Volume 33 Number 49
Produced: Wed Sep 6 6:41:18 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Chalav Stam
[Zev Sero]
Children in Schule
[Yisrael Medad]
Definition and Kashrus of Chassidishe Shechita
[Rachel Smith]
Eruv (2)
[Elozer Meir Teitz, Art Roth]
Get and Ketubah
[Anonymous]
Halachically pregnant
[Aliza Fischman]
Lubavitch position on Eruvim
[Carl Singer]
A Mesorah of Kashruth
[Danny Skaist]
Rabbits and Camels
[Alan Rubin]
Rabbits and camels chew the cud
[Naomi Kingsley]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zev Sero <Zev@...>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 14:21:13 -0400
Subject: RE: Chalav Stam
Micha Berger [mailto:<micha@...>]
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 11:25:20PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : R Moshe says that Chalav Yisrael is a takana, not a p'sak. ...
> Zev and I discussed this before in another venue.
> R' Moshe, in the first responsum (Y"D 1:47), refers to the enactment
> of chalav yisrael as "pasku". It's only once you get to the posthumous
> vol 8 that we hear it called a takanah. As the teshuvos that actually
> left R' Moshe's hand are more reliable (particularly WRT something like
> precision in wording), I stand by my assertion that R' Moshe held it
> was a p'sak.
I was *not* referring to vol 8, or to anything published posthumously.
Look at the third teshuva in YD vol 1. That's where he gets into the
details of his opinion on the technical nature of the prohibition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <isrmedia@...>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 20:34:59 +0200
Subject: Children in Schule
One more source which defines by Halacha the age of a minor/child who
can come to schule I should have recalled earlier as it is connected
with the Temple Mount is:-
the very first Mishna of Chagiga which excuses from the obligation of
the mitzva of Re'iyah (seeing and being seen at the time of one of the
three main holiday Festivals) a "youngster". That person is defined in
either of two ways. The first opinion of Bet Shamia is that he is
unable to sit properly on his father's shoulders when ascending from
Jerusalem to the Temple Mount. The second, of Bet Hillel, opines that
if he is unable to hold his father's hand and walk by himself.
Incidentally, it would seem that Bet Hillel is more strict in its
limitation than Bet Shamai, but that's another matter. As for the
ascent, I can testify to the fact that the "broad steps" that lead up
through the Ophel Area, the archeological park to the south of the
Temple Mount, are quite easy to walk: two steps flat and one step up.
Maybe they had children in mind.
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rachel Smith <rachelms@...>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 10:07:05 -0700
Subject: Definition and Kashrus of Chassidishe Shechita
Maybe this has been covered before, but I'm curious exactly how
chassidishe shechita differs from regular (I've heard chassidishe uses a
thinner knife (?)) and if any poskim (past or present) have declared it
non-kosher (for Ashkenazim, for Sefardim - is chassidishe shechita
similar to Beis Yosef glatt?)
Thanks-R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elozer Meir Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 13:26:16 -0400
Subject: re: Eruv
In #43, the statement was made that ". . . unless a solid wall
*completely* surrounds the settlement or neighborhood, then the kashrus
of the eruv is based on a number of 'Kulot' which are often acceptable
as a minimum to prevent non-frum yiden doing a doraita aveira."
This statement is wrong on two counts: it is not intended to accomplish
such prevention, and cannot prevent it in any event.
In an area where carrying is an aveira d'oraisa (Torah prohibition), an
eruv will be of no avail. It is only where the area in question is a
r'shus harabim d'rabanan (a public thoroughfare only by rabbinic decree)
that the possibility exists of enclosing it by less than a wall. There
are two major characteristics of a true r'shus harabim: (a) that it have
a certain minimum width (16 amos: 24-32 feet, depending on the
definition of amah); and (b) that the multitudes traverse it. The
definition of "multitude" is a dispute among rishonim: some say that it
is not a multitude unless there are 600,000 (equaling the number of
adult males during the Jews' sojourn in the desert), while others say
that no such number is necessary. According to those others, most of
our major thoroughfares are true public domains, and an eruv is useless.
The Mishna B'rura cites 24 opinions of Rishonim, evenly split between
the two opinions, and he adds that "kol hamachmir tavo alav b'racha"--he
who is stringent, may blessings come upon him. Those who do not use the
eruv generally do so because they prefer the Chafetz Chaim's bracha to
the convenience of carrying on Shabbos, and not because "the kashrus is
based on anumber of kulos."
The argument that eruv is intended to prevent the non-observant from
violating Shabbos is likewise specious. In most communities, its intent
is to enable observant parents of young children to be able to leave
home together, without consigning one of them (generally the mother) to
house-bound baby-sitting duties. The eruv is _not_ intended to
eliminate the desecration of Shabbos that is involved when one carries
his car keys from his home to his car.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Art Roth <AJROTH@...>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 8:49:03 -0500
Subject: Eruv
>From Daniel Wells:
> All the more so when the eruv poles and Tzorech HaPetach wires are
> fragile or in vandal inhabited areas and thus chances are that what was
> a kosher eruv last night is now reshus harabim!
>
> Also unless a solid wall *completely* surrounds the settlement or
> neighborhood, then the kashrus of the eruv is based on a number of
> 'Kulot' which are often acceptable as a miminum to prevent non-frum
> yiden doing a doraita aveira.
An eruv doesn't work at all in a r"shut harabim (where carrying is an
issur d'oraita), i.e., an eruv removes the issur of carrying only in a
carmelit, where the issur is only rabbinic to begin with. So a d'oraita
aveira is not relevant to this discussion. Furthermore, halakha allows
us to rely on the xazaqa that if the eruv was kosher when it was checked
on Friday, it remains kosher for all of Shabbat unless there is definite
knowledge to the contrary. This is yet another example of the
distinction between halakhic reality and physical reality (about which I
have written on this list on previous occasions as well). In this
situation, the eruv remains intact halakhically (so that those who rely
on it commit no aveira) despite the fact that it may not be intact
physically.
Art Roth
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anonymous
Date: 5 Sep 00 15:45:34 EDT
Subject: Get and Ketubah
>From what I have observed, it is standard practice for the Mesader
Get(acting as rosh beis din) to effectively confiscate the Kesubbah.
The rationale is that the couple are presumed to have signed a
separation agreement which awards the wife more than her rights under
the kesubbah.
I find that deeply troubling: The presumption may not be warranted; and
the reflexive destruction of the kesubbah as a standard part of the
gerushin procedure, without determining in detail that it has been
satisfied, effectively renders every kesubbah unenforcable with respect
to any prospective divorce -- so that all married couples arguably wind
up living together without benefit of an enforcible Kesubbah document.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aliza Fischman <fisch.chips@...>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 16:53:30 -0400
Subject: Halachically pregnant
>From: Leona Kroll <leona_kroll@...>
> It may be only a small part of the answer, but i thought that we didn't
>mention a pregnancy before three months b/c until then a woman is not
>halachically pregnant. even at three months, many people only tell
>family and thenwait for everyone else to just notice wtout being told.
I have a few questions about Leona's response. Please note that these
questions are based on my own lack of knowledge, not as a challenge to
her statement.
1) Why is she not halachically considered pregnant?
2) What does "Halachically pregnant" mean? Aren't there t'fillot to say
in each stage? (As in the book Em Habanim Smeicha?)
3) What are the implications of being/ not being halachically pregnant?
Thanks,
Aliza Fischman
Mom to Rachel Leah (almost 2) and expectant Mom B'Shaa Tova.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <CARLSINGER@...>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 10:53:16 EDT
Subject: Re: Lubavitch position on Eruvim
From: Alan Davidson <perzvi@...>
> It is not that Lubavitchers may come to rely on Eruvim but rather that
> our not yet observant brethren (as well as non-Jewish onlookers) may
> come to think there is no problem with carrying on shabbos because they
> may or may know that an eruv exists.
I find this a most difficult viewpoint -- sort of the opposite of Morris
Eyin -- in effect not providing a poor example for the unlearned -- by
extension, I guess, I shouldn't use timers on my house lights, because
not-yet-frum Jews might think it was OK to turn lights on on Shabbos.
We are Jews, not Karites.
I think the lesson being taught by NOT using the eruv is that using the
eruv is somehow a flawed or not fully frum (or frum enough) concept --
and by extension, those who DO use the eruv, either don't understand as
well as we do, aren't as frum as we are, or something similar. This is
antithical to the way I was brought up and learned.
The lesson taught by using the eruv is that there is a proper derech to
observing the mitzvoh of Shabbos and over the centuries our Rabbonim
have defined that derech within a clearly halachic context. And we are
free as frum Jews to follow that derech.
If someone wishes not to use an eruv, or to follow any other mode of
behavior or observance (chumrah?) -- they need to be very clear in their
own mind and in the message they send (if they are, indeed, educating
not-yet-frum Jews) that their's is a personal or "group" choice and not
the only truly "kosher" way of doing things.
Kol Tov
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Danny Skaist <danny@...>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:03:48 +0200
Subject: RE: A Mesorah of Kashruth
<<< Emmanuel Ifrah
many taref? Because if the Jewish community cannot resell everything
that is not "glatt" or "halak" to non-Jews without losing money, there
is no way the kosher meat market is going to be limited to these
categories of meat. In Morroco and Algeria, e.g., the percentage of
"halak" cows was to low for the Jewish community to be able to resell
all the other slaughtered animals to the non-Jews and local rabbis
allowed to eat "stam-kasher" meat even though sepharadim usually follow
the stringent opinion of the Mechaber. The same applies to France where >>>
There are major economic differences between America and other places
mentioned.
1) Sephardim eat the hindquarter, (since they know how and from where,
to remove the gid-hanasheh). In America fully one half (the expensive
half ) of every animal (dressed weight) is sold to non-Jews. Without the
traife market, kosher meat would not be financially feasable at all.
2) American non-Jews don't care about the Shchita, but not all moslems
will accept shchita as hallal. "Glatt" hallel requires that the animal
be placed in a certain direction when slaughtered.
danny
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Rubin <arubin@...>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:08 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: Rabbits and Camels
Rabbi Eliezer Shemtov asks:
> The Torah (Leviticus 11:4-7, Deuteronomy 14:7-8) names 4 species of
> animals that are not Kosher because they possess only one of the 2
> necessary conditions for an animal to be Kosher:
>
> (1. Chewing the cud; 2. Split hooves): Their biblical names are
> generally translated as the Camel, rabbit and hare, that, although they
> ruminate, do not have split hooves and the pig that although having
> split hooves, does not ruminate.
> I have researched the matter a bit and have found that neither the camel
> nor the rabbit ruminate.
>
> Does anyone have any answer to this apparent contradiction? This
> dilemma is especially significant because I have read and heard many
> times that this is used as a 'proof' that Torah is 'min hashamayim'
My understanding is that though the rabbit or hare or hyrax do not
ruminate they do make chewing movements similar to ruminants. Rabbits
eat the stool that has passed through the bowel to help them digest
cellulose.
There are other animals that have cloven hooves and do not ruminate. I
believe the hippopotamous and various species of peccary fall into this
category. There are also other species with characteristics like
camels, eg llama and alpaca. Now it may be argued that hippopotamous
and peccary are members of the pig family and llama and alpaca members
of the camel family but nevertheless the existence of these species
means that this cannot be used as a 'proof' that Torah is 'min
hashamayim'.
Alan Rubin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Naomi Kingsley <rogerk@...>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 16:53:20 +0300
Subject: Rabbits and camels chew the cud
True [biological] ruminants, like cows, sheep, [giraffes] etc. have a
very complicated digestive system, with two stomachs. Food enters the
first stomach, is partially broken down, regurgitated [the 'cud'],
chewed again ["chewing the cud"], then sent to the second stomach, which
has a different set of enzymes, to continue digestion. Other grass
eating animals have other strategies to digest otherwise indigestible
vegetable matter. Rabbits, in particular, pass the food through the
digestive system twice - the first time producing soft, wet faeces,
which are then swallowed and chewed again. [The second time round the
faeces are dry and hard.] Thus the rabbit CAN be said to 'chew the cud',
even though it is not biologically a ruminant. I assume hares are
similar.
AFAIK, camels' stomachs are designed to regurgitate small[?] quantities
of semi-digested food, which is then chewed well, before being swallowed
a second time, and replaced with another load of 'cud'. So, again,
camels can be said to 'chew the cud'. Go to the nearest zoo and watch
one chew!
Naomi Kingsley
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 33 Issue 49
