Volume 61 Number 70
Produced: Mon, 04 Mar 13 01:54:35 -0500
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
A Typo Correction
[Yisrael Medad]
Chalav Yisroel (3)
[David Lee Makowsky Isaac Balbin Leah S. R. Gordon]
Davening from the Bima instead of the Amud? (3)
[Poppers, Michael Katz, Ben M.D. Menashe Elyashiv]
Extending the Limits of Kosher Supervision
[Orrin Tilevitz]
Is the Torah true? (2)
[Frank Silbermann Katz, Ben M.D.]
May one daven in a room without any windows?
[Carl Singer]
Tu B'Shevat fruit and other customs
[Stuart Wise]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Sat, Mar 2,2013 at 03:01 PM
Subject: A Typo Correction
My post in 61:68 on Tu B'shvat contained this line:
> I would proffer that have the fruits eaten in contemporary Israel come
> from outside the country anyway.
That "have" should be, of course, "half".
--
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Lee Makowsky <dmakowsk@...>
Date: Fri, Mar 1,2013 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Chalav Yisroel
In reply to Martin Stern (MJ 61#69):
I understand that Martin was extracting from Rabbi Doniel Neustadt and that
Martin considers him controversial.
I also want to apologize in that what I am presenting now is either from my
own observations and/or what I have been told by others. I have no sources
for any of this.
I know students of Rav Ahron Soloveichik Z"L who told me that while he
personally observed Chalav Yisrael he did not force it on any of his
students. In fact, of those students of his that I know whether or not
they themselves observe Chalav Yisrael, none of them do.
I have personally observed that if there is a discussion of Chalav Yisrael
and one of Rav Soloveitchik's students are involved, they will almost
immediately attempt to switch the discussion to Yoshon. I cannot recall a
single exception to this. The Rav, and therefore his students, have always
been very strict when it comes to observing Yoshon.
I was also recently told that Yoshon was problematic for Poskim in Europe
because at certain times the only choices available were to eat Chadash or
to not have Challah for Shabbat. This was due to the way grain was stored
in Europe. Having Yoshon in the United States was not a problem because of
the way grain was stored here.
--
Sincerely,
David Makowsky
<dmakowsk@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Isaac Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Sat, Mar 2,2013 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Chalav Yisroel
Martin Stern (MJ 61#69) wrote:
> This extract from the Weekly Halacha Discussion for Parshat Beshallach by
> Rabbi Doniel Neustadt should, like many previous ones that I have drawn to
> the attention of MJ members, be controversial.
>
> It was only recently, in the United States, where some prominent poskim ruled
> that we may rely on government regulation to permit milk that was not
> supervised by a Jew. This controversial ruling does not have the same halachic
> power as a ruling based on a centuries-old tradition and thus it is a more
> important stringency to keep.
This is a canard and part of charedi indoctrination. The fact is that the Chazon
Ish - yes, the Chazon Ish himself, ruled permissively, as did Acharonim before
them. The summersaults that they tried to perform to twist his words later, are
just that.
At the same time, people who travel need to remember, that it's certainly a big
problem in some, especially Asian, countries according to all opinions. In
Australia, you can be sure it's cow's milk as per RMF Psak. The new issue is the
additives to Milk. Kashrus authorities are on top of that, however, and check.
In case you are wondering, I drink Chalav Yisroel. I have no agenda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. R. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Sat, Mar 2,2013 at 09:01 PM
Subject: Chalav Yisroel
I'm no expert on Chalav Yisroel, but that column forwarded by Martin Stern (MJ
61#69) smacks to me of polemic, like this guy had a bone to pick with the poskim
who permit(ted) chalav stam in the USA.
Otherwise, why set it up as 'Chalav Yisroel vs. other mitzvot', and why say
so many times gratuitously, that he thinks those posqim were not to be
followed..? IIRC, one of the major posqim to permit Chalav Stam in the USA
is none other than our own Rabbi Teitz on MJ and he's certainly someone of
stature that I'm 100% comfortable following.
Leah S. R. Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Poppers, Michael <Michael.Poppers@...>
Date: Fri, Mar 1,2013 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Davening from the Bima instead of the Amud?
In MJ 61#69, Chaim Casper noted:
> (I have been told though I have never been able to verify one way or
> the other that the reader's amud in the Breuer's community is dug into
> the floor--it is literally the lowest point in the room so that reader is
> calling out from the depths per the pasuk.)
I only stood there as a SHaTZ [lit., representative of the tzibbur; prayer leader]
once (the morning after shiv'a [the seven-day mourning period] for Avi Mori a'h'
ended -- it also was the last morning prior to my chas'nah [wedding], after which
I made a home in Elizabeth, NJ), but I do recall the floor sloping down a
bit.
All the best from former-Washington Heights, NYer and current-KAJ member
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Katz, Ben M.D. <BKatz@...>
Date: Fri, Mar 1,2013 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Davening from the Bima instead of the Amud?
Baruch J. Schwartz wrote (MJ 61#68):
> In recent years our shul has begun allowing the sha"tz to daven from
> the bima in the center of the shul, a bima that was designed for
> leyning and previously used only for that purpose, even though the
> shul actually has an amud nearer to the front, opposite the aron
> kodesh, at which the sha"tz has stood for the last 25 years.
>
> At first, this was practiced on Shabbat and Yomtov, on the grounds
> that some people could not hear some of the baalei tefillah well
> enough when the latter davened from the amud.
>
> Next, by the "who cares anyhow?" principle, various minyanim started
> doing this on weekdays too, at the whim of the sha"tz or some of the
> worshippers, on the logic of "we all sit way in the back, so why
> should the sha"tz be at the front?"
>
> I imagine that there is no actual prohibition in this, but it still
> seems undesirable to me. I'd be interested in any knowledge or
> thoughts MJ readers may have, especially in support of the trditional
> practice, according to which the sha"tz should stand at the amud and
> the leyning should be done from the bima.
> After, all, isn't this is how shuls are built? There must be a reason
> for it, and diverging from it should be the less preferable option.
> I'd like some help here from those more knowledgeable on the topic.
My understanding is that the amud in front of the shul was the traditional spot
for the shaliach tzibur among Ashkenazim, but because efforts in the
Conservative and Reform movements to move the Torah reading to the front, and
have the baal tefillah/chazzan face the congregation from the now front-placed
bima, led to intransigence among most Orthodox not to change anything.
The only service which traditionally proceeded from the middle of the shul was
kabalat Shabbat, per force to demonstrate that it was not a "real" service,
having of course been started by the Sephardic kabalists of Tzefat "only" in the
late 16th century, and it was not accepted by all branches of Ashkenazi Jewry
until the mid-19th or even early 20th century. There is a great story of Marcus
Jastrow, a "reformer" who was criticized in his time for introducing kabalat
Shabbat in his shul.
Nowadays, it would be someone wishing to abolish kabalat shabat who would be
seen as the reformer. Oh the times they are a-changing (but slowly) (apologies
to Bob Dylan).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <Menashe.Elyashiv@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 3,2013 at 03:01 AM
Subject: Davening from the Bima instead of the Amud?
David Ziants wrote (MJ 61#69):
> In Israel, where Birkat HaKohanim ought to be done every day (apart from
> perhaps in the Galil [North part of the country], having sha"tz on bima makes
> a bit of a challenge if he is a Cohen. My own shul tried it for a week or so
> on Shabbat, but ran into difficulties when they asked a Kohen to do a tephilla.
> So they stopped. In another place, where this is the fixed custom for shatz to
> be on bima, everyone crowded to the back during the blessing, when shatz was
> Kohen.
>
> I understand that there are some sephardi shuls in hu"l (outside Israel) where
> birkat hakohanim is every shabbat. I read somewhere that the kohen makes
> himself "invisible" under Tallit. Because of the importance of Birkat HaKohanim
> in Israel - I don't see how that can be a solution. A sephardi work
> colleague told me that in his shul, they do not allow a Kohen to be shatz.
Birkat Kohanim in Israel is done every day, however, north of Zichron
Yaakov, the Ashkenazim do it only in Mussaf. Out of this minhag - in R. SY
HaKohen, CR of Haifa shul, Breslev in Sefat, and in Meron (don't ask me how
kohanim are there) - I have been shatz and only kohen, as the usual shatz did
not come. So I was standing at the bima, and the congregation moved to be behind
the bima
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Sat, Mar 2,2013 at 10:01 PM
Subject: Extending the Limits of Kosher Supervision
According to this item in The New York Jewish Week,
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/short-takes/ou-banishes-jezebel-soho
the OU refused to certify a restaurant called Jezebel unless it changed its
name. (It did.)
"We felt the name Jezebel does not represent a person who has a positive
reputation in the Tanach [Bible] and was not a name we want to promote, Rabbi
Moshe Elefant, the head of the OUs kashrut division told The Jewish Week.
This is the name of a rasha, a clearly wicked person."
I think the OU is being silly and over-the top--as well as hypocritcal; the OU
certifies various Boar's Head products, such as mustard and horseradish, even
though Boar's Head's primary product is ham and, as a friend of mine pointed out
to the OU ears ago, the certification could be seen as promoting ham. (The OU
did not reply to his letter). Would anyone like to defend the OU?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Silbermann <frank_silbermann@...>
Date: Fri, Mar 1,2013 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Is the Torah true?
Subject: Is the Torah true?
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz wrote (MJ 61#69):
:
> ... the logical implications of "Yesh Maiayin" (Creation from nothing) > ...
> there is no way we can "prove" that the world was created 5 seconds or
> 5,000, or 5 billion years ago. Since creation (as explained in the
> Torah) was of a fully mature universe ("fruit trees bearing fruit",
> mushrooms growing on dead trees, Adam with a navel, etc) the physical
> evidence that existed one second after creation would have been the same
> had creation taken place eons earlier. It is only the fact that the
> Torah tells us when creation occurred that would allow us to make any
> statements about the age of the universe.
Indeed, Orthodox Jews, can rephrase the theory of evolution to be a theory about
the world's _appearance_. That is, the frum version of the theory of evolution
is that future observations in geology, biology, genetics and medicine will
continue to maintain the world's _appearance_ of being billions of years old
with species having evolved from more primitive ones. Frum research will
involve creating a more more detailed and correct description of this
_appearance_ -- both for intellectual edification and for development of medical
treatments.
Frank Silbermann Memphis, Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Katz, Ben M.D. <BKatz@...>
Date: Fri, Mar 1,2013 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Is the Torah true?
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz wrote (MJ 61#69):
> Martin Stern wrote (MJ 61#68):
>
>> This article by one of the leaders of the Masorti movement in Israel, Reuven
>> Hammer, appeared in his regular Tradition Today column in the Va'eira issue
>> (11 Jan.) of the Magazine of the Jerusalem Post.
>>
>> http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Judaism/Article.aspx?id=299141
>>
>> He then goes on to say
>>
>>> the Torah is best understood when seen against the background of the
>>> religious beliefs of other civilizations of its time that it vigorously
>>> refuted. The account of creation in the opening chapters of Genesis, for
>>> example, must be read as a denial of all the creation stories of ancient
>>> Mesopotamia and Egypt stories in which creation is a struggle between
>>> various divinities and primordial monsters.
>> i.e. the Torah is the work of a particular time and place and not addressed
>> to all people, in effect a human composition rather than Divine revelation.
>>
>> While one might agree with him to some extent that
>>> a denial of all the creation stories of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt
>>> stories in which creation is a struggle between various divinities and
>>> primordial monsters
>>> ... is much more important than the question of how long it took to create
>>> the world, which is a question best left to science to try to answer.
>> it is the underlying assumption that the Torah is essentially unreliable
>> rather than that we may be deficient in our ability to understand it which
>> is the 'hidden agenda' that, I think, underlies the difference between
>> Orthodoxy and the Masorti/Conservative theology.
>
> The problem with this approach is that it actually denies the logical
> implications of "Yesh Maiayin" (Creation from nothing) which is a
> fundamental tenet of the Torah. Once creation is accepted, there is no
> way that "science" (which depends on physical evidence) can make any
> statement about the "true" age of the universe. As I explain in Breishis
> - Creationism and Evolutionism
>
> <http://sabbahillel.blogspot.com/2011/10/breishis-creationism-and-evolutionism
> .html>
>
> there is no way we can "prove" that the world was created 5 seconds or
> 5,000, or 5 billion years ago. Since creation (as explained in the
> Torah) was of a fully mature universe ("fruit trees bearing fruit",
> mushrooms growing on dead trees, Adam with a navel, etc) the physical
> evidence that existed one second after creation would have been the same
> had creation taken place eons earlier. It is only the fact that the
> Torah tells us when creation occurred that would allow us to make any
> statements about the age of the universe.
Hillel Markowitz is incorrect. Yesh Me-ayin (creation ex nihilo) is NOT a
fundamental aspect of Torah. Rambam can be read as agreeing that a Platonic
notion of eternal matter is consistent with the Torah (see esp Herbert
Davidson's Maimonides' Secret Position on Creation, in Studies in Medieval
Jewish History and Literature, edited by I. Twersky [Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1979]). When Rambam proves God's existence in the Guide he
does so without assuming creation ex nihilo because he wants to cover his bases,
and he doesn't use the Arabic equivalent of the word "bara" (create) in the
guide according to Yeshayahu Leibowitz for the same reason (he uses instead
expressions like "caused to come into being"). Finally, even if you believe
that Rambam believed in creation ex nihilo, some of his disciples such as
Gersonides (Ralbag) and Ibn Kaspi flat out say that God created the world out of
some sort of eternal matter. See Ralbag's commentary on chapter 1 of Bereshit,
and Joseph Ibn Kaspi's Gevia Kesef: A Study in Medieval Jewish Philosophic Bible
Commentary, translated and annotated by Basil Herring, Ktav, 1982.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Sun, Mar 3,2013 at 10:01 AM
Subject: May one daven in a room without any windows?
We are in a temporary location and someone asked whether one may daven in a room
without any windows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Wise <Smwise3@...>
Date: Fri, Mar 1,2013 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Tu B'Shevat fruit and other customs
When a custom such as 15, 30 or some other number of fruits is introduced,
what is the signficance? I would have the same question about other
customs -- what purpose do the specifics serve? Does one get a bigger reward for
eating more fruit? Does paying $25 for a matzo baked erev Pesach make you a
better Jew and get a bigger reward? If a person does not give a tikkun
kiddush on a yahrzeit, is he a lesser Jew, or does the neshama have less of an
aliyah? I always try to eat kreplach on Hashana Rabbah and Purim, but if I
don't, where does that leave me?
It seems to me that the line between halacha and minhag has blurred even
further than "minhag k'din hu," that a minhag is like law. But why should it
be?
Stuart Wise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 61 Issue 70
