Volume 45 Number 01
Produced: Mon Sep 27 5:48:02 EDT 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Dairy Bread (2)
[Perets Mett, Anonymous]
Hallel on Yomin Noraim
[W. Baker]
Hamelekh Hamishpot
[Perets Mett]
Haviva Ner-David
[Joseph Kaplan]
Karaites and Tefillin
[Shmuel Himelstein]
Length of tefilo
[Perets Mett]
Names - Shneor
[Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
New Chumrah
[Carl Singer]
Separate Seating at Weddings (Reprise)
[Carl Singer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:49:38 +0100
Subject: Dairy Bread
Israel Caspi wrote:
> 1. Since, under certain circumstances (Shavuot, etc.) dairy bread is
> permitted, it cannot be said to be non-kosher.
The only source I know for dairy bread on Shovuos is the Mogein Avrohom
494:8 and the Machtsith Hashekel loc. cit.
The latter states clearly that dairy bread on Shovuos must conform to
the usual requirements (baking a small quantity or a distinct shape)
Arnold's certainly do not bake a small quantity, so the issue revolves
around the shape of the bread. As I have never seen Arnold's bread I can
only guess that the OU consider its shape to be too similar to ordinary
bread to allow them to give it a hechsher.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anonymous
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 11:02:23 -0400
Subject: re: Dairy Bread
<1. Since, under certain circumstances (Shavuot, etc.) dairy bread is
permitted, it cannot be said to be non-kosher.>
No one claims that dairy bread is not kosher. All that is said is
that one may not, as a rule, eat it (nor bake it).
<2. Chazal, for all their prescience, did not express their legislation
for a situation of a commercial food industry such as now exists.
What they wanted was some way of differentiating between dairy bread
and the usual (parve) bread.
3. In their society, where bread was home-baked -- and even that which
was purchased from professional bakers did not come in the type of
wrapping with ingredients listed that now is the standard -- the
Shulchan Aruch required that the shape of dairy bread be different
from that of the usual (parve) bread. But any way of ensuring that
dairy bread is not mistakenly eaten with meat (small quantity to be
eaten at a single meal, etc.) is satisfactory.
4. If Chazal had legislated in our modern-day environment of
wide-spread commercial food preparation in which it is an almost
universally necessary to check wrappers not only for kashrut symbols
but to learn whether the product is parve, dairy, dairy equipment,
etc., is it not reasonable to assume that they surely would have
agreed that a dairy designation on the bread's wrapper meets the
standard of distinguishability?>
First of all, there is a definite distinction in Chazal,
in many different contexts, between "kikarot shel nachtom" (bakers'
bread) and "kikarot shel ba'al habayit" (private person's bread). One
such is if a loaf is found -- it is presumed identifiable if a private
person's (each is distinct from that of other people's) and not
identifiable if from a baker (because of the uniformity of his product).
However, there is a more cogent reason for dismissing this argument.
The halacha requires that the distinctiveness be in the bread itself. A
wrapping does not suffice. After all, the bread can easily be removed
from that wrapping, and then what is there to prevent it from being
eaten with meat?
<5. Rabbi Howard Jachter's apocryphal-sounding story about the
anonmymous rebbetizin who mistakenly served her husband dairy bread
with a meat meal obviously did not check the warpper to find out if
the bread was kosher to begin with; had she done so, she would have
noticed the dairy designation and would not have been misled.
(Mistakes happen. Do we ban coffee whitener which, in spite of its
"Non-Dairy" label is halchically milchig, because some rebbetzin may
have mistakenly served milchig non-dairy creamer to her husband at a
meat meal? Why should we all be made to suffer because of someone's
error, even if that someone is a rebbetzin?)>
We do not make new g'zeirot. However, regarding the
non-dairy creamer, it should be noted that if it is indeed pareve, and
is being served with a meat meal, it should be served with some
indication that it is pareve, such as serving it with its container.
<5. Koach d'hetera adif: apparently -- according to the postings -- a
number of Gedolim and kashrut supervising agencies also agreed that
a dairy designation on the bread's wrapper meets the halachic
standard of distinguishability (even though some retracted their
approval for political rather than kashrut considerations).>
"Koach d'hetera adif" (literally, the strength of
permissibility is preferred) does not mean what this paragraph implies.
When there is a dispute in the Talmud in which one opinion rules more
stringently in two cases and the other rules more leniently in both, the
case that is cited to present their diference of opinion is the one in
which there is more a priori reason to prohibit, because it teaches us
that those who permit, permit it even in this case. Literally, it is
preferrable to show the strength of those who permit, to show how far
they go, rather than to demonstrate the strength of those who prohibit.
It does _not_ mean that where there is a difference of opinion, we
should follow the more lenient opinion. (This is not meant to imply that
we should necessarily follow the more stringent opinion, either. It is
merely intended to point out that the citation is irrelevant to the
discussion.)
<6. Those who wish to be machmir by refarining from eating dairy bread
-- tavo aleihem b'racha; those who do buy and eat dairy bread for
the reason(s) stated above -- yesh al mi lismoch.>
Can the writer cite the poskim who stated that a wrapper designation
suffices?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: W. Baker <wbaker@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 10:57:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Hallel on Yomin Noraim
> > From: <chips@...> >
>> To the best of my knowledge, it was universally accepted that Hallel is
>> not said on RH & YK.
>> This is based on the Midrash ( Masechet Rosh HaShana 32b and elsewhere):
>> The administering angels asked G-d: "why don't Israel say Hallel before You
>> on R.H. and Y.K. ?".
>> He answered them: "Is it conceivable that the King sits on the throne of
>> Justice with the books of the living and the dead open before Him, and
>> Israel would recite Hallel ?"
> This just begs the question, why is it not conceivable? What is the
> issue with Hallel ?
I am no posek, but it seems to me that Hallel is such a joyous service,
both in text and the usual tunes and enthusiasm with which it is sung,
that it is most suitable for all those holidays when we are celebrating
wonderful things that have happened to us, the Jewish people, like the
exodus, the getting of the Torah even the Rabbinic celebration of the
cleansing of the Temple and the miracle of the oil.
Although Rosh Hashana observes the birthday of the world, it and Yom
Kippur are most concerned with us, today and our relationship to others
and to Hashem. It is our tshuvah, both privately and collectively, that
is the concern of these days. somehow, the happy Hallel doesn't seem to
fit. Although we may have happy family meals and get togethers for Rosh
Hashana, that is not the main import of the days.
This is just my opinion, but could be an underlying reason for those who
set up the Machzorim.
Wendy Baker
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:56:19 +0100
Subject: Hamelekh Hamishpot
Shmuel Himelstein wrote:
> I can understand "Hamelech Hakadosh," but grammatically I find it hard
> to find a satisfactory translation of "Hamelech Hamishpat."
See Brokhos 12b; Rashi there answers your question.
This has been discussed previously in m-j
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Kaplan <penkap@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:21:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Haviva Ner-David
I think the Moderator's initial concern about posting the item about
Haviva Ner-David being a Modern Orthodox scholar was well taken, and I
wish he would have followed that first instinct. The post that was
included did not merely dispute whether Haviva Ner-David is a Modern
Orthodox scholar; it called her a Reform Jew. Now, my guess is that the
vast majority of the members of this list consider themselves Orthodox,
and are proud of it. How would we like it if someone called us Reform
Jews. Not if someone disagreed strongly with something we wrote or we
said, and not even if someone wrote that something we wrote or said is
not within Jewish tradition or Orthodoxy; but if they called us Reform
Jews. Any way you look at it, that is a personal imsult; an ad hominmem
attack. One can legitimately debate someone's views; one cannot debate
what is in someone's heart, and that's what being a Modern O rthodox Jew
(or any type of Orthodox Jew) is all about. We are all sinners, and if
sinning, or disagreeing with some aspect of Orthodox Judaism (or what
someone else considers part of Orthodox Judaism) makes us non-Orthodox,
then our numbers would shrink substantially. I haven't yet read Mark
Shapiro's recent book on the Rambam's 13 principles, but from the
reviews and articles I've read (and from his original article in the
Torah U'Maddah journal which I did read) it seems to me that reading
people out of Orthodoxy because of beliefs (as opposed to disagreeing
and arguing with those beliefs) is not, or perhaps should not, be what
we are about.
Disagree with Ner-David all you want; say that what she writes does not
reflect Orthodox dogma, but please, please, especially at this time of
the year, let's leave the personal imsnults out. And if that is
impossible on this topic (and perhaps it is), then I would hope that the
Moderator would reconsider his reconsideration of his concern.
Joseph Kaplan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:26:42 +0200
Subject: Karaites and Tefillin
The "Karaite Anthology," printed as part of the Yale Judaica Series,
published in 1952 and edited by Leonard Nemoy, with Associate Editor
Saul Lieberman and Harry A. Wolfson (no titles given for the editors),
states on p. XXV of the Introduction that "Phylacteries (Hebrew
'Tefillin') and doorpost amulets (Mezuzot) are not used by them either."
Ther "either" in that sentence refers backs to their not keeping certain
fast days or Chanukah.
That would seem to be a rather cut-and-dried proof.
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:56:48 +0100
Subject: Length of tefilo
Ben Katz wrote:
> The alternative is not to say every one. Davening keeps
> getting longer and longer; anyone who removes anything is somehow a
> reformer.
Well maybe in Ben's shul.
For most of us davening has been getting significantly shorter.
Artscroll has relegated half the piyutim for Yomim Noroim to the
Appendix, on the legitimate grounds that very people say them any more.
Martin Stern has written recently on the abolition by most (all?)
communities of of the recitation of 90% of the piyutim for Geshem &
Tal. I wonder how many shuls still say the yotser piyutim for many
shabosos of the year.
The truth is that over the past 150 years or so Ashkenazi Jews have been
busily chipping away at the traditional piyutim to the extent that
davening on many occasions takes a fraction of the time it used to.
Maybe some shuls have too many speeches and announcements. I would call
those part of davening
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:08:31 EDT
Subject: Names - Shneor
Leah Perl Shollar (MJv44n97) wrote in response to:
Jonathan Baker wrote in (v44n85):
> we see names introduced as populations shift, e.g. Yenta (Juanita)
> or Shneiur (Seņor) into Europe after the Spanish expulsion.
>>I was under the impression that Shneor was a Hebrew name. As I heard
>>it, a couple each wanted to name after his or her father -- Meir and
>>Yair respectively. They compromised, and called the child "Shneor" --
>>two lights...
Since the plural of "or" =light, in Hebrew is "orot" the name would have
been "Shneorot" but it is rather Shneor, therefore, "Shneor" =two
lights..." is simply folk etymology. Jonathan Baker is indeed correct
when he suggests that Shneiur is based on Seņor.
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 08:01:58 -0400
Subject: New Chumrah
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
> We just found a packet of tissues made in Israel, with the comment on
> it: "Mi'f'al Shomer Shabbat" (i.e., that the company is Shomer Shabbat)
> in Hebrew. These particular tissues are often used as Shabbat toilet
> paper.
>
>What I didn't understand is that the word Shabbat is spelled out Shin,
> Dash, Bet, Dash, Tav.
Perhaps they are packaged in such a way that there is no possibility of
tearing as you pull one out for use -- i.e. there is no perferation
connecting consecutive sheets.
We need more chumras, so I'm looking forward to Shabbos tissues.
As I mentioned long, long ago a great (fun & messy?) way to get little
children involved in erev Shabbos preparations is to give them a roll of
toilet paper and have them tear the roll into strips that are each 2 or
sheets long.
Carl A. Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 07:30:39 -0400
Subject: Separate Seating at Weddings (Reprise)
An article about the plight of orthodox Jewish singles in a recent issue
of the Cleveland Jewish News (a weekly community newspaper) - mentioned
(as an aside - not main thrust of article by any means) that weddings
which are perhaps "kosher" places Jewish singles to meet each other are
of little value along that dimension due to separate seating. This was
followed by a statement from an Agudah Rabbi (representative) re: custom
of 1000 year's standing.
I felt the juxtaposition of the two statements may cause an error of
interpretation re: to what this Rabbi was referring.
ALL THAT ASIDE -- what are the facts re: who had family (aka "mixed" - a
term I don't really think reflects the purpose / tone) seating at their
OWN wedding and who had separate seating.
I have heard that, for example, the Chofetz Chaim had family seating at
his own wedding. Any pro / con "facts" re: that statement.
If we look at the current and recent past leadership of Agudah (and
perhaps other substantial Orthodox organizations) would we find that the
senior leadership -- Roshei Yeshiva, etc., (probably, 'til 120, in their
70's and 80's) had family seating at their own weddings and separate
seating at their children's weddings.
Also, I'll ask the same question of Chassidic leadership of the same
vintage.
A similar question -- at weddings
Do bride and groom walk to the chuppa with their respective parents OR
groom with (both) fathers and bride with (both) mothers.
Carl A. Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 45 Issue 1
