Volume 13 Number 43
Produced: Thu Jun 2 7:41:45 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Cholov Yisroel
[Stephen Phillips]
Kings and Rabbis
[Rabbi Freundel]
Legal Holidays
[Michael Lipkin]
Maggots and microscopes
[Mitch Berger]
Personal phone calls
[Doug Behrman]
Personal Trustworthiness
[Mark Steiner]
Pesach in Winter?
[David Curwin]
Prayer and Causality
[Sam Juni]
Ramban and Astronomy (by D. Charlap 13/24)
[David Charlap]
Shabbos, Kashrus, and Taharas Hamishpokhe
[Meylekh Viswanath]
Stained Glass Windows
[Allison Fein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Phillips <stephenp@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 16:09:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Cholov Yisroel
> From: Moshe E. Rappoport <mer@...>
> Here in Zurich, horse's milk is freely available and considered desirable.
> There can be a problem of use of the same equipment to process Non-kosher
> milk and cow's milk.
When I was in Yerushalyim I had the great priviledge of being taught
by Harav Munk z'tzl (of "Munks" Golders Green London fame). When
discussing the question of Cholov Yisroel, he explained that a tiny
amount of horses' milk mixed with a large amount of cows' milk will
keep the milk fresh for much longer. Apparently this used to be the
practise in Europe before the advent of fridges.
Stephen Phillips
<stephenp@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Dialectic@...> (Rabbi Freundel)
Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 14:43:24 -0400
Subject: Kings and Rabbis
Ezra, you are probably familiar with it but the best source I know on
the relationship between Rabbinic and kings courts in Jewish life is
drashot HaRan #11. According to him Rabbis retain the right to present
Halachah in "ultimate issues" over and against acts by the secular
leaders. I remind you also that the Sanhedrin can bring kings to trial
but gave up the practice for all but Davidic kings because the conflict
was untenable (Mishnh Sanhedrin 1:1 and Gemarah thereon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <msl@...> (Michael Lipkin)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 13:23:54 -0400
Subject: Legal Holidays
In MJ 13:35 Dr. Sam Juni writes:
> I wonder why it is legitimate for Government Offices to have
>official holidays for Christmas. Isn't this a case of state-sponsored
>religiosity? In addition, it seems discriminatory since there are no
>parallel days off for other religions.
I hope Dr. Juni's query is purely academic. I enjoy having as
many federal holidays as possible. Christmas is one of the better ones,
as my kids have school on that day which gives my wife and I a rare,
relaxing few hours alone together. I also have off on Good Friday,
which always falls out during or right before Pesach; invaluable time
off. Welcome to Galut! If we choose to, or have to, be here let's at
least take advantage of what we can.
> How does one get the liberal legal mechinary involved in this
>matter? Does anyone know of precedents?
Unfortunately, these questions indicate that Dr. Juni's interest is
more than academic. That "liberal legal machinery" is anathema to
orthodox Judaism. Just try to set up an Eruv or build a new shul. Fear
not though, I'm sure some ACLU legal lackey has already seen Dr. Juni's
posting and is at this moment preparing his case!
Without getting overly political, I believe it is the general trend
to purge religion, and the values that derive from it, from our society
that is largely responsible for the unraveling our social and moral
fabric.
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <mberger@...> (Mitch Berger)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 08:40:32 -0400
Subject: Maggots and microscopes
Actually, if you read what I wrote, the concept of halachah not being
concerned with things humans can not percieve didn't start with the
maggots. So, Sam Juni's comment (v13n36) that it sounds like sour
grapes, a post-facto attempt to align ancient Rabbinic thought with
modern science, is out of place. The halachic concept predates the
disreputation of spontaneous generation.
The idea was to apply a principle already in halachic use to permit the
consumption of microscopic organisms that lack the proper signs for
kashrus (or, to answer Warren Burstein's question (v13n33) kill them on
Shabbos). It also applies to the validity of sifrei Torah [Torah
scrolls] that have microscopic imperfections.
Since halachah has already established that such things have no
existance, R. Shim'on Shkop applies the same principle here, thereby
denying halachah's concern with maggot eggs.
Micha Berger Ron Arad, Zechariah Baumel, Zvi Feldman, Yehudah Katz:
<mberger@...> May the Omnipresent have mercy on them and take them from
(212) 464-6565 restraint to openness, from dark to light, from slavery
(201) 916-0287 to salvation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <ASLAN7@...> (Doug Behrman)
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 06:22:50 -0400
Subject: Personal phone calls
I think the Rav's point was not that two wrongs make a right,but rather
that the "no personal phone call ' policy was not a real policy. Often
groups or societies will state that something is or is not allowed,but
when most people within the group(including the lawmakers themselves) do
not abide by these prohibitions, and nothing is ever done to enforce
them, it becomes implicit that the rule is not a rule. As an example
take the statute against jaywalking ( at least in N.Y.) it's understood
that it is not enforced, and not an actual law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <MARKSA@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 16:45:00 -0400
Subject: Personal Trustworthiness
Concerning the question of when a Jew who violates certain
prohibitions loses the presumption that he keeps a kosher home, I refer
our readers to a fundamental work of halakha, the "Issur Mashehu" of the
Raabad. He asserts there (and I'm obviously not implying that his is
the last word on the matter) that a shochet who is found to be negligent
in removing forbidden fats and sinews from kosher meat does not lose the
presumption that he keeps a kosher home. That is, although one cannot
eat from the meat he processes on the job, one can eat at his home for
the simple reason that he cares more about his own observance than that
of other Jews. While this may be offensive morally, it does not lead
the Raabad to the conclusion that one might attribute to some of the
postings on this issue recently. To the contrary, the Raabad uses the
hypocrisy of the shochet as an empirical indicator of the kashruth of
his home. (I should mention that the Raabad is speaking of a negligent
shochet (poshe`a is the word he uses) not of an actual criminal
(meizid).)
Mark Steiner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <6524dcurw@...> (David Curwin)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 22:42:49 -0400
Subject: Pesach in Winter?
Over the past few years, I have occasionally heard reference to the
following problem: Apparently, at some point in the future (I have heard
30 or 40 years) Pesach will fall in the winter (i.e. before March 21).
This will create a serious halachic problem, because the Tora obligates
us to celebrate Pesach in the spring. I have heard that this was
presented by Moshe Weiss of Bar Ilan. Has anyone heard or read anything
about this? And if it is true, how in the world will the varied groups
in observant Judaism (let alone Reform and Conservative) come to any
sort of agreement?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sam Juni <JUNI@...>
Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 09:52:40 -0400
Subject: Prayer and Causality
In presenting his position on retrospective prayer, Prof. Katz
posits a detailed structure regarding elements of prayer and causality.
I wish to take issue with several of these.
The Mishna states that praying for an event which has already
ocurred is a vain prayer. I am not at all convinced that such a prayer
is a violation of Hallacha. It seems that the Mishna considers it a
wasted effort. In fact, I do not understand why it is not as logical to
pray for the past, just as it is logical to pray for the future (Prof.
Katz's point), since G-d is not living in any time frame.
Prof. Katz states that changing the past is logically impossible.
I have no idea which law of logic such a change would be violating. Do
you mean, perhaps, that it is something which we do not experience?
Prof. Katz poses the following scenario: Suppose a student has
received an envelope with his grade in it. He then prays that the
grade be an A. Why is that considered prayer for a past event?
There is the question why I have linked retroactive prayer to back-
ward causation. I shall explain using the following premises:
1. Prayer connotes a request for a specific event. Furthermore,
it is assumed that were it not for the (successful) prayer,
the event would have been different. It follows that if the
outcome would have been as desired without the prayer, then
the prayer was not necessary.
2. Prayer for a grade of A makes sense only if, without the
prayer, the grade would not have been an A. Thus the past is
being effected retroactively. Prayer is by definition causal
in nature.
3. Retroactive prayer does not require a miracle for it to be suc-
cessful. A miracle is defined as an explainable change in the
status of an object which defies object permanence. If, for
example, a prayer for a fetus to be masculine would be success-
ful insofar as the fetus would have been masculine from its very
conception, then there would be no miraculous "change" at all.
Dr. Sam Juni Fax (718) 338-6774
New York University Tel (212) 998-5548
400 East
New York, N.Y. 10003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <david@...> (David Charlap)
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 94 19:50:21 -0400
Subject: Ramban and Astronomy (by D. Charlap 13/24)
Sam Juni <JUNI@...> writes:
>David Charlap defends that validity of the Rambam's view that the sun
>revolves around the earth by appealing to the relativistic formulation
>of motion.
I did not say that. I said that the entire argument is moot, and it
makes no difference to anyone if Rambam was right or wrong, and that
you can demonstrate either theory if you want to.
>As I see it, the operational definition of the Rambam's statement refers
>precisely to David's simulation scenario with the fixed camera
>technique. To say that the sun revolves around the earth implies that
>by having the earth "fixed" in the aether (sic), the resulting orbits of
>other heavenly bodies will be plotted as neat ovals or lines, not as
>bizarre "loop in loops." Any astronomer would have considered his
>particular theory re a "true vantage point for motion" disproven if it
>were demonstrated to him that chosing a different vantage point would
>result in neater loci of motion for other planets or stars.
This is absolutely not true. The astronomers of the middle ages were
observing and calculating "loops in loops" for all the planets. They
noted through casual observation that the planets (like mars, jupiter,
etc.) would occasionally double-back on themselves in looping
patterns. (They do, consult any book on astronomy.) They calculated
elaborate systems of wheels mounted on wheels to show how this could
happen. It took a long time before someone realized that everything
(including the observed phenomena of planets looping back) becomes
simpler with a sun-centered system.
Carl Sagan talks about the early astronomers and their theories in his
Cosmos book.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meylekh Viswanath <pviswana@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 18:39:23 EST5EDT
Subject: Shabbos, Kashrus, and Taharas Hamishpokhe
Several people have written on this topic, questioning the use of these
three mitsves as determinants of 'frumkeit.' Thinking about it, it was
clear to me that although all three are primarily mitsves beyn adam
lamakom (mitsves that have to do with the man-God relationship),
nevertheless, kashrus and taharas ha mishpokhe are obviously very
important beyn adam le khaveyro (for the jew-jew relationship)--if I
know that reuven keeps kosher, I can eat at his house. Similarly, if I
know that reuven and his wife keep taharas ha mishpokhe, I can marry
his offspring (assuming of course, that other restrictions are not in
force).
Shabes, I found more problematic, until I read a recent posting that said
(without cites) that shabes is used as the determining factor of neemanus
in eydes for isurim (whether a witness is believed or not in the matter
of forbidden things). If this is true, that makes the threefold criterion
very reasonable.
____________________________________________________________________________
P.V. Viswanath, Rutgers University
Graduate School of Management, 92 New St, Newark NJ 07102
Tel: (201) 648-5899 Fax: (201) 648-1459 email: <pviswana@...>
____________________________________________________________________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Allison Fein <fein@...>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 21:18:06 -0400
Subject: Stained Glass Windows
There are 20 BEAUTIFUL stained glass windows, depicting the tribes and
holidays, who need a home. THey are from a synagogue in NY. If you are
building a new synagogue or museum and could make use of any or all of
these treasures, please write back to:
<fein@...>
or (201)-912-5266, (212)-989-8531
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 13 Issue 43