AKO has published a list of whiskey which may be subject to Chametz She'avar
Alav HaPesach [Chametz that has been in Jewish possession for the duration of
Pesach and is thereby rabbinically prohibited - MOD]
See the following site:
http://www.akokosher.org/Whisky%20Alert%20-%20Q&A%20Updated%20_Jun%202010_.pdf
--
Steven Oppenheimer, D.M.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 20,2010 at 12:01 AM
Subject: making ice cream on shabbat
> Has anyone seen a Halakhic discussion about making ice cream on Shabbat.
> There is something known as an ice Cream ball. In one compartment you
> add ice and rock salt; in the other you add sugar, cream, and vanilla.
> Then you shake for about 10 minutes and the mix freezes during the
> agitation to give a pint of ice cream.
http://icecreamrevolution.com/;
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4t3SWKYWCE&NR=1].
----
Just speculating - is there an issue related to boneh (building / creating)
-- you're taking a liquid (cream) and changing it into a solid mass.
--
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perry Zamek <perryza@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 20,2010 at 01:01 AM
Subject: making ice cream on shabbat
Aryeh Frimer asks about making ice cream on Shabbat using a device that
freezes the cream/flavor mix.
Shmirat Shabbat Kehilchata discusses placing ice cream mix into the
freezer on Shabbat, and rules in the affirmative, provided the mix has
been prepared before Shabbat. This is to avoid the issue of lishah
[kneading], which arises when you mix a powder with a liquid.
Apparently, nolad [creating a new substance] does not seem to apply.
[Interestingly, nolad also doesn't apply if you prefer to wait for your
ice cream to melt before eating it - under those circumstances it
doesn't become a "drink."]
If you make up the cream/sugar/vanilla mix before Shabbat, it would
appear to be OK to turn it into ice cream using the device in question
as well (although I am far from being a posek/halachic authority).
Enjoy the ice cream.
Perry Zamek
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Josh Backon <backon@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 20,2010 at 05:01 AM
Subject: making ice cream on shabbat
Aryeh A. Frimer <frimea@...> asked:
> Has anyone seen a Halakhic discussion about making ice cream on Shabbat.
> There is something known as an ice Cream ball. In one compartment you
> add ice and rock salt; in the other you add sugar, cream, and vanilla. Then
> you shake for about 10 minutes and the mix freezes during the agitation to
> give a pint of ice cream.
The topic of making ice cream on Shabbat (in the freezer of one's
refrigerator) is discussed in the sefer Yesodei Halacha (Shabbat) pp. 194-196
who brings the source in the gemara (Shabbat 95a) on the prohibition of "making
cheese" (ha'megaven) as violating the Av melacha of Binyan. Most poskim (e.g.
Har Zvi, Shvitat haShabbat, Tzitz Eliezer VI 34, Yechave Daat I 30) rule that
there is no prohibition if the effect (of making ice cream) is temporary as soft
ice cream would melt out of the freezer. [If the ice cream would stay rock hard
for a few days then there are those who would prohibit].
Curiously those who prohibit indicate that the ice (or ice cream) is made by
HAND rather than being simply placed in the freezer. Since the text Shmirat
Shabbat K'Hilchata 10:4 is stringent and because using the ice cream ball
(thrown around for 10 minutes) is literally made by "hand", IMHO [in my humble
opinion] making ice cream on Shabbat via the ice cream ball wouldn't be permitted.
Josh Backon
<backon@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shoshana L. Boublil <toramada@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 20,2010 at 04:01 PM
Subject: making ice cream on shabbat
Aryeh A. Frimer <frimea@...> wrote:
>
> Has anyone seen a Halakhic discussion about making ice cream on Shabbat.
> There is something known as an Ice Cream ball. In one compartment you
> add ice and rock salt; in the other you add sugar, cream, and vanilla.
> Then you shake for about 10 minutes and the mix freezes during the
> agitation to give a pint of ice cream.
I asked my brother-in-law, Rabbi Raphael Boublil, and he responded that
as far as he recalls, the Ben Ish Chai in his shu"t Torah Lishma mentions
a similar method of making ice cream on Shabbat, and he tends to forbid it.
The reason is the question of what happens to the ice. If it is
mashed/ground up, then it is similar to the Avot Melachah [Principles of
Work] "Mefarek" [To take apart] or "Tochen" [to mill], which are forbidden
on Shabbat.
Shoshana L. Boublil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Jun 15,2010 at 02:01 AM
Subject: marriage and separation
On Tue, Jun 8,2010, Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...> wrote:
> Martin wrote:
>> Whether regular sexual relations with a non-Jewish woman (marriage as
>> such being halachically impossible), is an issur de'oraita [prohibited by
>> Torah law] is purely academic since it is clearly at least an issur derabban
>> [rabbinically prohibited]. On an occasional basis, such activity would
>> qualify as znut [harlotry]
> First, I believe that the correct translation of "znut" in this context is not
> harlotry, which implies sex for pay, but sexual promiscuity.
I was using the term in the latter sense and would have used 'prostitution'
if I had meant sex for pay; I am sorry for any misunderstanding.
> Second, I'm not sure it's only academic. Surely Martin will concede that if
> one is forced to pick between two halachically forbidden alternatives, one
> should choose the one that is forbidden only derabanan. If the choice is
> non-marital sexual relations with a non-Jewish woman or a Jewish woman (and
> according to Martin and other posters, recent decisors have forbidden use of
> the mikveh for the latter), which isn't the first option better, or at least
> less bad?
One is never forced to choose between 'non-marital sexual relations with a
non-Jewish woman or a Jewish woman' - one can abstain entirely. However, though
on a technical halachic level, sexual relations with a non-Jewish woman might be
subject to a lesser punishment than those with a Jewish woman who is niddah, the
practical consequences are much more serious and tend to lead to an estrangement
from Judaism and the Jewish community. Therefore, it is extremely dangerous to
argue along Orrin's lines in a public forum.
Though recent decisors may have forbidden use of the mikveh by non-married
women, there is no way this can be enforced in practice if the woman is
determined so to do.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 11,2010 at 12:01 PM
Subject: modesty and separation of the sexes
On Thu, Jun 10,2010, Bernard Raab wrote:
> How to explain please that at the weddings of R. Moshe's children there was NO
> separate seating at the dinners. This is well known in New York orthodox
> circles and I recently verified with a member of his family.
There has certainly been a move to greater stringency in these matters which
I think is partly a reaction to the increasing laxity in sexual morality (or
at least its public expression) in non-Jewish (and non-Orthodox Jewish)
society. What might have been acceptable a generation or two ago is felt in
many circles to be inappropriate today.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 20,2010 at 06:01 PM
Subject: OU certification Of Glenmorangie Whisky.
The British newspaper "The Jewish News" has a weekly Ask The Rabbi column, in
which questions submitted by readers are answered by a Rabbi, in this case Rabbi
Yitzchak Shochet of the Mill Hill United Synagogue. In the edition dated 17th
June 2010 a question was posed about the Scotch whisky Glenmorangie now carrying
an OU hechsher. The question was why whisky needs a hechsher in the first
place, and why a Scotch whisky has an American hechsher and not a British one.
This posting is not about why whisky needs a hechsher.
In response to the second part of this question, Rabbi Shochet wrote:
"My understanding is that the London Beth Din had been working on a deal with
Glenmorangie for nearly a year and almost clinched it. Then allegedly the big
boys in blue from the US of A came in waving their corporate hands and pretty
much implied, 'If you want access into our bigger kosher market, you want our
choice of label'. And so it was. (Who says kashrus isn't political?) Word is
the Dayanim are drowning their sorrows ... in Glenlivet!"
I don't know about fellow members of Mail.Jewish, but I found this troubling.
Does a kashrus authority in one country have the right to undermine the
negotiations being conducted by another kashrus authority in another country,
especially when the company with whom the negotiations being conducted is in the
home country of that other authority? Even if global markets are a factor, does
it make a difference that negotiations with the other authority were almost
complete? Is this is an issue of Hassagat Gevul [unfair and prohibited
encroachment]?
The other question that came to my mind is that now that Glenmorangie has an OU,
how long will it be before it will be deemed that all whisky (and whiskey) needs
a hechsher? After all, isn't today's chumrah [stringency] tomorrow's kulah
[leniency]?
Immanuel Burton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rav Semelman Shmouel <semelman@...>
Date: Thu, Jun 17,2010 at 06:01 PM
Subject: southern comfort kosher
A new kosher whisky liquor has arrived in Israel called "Southern Comfort" and
is certified to be "kosher lemehadrin parve". For further details see the site
of Rav Semelman of the Rabanut of Jerusalem:
http://www.kosher-alcohol.com/Default.asp?PageId=31193&FragmentId=97141
--
Rav Shmouel Semelman
Jerusalem Religious Council
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 20,2010 at 12:01 AM
Subject: the Emmanuel girls' school controversy
Some chareidi friends sent me their take on it from a very different
perspective:
http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2010/06/girls-school-in-emanuel-anothe
r-side-of.html
Batya Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 58 Issue 31
