Volume 14 Number 87
Produced: Fri Aug 19 14:13:01 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Comprehensive Word on Milk
[Janice Gelb]
Dating quotas
[Sam Juni]
Freud & incest
[Shalom Carmy]
Women and Kaddish
[Aryeh A. Frimer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Janice.Gelb@...> (Janice Gelb)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 09:57:25 +0800
Subject: Comprehensive Word on Milk
This contains a letter from an OU mashgiach explaining the whole milk
controversy. I thought it was comprehensive enough that you might want
to send it out, even though the subject has been dealt with already on
m.j.
Greetings,
I've a good friend who's an Orthodox Rabbi here in Chicago; Rabbi Sheldon
Blech. He works with the OU here, and travels around the world certifying
(or not) food plants and such. (BTW, apologies for any looseness of terms--
although I've learned much about Kashruth during the term of my association
with Sheldon, I'm not Jewish, so I _know_ there are holes in my knowledge.)
Anyway, Sheldon is techie--in fact, my original association involved a
contract to put up a bulletin board dedicated to alerts and general issues
concerning Kashruth in the U.S.--but not yet on the net. A friend gave him
a printout of this thread. He has prepared a statement that is his position
on the issue, which I append verbatim. Since he isn't yet on the wire--soon,
after this!--he asks that any comments, queries, etc. please be sent to
me, and I will forward them to him immediately. My preferred mail address
is <ignatz@...>
Dave Ihnat
<ignatz@...> (preferred return address)
<ignatz@...>
======================= Begin Rabbi Blech's Article ====================
It seems that the way that Hashem designed cows to be fed
and the way it is done by modern farmers the United States
are not completely in sync. Cows were created to be
biological lawn mowers -- they would graze on nature's grass
and produce a reasonable amount of milk for their trouble.
In America, however, farmers would rather mow the grass
themselves and feed cows a high nutrition fodder designed to
vastly increase the cows' production of milk. However, the
cows' digestive system was not designed for a high
carbohydrate ration; it was tuned to digest cellulose. When
man begins to tinker with nature, problems are sure to
follow.
It seems that cows react to the new feed system by
developing a condition called "displaced abomasum". The
theory is that the abomasum, or fourth stomach (Kevah),
experiences a drastic increase in volatile free fatty acids,
fills with gas and is displaced within the cow. This
results in a sick cow, one that will either stop eating at
best, or suffer torsion displacement of the abomasum and
die. The treatment of this condition is to anchor the
abomasum back into its appropriate place.
[Please note that this problem does not exist in New
Zealand, where cows subsist entirely by grazing in the
fields.]
Although this condition seems to present itself a month or
two after calving, it is usually not related to the calving
process. Rather, cows begin to lactate at calving, and it is
at that time that the feed ration is changed with the
attendant problems discussed above. [With the birth of
twins the condition can also be aggravated. However, the
primary cause of the problem is the change in the feed
ration].
Although the prevalence of this condition varies greatly
from farm to farm and from region to region, the consensus
of the experts consulted is that the condition may occur in
between 3-5% of the dairy herd. The condition of Displaced
Abomasum may be alleviated trough massage and external
manipulation of the affected organ. If this is
unsuccessful, the following surgical techniques are
employed:
1. Omentopexy. An incision of 6-8 inches is made through
muscle on side of the cow and the peritoneum, exposing
the abomasum and the omentum (Chelev) surrounding the
abomasum. A piece of the omentum is tucked into the
incision and sutured together with the muscle, anchoring
the abomasum in place.
If the abomasum is returned to its appropriate position,
the buildup of gas is relieved through normal channels.
If the abomasum is too distended by gas to be maneuvered
to its correct location, the abomasum may be deflated by
inserting a needle obliquely (at an angle) through the
abomasal wall.
2. Abomasopexy. An incision is made through the ventral
(bottom) of the animal. The surgeon then sutures the
_outer_ wall of the abomasum to the peritoneum and there-
by anchoring it. Although the surgeon attempts to limit
the suturing the outer wall of the abomasum, the needle
may indeed pierce through both walls. The issue of
deflating the abomasum is handled in the manner
described above.
3. Blind Stitch. No incision is made in the cow. The
animal is laid on its back, which will allow the
abomasum to migrate up (to the bottom of the animal) and
assume its normal position. A large needle is pushed
through the side of the cow and (hopefully) into the
abomasum itself. The blind stitch is then completed,
anchoring the abomasum in place.
4. Toggle Button. Again, no incision is made in the cow.
An expandable toggle is popped through the side of the
cow and penetrates the abomasum. The wound in the
abomasum causes a mild infection with fuses the toggle
to the organ and the side of the cow, anchoring it in
place.
The issues of Treifus of the cows by the above procedures
would be as follows:
1. The puncturing the Kevah to relieve the gas may render
it a Treifa. [Please note that the oblique penetration
may not be considered as a Nekev M'fulash.]
2. An incision through the ventral section of the cow may
be considered as cutting through Basar Ha'Chofeh as Rov
Hakeres.
3. The suturing of the abomasum may involve a piercing of
both walls of the abomasum (Kevah).
Staff of the OU has consulted with the veterinarians
throughout the United States and with heads of the
veterinary departments of several states. After reviewing
the procedures and their Halachik ramifications, it was
concluded that the milk supply in the United States can be
considered Kosher without any question.
The basis of this decision was based on the percentage of
animals involved and whether any of the above issues of
Treifus are applicable to this case. The decision on both
of these issues was that the percentages of animals involved
would limit the concern, and the procedures themselves,
which clearly allow the animals to live for a number of
years and to give birth thereafter, should not be considered
as causing the animals to be Treif.
-Rabbi Sheldon Blech
Janice Gelb | (415) 336-7075
<janiceg@...> | "A silly message but mine own" (not Sun's!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sam Juni <JUNI@...>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 13:21:57 -0400
Subject: Dating quotas
Several posts have taken exception to my use of the term "atrocity" to
describe the practice of a short dating sequence in parts of the
orthodox community. One posting (which I read on the screen, but then
lost while trying to save it) was quite forceful in showing how this
issue pales in contrast to real historical atrocities of mass
annihilation. I admit the word is inappropriate as such. However, I do
want to explain where it comes from.
While the general population is rarely privy to the personal tragedies
of the dysfunctional families, mental health professionals see it all
day long. Repeatedly, one encounters marital dyads who live in hell and
treat their children and their extended families to their misery as
well. SOMEtimes (by no means always), the discord could have been pre-
vented by the couple having known each other better before marrying.
This misery escalates into bone fide tragedies. The divorces which come
to pass are only the tip of the iceberg. In fact, in most respects, the
divorced couples are the "lucky ones" compared to many who remain
married.
I do not know how it is that the system of abbreviated dating, which
seems to have worked well in the past (especially in the orthodox
circles) is beginning to fail us. Apparently family life is pressing us
with new demands for which the traditional match-making schemes are
insufficient.
Shaul Wallach (14/82) attributes the stress of current family life to
the quicker pace of life, to the increase of child mobility, and to the
dual career phenomenon. I concur. I believe, however, there is a more
salient factor here: the advent of interpersonal intimacy among spouses.
Let me expound with some home-made sociology of the family.
In the olden days, marriages were set up with very clear demarcations
of roles and turf. In a sense, the marital dyad lives in two different
world whose intersection was specifically defined. Your spouse was not
your friend -- and definitely not your best friend. Your friends were
in the pub, in the Bais Medrash (L'Havdil), in the bridge club, etc.
While true of the general population, it was more true of the Jewish
orthodox culture, with barriers such as "Al Tarbeh Sicha Im Isha" (Do
not converse excessively with women) reinforcing this structure. Little
surprize, then, that problems of compatibility were not as prevalent.
I would probably throw in two other factors which differentiate nowadays
from those days of yore in this context. First, there was no norm of
communication. People did not tend to "talk things out" as much as we
do. Therefore, discrepancies between attitudes, etc. did not surface as
much. (And what you don't know, doesen't hurt as much.) Second, leisure
time was not plentiful. It is idle time which allows for introspection,
re-evaluation, and fighting.
Regarding the lower divorce rate among our culture. It is my feeling
that this cannot be used as an index of the success of the abbreviated
courtship system. (Although, it does match a statistical study I read
about two years ago in a Family journal showing that divorce rate is
higher among couples who lived together before being married.) We have
strong tabooos against recognizing and admitting to marital discord, and
even stronger ones against divorce. We also have very strong
imperatives against divorce when there are children. (I share the
latter as advocate for the children.)
Let me note that these reservations have been highlighted unexpectedly
on MJ. I received several personal posts which decry the notion that
our culture features better marital adjustment. Some of these were
apparently based on personal issues, but others came from Mental Health
Professionals. I am chagrinned that these were not sent to MJ directly.
The argument for more extensive dating is based on the notion that more
time is needed to get to know a person and to evaluate marital
suitability. I fail to see how one can compare the extent to which you
know another after only several meetings to the extent of understanding
that comes with a longer period.
Then, there is the issue of character-disordered individuals (and
worse). It has been argued that, in our culture, the range of pathology
is limited, and therefore extensive dating is not necessary. I do not
believe this is the case.
While it is true that overt unethical BEHAVIOR on the part of our youth
is small, the underlying pathology is much more significant. (I have no
idea if it in fact approaches the overall norms.) I suspect that even
inappropriate behavior is more prevalent than we realize, but that
stigma minimizes the reporting of such events. The usual state of
afairs, given high ethical codes, is that the unfortunate person gets
the message from our community saying "Stifle yourself." Such stifling
works well in occasional encounters with the outside world, and may be
effective on several pre-planned dates where behavior can be rehearsed
in advance. It has less of a chance in a longer dating scheme.
Dr. Sam Juni Fax (212) 995-3474
New York University Tel (212) 998-5548
400 East
New York, N.Y. 10003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@...>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 01:59:45 -0400
Subject: Freud & incest
To correct the allegation that Freud denied father-daughter incest. He
did nothing of the sort. In his early work (1890's) he accepted reports
of incest produced after therapeutic intervention. Eventually he came to
believe that these "memories" were rather fantasies on the part of the
patient. The primary reason he gives for this change is that he couldn't
believe that incest was UNIVERSAL. Many years later Freud continued to
believe that incest is MORE COMMON than people usually assume. But, I
repeat, not nearly universal.
I point this out, not only because truth is important, even in
discussing a flawed thinker like Freud, but because statements about
this issue in recent years have tended to further an ideological agenda
that subtly undermines a Torah outlook: 1. By loosening inhibitions
about making dubious accusations; 2. By undermining confidence in
parental authority; 3. Most important, by encouraging the secular &
liberal Christian delusion that whenever people are unhappy, it's
someone else's fault.
Before the PC Police get me: I don't mean to deny that incest occurs.
Only that everything I read implies that it's somewhat exaggerated and,
what signifies more, that the reality is being massaged for ideological
reasons that we ought to put us on guard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <frimer@...> (Aryeh A. Frimer)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 10:58:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Women and Kaddish
After my previous posting, Rabbi Ari zivitovsky brought to my
attention an interesting article on the subject of Women and Kaddish by
Rochelle Millen in Modern Judaism 10 (1990) p191-203.
My Brother Dov told me many years ago that when Rabbi Oskolsky
passed away, his daughters (no sons) asked Reb Moshe about Kaddish and
he permitted them to have a Minyan at home followed by Kaddish by the
daughters. Unfortunately, nothing has appeared in print about this.
Aryeh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 14 Issue 87
