Volume 30 Number 96
Produced: Sun Jan 16 17:11:48 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Airline Meals
[Matthew Pearlman]
Cholov Yisroel
[Boruch Merzel]
Collect Call Fraud
[Yeshaya Halevi]
Food Banks and Jews
[Alan Cooper]
Lakewood "freeze" and kollel
[Arnold Lustiger]
Praying with Avaryonim (Sinners) (3)
[Barry Best, Joseph Geretz, David I. Cohen]
Scotch in Sherry Casks
[Rachel Rosencrantz]
Special Education Program
[Jay Kaplowitz]
Torah leMoshe miSinai
[Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matthew Pearlman <Matthew.Pearlman@...>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:41:08 -0000
Subject: Airline Meals
Zev Sero <Zev@...> wrote:
>Instead, making one `mezonot' roll the basis of a meal brings one into
>the dreaded Safek Zone, where one says mezonot because `safek berachot
>lehakel' but a yerei shamayim is exhorted to avoid the situation and eat
>a kezayit of real bread.
I do not believe this is a simple case of "safek berachot lehakel", which
normally implies making no bracha rather than making a doubtful bracha:
In this situation, if it is a safek:
1. this would imply you should wash, without a bracha
2. you are *choosing* between the brachot of mezonot and hamotzi before
eating. I agree that bedieved mezonot would cover bread, and so could be
said.
3. you are choosing between al hamichya and full birkat hamazon after
eating. I do not know whether al hamichya covers bread.
Matthew Pearlman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Boruch Merzel <BoJoM@...>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:42:24 EST
Subject: Re: Cholov Yisroel
ESTABESTAH in Vol 30 #91 claims:
<< However, Reb Moshe's psak was made when bottling and milking were
done on site and the FDA inspected constantly. Nowadays, the FDA pays a
visit once in 2 years. >>
Milking and bottling were never done on the same site. Milking was
always done on the farm and bottling in dairies located in the cities.
Trucks made twice daily runs to the farms to pick up the cans of milk
which were (and still are) delivered to the dairies. At the dairy each
individual can was opened and tested for butter-fat content and other
impurities. (the farmer was paid according to butter fat content of his
milk)The dairy labs were always required to maintain careful records of
each delivery from every farmer.
The FDA was never responsible for regular inspection of the dairies.
This was and is the responsibility of the local and state departments of
health. This has been the situation since well before 1920.
ESTABESTA further claims:
>> Reb Moshe got up and said he never heard of such a heter.<<
As one who had a number of occasions to meet with Reb Moshe "ZTZ'L" I am
confident that this was not the way he would have responded to the
query. If his Tshuva would be read carefully (I haven't done so in a
number of years) It becomes obvious that his preference always was,
whenever possible, to use Chalav Yisroel. But, he never
prohibited the use of ordinary milk, nor looked askance at those who
drink such milk.
To best understand where Reb Moshe stood on this question one should
look elsewhere in his responsa. Reb Moshe's position on the whole
question is summarized best in his very own words at the end of a
Tshuvah concerning the Kashering of a pasturizer used for ordinary milk.
(Yoreh Deah, II Chap 31) The following is my own translation:
"In my sefer Igros Moshe I clarified an important reason (ta'am godol)
why ordinary milk ("Chalav hacompanies") can not be considered ("einom
badin") Chalav Akum. Yet, it would be worthy to be stringent (ra-ui
l'hachmir)"
Time to put the subject to rest.
Boruch Merzel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yeshaya Halevi <CHIHAL@...>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:42:48 EST
Subject: Re: Collect Call Fraud
Shalom, All:
Someone<< When I was in yeshiva, we were told not to play the
Collect call game in which we call home collect, having a deal with our
parents that they'd call back after refusing the call. >>
Back in the 50s and early 60s, when I was growing up, long
distance was very expensive and direct dialling was either not invented
or not in wide use. Many people -- including very Orthodox, yeshiva
types (adults, not just kids), would take the fraud a further step.
They would have the operator call a number and ask, for instance, "May I
speak to Mr. Nisht Kreink?", thus informing their family that a certain
relative had recovered from an illness.
Natch, the answering party always said "Reb Kreink" was not home.
Maybe this is an urban legend, but the tale was told that in NY some
yeshiva bochur (young man) called home and told the operator he wanted
to speak to a Mr. "Schick Gelt" ("send money"). To his horror, the
operator said, "Takeh? Vee fiel" ("Really? How much?")
Yeshaya Halevi (<Chihal@...>)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Cooper <amcooper@...>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:06:47 -0500
Subject: Food Banks and Jews
In my query about whether Jews may donate unkosher food to a Food Bank, I
noted:
><<(It is safe to assume, in this case, that the food bank has no Jewish
>clients.) >>
To which Mr. David Cohen replied:
>Wow, what a stereotype. And I am afraid an all too common
>assumption. There is poverty among Jews in the US. And except for some
>dedicated individuals (Project Ezra in NYC, comes to mind) most of the
>community ignores the problem.
I did not say that there were no hungry or poverty-stricken Jews. I
said that IN THIS CASE it is safe to assume that the Food Bank has no
Jewish clients. That is because I know this particular institution and
its clientele, not because I have succumbed to any stereotype.
I did receive one interesting response to my original query, and still
would appreciate any other thoughts on the topic.
Alan Cooper
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Arnold Lustiger <alustig@...>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:05:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Lakewood "freeze" and kollel
Rivkah Tuttle writes:
>I went to a good Bais Yakov high school, and we were told that the only
>acceptable situation for us was that we were to marry men who would stay
>in kollel as long as possible. We were not to go to college (in fact,
>the English principal came in to the classroom to give out the SAT
>booklets and said "I am required to give you these", in other words:
>"don't take this test"), and the only acceptable way of supporting our
>husbands was to be a teacher.
Coincidentally, I just received a summary of a lecture from R. Aharon
Lichtenstein, where he asserts:
>...gedolei Yisrael did not hesitate to send their daughters
>to college. Indeed, looking back to that time, one
>recalls that, quite apart from the obvious instance of
>the Rav, the daughter of mori ve-rabi R. Hutner z"l
>received a doctorate, as did the daughter of R. Aharon
>Kotler. At least one of R. Moshe Feinstein's daughters
>went to college and, if R. Ruderman's and R. Kaminetzky's
>did not - I do not recall offhand - it was surely not out
>of principle. Today, of course, no self-respecting Beis
>Ya'akov girl, be her father a haberdasher or a
>programmer, would risk attending college, lest her
>prospects for a shidduch be impaired.
Now, it could be argued that the moral atmosphere of secular college has
degraded to such an extent that R. Hutner and R. Kotler would not
consider such an option for their daughters today. However, I do not
believe that the same argument would pertain to Touro College, for
example. Is Touro also as anathema in RW Lakewood circles (as opposed to
"LW" Lakewood circles, where there is at least a busful of former Kollel
guys/ wives going to Touro every evening)?
A related question: what is the trajectory of a typical graduate of
Breuer's Mesivta in Washington Heights? How many years in Beis Medrash
after Mesivta? Is college as proscribed in these circles? How about for
girls after Beis Yaakov?
Arnie Lustiger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Barry Best <barry.h.best@...>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:40:34 -0500
Subject: RE: Praying with Avaryonim (Sinners)
J. Garetz wrote (MJ 30#88):
>"I can't think of any more standard options. So the bottom line, unless
> you want to vote for option 1, and render this declaration an empty
> declaration, or vote for option 2a and go against the Mishne Berura, it
> seems to me that the only option left is 2b, that during the year, an
> Avaryon can not be counted for a minyan."
I am not sure if this was a tongue-in-cheek statement or a
serious conclusion. First, the declaration before Yom Kippur (obtaining
permission to pray with the avaryanim (transgressors)" could be
explained as follows: As we enter Yom Kippur we are all profoundly aware
of our flawed human state, more so than at any other time during the
year. I think that "avaryanim" refers to everyone in the congregation
not just certain particular individuals. Would anyone suggest that in a
small minyan made up exclusively of great tzadikim that they would omit
that introductory paragraph? They would probably say it more fervently
than certain self-righteous "frum" people.
Second, while it is a requirement that the shaliach tzibbur on
Yom Kippur must be one of particularly high moral standing, among other
qualifications, in his introductory prayer (Hinneni He-Ani) he refers to
himself as a Chotai Ufoshea (a transgressor). Not only does he count
for the minyan, he is their representative!
To conclude, I don't think that you can bring a proof from Yom
Kippur one way or the other on letting transgressors count toward a
minyan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Geretz <jgeretz@...>
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:19:27 -0500
Subject: Praying with Avaryonim (Sinners)
I'd like to thank Yoel Finkelman for suggesting to me (off-list) an
added dimension to the preamble to the Yom Kippur services, Anu Matirin
L'Hispallel Im Ha'Avaryonim (we permit prayer together with sinners.)
Based on his suggestion, I'd like to add option 4 to my previous listing
of 3 options to understanding this declaration.
Option 4: This declaration is not intended to address any Halachic
consideration regarding praying together with sinners. Rather, this is a
powerful statement of Mussar (ethical rebuke) intended to stir the heart
of each and every individual in attendance as we bigin the Yom Kippur
service. It is intended, that as the individual hears this declaration
he/she should think "Avaryonim? Sinners? Gevald! They're talking about
ME!' and should be stirred by powerful personal feelings of remorse.
I believe that this is a valid explanation for the declaration. However,
I'm still not sure that the declaration is entirely exclusive of any
Halachic considerations. As a matter of history, I've always understood
that the prayer dates back to the time of the Marrannos and that this
declaration was incorporated to allow the Marrannos to integrate with
the congregation on Yom Kippur. If this hypothesis is true, then it
seems to me that, notwithstanding the personal message of the
declaration, this declaration is intended to address the normal Halachic
bias against praying together with Avaryonim. (And again, exactly who
would qualify as an Avaryon is a separate discussion.)
I welcome additional comment.
Kol Tuv,
Joseph Geretz
(<jgeretz@...>)
Focal Point Solutions, Inc.
(www.FPSNow.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David I. Cohen <BDCOHEN613@...>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:00:48 EST
Subject: Praying with Avaryonim (Sinners)
Yossi Geretz wries:
<<Ultimately, we can discuss who exactly qualifies as an Avaryon, but
before we get to that, can we agree on the basis for the discussion?
Which is it, option 1, 2a, 2b or 3?>>
What can't one say that we need special premission "davka" on Yom Kippur
to pray with the sinners, since on that day we are otherwise trying to
emulate the angels (no eating, white clothing and kittul etc., saying
"Baruch Shem K'vod out loud etc.). Therefore, we start Yom Kippur with
the special request that although we are trying to emulate angels we
would like permission to pray with the sinners.
The rest of the year this request is not necessary.
Maybe this is option 4, which doesn't require any controversy with the
Mishneh Brurah.
Shabbat Shalom
David I. Cohen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rachel Rosencrantz <rachelr@...>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 00:23:42 -0500
Subject: Scotch in Sherry Casks
Certainly one factor that lead to Scotch being made in Sherry casks is
that for a long time there was a trade connection between Jerez Spain
(where Sherry comes from) and I seem to recall England. Buying and
making new casks is expensive, but the casks from the Sherry that was
shipped up from Jerez were recycled (and shipped up to Scotland to be
turned) into casks for aging Scotch Whiskey.
They no longer ship the Sherry in casks so there are now fewer places
that use the Sherry casks as part of the aging process because the casks
wear out, and new ones aren't coming in.
-Rachel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jay Kaplowitz <iii@...>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 09:57:44 -0500
Subject: Special Education Program
Rivka Finkelstein writes:
>>In my city, we are trying to set up a special education program among 3
>>day elementary schools and 3 day high schools. Does anyone have any
>>experience in setting up such a program. No one school can afford to do
>>it on it's own.
On Long Island, an organization called Cahal provides special education
services to a wide range of schools, spanning the Orthodox spectrum. As I
recall, most member schools host one class year while one school, the
Hebrew Academy of Nassau County, provides administrative services and
support. The director is Naomi Nadata and she can be reached on 516-295-3666.
Jay
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gilad J. Gevaryahu <Gevaryahu@...>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:23:42 EST
Subject: Torah leMoshe miSinai
Joseph Tabory (v30n88) says:
<< 3. This does not have to be a doctrinaire issue. I refer to the
statement of Rabbi Noah Weinberg, in book callled Faith and
Fundamentals, an explanation of the thirteen principles of the
Rambam. In his discussion ot the principle that the torah will never be
changed, he explains that this does not include a belief that there have
not been changes in the letters due to the process of transmission>>
I think that the first to challenge Rambam on his thirteen principles,
and specifically principle where he spelled that every letter of the
Torah is Mosaic, was Sefer Ha-Ikkarim of Rabbi Yosef Albo (15 century,
Spain).
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 30 Issue 96
