Volume 6 Number 7
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Chadash/Yashan
[Anthony Fiorino]
Dolphins, Tuna and Babies (2)
[David Goldschlag, Bob Werman]
Hypothetical Questions
[Anthony Fiorino]
Meat in Argentina
[Riva Katz]
Mikveh on Mars
[Max Stern]
No pork fat in maple syrup
[Douglas Hoffman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anthony Fiorino <fiorino@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 21:14:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Chadash/Yashan
Zvi Basser wrote regarding chadash/yashan:
> the list is impressive, a yoreh shamayaim would not use the lenient
> heter.
I guess the Rema, the Meiri, the Maharal, the Marashah, and the Aruch
haShulchan wouldn't be considered yirei shamayim.
> in short -- those who are particular about it are in the line of the
> majority of poskim.
They may be in line with the majority of poskim, but they are nevertheless
be out of line with the majority of religious Jews in the world. Minhag
yisrael may not have the binding force of halachah, but it is nevertheless
a potent regulator of the behavior of religious Jews. Furthermore, the fact
that the Rema poskins that we may eat chadash means that (for Ashkenazim,
at least) when eating chadash, we are not being oveir on any halachot.
There is an excellent article on Chadash which appeared in the RJJ Journal
(vol 2 or 3, if anyone is interested I will get the exact reference)
Eitan Fiorino
<fiorino@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Goldschlag <dmg@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 18:49:09 -0500
Subject: Dolphins, Tuna and Babies
Avi Feldblum writes:
Are certain things that, while not part of "food kashruth" are within
the jurisdiction of the kashruth supervisor? How does one bound and
define that jurisdiction?
Extending the jurisdiction of kashruth really implies that the kosher
certifying organization ought to have a moral impact upon its community.
Perhaps a more concrete question regards food preparation, and the
actual certification process. For example, many kosher certified
manufactured products may be produced and/or shipped on Shabbat. Does
kashruth depend upon whether the owners or employees are Jewish? It
appears not. However, most local supervisory organizations will not
certify as kosher a restaurant which is open on Shabbat. If you press
the matter, the standards are inconsistent. A kosher Dunkin Donuts,
which is not Jewish owned, may remain open. A pizza shop may not, even
if the employees are not Jewish. A fleishig restaurant may not,
independent of its ownership. Often these criteria seem dependent upon
whether a mashgiach temidi (full time supervision) is deemed necessary.
Those criteria (at least those used in practice) are ill defined as
well.
Tying Shabbat observance to kashruth has had great impact in Israel,
where many restaurants choose not to be certified in order to
accommodate their customers. I remember a restaurant in Tveria which
claimed to be kosher, but only had a certificate from the local
rabbinate stating that the frozen meat that it purchased was kosher; in
fact, they offered real ice-cream as a dessert item. One wonders
whether the rabbinates' positions have had the intended consequences.
Perhaps the subject of this discussion should be changed to something
like the scope of kashruth.
David Goldschlag
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <RWERMAN@...> (Bob Werman)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 06:20:54 -0500
Subject: RE: Dolphins, Tuna and Babies
My colleague, Charlie Abzug, writes, on the subject of
Dolphins, Tuna and Babies:
With respect to Mike Gerver's message regarding the morality of
kashruth certification of products whose manufacturers are guilty of
various dastardly acts, the duty of a kashruth certifying organization
is to set standards and to certify whether particular products comply
with the various halachos pertaining to permitted and forbidden foods.
Perhaps the situation is different here is Eretz Yisra'el but there is a
problem with giving t'udot kashrut to owners of a kosher establishment
who also own non-kosher place or to hotels that m'Hallel shabbat
b'farhasiya [publicly defile Shabbat]. Of course, even here, the
argument rages for and against this action. Should a strict attitude be
taken so as to state that the food is kosher and under hashgacha? Is
that enough? Does responsibility end there?
I do not know the answer to that question and can defend either
position? Whould friend Charlie behave differently here? Is a t'uda
[certificate] different from an O-U?
__Bob Werman <rwerman@...> rwerman@vms.huji.ac.il
Jerusalem
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anthony Fiorino <fiorino@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 20:34:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Hypothetical Questions
Gary Davis asked about the relevance of hypothetical questions:
> I wonder if the discussion of hypothetical moral questions
> is strictly appropriate given our duty of dealing with real humanity. For
> reasons I cannot identify, a discussion of hypothetical questions of
> moralty seems to be an unnecessary diversion from the duty of dealing with
> the sufficient supply of real dilemmas in the world.
It seems to me that in many cases, a hypothetical situation can serve as
a clear model of a more complex, sticky, real situation, thus making it
easier to see what are the important halachot involved. Once this
"model" situation has been solved, one can add more of these "sticky"
aspects to it, one at a time; this is often a more productive approach
to solving a complicated halachic question. Thus, I posed a
hypothetical situation (to which _Noone_ responded, by the way) because
I am interested in how a person's daat affects (1) his/her performance
of a mitzvah or an aveira and (2) the reward or punishment due for said
act, and I felt the issues were clearer in a hypothetical case than in
any real cases.
Eitan Fiorino
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <RKATZ@...> (Riva Katz)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:58 EDT
Subject: Meat in Argentina
FYI:
The meat in Argentina is banned for import into America because of the high
incidence of parasitic diseases. I don't know how this applies to kosher meat
(which in theory shouldn't be infected) but since we were on the topic...
Riva Katz <rkatz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Max Stern <lms@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 18:49:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Mikveh on Mars
Since the probability of finding mayim chayyim [lit. "living water",
which I understand to mean water from a running stream or other natural
body of water] on Mars is just about nil, the discussion of whether a
mikveh could be sited on Mars seems to me academic. There would be no
way it could be filled with kosher water.
Of course, this could open up the whole subject of "terraforming" or
building enclosures so large that rain could occur inside. Now there's
a subject for a sheilah!
|\/| /_\ \/
| | / \ /\ <Max.Stern@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Douglas.Hoffman@...> (Douglas Hoffman)
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:37:47 EST
Subject: No pork fat in maple syrup
I cannot as a loyal Vermonter allow the canard be spread that pork fat
is required for maple syrup production (Vol. 6 #4). I have been in
several of my neighbors' "sugaring houses" and have also viewed some
commercial operations. A few drops of oil are flicked onto the surface
of the evaporating pans when the sap threatens to boil over, which
allows the evaporation to continue. I have only ever seen vegetable
cooking oil used. In fact, many large commercial operations do not boil
at all, but use "reverse osmosis" to remove the water, in which the
water in the sap is basically wicked away.
P.O.I.#2. Honey is not just concentrated flower sap. Enzymes in the
bees' gut cleave plant sugar (sucrose) into the sugars glucose and
fructose. Fructose is sweeter-tasting than sucrose. Honey must contain
some bee enzymes, which are proteins that I guess are a form of bee
meat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 6 Issue 7