Volume 61 Number 71
Produced: Tue, 05 Mar 13 16:45:43 -0500
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Chalav Yisrael (2)
[Orrin Tilevitz Orrin Tilevitz]
Davening from the Bima instead of the Amud? (2)
[Martin Stern Martin Stern]
Extending the Limits of Kosher Supervision (3)
[Joel Rich Martin Stern Michael Rogovin]
Is the Torah true? (2)
[Michael Rogovin Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
May one daven in a room without any windows?
[Harlan Braude]
Tu B'Shevat fruit and other customs (2)
[Perets Mett Menashe Elyashiv]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 4,2013 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Chalav Yisrael
Isaac Balbin wrote (MJ 61#70):
> 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.
This may answer my question. The Arukh Hashulchan criticizes "echad migedolei
haachronim" for permitting chalav stam. The Chazon Ish?
Arukh Hashulchan, who usually looks to justify minhag, even against halacha,
criticizes the many in Europe whom, he says, drink chalav stam. He also says
that it is a particular problem in "America" where, if I read him right, he says
pig's milk is common.
So my real question is: does anyone know anything about Iceland? The Chabad
rabbi who travels there says that one can't drink the milk because, unlike the
U.S., there is no government agency responsible for it. So far as I can tell from
casual Google research, while there are pigs in Iceland, they are not milked,
and the non-bovine milk species are, if anything, sheep and goats.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 4,2013 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Chalav Yisrael
My confusion is that although the stated reason for the requirement of drinking
only "chalav yisrael" is that perhaps an akum [which literally means an
idol-worshipper and so could exclude Muslims and Christians, but in context must
mean at least any non-Jew] is offering milk of a non-kosher animal instead, the
actual laws don't do much to insure that one will be drinking only kosher milk.
For example:
1. The law applies even though the farmer has no non-kosher animals in his herd.
2. It is sufficient for the Jew to be present at the beginning of the milking.
That is, there is no mechanism in place to prevent the non-Jew from dumping
pails of non-kosher milk from another source in the cow's milk.
3. The responsible Jew may be a a minor. AFAIK, he may even be blind (although,
paradoxically, I guess not deaf).
4. I may be wrong, but the law applies only to milk of a non-Jew, not of a Jew
who keeps non-kosher animals.
If so, the law seems more of a gezeirah, a decree, whose original reason has
ceased to matter. And it would follow that R. Moshe Feinstein and, I guess, the
Chazon Ish, in permitting chalav stam because the metziut (actuality) is that
you don't have to worry about the presence of non-kosher milk, are simply wrong.
[And I also have no agenda. I drink chalav stam.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 4,2013 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Davening from the Bima instead of the Amud?
Menashe Elyashiv wrote (MJ 61#70):
> 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
Presumably this was in a shul with the bimah in the middle, as is Ashkenazi
practice, rather than at the rear, as is more usual for Sefardim. If the
latter, there would have been little space, unless there were only a bare
minyan.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Mar 5,2013 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Davening from the Bima instead of the Amud?
Ben Katz wrote (MJ 61#70):
> 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.
AFAIK the Kabalat Shabbat service was generally adopted by Ashkenazim by the end
of the 18th century (i.e. earlier than suggested by Ben) though, as he points
out, it was said from the bimah rather than the amud to show its recent
adoption. It is certainly contained in the siddurim published by Heidenheim at
the beginning of the 19th century. Heidenheim does not note that it was the
practice "of some (or many) congregations" as he does for some other 'recent'
innovations like saying Mizmor Shir Channukat Habayit before Barukh She'amar or
LeDavid Hashem Ori during Ellul.
As regards criticism of this service, perhaps Ben is confusing Kabalat Shabbat
with the hakafot on Simchat Torah, to which there was considerable opposition,
especially in Frankfort and Amsterdam, as detailed in A. Yaari's Toldot Chag
Simchat Torah. Even when it was grudgingly accepted, it was reduced to a series
of stately processions, without the prolonged dancing that has come into vogue
nowadays, and I believe it was still opposed as an innovation in the mid-20th
century.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 4,2013 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Extending the Limits of Kosher Supervision
Orrin Tilevitz wrote (MJ 61#70):
> 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?
While I might agree that the name change was not "required", I would hypothesize
that it was a meta-halachic issue. The original RR, while under a private
hashgacha, made it clear that some "cutting edge" hashkafa was required. As the
Wall Street Journal wrote:
> the kosher aspect of the restaurant is almost an afterthought, albeit a
> carefully planned one that will include prepaid Shabbat dinners (and special
> ovens to keep the food hot) and unpasteurized kosher wine, which can only be
> handled by observant Jews.
>
> The owners say there is an unmet need for a cutting-edge restaurant for the
> Jewish demographic that is populating the likes of the nearby SoHo synagogue,
> where Torah cocktail parties and a Hamptons services are among the offerings,
> according to the website.
>
> But they insist they are not aiming for a predominately kosher or even Jewish
> clientele.
I think we've discussed the nonkashrut issues before (slippery slope - would you
give hashgacha to a strip joint vs. one where waitresses were wearing tzniut by
my standards but not someone else's standards?). But here I assume the non
mevushal buzz (pun intended) was enough to make the OU feel "a statement" was
enough. & BTW - was the private label generally acceptable?
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 4,2013 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Extending the Limits of Kosher Supervision
Orrin Tilevitz wrote (MJ 61#70):
> 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.)
> ...
> 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?
Their refusal does seem a bit OTT but Orrin's counter-example is rather
far-fetched. That a company produces clearly non-kosher items like
ham or its name includes a non-kosher species is hardly an argument for
not supervising other products in its range that are kosher.
His argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would preclude the kosher
certification of chrain since it is made from horseradish, and everyone knows
that horse is a non-kosher animal.
Incidentally there was a rumour that chrain was being removed from
supermarket shelves for this very reason in the wake of the horsemeat
scandal that has rocked the UK recently.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Rogovin <mrogovin118@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 4,2013 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Extending the Limits of Kosher Supervision
In MJ 61#70, Orrin Tilevitz asks about the OU's decision to force the
restaurant Jezebel to change its name to something more innocuous (they
picked JSoho, which is even sillier).
I thought the original name was pushing things a bit, after all the owners
deliberately chose a name that was suggestive to create buzz and a hint of
sexual raciness. But the OU has gone past food before: they banned a Friday
night New Year's eve party in 2000 at Mendy's for example. The KofK famously
banned dancing on the Glatt Yacht. In the present case, the OU also banned
non-mevushal wines, although I was certain that they had permitted them in
other places (but that could have been the OK). NM wines are not really
practical given that you want a sommelier, not the mashgiach, in a fancy
restaurant and that restricting the position to one who is shomer shabbat may be
difficult and illegal.
In the post-Agri PR battles, and in particular regarding ethical seals, the
OU consistently said its hechsher is only on the food itself, not the other
practices of the business. But this was true only when they wanted it to be
(such as their failure to prevent Beechnut from substituting artificially
flavored sugar water for apple juice). When they want to, they go way
beyond food. On the other hand, I think it IS reasonable for them to have
some standards. If Hooters sought to have a kosher restaurant, would the OU
certify it even if the food was 100% Glatt? What about a restaurant with
tasteful nude paintings (such as the late Cafe Luxembourg)? There is a line,
and drawing it is tricky. I would have left the name (but then, I am not
bothered by nude paintings either, though I am not sure they are
appropriate for a kosher restaurant). I can see their point, though I
suspect very few Orthodox Jews actually got the joke (how many studied that
part of Melachim?)
--
Michael Rogovin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Rogovin <mrogovin118@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 4,2013 at 12:01 PM
Subject: Is the Torah true?
The concept of Yesh Me-ayin does not require that one discount cosmology
and evolution since it does not require the concept of the entire universe
being created in its present form. There are those who subscribe to this
philosophy (it is obviously not a halacha) and that is fine, but that idea
is not fundamental to Torah. There are many ways to understand the story of
creation that are consistent with modern science. It behooves the
contributors to MJ to respect other points of view that are within the
tradition even if they themselves do not subscribe to them. A good start is
the book Challenge which, while a bit out of date, shows the variety of
possible approaches within Orthodoxy to these kinds of questions.
Michael Rogovin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabbahillel@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 4,2013 at 08:01 PM
Subject: Is the Torah true?
Ben Katz (MJ 61#70) wrote:
> Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz wrote (MJ 61#69):
>> 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 BibleCommentary, translated and annotated by Basil Herring,
> Ktav, 1982.
I would have to disagree based on logic rather than a "fundamental
aspect". If there is a concept of "eternal matter" then that would imply
that there existed *something* separate and different from Hashem before
"creation". This would seem to violate the simple unity of Hashem.
However, what I was pointing out is that the dispute between "Yesh
MaiAyin" and the existence of the Universe for some arbitrary period of
time (with development from that arbitrary point) is not logically
defensible. Given that current science seems to state that the Universe
was "created" by the big bang, the belief in "eternal matter" seems to
have been disproven. The logical development of that would seem to force
the question of "What caused the big bang?". If it was the collision of
two universes, where did they come from? Similarly, the logical result
of a Universe created at any specific point implies that there is no
*logical* or scientific way of proving what that starting point might
have been. Even given the "caused to come into being" as a translation,
there is still no logical way of saying that the Universe "came into
being" at any particular point in the development that is postulated.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz
<SabbaHillel@...>
http://sabbahillel.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harlan Braude <hbraude@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 4,2013 at 09:01 AM
Subject: May one daven in a room without any windows?
In MJ 61#70, Carl Singer wrote:
> We are in a temporary location and someone asked whether
> one may daven in a room without any windows.
I don't recall reading that the fish that swallowed Yonah
had windows (unless the blowhole also served as a window
or periscope). :-)
More seriously, some fallout shelters in Israel serve as make-shift
synagogues and they don't feature windows.
One could, of course, argue bidi'eved vs l'chatchila (after the fact vs
preferred), but your temporary location would probably fall under the
bidi'eved definition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett00@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 4,2013 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Tu B'Shevat fruit and other customs
Stuart Wise (MJ 61#70) wrote:
> 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?
I cannot say whether there is any significance in eating a specific number of
fruits on Tu Bishvat, or indeed of eating any fruits at all, other than the
opportunity of saying the brocho Borei Pri Hoeitz.
But baking matsos for the Seder on Erev Pesach is in another league altogether.
This custom enjoys a whole siman in Shulchan Oruch (O.C. 458). I have no idea
how much one should be prepared to spend to fulfil this custom but, yes, I would
like to think that, when I observe this custom, it is a right and proper use of
my time on Erev Pesach.
Perets Mett
London
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <Menashe.Elyashiv@...>
Date: Mon, Mar 4,2013 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Tu B'Shevat fruit and other customs
The reason for (trying) to eat 30 fruits is that there are 3 kinds of
fruits: with a peel, with a pit, or without either. Ten of each makes 30. We use
the following: 7 minim, other fruits mentioned in the bible or zohar, and
the rest are what is in stock. However, we only look at the fig, because
they are often very heavily infested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 61 Issue 71
