Volume 44 Number 53
Produced: Mon Aug 30 21:50:18 EDT 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Arrogance
[Meir Shinnar]
Drinking Coffee and Beer as Stam Yeinam (2)
[Gershon Dubin, Stephen Phillips]
Ebay & Shabbos
[Michael Mirsky]
Parve, Dairy, and Fleishig (4)
[Batya Medad, Michael Mirsky, Daniel Lowinger,
chips@eskimo.com]
Prayer vs Learning
[Eli Turkel]
Prayer "vs." Learning
[Nathan Lamm]
Strollers/Eruv
[Eli Turkel]
"Unmarried Girls" [sic] (2)
[Batya Medad, <chips@...>]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meir Shinnar <Meir.Shinnar@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:28:01 -0400
Subject: RE: Arrogance
Martin Stern wrote
> I am most grateful to them for their clarification that there exists
> more than one Rishon who holds with the 600 000 criterion. However it
> does not weaken the fact that this is a point of dispute in halachah,
> on which, as he points out, there is good reason to take the stricter
> view. This is especially true in view of the fact that the 16 amot
> criterion fits in better with 'common-sense' sense, otherwise, there
> would not have been any reshuyot harabbim until very recently. Thus
> Meir Shinnar's claim that being strict amounts to mechaze keyohara -
> appearing arrogant is unfounded.
Another poster said
> I agree with Meir that PUBLICLY refusing to use the eruv might be
> yuhara, in a place where the eruv is (close to) universally
> accepted. Today however there are few places where that applies. If
> many people choose to not use the eruv, then it is no longer yuhara to
> practice that chumra.
These posts are indicative of the fact that the very notion of mechaze
keyohara, or that being stringent is a form of forbidden arrogance, is
something that is foreign to many people today. Thus the suggestion
that the point is a disputed point in halacha means that mechaze
keyohara doesn't apply is astounding. Most cases of mechaze keyohara
are cases where there is a dispute, and while the standard has been to
accept the more lenient opinion, many of those who hold by the stringent
opinion hold that it applies lecatchila. However, still, the rule of
mechaze keyohara was applied...
Similarly, the fact that there exists other people who follow the humra
of not following the eruv, or even believe that eruvin are
intrinsically valid, does not change the fact that if you believe that
it is intrinsically valid, then for you, not using the eruv is a
statement that you are at a level that is appropriate to keep a humra
that is not kept by the community as a whole.
Meir Shinnar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:59:25 GMT
Subject: Drinking Coffee and Beer as Stam Yeinam
From: <Shuanoach@...>
> For a long time i have wondered about a similar problem. Many Jews buy
> and then drink coffee where it is sold (by non-Jews). I am unsure of
> how this is justified (other than the fact the many seem to do it and
> i have not heard it called problematic). See Pischei Teshuva on Yoreh
> De'ah 104:1. Is this discussed anywhere by poskim (in teshuvos,
> etc.)?
Beer or other alcoholic beverages are an issue for one of the reasons
that wine is-that the intoxicating quality may lead to unwanted social
closeness to nonJews. To the best of my knowledge, the only issue with
coffee in poskim has been whether or not it's bishul akum.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Phillips <admin@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:48:24 +0100
Subject: Re: Drinking Coffee and Beer as Stam Yeinam
> From: <Shuanoach@...>
> JBackon noted that Rambam forbids drinking sheichar/beer where it is sold
> by the non-Jews.
> EReich mentioned a Rosh (though i don't know how that Rosh gets one
> around the psak in the shulchan arukh 104:1).
> For a long time i have wondered about a similar problem. Many Jews buy
> and then drink coffee where it is sold (by non-Jews). I am unsure of how
> this is justified (other than the fact the many seem to do it and i have
> not heard it called problematic). See Pischei Teshuva on Yoreh De'ah
> 104:1. Is this discussed anywhere by poskim (in teshuvos, etc.)?
I don't have the Pischei Teshuva to hand, but what's the problem? It's
not Bishul Akum [cooking by a non-Jew] as I believe that this wouldn't
apply to things such as coffee. It can only be one of Kashrus and,
provided you drink the coffee in a throwaway cup, there is no such
problem where the coffee is made in a proper coffee machine I believe
that Rav Ovadya Yosef paskens like this in his Responsa. I can track
down the relevant one(s) if you like.
Stephen Phillips
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Mirsky <b1ethh94@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:06:16 -0400
Subject: Ebay & Shabbos
Jonathan Baker said:
>There is no issur, AFAIK, on participating in an auction on Shabbat or
>Yom Tov. Even shuls that don't have "shnuddering" (sale of aliyot) most
>of the year, may auction off big honors, such as opening the ark at
>Neilah, or distributing Atah Hareita verses.
This doesn't compare to the situation (Ebay) we're discussing. Selling
(or auctioning) aliyot or kibbudim on Shabbat or Yom Tov is permissible
because it's for Dvar Mitzva.
Michael Mirsky
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:26:28 +0200
Subject: Re: Parve, Dairy, and Fleishig
Joshua Hosseinof said:
>Regarding the possible pieces of meat falling in the salad bar at the
>schwarma stand - Isn't that what the laws of bitul are intended for? I
>was perplexed when my wife insisted on labeling our jar of mustard in
>the fridge as "meat". As far as I can see there were no pieces of meat
>in it, it had sufficient volume of mustard in it that even if there was
>a small piece of meat, meat juice/fat that fell it was nullified by more
>than 60:1 of the mustard. My wife's logic was that it was like that
>someone had taken a knife or spoon, and spread the mustard on the cold
>cuts or hot dog, and then put the knife or spoon back in the mustard.
>Even still as long as there is a sufficient quantity of mustard versus
>any meat, the mustard should still be considered 100% pareve. And in
>this scenario you can not even claim that any piece of meat that fell in
>was intentionally placed there. The salad bar scenario seems to be the
>same situation, so I don't see what justification there is to consider
>it meat, other than a general desire to go beyond what is required by
>the halacha about this particular issue.
I think that the botl b'shishim means that there's not sign, neither
color nor taste and no chance of finding yourself chewing shwarma with
your cucumber. It's supposed to disappear, dissolve. This isn't the
case at the salad bar, nor the mustard nor the mayonnaise. You can see
the signs of the dirty knife, fork or spoon; at least I can. And if you
buy some "ice coffee" at another stand, eat it with your felafel and
find yourself chewing meat.. I'd rather not.
Part of this debate shows the difference between a male's halacha in
theory and an a woman's halacha in practice. Once I was at a shiur when
the rabbi was asked about canteens (before the almost universal use of
bottled water) on Pesach. The rabbi said you can use the same ones on
Pesach. Then we asked him if he had ever washed one after his kids'
tiyulim (when they're covered with sandwich remnants.) Later on, he
changed the psak.
Batya
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Mirsky <b1ethh94@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:16:41 -0400
Subject: Parve, Dairy, and Fleishig
The law of bitul does not apply in all situations. There are certain
exceptions. For example, if the object can be identified or seen
separately from what it fell into, it isn't bitul. The classic case of
bitul is a drop of milk falling into meaty soup. In that case it is
liquid to liquid and the drop is too small to change the colour or taste
of the soup. I don't think that this is the case with a piece of meat
falling into salad.
Also when dealing with sharp tasting foods, they have the ability to
transfer the taste even when items are cold. So I would think that a
knife used for meat dipped into a mustard bottle would make the entire
bottle fleishig.
Michael Mirsky
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Lowinger <Daniel.Lowinger@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:49:24 +1000
Subject: Parve, Dairy, and Fleishig
In response to Joshua's submission about bitul b'shishim. Bitul would only
work if the item that was mixed with the mustard or salad was not
discernible with anything else.
Secondly, bitul only works on a b'diavad situation.
[On the second item above, it would seem to me that the situation was a
classic case of b'diavad, as you had no intention of any meat being
included with your salad, and the question is what is the status of the
situation if some meat happened to fall in with the salad. Why would
that not be b'diavad? Avi]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <chips@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:19:42 -0700
Subject: Re: re: Parve, Dairy, and Fleishig
> I was perplexed when my wife insisted on labeling our jar of mustard
> in the fridge as "meat". As far as I can see there were no pieces of
> meat in it, it had sufficient volume of mustard in it that even if
> there was a small piece of meat, meat juice/fat that fell it was
> nullified by more than 60:1 of the mustard.
Mustard might qualify as a "sharp" item and fall into a category that is
a bit different when it comes to kashrus rules.
-rp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:55:48 +0300
Subject: Prayer vs Learning
> Gemara means that if one counts one's money carefully, one should give
> equal attention to prayer. Clearly, the lesson for R' Chaim should be:
> Pray as carefully as you learn.
RYBS told a story that as a lad he was saying Tehillim late on Rosh
Hashana evening. His father came and took away the tehillim and told him
that for a talmid chacham he should learn gemara and not say tehillim.
Eli Turkel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Prayer "vs." Learning
Our moderator asks, "If the quoted material is correct, do you feel so
sure of your interpretation to tell R. Chaim he is wrong?"
1) That's a big "if." Many stories are best taken with a grain of salt,
as I indicated.
2) I'm *not* so sure- I'd have to look up the gemara, see the context,
see the meforshim, and so on. I'm sure R. Chaim new these better than
me. And even then, my life circumstances are different from his (and his
talmidim), so different rules may apply. In any event, I'm sure he
wasn't looking for excuses to daven fast. So, again, I may be right,
but I won't stake anything on it.
Nachum Lamm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:09:14 +0300
Subject: Strollers/Eruv
> Forcing a mother to choose between parting with her baby and not going
> out is just as much a form of hardship - particularly in those early
> "bonding" months, availability of paternal (or other -
> grandparental/paid, these are also options) childcare not
> withstanding.
Somehow we got off the main point. What is quite common in Israel is to
see a couple going out on shabbat whether to visit the wife's or
husband's family or to go out for dinner etc. and the wife pushes the
carriage while the husband walks alone. Not going out is not an
option. The point is that the husband is machmir to have his wife take
care of the children outside since he won't push the carriage or lift up
the children.
BTW I once read a story about the Steipler that he used meat from the
local butcher rather than a butcher who had more chumros but was further
away because he felt that it was not right to have his wife walk further
(no car) because of his chumros.
I am not sure how many yungerleit would follow his example.
kol tuv,
Eli Turkel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:32:04 +0200
Subject: Re: "Unmarried Girls" [sic]
"women" rather than girls, even if they're on a college
campus. But it is unfortunate that there's no non-infantilizing
equivalent of the informal "guy" for adult men.
"gals" my dear
Among us girls it's ok, being part of the same club and all, but you
guys had better remember that we're ladies and women!
Batya
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <chips@...>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:19:43 -0700
Subject: Re: Re: "Unmarried Girls" [sic]
>
> I'm 25 and, granted, I was on a different college campus than Ken,
> and, yes, some people persisted in calling women "girls," but I don't
> think it's so unnatural to make an effort to call adult, unmarried
> women "women" rather than girls, even if they're on a college campus.
We have had a few female college students at work come through the past
couple of years. "Girls" was not deemed as demeaning if it wasn't
prefaced with "little" or "act like a". And they used "boy" and not
"guy" unless they were talking about a male they knew (which I found
very interesting).
> But it is unfortunate that there's no non-infantilizing equivalent of
> the informal "guy" for adult men.
There is gal.
-rp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 44 Issue 53
