Volume 58 Number 32
Produced: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:28:57 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
"magical" influences on halacha
[Russell J Hendel]
certification of scotch whisky (3)
[Mark Steiner Akiva Miller Elazar M. Teitz]
chumras
[Martin Stern]
fish and worms
[Steven Oppenheimer]
halacha of modest dress
[Akiva Miller]
ignorance of sexual matters
[Rabbi Meir Wise]
kashrut of southern comfort (2)
[Moshe Bach Elazar M. Teitz]
mara d'atra vs. mara d'alma (2)
[Martin Stern Yisrael Medad]
size of tefach (was halacha of modest dress) (2)
[David Maslow Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 13,2010 at 08:01 PM
Subject: "magical" influences on halacha
I recently posted that Jewish law prohibits NICHUSH, DIVINATION, which refers to
irrationally basing future actions. Here "irrationally" refers to, for example,
basing ones future actions on symbolic interpretations of reality (e.g. A
_black_ cat crossed my path and hence I should not go to work today else my day
be black (bad)).
Gilad in v58n27 responds as follows:
> I am puzzled by Russell Hendel's view. In Talmudic times people believed in
> ruach ra'ah (=bad spirit) shedim (=ghosts) etc., and the Talmud is full of
> these "unscientific" stories and rules, and this is an essential part of our
> heritage. We believe in the Torah shebichtav (=written Torah) and in the
> Torah she-be-al Peh (=oral Torah). For example in Masechet Pesachim (around
> page 111) one can find the following:...3. Discussion that it is a bad omen
> for a woman, or a dog to walk through a group of men....
> In fact Russell says that this kind of material quoted above is a violation
> against Nichush. Doesn't Russell think that our Talmudic sages knew about
> this topic as much as he does?
Gilad is only strengthening my question. Let me re-ask it by enumerating certain
points.
1) There is a biblical prohibition of divination which includes prohibiting
basing future actions based on symbolic interpretations of reality (such as the
black cat example) (NOTE: Gilad did not dispute this or explain it differently)
2) There are Talmudic statements of the form "it is a bad omen for a woman .. to
walk through a group of men." (NOTE: **I** do not dispute this - the controversy
between me and Gilad is not on the existence of the statement)
3) The simple meaning of the statement "women walking through a group of men" is
a symbolic non-scientific interpretation (Again **I** don't dispute this).
4) But Gilad certainly acknowledges that when the simple meaning of two Talmudic
statements differs then we seek resolution. The resolution may interpret one of
the statements broadly or symbolically or with restrictions. In fact, a very
large portion of Talmudic study as well as the Tosafot study of Talmudic passage
pairs consists of such resolutions.
5) Based on 1)-4) I would simply suggest that "a woman walking through a group
of men" symbolizes unnecessary sexual suggestion (After all isn't there a
natural temptation to crack jokes about the lone woman among the men). The
statement that "it is a bad omen for a woman to walk between men" simply
(symbolically) means "If you can avoid sexually suggestive situations (even if
no actual sin is involved) then do so lest sexual slurs (symbolized by bad
omens) result."
My approach to this Talmudic passage is perfectly "reasonable." I have not based
future actions because a woman walks between men. I have simply seen it as
advice. Furthermore the causal mechanism (sight of single woman+group of men
leads to sexual slurs) is "scientific" not irrational.
I could interpret other Talmudic statements that way. In fact, I wrote an
article showing how to interpret "evil eye" Talmudic statements rationally (See
http://www.Rashiyomi.com/evileye.pdf).
At this point I have to re-ask Gilad: "Where do you disagree?" It would seem
that Gilad agrees (generally) with 1-4. Or perhaps Gilad is making an exception
to the Talmudic process for superstitions. But why?
I also am a bit shocked at some of the other statements made. Gilad states >>In
Talmudic times people believed in ruach ra'ah (=bad spirit) shedim (=ghosts)
etc., and the Talmud is full of these "unscientific" stories and rules.>>
RESPONSE: I agree with Gilad that **people** believed this. But the Talmudic
Rabbis were not the people. They were men of great vision who fought improper
views, combating them with the Biblical prohibitions against such beliefs. Just
to be emphatic: **I** don't dispute that **the masses** believed in such things.
But why should anyone suggest that the Talmudic Rabbis themselves believed in
them. (I have presented alternative psychological interpretations in my article
cited above.)
Finally Gilad states:
> and this is an essential part of our heritage.
RESPONSE: Essential!? I thought an essential part of our heritage was the fight
initiated by Abraham the Partriarch against idolatry, divination and other
general beliefs of black magic. I thought our essential heritage believed the
exact opposite.
I believe there is room here for discussion. I would however suggest that we
conduct the discussion in the Talmudic spirit. Let us leave out "the masses" and
instead focus on the structure of Jewish law and interpret any Talmudic
statements against this background.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Tue, Jun 22,2010 at 07:01 AM
Subject: certification of scotch whisky
I don't know whether it was ethical for the OU to snatch the hechsher of a
certain whisky out of the hands of the London Beth Din. But there is a kashrus
issue concerning whisky, mentioned in an early responsum by R. Moshe Feinstein
to Rav Pinchas Teitz, whose son I believe is a participant here.
The issue concerned the use of wine. Rabbi Feinstein z"l gave a rather sweeping
leniency, according to which the proportion of wine to whisky needed to save the
whisky from prohibition is one part in six, not the usual one part in sixty. To
put it another way, Rav Moshe permitted the drinking of a whisky into which was
poured 15% non-kosher wine! Rav Moshe rejected R. Teitz' argument that since
the wine was deliberately introduced for flavor, the law of bitul
[nullification] does not apply altogether, let alone 1 in 6. Nevertheless, R.
Moshe applauded R. Teitz' efforts to get a whisky made without any nonkosher
ingredients, even though he held that one could drink the whisky without a
hechsher, as stated.
Hence, I don't think the attempt of kashrus agencies to control the production
of whisky is a good example of a "new chumra." I believe that the OU was
reluctant to get into the alcoholic beverage field, because they didn't want to
give the impression that they encourage drinking. Now that (unfortunately) the
use and abuse of alcohol is widespread among the Orthodox population, they see
no reason not to make sure at least that the liquor is kosher.
Ironically, one of the "British" responsa on the subject of scotch whisky, a
staple in every British shul at a bris, was written by R. Weiss [Minchas
Yitzchak], later of the Eda Haredis of Jerusalem, then in Manchester. He raises
the point that the good scotch is aged in sherry casks, and one has to assume to
be on the safe side that the amount of wine released into the whisky from the
walls of the cask is equal to the volume of the cask. A calculation shows that
this is more than 1 in 60, so Dayyan Weiss had to rely on R. Moshe's opinion!
So the "Americans" can argue that had it not been for the Igros Moshe of
"America", the "English" would not have a leg to stand on in drinking whisky
without a hechsher.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Tue, Jun 22,2010 at 03:01 PM
Subject: certification of scotch whisky
Immanuel Burton quoted the British newspaper "The Jewish News":
> My understanding is that the London Beth Din had been working on a
> deal with Glenmorangie for nearly a year and almost clinched it.
> Then allegedly the big boys in blue from the US of A came in waving
> their corporate hands and pretty much implied, 'If you want access
> into our bigger kosher market, you want our choice of label'. And
> so it was. (Who says kashrus isn't political?)
A great deal depends on the nuances of exactly what was said and how it was
said. If their implication was "If you don't hire us, then we will tell everyone
that you're not reliable," then I would object strongly. But if their
implication was "If you don't go with us, you won't sell as much, because our
hechsher is more familiar to the Americans," then what did they do wrong?
I do agree that it is unfortunate (for us consumers and laypeople) that the
agencies compete for business, but I don't know if there's anything assur
(forbidden) or immoral about it. Don't all businesses compete to a certain
extent? As long as they do it fairly, I don't see why we should complain. And as
I wrote in the previous paragraph, the discussion described may or may not have
been done fairly.
All this leads me to wonder what the point of this post is, and -- more
importantly -- why this post doesn't count as lashon hara (forbidden gossip). If
you have a point to make, please state it more clearly, and give us the *facts*,
without words like "allegedly" and "pretty much implied".
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Tue, Jun 22,2010 at 04:01 PM
Subject: certification of scotch whisky
A rabbi was quoted as having written in a British newspaper that
"My understanding is that the London Beth Din had been working on a deal with
Glenmorangie for nearly a year and almost clinched it. Then allegedly the big
boys in blue from the US of A came in waving their corporate hands and pretty
much implied, 'If you want access into our bigger kosher market, you want our
choice of label'. And so it was. (Who says kashrus isn't political?) Word is
the Dayanim are drowning their sorrows ... in Glenlivet!"
This is highly unlikely. The OU is unique among the major
kashruth-supervision agencies in the US in that its Kashruth division consists
exclusively of salaried individuals, who have nothing to gain if one more or one
less company is supervised by them -- unlike the others, whose finances are
controlled by those responsible for their supervision. The only circumstance
under which the OU will initiate talks for supervising a product is if one of
the companies already under their supervision wants to use that product as an
ingredient in its own products. I doubt that any OU-supervised company asked to
use Glenmorangie.
I suspect that the distillery learned that OU supervision is more widely
recognized than that of the LBD, and decided that its interests would be better
served by using the OU. Not wishing to admit its lesser standing, the LBD chose
to blame the non-existent "corporate hands" of the OU.
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Jun 15,2010 at 02:01 AM
Subject: chumras
On Fri, Jun 4,2010, Alex Heppenheimer wrote:
> In MJ 58:23, Martin Stern wrote:
>> Another area relevant to Shavuot is the almost universal custom of not
>> davenning [praying --MOD] ma'ariv, or at the least making kiddush, on the
>> first evening until after night which in northern latitudes can be extremely
>> late. In Germany this was not the custom and the Yosef Omets remarked already
>> 400 years ago that he had never seen it practiced among the gedolei Ashkenaz
>> [German rabbis].
>
> Well, your beef is really with the major commentaries on Shulchan Aruch,
> because they state this as a halachic requirement, not simply a custom: Taz
> (Orach Chaim 494) regarding maariv, Magen Avraham (ibid., citing Ayin-Hei and
> Mem-Beis, though I don't know who those are) regarding kiddush. And the major
> post-Shulchan Aruch Ashkenazic halachic compendia (such as Shulchan Aruch
> Harav 494:2, Aruch Hashulchan 494:3, and Mishnah Berurah 494:1) follow suit.
It is not MY beef but that of the Yosef Omets who objected to East European
chumras being introduced to (dare I say enforced on) German communities who
had a long and respectable tradition to the contrary. Needless to say the
major commentaries on Shulchan Aruch cited were all composed in Eastern
Europe and reflect their traditions.
Another example is the insinuation that the German (and West European)
minhag to wait three hours after eating meat before consuming dairy is
somehow not quite correct. (There is an interesting article on this subject
in the first volume of Yerushateinu).
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steven Oppenheimer <steven.oppenheimer@...>
Date: Tue, Jun 22,2010 at 10:01 AM
Subject: fish and worms
This teshuva and explanation regarding the kashrut of fish that contain
worms was just published. It may be helpful for the readers.
http://matzav.com/rav-belskys-stance-on-the-kashrus-of-worms-in-flesh-of-fish
--
Steven Oppenheimer, D.M.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Tue, Jun 22,2010 at 03:01 PM
Subject: halacha of modest dress
David Tzohar wrote:
> There is a common misconception of how the halacha relates to
> modesty in dress ... The rules of modern dress are not relative to
> societal norms. They are the same if the Gentiles wear burkas and
> veils or where they wear halter tops and miniskirts.
I'd love to know where you get this from.
> The basic minimum rules are that a woman's body must be covered in
> the following places: ...
The rules you gave are a pretty good summary, according to many opinions. But
they constitute the *minimum* which should be covered. If the women in one's
local society usually cover parts of the body which halacha allows to be
exposed, then in *that* society even the halacha requires those parts to be covered.
> These laws can be found in the Shulchan Aruch-Orach Chayim and
> Yoreh Deia and later codes and responsa.
Please be more specific, especially regarding your claim that we can ignore the
societal norms. Because what I found is very different.
For example, Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 75:1 says, "If a tefach [about 3-4
inches] of a woman is exposed, in an area where it would normally be covered,
one may not recite the Shema there."
Mishneh Berurah #2 there elaborates: "But her face and hands follow the local
custom, being revealed in that place. Similarly regarding from the foot to the
knee - in a place where they commonly walk barefoot, one *may* say the Shema
there... but in a place where they cover them, the limit is a tefach like the
rest of a woman's body. But her upper arms and thighs are forbidden even if they
are commonly exposed..."
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rabbi Meir Wise <Meirhwise@...>
Date: Tue, Jun 22,2010 at 03:01 AM
Subject: ignorance of sexual matters
In response to Jeanette Friedman, my wife's first husband thought that
babies came out between the breasts!
However, I am pleased to add that she is still happily married to her
first husband (me) after 30 years and has four beautiful children and
five grandchildren who are all geniuses!
Rabbi Wise, London
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Moshe Bach <moshe.bach@...>
Date: Tue, Jun 22,2010 at 11:01 AM
Subject: kashrut of southern comfort
Rav Shmouel Semelman of the Jerusalem Religious Council wrote:
> A new kosher whisky liquor has arrived in Israel called "Southern Comfort"
> and is certified to be "kosher lemehadrin parve".
Interesting. Star-k website http://www.star-k.org/cons-appr-liquor.htm lists
Southern Comfort under "not recommended." I used to enjoy it before it came
under this category.
So what happened?
Star-k site not up to date?
Difference in standards?
maury (moshe) bach
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Tue, Jun 22,2010 at 04:01 PM
Subject: kashrut of southern comfort
The last digest had a most misleading item about the kashruth of Southern
Comfort. The rabbi who posted it, and should have known better, neglected to
mention that it is ONLY THE MADE-IN-IRELAND Southern Comfort which is made under
supervision, as is clearly stated in the web site whose URL he gave, but did not
quote. American-made Southern Comfort is not under supervision, and is
considered not kosher.
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 20,2010 at 05:01 AM
Subject: mara d'atra vs. mara d'alma
On Tue, Jun 15,2010, Rabbi Meir Wise wrote:
> Whenever I meet the Gaon, Rabbi Aryeh Nadav shlit"a, the Rav of Ramat
> Amidar, I enquire: mah shlom mara d'atra (= how is the master of this
> place?)
>
> In his great modesty, he always replies: Hakadosh Baruch Hu Mara
> D'atra (= The Holy One, Blessed be He is the Master of this place)!
Is this not a limitation on the Almighty who is really Mara dishmaya ve'alma
[Master of heavens and earth] not just "this place"?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 20,2010 at 01:01 PM
Subject: mara d'atra vs. mara d'alma
Rabbi Meir Wise recalls a local city Rabbi who says: 'Hakadosh Baruch
Hu Mara D'atra (= The Holy One, Blessed be He is the Master of this
place)!' and adds "May the Almighty increase such rabbis in Israel!"
I am not quite sure what to make of this.
a) The Divine Being is always referred to as Mara D'Alma, Master of the
World (or the Universe). Is the local Rav degrading G-d?
b) Since I am sure he worked hard to get his position and works hard to
keep his position and works hard in his position, to be overmodest and
suggest he isn't the Mara D'Atra seems a bit unbecoming for his Kavod
Torah (the honor of the Torah he exemplifies).
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Maslow <maslowd@...>
Date: Tue, Jun 22,2010 at 01:01 PM
Subject: size of tefach (was halacha of modest dress)
In describing minimun rules for modesty, David Tzohar lists (v58#31), for
married women's hair, only leaving "a tefach (about 3 cm.) uncovered."
Is 3 cm -- slightly more than 1 inch -- an accuracte representation of a tefach?
this would have major implications for rules of eruv, sukkah, and lulav, among
others, where 3 tfachim (less than 4 inches by this conversion) is an important
measure.
I always thought that a tefach was 3-4 inches or approximately 10 cm.
David Maslow
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Jun 22,2010 at 05:01 PM
Subject: size of tefach (was halacha of modest dress)
On Mon, Jun 14,2010, David Tzohar <davidtzohar@...> wrote:
> The hair of a married woman must be covered though it is permitted to leave
> a tefach (about 3 cm.) uncovered.
Surely he must have meant 3 INCHES, though this itself would be quite a chumra
[stringency].
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 58 Issue 32
