Volume 66 Number 29
Produced: Thu, 12 Jan 23 16:42:25 -0500
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Cephalon 11-Piece Pots and Pans Set, Oil-Infused Ceramic Cookware
[Prof. L. Levine]
Dying declaration
[Ari Trachtenberg]
Same sink for meat and milk (2)
[Carl Singer Martin Stern]
Subjectivity
[Joel Rich]
Taker but not giver?
[Joel Rich]
The Grandchild Clause In The Law Of Return (2)
[Yisrael Medad David Tzohar]
Yaakov's pragmatic, not philosophical, reactions
[Joel Rich]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Prof. L. Levine <llevine@...>
Date: Tue, Jan 10,2023 at 10:17 AM
Subject: Cephalon 11-Piece Pots and Pans Set, Oil-Infused Ceramic Cookware
We recently received a gift of these pots via Amazon. As soon as I saw
oil-infused ceramic cookware, I wondered if these pots are kosher. It took me
some time to get to the right person at Cephalon and to get a definitive answer
to the question "Are these pots kosher?" The response was:
"Our pots are not kosher."
There is no mention of this on the Amazon web site nor on the Cephalon web
site. IMO, this is truly misleading.
I sent a query to the OU asking if pots with ceramic coating are kosher. I have
yet to receive a response.
Caveat Emptor!
Professor Yitzchok Levine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Tue, Jan 10,2023 at 07:17 AM
Subject: Dying declaration
In common law, a "dying declaration" is a statement made by a person who is
about to die (or thinks that he is). It is admissible in court (whereas,
otherwise, it would be considered "hearsay") under the presumption that the
dying individual has no personal incentive to lie.
Does anyone know whether there is any similar concept in Jewish law?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Tue, Jan 3,2023 at 02:17 PM
Subject: Same sink for meat and milk
Having partnered with a friend to build several homes for sale to the "kosher"
community -- today it seems that a "kosher kitchen" requires not only two sinks
but that they each have their own distinct portion of the kitchen.
This is not halachic as much as practical. Ditto two dishwashers. What was
once a luxury seems now to be a necessity.
I remember when living in apartments as a graduate student and again when I was
in the army that using two wash pans was necessary as there was but one,
undivided sink.
Perhaps 25 years ago we visited a young couple (my wife had been m'karev the
bride) who were living in student apartments at the Lubavitch college in New
Jersey. Each of these tiny apartments had a split sink -- 2 sections. What
surprised me was that there was no standardization among the couples (Left is
Meat, Right is Dairy, etc.)
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Jan 3,2023 at 04:17 PM
Subject: Same sink for meat and milk
David Ziants wrote (MJ 66#28):
> ...
> The scenario that I am presenting, is that there is a kosher (and shomer
> shabbat) apartment where the rav of the organisation who runs the apartment
> allows the same sink to be used for both washing up meat and milk without a
> bowl, or without even putting down a mat at the bottom of the sink which I
> know many people are lenient with. ... The temperature of the hot water coming
> out the tap is more than "yad soledet" [i.e. luke warm] - and I know this
> because when I visited there I put my hand under a hot water tap and had to
> withdraw it.
>
> When I asked my local rav, he said it was okay but I felt from the tone in his
> answer that he felt it was not ideal. I also see that Rav Eliezer Melamed in
> P'ninai haHalacha allows using the same sink when only one sink is available
> (and he sees putting a mat down on the bottom of the sink as a stringency
> concerning what it seems he describes as basic halacha when only one sink).
>
> This though, seems substantially more lenient than what I have seen over the
> decades, in normal religious households that have one sink. Any thoughts ...
If one has only one sink, it should be sufficient to make a point of putting
the washing up liquid in first, then running the taps and finally putting in
the dishes. The washing up water is then in the sink, which is at most a
keli sheini, and will not transmit ta'am [taste] from previous uses (So long as
there is no actual food in it). The washing up liquid will ensure that the water
is pagum [bad tasting] before it comes into contact with the dishes. It will
also spoil any food residues on the dishes.
With increasing prosperity, what was once a chumra indulged in only by the
wealthy has become something of a norm for all kashrut observers. It is
certainly a hiddur [improvement] but one can manage without if necessary.
Rav Eliezer Melamed is stating the basic halachah. Having two sinks is a
convenience and avoids problematic situations but is not strictly necessary.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <joelirarich@...>
Date: Fri, Jan 6,2023 at 09:17 AM
Subject: Subjectivity
In a recent on-line publication from the OU, there was an interesting piece
which merits discussion:
> Q. I am a finicky person. Many things that I find repulsive are innocuous for
> most people. Is the halacha of bal teshaktzu [do not do anything repulsive]
> established by the reaction of most people or is it applied individually for
> each person according to their sensitivities?
>
> A. The Shach (YD 66:15) discusses eating non-fertilized eggs that had been
> incubated by a chicken for three days. These eggs are no longer fresh, and
> some people wont eat them because they are stale and have an off taste. The
> Shach writes that one who is not disgusted may eat them. However, one who is
> finicky and is repulsed by the thought of eating old eggs may not consume them
> because of bal teshaktzu.
>
> Similarly, the Chochmas Adam )58:10) discusses a case of a mouse that fell into
> a large pot of soup and was removed. From a kashrus perspective, it is
> permissible to eat the soup if the ratio of soup to the mouse exceeds sixty to
> one. However, if one is disgusted by the thought of eating soup that was cooked
> with a mouse, eating the soup would be a violation of bal teshaktzu.
>
> Thus, from both sources, it is clear that bal teshaktzu is relative to each
> individual.
Are there any overarching insights into when we look at the individual's
idiosyncracies (as here) and when we say batla daato [we ignore his individual
sensitivities] and go by your average Yossi?
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <joelirarich@...>
Date: Wed, Jan 11,2023 at 07:17 AM
Subject: Taker but not giver?
I heard an interesting comment from a Rabbi during a recent shiur. He stated
that he had been contacted by an international bone marrow registry telling him
that he was a partial match and to come down for further testing. He consulted
with a number of poskim and they told him he was not required to get tested. He
told one posek that if the recipient was a frum Jew, that he would do it. The
posek told him, very good. The general response from the poskim was based on the
fact that since the majority of likely recipients were not Jewish, he didn't
have to do it. (I"m guessing due to lo taamod only being for Jews)
I suppose we have a similar ethical question with heart transplants if we won't
donate, but will take. It seems to me in this case there's an additional
halachic issue. It appears to me that if there's a partial match, you can't look
at the general population of registrants and ask what's the likelihood the
person is Jewish, since the partial match gives us some further information and
we would have to use Bayesian statistics to determine whether in fact the
assumption that the majority of likely matches were not Jewish should be updated
for the additional information that there is a partial match. Any thoughts?
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Tue, Jan 3,2023 at 02:17 PM
Subject: The Grandchild Clause In The Law Of Return
Susan Kane (MJ 66#28), in response to David Tzohar (MJ 66#27), quotes him
writing that there are fewer than 100 people with one Jewish grandparent who
make aliyah
every year. I would truly love to see a reliable source for that statistic.
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Tzohar <davidtzohar@...>
Date: Thu, Jan 5,2023 at 11:17 AM
Subject: The Grandchild Clause In The Law Of Return
Susan Cane asked (MJ 66#28):
> If fewer than 100 people with one Jewish grandparent make aliyah every year,
> why bother passing legislation that reduces peoples feeling of connection to
> Israel and increases conflict within the Jewish people?
First of all we are talking about 100 people in the last decade. Even if we add
those disqualified because of non orthodox conversions, this is a miniscule
percentage of olim from North America. No cause for conflict with North American
Jewry.
The big problem is with aliya from eastern Europe where the numbers are in the
tens of thousands with 100,000 waiting for permission to come. If we add this to
the at least 300,000 halachically non-Jewish population this is a real
demographic problem.
As someone who served as a Rabbi in a conversion program I can say that there
has to be a reform in conversion policy. We must make giyur more approachable
and attractive to prospective converts. This means, for instance, applying the
psak of the Rambam who said that is enough for prospective converts to accept
some of the basic tenets of Judaism such as Shabbat, Kashrut and family purity
and of course circumcision and ritual immersion.
There are Rabbis who consider those who are "zera Yisrael" of Jewish parental
lineage to be modern Geirei Toshav since they are not idolaters and accept the
seven Noahide Laws and Jewish sovereignty. Rav Kook ZTZ"L hinted at this
(introduction to Shabbat Haaretz). This is still a minority opinion. IMHO the
current problems of intermarriage and mamzerut will eventually force the
Rabbinate to consider this and other options.
KT
R' David Yitzchak Tzohar
Yerushalayim
David Tzohar
http://tzoharlateivahebrew.blogspot.com/
http://tzoharlateiva.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <joelirarich@...>
Date: Tue, Jan 3,2023 at 10:17 PM
Subject: Yaakov's pragmatic, not philosophical, reactions
Has anyone a comment on the parallels of Yaakov's pragmatic (not philosophical)
reactions in Toldot (27:12) (maybe my father will find me out) and in Vayishlach
(34:30) (maybe the locals will destroy me/us)?
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 66 Issue 29
