Volume 36 Number 22
Produced: Sun Apr 14 23:44:42 US/Eastern 2002
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Kitniyos
[David Ziants]
Philadelphia kosher resources
[Ruth E. Sternglantz]
Rav Soloveichik and Lubavicher Rebbe
[Avi Feldblum]
Shmuel
[Saul Davis]
Should bee-allergic People stay home on Shabbath
[Russell Jay Hendel]
Standing According to the Rav
[Caren and Steve Weisberg]
Tal u-matar
[Jonathan & Randy Chipman]
Tefillin shel rabbeynu Tam
[Anne-Marie et Bernard Geller]
Why Rav Hirschs Translation of Tehillim is so Good
[Russell Jay Hendel]
Wine (2)
[Shalom Krischer, Josh Hexter]
Yiddish Hagadah
[<Danmim@...>]
Yiddish translation of Chad Gadya
[Jay F Shachter]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 01:11:27 +0300
Subject: Re: Kitniyos
Although I did not receive feedback on this shopping experience, I have
had a chance to think about the matter myself, and hope what I say is
halachically correct.
I already stated in a previous posting, for chametz free, kitniyot baby
milk powder formula without a pesach hechsher outside Israel, the local
batei din give instructions in their pesach guides to use separate
utensils because the kitniyot are n o t checked for kasher l'pesach, and
there is no special production line for pesach.
No doubt, the "chareidi" hechsher on the product I saw, takes the most
stringent possibility for everything, thus would insist on giving the
instruction of separate utensils as this is "minhag yisrael". This is
even when the kitniyot are kasher l'pesach and there is a special
production line, which I assume is the case here.
The "rabbanut" hechsher product is for the most part produced in Israel
under a special pesach production line. If certain pure and chametz-free
ingredients (e.g. the "avkat chalav nochri") are imported, but do not
have a pesach hechsher, it might be possible to rely on the fact that
chametz is "batel b'shishim" ("annulled when less than 1:60") b e f o r
e Pesach. [If any intermingling were to occur o n Pesach, even the
slightest bit of chametz renders the food forbidden.]
For adult food, it is known we are very careful to ensure our sugar, tea
and coffee that we use on Pesach have Pesach hechsherim (under normal
circumstances). This is despite the strict quality control manufacturing
environments and the fact that halacha allows batel b'shishim before
Pesach, as stated above.
I don't think there would be a problem if these type of foods
w i t h o u t a pesach hechsher would come into contact with our pesach
utensils.
For baby milk powder formula, the rabbanut who gives the hechsher, might
be lenient for some of the ingredients, as this is not for adults. The
production line is still considered kasher l'pesach, therefore the
rabbanut does not declare one has to use special utensils.
Comments are welcome .....
David Ziants
Ma'aleh Adumim, Israel
David Ziants previously wrote:
> When shopping for some more kasher l'pesach "materna" (baby milk
> powder) for our little baby today, saw that there was a note with
> the "chareidi" hechsher on the kitniyot based product saying one
> should use separate utensils. On our current packet (of a very
> similar product), which has an ashkenazi "rabbanut" hechser there
> is no such note and the package just says "kitniyot". The
> "chareidi" hechsher product is labeled "mehadrin" and uses chalav
> yisrael, whereas the standard product uses "avkat chalav nochri"
> (Non-Jewish milk powder).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ruth E. Sternglantz <sternglr@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 18:22:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Philadelphia kosher resources
Hi --
I will, IYH, be moving to Philadelphia this summer, having accepted a
fellowship at Penn Law. I will be living in West Philadelphia, near Penn,
and I would be very grateful if people on the list with *current* info
about kosher resources in the Greater Philadelphia area could help me out
by sending such info to me offlist. I have checked numerous web
resources, but unfortunately many of them are out of date, listing
establishments that no longer exist and (I am sure) omitting some that do.
I am looking for the full range of kosher resources, from groceries where
I can get cholov yisroel products to places that sell prepared foods.
Many thanks for your help,
Ruth Sternglantz
<resternglantz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <mljewish@...>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 06:53:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Rav Soloveichik and Lubavicher Rebbe
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, leona kroll wrote:
> I also heard from Rav Morduchowitz that the Rebbe stood up for the Rav
> when he came into 770- which would make the RAv the only person- other
> than his own mother- that the Rebbe stood up for after becoming Rebbe.
One other point on this topic I can add is that my grandfather, Rav
Yolles, attended a number of Rav Soloveichek's public lectures. My
grandfather was also quite close with the Lubavicher Rebbe, and often
the Lubavicher Rebbe would ask my grandfather about what Rav Soloveichek
spoke about. The impression I have is that they each held the other in
very high regard.
Avi Feldblum
<mljewish@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Saul Davis <saul9728@...>
Date: 13 Apr 2002 11:02:16 -0700
Subject: Shmuel
cp or rp (<chips@...>) in Mail.Jewish 36:20 emphasized the question
"Why is it called "Sefer Shmuel"?" by adding: "Especially Shmuel Beis"!
The halving of Shmuel, Malakhim and Divrey Hayamim probably originated
in the Targum Shivim (Septuagint) although some say that it was done by
Stephen Langton (later Archbishop of Canterbury) in about 1228 when he
did the chapter divisions for all of Tanakh. In the Targum Shivim,
Shumel and Melakhim are 4 books all called the Book of Kings 1 to 4. The
3 halvings are definitely not of Jewish origin (notwithstanding the
jewish origins of the Targum Shivim).
The Beraitha in Babba Bathra 14:b says that Shmuel started writing
"Shmuel" but it was finished by Gad Haxoze and Nathan Hanavee. The
latter two probably took over at the end of Chapter 16 (Shmuel 1) where
there is switch from a Shmuel and Shaul based narrative to a narrative
based on David. Considering that Shmuel wrote less than 28% of "Shmuel"
and David is its dominant character why is it eponymous to Shmuel? I
have 3 reasons: Shmuel was the dominant prophet of the post-Moshe era
(see eg Tehillim 28). Yehuda Qill says that as Gad and Nathan were
Shmuel^Òs talmidim we can say that Shmuel^Òs Beth Medrash (school) wrote
"Shmuel". The book starts off with the story of his birth (see eg
Parshath Yithro or Pinxas which are not much about them but start with
them).
Saul Davis
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rhendel@...> (Russell Jay Hendel)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 23:01:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Should bee-allergic People stay home on Shabbath
In v36n16,17 the issue of carrying, on Shabbath, an adrenalin kit for
someone who is expected to die if stung by a bee is discussed.
I would like to add that there is not one but 3 issues: The easy
question/answer is that (a) if he takes a walk he certainly should carry
the kit since otherwise he may die (And this has been pointed out
already).
But there are two other issues: (b) Should the carrying be done with a
change (As suggested in v36n17).
I have a further question: (c) Should we allow this person to take walks
and leave his house on Shabbath!?!? This is not an absurd
question. After all we concede that he might die if stung and was not
attended to. Maybe taking a walk is considered placing his life in
unnecessary danger. The only counterargument I see now is the argument
that it is too much of a burden to stay inside on Shabbath: But this
clearly is not that strong an argument.
This 3rd question has not yet been addressed and I am wondering what
opinions people have on it.
Russell Jay Hendel;http://www.RashiYOmi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Caren and Steve Weisberg <nydecs@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 23:57:45 +0300
Subject: Standing According to the Rav
While Avi is right about how the Rav defined chazarat hashatz, the
practical aspect that was unique about the Rav's practice was for the
tzibur to stand with feet together like the private shmone esrei.
Steve Weisberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jonathan & Randy Chipman <yonarand@...>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 08:47:18 +0300
Subject: Re: Tal u-matar
Abe Brot <abrot@...> wrote in v36n17:
<<Michael J Savitz correctly states that, in Israel, Tal Umatar begins
to be said two weeks after Shmeeni Atzeret in order to give the pilgrims
time to return home in dry weather. He asks, by this logic, why don't we
stop saying tal umatar two weeks before Pessach?
The answer is that in the beginning of the rainy season we are willing
to forego two weeks of rain, with the belief that G-d will make up the
loss throughout the rainy season. At the end of the rainy season, we
are not willing to lose two more weeks of potential rain, (since we
always need the water). As such, stopping saying Tal Umatar early would
not be sincere, and it is said until the first day of Pessach, which is
the end of the rainy season.>>
Perhaps the answer is much simpler: experience showed that the rainy
season generally begins around early to mid-Heshvan anyway. Note the
discussions in Masekhet Ta'anit about the expected dates for "revi'ah
rishonah" and "revi'ah sheniya," around 7 Heshvan and 17 Heshvan, viz.
the question: when do we consider the rains to be late, and begin the
various levels of fast days? (The date that the Flood occurred in
Noah's time, incidentally, is also very much in keping with the seasonal
patterns, although of course otherwise extraordinary).
Yehonatan Chipman, Jerusalem
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anne-Marie et Bernard Geller <bgeller@...>
Subject: Tefillin shel rabbeynu Tam
Does somebody know what were the reasons (or proofs) of rabbeynu Tam?
Bernard Geller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <rhendel@...> (Russell Jay Hendel)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 23:04:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Why Rav Hirschs Translation of Tehillim is so Good
In regard to several inquiries on English translations of Sefer Tehillim
(eg Robert Kaiser v36n14 or Paul Ginsburg v36n9), as has already been
pointed out by Ben Katz(v36n11) , the best translation is the English
Translation of Rav Hirschs German translation (and commentary) on
Tehillim.
I would like to add some reasons and defenses for this choice of Rav
Hirsch.
Despite the fact that this is a translation of a translation it is
nevertheless excellent because, First; You are getting a commentary in
addition to the translation. Second: Rav Hirsch was very careful to
translate in such a way as to capture the nuances of the Psalms.
Here is a practical example of how the Rav Hirsch translation is
superior: Suppose for example you are curious why a certain word is
translated a certain way; you can peek at the commentary below the
translation where Rav Hirsch discusses his reasons for translation.
Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.RashiYomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shalom Krischer <PGMSRK@...>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 15:30:21 EDT
Subject: Wine
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Leona Kroll <leona_kroll@...> said:
>When does wine become problematic? I would say that by Chassidim (and
>possibly others)- post-crushing, since Chassidim are careful not only
>about wine but also about other grape products (ie- some will not drink
>stout beer because it has grape skin extract in it, and since it is
>extracted after the grapes are crushed for wine, its problematic).
The Chassidim who "will not drink stout beer because it has grape skin
extract in it" are just plain wrong. Stout is a style of Porter, which,
in turn is a style of Ale. (Ale is "top-fermented" beer, while Lager is
"bottom-fermented"). The "style" of beer is determined by a number of
factors, but most prominent are where the hops and yeasts are from.
A bigger problem with (all) beers is the source of the sugar added after
fermentation (to add carbonation just prior to packaging). Some beers
will use "Milk Sugar" (Lactose), making the beer dairy! Getting back to
the grape skins, however, I do not wish to imply that no brewers use
them. In fact, many beers ARE flavored and additives can run from
fruits (including grapeskins) to vegetables to nuts and other grains!
But, if the reason is because "Stout IS made with grapeskins", that is
just plain wrong!
--Shalom
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Josh Hexter <josh@...>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:41:54 +0200
Subject: Wine
>From this response one would assume that post crushing of the grapes (as
soon as liquid leaves the skin) one has a potential problem of stam
yenam.
It would however appear from SA 123 (17) that the problem only starts
once you have "hamshacha" which is defined by the SA as a separation
between the grapes and the juice. At least according to this definition
it would appear that one could buy grape must (juice and grape skins
combined -- i.e. post crushing and pre pressing) from any supplier for
home fermentation. Has anyone seen and responsa on this issue?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Danmim@...>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:35:42 EDT
Subject: Yiddish Hagadah
searching for yiddish hagadah..do you have any information ,.thank you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jay F Shachter <jay@...>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 13:33:04 -0600 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Yiddish translation of Chad Gadya
<ARIEHNYC@...> (Arieh Lebowitz) wrote on Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:33:11 -0500:
> A Yiddish translation of Chad Gadya, done by I believe Y. L. Peretz,
> appeared in the Yiddish edition of the Forward a few years ago.
Peretz did indeed publish a translation of Xad Gadya, which appears in
Volume 1 of the standard 13-volume collection of his complete works,
beginning on Page 270.
This reference, though, will only be a disappointment to Sarah Beck.
Peretz's work is a rather faithful translation of the original Aramaic,
which is not at all the poem that Sarah Beck remembers. Nevertheless,
it is an interesting poem, and it makes easy, pleasant reading. You may
want to set it to music and sing it at your next Seder (if you do not
normally sing Yiddish songs at your Seder, then that is all the more
reason for doing so, since it will get your children to ask you why you
are doing such an unusual thing).
Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
6424 N Whipple St
Chicago IL 60645-4111
(1-773)7613784
<jay@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 36 Issue 22