Volume 12 Number 74
Produced: Thu Apr 21 23:23:28 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Basar B'chalav (2)
[Anthony Fiorino, Israel Botnick]
Eating meat
[Sean Philip Engelson]
Glatt & Gebrockts
[Shmuel Markovits]
Liver which has been 'Oyver'
[Percy Mett]
Meat
[Danny Skaist]
Meat and the Environment (2)
[Joshua W. Burton, Mitchell J. Schoen]
Rice
[Arthur Roth]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anthony Fiorino <fiorino@...>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 10:57:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Basar B'chalav
Saul Djanogly pointed out to me an area of ambiguity in my discussion of
"noten taam bar noten taam." I did not mean to imply that the m'chaber
holds that it is permissable to cook parve food in a meat pot with the
intention of eating it with dairy; rather, he holds that once food has
been cooked in such a pot, it is permissable to do so. The Rema, on the
other hand, holds that one cannot eat such a food with dairy, but one can
eat it off of dairy plates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <icb@...> (Israel Botnick)
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 94 10:02:37 EDT
Subject: Basar B'chalav
Eitan Fiorino mentioned the machloket in yoreh deah siman 95 where the
mechaber is lenient on nat bar nat bishul [2 transfers of a taste of kosher
milk or meat thru cooking] and the Rema is machmir. In practical terms this
means that something parve cooked in a milchig pot, can be eaten with meat
according to the mechaber, but cannot be according to the Rema.
Just so the Rema won't look like such a machmir, :) I will mention the
following 2 leniencies that the Rema agrees to
1) in siman 89, the Rema says that one does not have to wait 6 hours
(or 3 hrs or 1 hr) between meat and a parve food cooked in a milchig pot.
They just can't be eaten together. The OU therefore marks parve products
which were prepared in milchig utensils as DE(dairy equipment).
2) If the milchig pot has not been used to cook milk in the last 24 hours,
then a parve food cooked in this pot can be eaten Together With meat.
This is found in the Rema to siman 95.
Israel Botnick
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <engelson-sean@...> (Sean Philip Engelson)
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 10:18:12 -0400
Subject: Eating meat
I'd like to respond to a couple of previous comments that people have made
regarding the eating of meat or vegetarianism in Judaism. (These points and
others are addressed at greater length in an article I wrote some time ago
which is probably in the MJ archives.)
From: <harry.weiss@...> (Harry Weiss)
1. There is a Mitzvah (at least tradition) to eat meat and fish on
Shabbat. On Yom Tov there is a Mitzvah to rejoice and the Talmud says
the only rejoicing is with meat.
The "tradition" to eat meat and fish on Shabbat is connected to the mitsvah of
Oneg Shabbat, which means that one should eat foods one enjoys. People enjoy
eating meat (why??) so they eat it especially for Shabbat. There is no
halachic status to this "tradition", in any case. As far as Yom Tov is
concerned, the meat to which the Gemara refers is the meat of the holiday
sacrifice, which we no longer have. The conclusion of the Gemara is that
today there is only rejoicing through wine. Although the Tur says that one
should eat meat on Yom Tov, the Beit Yosef (i.e., the Shulchan Arukh) comments
that he doesn't know where the Tur gets this from. And the Shulchan Arukh
(both Mechaber and Rama) only mentions wine.
2. If the Jewish people would become vegetarians we would abandon
various Mitzvot associated with Kashrut including Schitah and Kissui
Hadam (covering of the blood).
This is true, and a real concern. But first, one who holds this should not
ever use an eruv as the same concern applies. And second, this concern would
easily be satisfied with quite a bit less meat consumption than current
factory farming maintains. Say, a little meat on Rosh HaShanah (or whatever).
From: <david@...> (David Charlap)
3) How does not eating meat help the environment? Animals have been
eating each other since long before humans existed.
However, no animal, to my knowledge, has engaged in large-scale factory
farming. This not only harms the environment (and the animals involved), it
is also a poor use of resources, as far more vegetarian food can be produced
from the same farmland used to raise cattle (or sheep or whatever).
Additionally, when the Temple stands, every Jew is obligated to eat
from the Passover sacrifice. This means that when the Temple is
rebuilt (may it be soon!), even vegetarians will have to eat meat at
least once a year.
Indeed, and I would be overjoyed to eat that kezayit of meat next year.
Actually, there are those that hold that the korban pesach could be brought
now, even without the Temple, as an altar could be built on the non-qodesh
part of the mount, and if everyone is tamei (ritually impure), the korban can
be brought without worrying about tahara. Has anyone else heard this opinion
and have more information?
-Shlomo-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Shmuel.Markovits@...> (Shmuel Markovits)
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 15:55:38 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Glatt & Gebrockts
B"H
In MJ Vol 12 #62 Frank Silverman asks about not eating glatt out of
non-glatt pots.
Y.Bechhofer in MJ Vol. 12 #64 Digest suggests to a lienancy using the
concept of Ben Yoma ( use or non use within 24 hours ) but notes the
that "We are practically universally machmir on this halacha "
In relationship to Gebrokts the situation is quite clear. As follows:
In a recent publication of Pinos Halacha ( Issues in Practical Halacha
published by Melbourne Kollel Lubavitch #18) on Gebrokts they note from
Sharim Metzyin Behalacha (Ch 113 para 7) that even those who are
stringent (machmir) with Gebrokts are nevertheless permitted to use
utensils (Kelim) which contained Gebrokts (even on that Pesach).
This is based on a ruling of the RadVaz(4:296) that those who have a
"Chumra" not to eat from a certain Shochet's Schitta nevertheless he
need not worry about utensils to cook that meat.
The same applies to Gebrokts
However in relationship to Glatt it would depend whether your Orthodox
supervision knows how "Glatt" is the non-Glatt meat.
<Shmuel.Markovits@...>(Shmuel Markovits)
International Network Management Systems Ph: +612 3393681
Telstra/OTC Australia - Paddington Intl. Telcom. Centre, Sydney
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <P.Mett@...> (Percy Mett)
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 11:17:09 -0400
Subject: Liver which has been 'Oyver'
DANNY%<ILNCRD@...> (Danny Skaist) writes:
>Halachically, meat not salted within 3 days may be eaten if treated like
>liver, i.e. broiled with direct fire, but such meat may NOT be reheated.
>The chumra is to treat liver like this meat and not reheat it.
>I recall seeing in "glatt" butchers in N.Y.C. frozen, already broiled,
>liver, so this chumra hasn't caught on yet, but give it a chance.
It is not entirely clear what point is being made here. In the normal
way the livers would be roasted (kosher-gimacht) within three days of
shchita so no problem arises regarding subsequent cooking in a pot.
Certainly if the livers were not roasted to extract the blood within 72
hours this fact must be noted so that they are not subsequently cooked
in a pot. I have no idea what happens in USA, but in England certainly
no Rov would allow the cooking of liver which has been oyver (which had
waited 72 hours before kosher-machn); irrespective of glatt.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: DANNY%<ILNCRD@...> (Danny Skaist)
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 03:43:09 -0400
Subject: Meat
>David Charlap
>Additionally, when the Temple stands, every Jew is obligated to eat
>from the Passover sacrifice. This means that when the Temple is
>rebuilt (may it be soon!), even vegetarians will have to eat meat at
>least once a year.
There is a shita that we are obligated to bring the Passover sacrifice
today even without the temple, and even without tahara. There is a
"chumra" among some Jerusalemites to vacate the city on erev pessach to
avoid the obligation. I assume that when the temple is rebuilt
vegetarians may continue this tradition if they so desire.
danny
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <burton@...> (Joshua W. Burton)
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 94 09:56:51 EDT
Subject: Meat and the Environment
David Charlap asks:
> 3) How does not eating meat help the environment? Animals have been
> eating each other since long before humans existed.
Of course this is true, and I don't think that Susan Sterngold was implying
that there is any mystical `balance' in the environment that is being upset
by the mere fact of our eating meat. (After all, we've been omnivores for
almost as long as the responsibility of tikkun olam has been ours!)
BUT, if you want to raise 90,000 cows to the slaughter every day, as we in
the US do, and if you realize that the same acre which will yield 3000 lbs.
of wheat or ten tons of potatoes will only barely support one cow and calf
(400 lbs. of new meat in one year), then there are certainly environmental
concerns. In practice, we now import about a quarter of our beef from Latin
America, where slash-and-burn is the norm: build a road, burn a jungle,
take four fat years of pasture from the phosphate-rich ash left behind, and
move on, leaving behind a thin, rocky, depleted topsoil that promises seven
times seven lean years or more. (This is not conjecture---Mexico has ALREADY
committed ecocide once. Who do you think built all those pyramids and left
them to rot in the jungle?)
In our own Jewish climes (Israel and California), meat may be somewhat less
ecologically problematic: sheep and goats thrive on land that wasn't good
for agriculture anyway, due to rocks, steep grades, or rainfall less than
twelve inches a year. Even there, however, many traditional pastoral
practices are recipes for long-term disaster, particularly when combined
with deforestation. When Greece was settled by the Minoans in the 2nd
millennium BCE (for its timber!), it probably looked a lot like the Virginia
piedmont, which has the same rainfall and comparable temperatures. We may
not be planning on using Virginia for 4000 years, but whenever we DO turn
it over to Mashiah, I would like to be able to say that we were keeping it
well enough that four millennia wouldn't have used it up. `Achakeh lo' does
not mean putting off the dirty work while we wait.
Weren't `digital' and |========================================================
`manual' synonyms not | Joshua W Burton (401)435-6370 <burton@...>
too long ago? |========================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mitchell J. Schoen <72277.715@...>
Date: 19 Apr 94 15:20:21 EDT
Subject: Meat and the Environment
David Charlap wrote:
>>How does not eating meat help the environment? Animals
>>have been eating each other since long before humans existed.
David,
While I am not a complete vegetarian (I think it is healthier, but I
admit to a taivah for meat at times...), I believe the answer to this
question has to do with the commercial production of meat, specifically
the ecological damage to the earth as a result of cattle ranching. My
understanding--and I don't have the figures handy--is that cattle
grazing is significantly disruptive that it results in loss of huge
quantities of irreplaceable topsoil. Furthermore in major
beef-production areas of Latin America, clear-cutting forest land for
cattle raising results in loss of the rainforest. Huge amounts of water
and feed (the production of which depletes soil) are used to produce
relatively small amounts of beef, i.e. the same water and soil could
produce an order-of-magnitude-or-greater amount of vegetable protein
which in turn could mean many more people could be fed without the same
depletion of resources.
Anyway, although I don't have the figures handy (any vegetarian
organization would be happy to turn over this data to you, I'm sure), I
believe this is what Susan Sterngold meant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rotha@...> (Arthur Roth)
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 10:36:15 -0500
Subject: Rice
>From Lon Eisenberg (MJ 12:70):
> The reason rice must be sorted is to search for bugs (not for hamez).
In that case, Ashkenazim ought to get immediate rice sorting lessons from their
Sephardic friends, as this would imply that rice needs to be sorted all year
long, and not just for Pesach! --- Arthur Roth
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 12 Issue 74
