Conservative *responsa* on stam yeinam
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Two weeks ago, Robert Kaiser posted a Conservative *responsa* that permitted
drinking gentile wine (STAM YEINAM) quoting the *permissive* tshuva of
the REMA (Tshuvat Ha'Rema 124). I see the Conservative propensity for
twisting and distorting the truth is again evident. Today, I read the
Tshuvat ha'Rema 124 in the original. Needless to say, the Remah NEVER
permitted the drinking of stam yeinam. I will give direct transliterated
quotes from the Rema followed by my translation.
It seemed that a certain Jewish community (Mehrin) had the custom to drink
gentile wine and the Rema was asked how to deal with this. He states:
"V'CHEN ANI OMER B'DAVAR KI YAREH ANOCHI L'OMRO, SHE'LO YILAMDU OVREI
AVEIRA MAKOM LISMOCH ALAV V'YAKILU OHD YOTER"(briefly: he doesn't want
anyone to get the wrong impression to rely on his SPECIFIC reference
to the Mehrin community and sin even more) "AF AL PI SH'EIMO K'DAT
V'HALACHA (even though what the Mehrin community is doing goes against Jewish
law).
He then finds some reasons why to be lenient for this SPECIFIC community.
They had a long tradition; they had no other wine to drink; there is a
disagreement in the Talmud between Rav and Shmuel on the status of a gentile
infant touching wine; and the disagreement between Rabbenu Tam and the RI
on the above.
He then quotes what he wrote (Darchei Moshe on Tur Yoreh Deah 64:3) on the
custom of a Rheine community to eat the fat of the Keres (which is forbidden
under the penalty of KARET: excision) and that Rabbenu Chanannel & the original
pshat of Rabbenu Tam (before the disagreement with the RI) all ruled leniently
on the gentile infant that touched wine and how it was similar to gentile
bread (PAT AKUM). Thus, for this very specific community which had a tradition
he was lenient. Yet he writes: "V'CHALILA LI LOMAR LISMOCH AL HA'DAVAR KI LO
BAHTI RAK K'MITAHER SHERETZ M'DIN AF AL PI SHE'HU TAMEH MIN HATORAH; KEN
AZ OMAR BIKVAR ZEH SHE'LO BAHTI RAK L'HAR'OHT KTZAT PANIM HATIR AVAL LO
LISMOCH AL ZEH KLAL. KOL SH'KEN, BIMKOMOT SHE'LO NAHAGU BO HETER. V'CHOL
HA'MACHMIR TAVOH ALAV BRACHA". (briefly: God forbid anyone should rely
on this specific instance........ I have only tried to show a slight
permission... but others should not rely on it whatsoever; and most certainly
not by those communities who don't drink gentile wine. And all those who are
stringent in this matter will see a blessing).
Why are the Conservative clergy so damn disengenuous ?? In the famous words
of Abraham Lincoln: You can fool some of the people all of the time and all
of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all
of the time.
Did you realy think that people wouldn't read the original source material
and see how you twisted and distorted the truth for your own agenda ?
Josh
Harry Weiss
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
: Two weeks ago, Robert Kaiser posted a Conservative *responsa* that permitted
You have to remember it is a C responsa. Most C rabbis could not read or
undestand a Tshuva from the Rama, nothing to say about any of the layity.
: Josh
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
Daniel B. Schwartz
Despite this outright fraud promulgated upon the masses, the Conservative
movement wishes to be considered a Halachik movement. How can they be so
chutzpadik to do so. They completely lack any integrity
Robert Kaiser
Josh Backon bac...@vms.huji.ac.il says:
>Two weeks ago, Robert Kaiser posted a Conservative *responsa* that permitted
>drinking gentile wine (STAM YEINAM) quoting the *permissive* tshuva of
>the REMA (Tshuvat Ha'Rema 124). I see the Conservative propensity for
>twisting and distorting the truth is again evident. Today, I read the
>Tshuvat ha'Rema 124 in the original. Needless to say, the Remah NEVER
>permitted the drinking of stam yeinam.
Josh is lying.
>It seemed that a certain Jewish community (Mehrin) had the custom to drink
>gentile wine and the Rema was asked how to deal with this. He states:
>"V'CHEN ANI OMER B'DAVAR KI YAREH ANOCHI L'OMRO, SHE'LO YILAMDU OVREI
>AVEIRA MAKOM LISMOCH ALAV V'YAKILU OHD YOTER"(briefly: he doesn't want
>anyone to get the wrong impression to rely on his SPECIFIC reference
>to the Mehrin community and sin even more) "AF AL PI SH'EIMO K'DAT
>V'HALACHA (even though what the Mehrin community is doing goes against Jewish
>law).
>He then finds some reasons why to be lenient for this SPECIFIC community.
I know. That is exactly what I said - many times!. Please
stop spreading your lies. I know that you have a pathological hatred
of Conservative Jews, but that is no reason to make yourself look like
a fool. Everyone here on this saw me say that the Rama reluctantly
gave a heter to this one community. I never once claimed otherwise.
Your lies to the contrary seem designed to make Orthodox Jews look
like liars and fundamentlists,
Are you sure you're not a mole?
Robert
Y...@my-dejanews.com
Peace, gentlemen!
In article <3576c...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>,
kai...@biosys.net wrote:
>
>
> Josh Backon bac...@vms.huji.ac.il says:
> >Two weeks ago, Robert Kaiser posted a Conservative *responsa* that
permitted
> >drinking gentile wine (STAM YEINAM) quoting the *permissive* tshuva of
> >the REMA (Tshuvat Ha'Rema 124). I see the Conservative propensity for
> >twisting and distorting the truth is again evident. Today, I read the
> >Tshuvat ha'Rema 124 in the original. Needless to say, the Remah NEVER
> >permitted the drinking of stam yeinam.
>
> Josh is lying.
Mr. Kaiser, it would've helped here if you clarified exactly what Mr. Backon
is allegedly lying about. When he talks about "C propensity for twisting,
etc.", he seems to mean the authors of the C responsa in question, not
necessarily you.
> >It seemed that a certain Jewish community (Mehrin) had the custom to drink
> >gentile wine and the Rema was asked how to deal with this. He states:
> >"V'CHEN ANI OMER B'DAVAR KI YAREH ANOCHI L'OMRO, SHE'LO YILAMDU OVREI
> >AVEIRA MAKOM LISMOCH ALAV V'YAKILU OHD YOTER"(briefly: he doesn't want
> >anyone to get the wrong impression to rely on his SPECIFIC reference
> >to the Mehrin community and sin even more) "AF AL PI SH'EIMO K'DAT
> >V'HALACHA (even though what the Mehrin community is doing goes against
> >Jewish law).
> >He then finds some reasons why to be lenient for this SPECIFIC community.
>
> I know. That is exactly what I said - many times!. Please
> stop spreading your lies. I know that you have a pathological hatred
> of Conservative Jews, but that is no reason to make yourself look like
> a fool. Everyone here on this saw me say that the Rama reluctantly
> gave a heter to this one community. I never once claimed otherwise.
> Your lies to the contrary seem designed to make Orthodox Jews look
> like liars and fundamentlists,
I know it sounds quaint, but can we *please* have some peace and quiet here?
Benefit of the doubt and all that?
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Brute force is the only avenue of action open to men who regard
themselves as mindless aggregates of chemicals." -- Ayn Rand
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Jonathan J. Baker
>>Two weeks ago, Robert Kaiser posted a Conservative *responsa* that permitted
>>drinking gentile wine (STAM YEINAM) quoting the *permissive* tshuva of
>>the REMA (Tshuvat Ha'Rema 124). I see the Conservative propensity for
>>twisting and distorting the truth is again evident. Today, I read the
>>Tshuvat ha'Rema 124 in the original. Needless to say, the Remah NEVER
>>permitted the drinking of stam yeinam.
> Josh is lying.
No, he's not.
>>It seemed that a certain Jewish community (Mehrin) had the custom to drink
>>gentile wine and the Rema was asked how to deal with this. He states:
>>"V'CHEN ANI OMER B'DAVAR KI YAREH ANOCHI L'OMRO, SHE'LO YILAMDU OVREI
>>AVEIRA MAKOM LISMOCH ALAV V'YAKILU OHD YOTER"(briefly: he doesn't want
>>anyone to get the wrong impression to rely on his SPECIFIC reference
>>to the Mehrin community and sin even more) "AF AL PI SH'EIMO K'DAT
>>V'HALACHA (even though what the Mehrin community is doing goes against Jewish
>>law).
>>He then finds some reasons why to be lenient for this SPECIFIC community.
> I know. That is exactly what I said - many times!. Please
Liar (tm). The following is the closest I found to such a claim:
======================================
The responsa authorizing the use of stam yeenam in some
communites is from the she'lot-u-teshuvot of Rabbi Moses Isserles,
number 124. Note that this responsum was censored and omitted from
many editions. It appears in the Cracow edition, 1710.
======================================
That's "some" in your claim, while Josh cited the Rema saying "one".
Technically, then, it is not "exactly" what you said.
>stop spreading your lies. I know that you have a pathological hatred
>of Conservative Jews, but that is no reason to make yourself look like
>a fool. Everyone here on this saw me say that the Rama reluctantly
>gave a heter to this one community. I never once claimed otherwise.
No, we didn't.
>Your lies to the contrary seem designed to make Orthodox Jews look
>like liars and fundamentlists,
Anyway, there's a difference between ruling leniently for one community
of observants who have this one deviant practice, making a bedieved
ruling, vs. making a lechatchilah ruling that overturns a Rabbinic
rule for everyone. Short of taking that non-halachick leap from
ex post facto to a priori, I can't see using this teshuva to
legitimize the C ruling that all American wine is kosher.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Daniel B. Schwartz
Robert Kaiser <kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu> wrote in article
<3576c...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>...
> I know. That is exactly what I said - many times!. Please
> stop spreading your lies. I know that you have a pathological hatred
> of Conservative Jews, but that is no reason to make yourself look like
> a fool. Everyone here on this saw me say that the Rama reluctantly
> gave a heter to this one community. I never once claimed otherwise.
> Your lies to the contrary seem designed to make Orthodox Jews look
> like liars and fundamentlists,
And based on that very reluctant heter, the Conservativemovmenet feels it
is allowed to drink stam yeinam? That is absolutly absurd. It is also
dishonest, anti-Halachik, and makes Conservative poskim look like idiots.
Really, they should try some Halachik intelectual honesty. If people want
to drink stam yeinam let them drink; but thye should be honest enough to
know it is forbidden, and not think it is permitted
Yisrael Rice
> >Two weeks ago, Robert Kaiser posted a Conservative *responsa* that
> permitted
> >drinking gentile wine (STAM YEINAM) quoting the *permissive* tshuva
> of
> community (Mehrin) had the custom to drink
Robert, is there a conservative responsa using this as a Heter or not?
Thank you for your response.
Yisrael
> I never once claimed otherwise.
> Your lies to the contrary seem designed to make Orthodox Jews look
> like liars and fundamentlists,
>
Moshe Shulman
>From: bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
>Why are the Conservative clergy so damn disengenuous ?? In the famous
words
>of Abraham Lincoln: You can fool some of the people all of the time
and all
>of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people
all
>of the time.
Unfortuinatly Robert is among the people who can be folwed all of the
time. It is sad as he seems to be a nice guy, but he just thinks he
knows more then he does. (I know it is a common sin of youth. I
afterall fell into that sin also :) As do my teenage children :) )
--
Moshe Shulman mshu...@ix.netcom.com 718-436-7705
http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus Chassidus Website
Moshe Shulman
>From: kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser)
>Josh Backon bac...@vms.huji.ac.il says:
>>Two weeks ago, Robert Kaiser posted a Conservative *responsa* that
permitted
>>drinking gentile wine (STAM YEINAM) quoting the *permissive* tshuva
of
>>twisting and distorting the truth is again evident. Today, I read the
>>Tshuvat ha'Rema 124 in the original. Needless to say, the Remah NEVER
>>permitted the drinking of stam yeinam.
>Josh is lying.
drink
>>"V'CHEN ANI OMER B'DAVAR KI YAREH ANOCHI L'OMRO, SHE'LO YILAMDU OVREI
>>AVEIRA MAKOM LISMOCH ALAV V'YAKILU OHD YOTER"(briefly: he doesn't
want
>>anyone to get the wrong impression to rely on his SPECIFIC reference
>>to the Mehrin community and sin even more) "AF AL PI SH'EIMO K'DAT
>>V'HALACHA (even though what the Mehrin community is doing goes
against Jewish
>>law).
>>He then finds some reasons why to be lenient for this SPECIFIC
community.
>stop spreading your lies. I know that you have a pathological hatred
>of Conservative Jews, but that is no reason to make yourself look like
>a fool. Everyone here on this saw me say that the Rama reluctantly
>Your lies to the contrary seem designed to make Orthodox Jews look
>like liars and fundamentlists,
Robert, I have read what you wrote on this subject, and it was clear
from your comments to me and others that the Rema was sipposidly
making a general rule that allowed stam Yayin. Maybe that was not
your intention but I am sure there is enough on Deja News on this
subject to prove that is the clear meaning of what you wrote. If you
now agree with Josh's reading, that the Rema refered to a specific
community. (Do you know where Mehrin is?) And that he said that it
was forbidden to generalize from the tshuva. How can you feel
comfortable with what the Conservative psak says? They are clearly
ruling contrary to the explicit statement of the Rema.
Robert Kaiser
Y...@my-dejanews.com says:
>
>Mr. Kaiser, it would've helped here if you clarified exactly what Mr. Backon
>is allegedly lying about. When he talks about "C propensity for twisting,
>etc.", he seems to mean the authors of the C responsa in question, not
>necessarily you.
You miss my point. Josh lied about what I posted to this
newsgroup. In past weeks, I had told people here that the Rama (Rabbi
Moses Isserles) reluctantly gave a heter to a community, allowing
them to drink gentile wine, as it had been their custom to do so.
A few days later, Josh comes on and start lying, and falsely
claims that I said something different. Josh then proceeds to say
what I wrote was false, and that in fact the Rama reluctantly gave
a heter to a community, allowing them to drink gentile wine, as it
had been their custom to do so.
That, as you can see, is exactly what I have been saying all along!
Josh is lying when he claims that I said otherwise. This is not the
first time he pulled this stunt.
Robert
Robert Kaiser
Jonathan J. Baker says:
>> I know. That is exactly what I said - many times!. Please
>
>Liar (tm). The following is the closest I found to such a claim:
>======================================
> The responsa authorizing the use of stam yeenam in some
>communites is from the she'lot-u-teshuvot of Rabbi Moses Isserles,
>number 124. Note that this responsum was censored and omitted from
>many editions. It appears in the Cracow edition, 1710.
>======================================
>
>That's "some" in your claim, while Josh cited the Rema saying "one".
>Technically, then, it is not "exactly" what you said.
Jon, please get help. I know you have some serious issues
regarding your seething hatred of non-Orthodox Jews. We all also
know that you see imaginary plots to murder homosexuals. But the
proper response is to seek help, and not spew hateful lies on this
newsgroup.
For those new to this thread, please note that it is a
*verifiable* fact that Jon Baker is a compulsive liar. You see,
all my posts have been publicly archived at http://www.dejanews.com/
This presents proof of Jon's lies, and proof that I have been telling
the truth all along.
For convinience, I enclose one such post below, with message
ID header information.
Robert
***********************************************************
http://x4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=356808211&CONTEXT=897003228.586874880&hitnum=5
Subject: Re: Are non-Orthodox forms JEWISH or JUDAIC??
From: kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser)
Date: 1998/05/27
Message-ID: <356b5...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
[More Headers]
[Subscribe to soc.culture.jewish]
Josh Backon says:
>The Tshuvat Ha'Remah (124) did **NOT** permit stam yeinam to anyone:
>he permitted it in the case of someone who was sick and needed the
>wine (as a remedy). And there were many who opposed this psak of the
>Remah....
>...
>One of the most odious things Chazal referred to was DISTORTING and
>TWISTING of halachic rulings. The Silverman *ruling* is a perfect
>example how a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.
Josh, you are reading the wrong teshuva! The teshuva I am
discussing can pretty much only be found in the 1710 Cracow edition
- other editions of the Rama's responsa were censored by later rabbinic
authorities. Look, I've pointed this fact out three times now, and
each time you ignore the teshuva, and refer some other one that is
not the topic of discussion.
The text of his teshuva was very clear: It was *not* about sick
people. It was about religious Jews from a town where the custom
was to drink gentile wine. The question posed to him was "Is it Ok
to drink gentile wine? Are there halakhic grounds to sanction this?"
And though he expressed reluctance, he ends up by saying that, yes, he
does find grounds for sanctioning it.
Robert
Robert Kaiser
"Daniel B. Schwartz" <schwa...@worldnet.att.net> says:
>
> And based on that very reluctant heter, the Conservativemovmenet feels it
>is allowed to drink stam yeinam? That is absolutly absurd. It is also
>dishonest, anti-Halachik, and makes Conservative poskim look like idiots.
Please stop writing fiction. That is *not* the only basis
for the permission to use stam yeinam, and you it. Your claim to the
contrary is simply pathetic.
If you wish to disgaree with the reasoning that the Conservative
poseks have used, you are free to do so, but it is disheartening to
see you still delieberatly spreading lies about the contents of the
teshuva.
Do you honestly feel that you serve Orthodox Judaism best by
spreading lies about non-Orthodox Jews?
Robert
Jerry B. Altzman
In article <6l75vv$p...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>,
Moshe Shulman <mshu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Robert, I have read what you wrote on this subject, and it was clear
>from your comments to me and others that the Rema was sipposidly
>making a general rule that allowed stam Yayin. Maybe that was not
Far be it from me to put words in Robert's mouth, but I think his point
was that in *one* edition of teshuvot ha-rema (which was later censored
and only available in one edition) the Rema said such-and-such, whereas
the rest of you are looking at the censored edition, which said so-and-so.
Since people are looking at different versions of the teshuvah, different
conclusions are reachable.
Robert: Is this so?
Please note that I am *not* taking sides on this issue one way or another
in this post.
>Moshe Shulman mshu...@ix.netcom.com 718-436-7705
//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman There is no universe -- P. Halmos +1 212 785 4445
jba...@cs.columbia.edu jba...@scisun.sci.ccny.cuny.edu KE3ML
Robert Kaiser
Yisrael Rice <yr...@linex.com> says:
>>Two weeks ago, Robert Kaiser posted a Conservative *responsa* that permitted
>>drinking gentile wine (STAM YEINAM) quoting the *permissive* tshuva of
>>the REMA (Tshuvat Ha'Rema 124). >It seemed that a certain Jewish
>>community (Mehrin) had the custom to drink
>Robert, is there a conservative responsa using this as a Heter or not?
There is a Conservative responsa which notes this teshuva of
the Rama, and considers it as a very important factor. Considering
the flexible and precedent oriented nature of the responsa literature,
this alone could be considered grounds for a posek to allow all
gentile wine in a place like America, where it is the minhag to drink
gentile wine.
However, this reasoning by itself is *not* presented as
sufficient; the Conservative teshuva is more rigorous. The main
thrust of the Conservative teshuva develops along another line of
reasoning, and deals with how wine is made in manual, semi-automated,
and totally automated processes, and how this relates to its
classification in halakha.
Josh and Daniel's claims to the contrary are simply false,
with zero basis in reality.
Robert
Randy B
Organization: CTS Network Services
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
>
> You miss my point. Josh lied about what I posted to this
>newsgroup. In past weeks, I had told people here that the Rama (Rabbi
>Moses Isserles) reluctantly gave a heter to a community, allowing
>them to drink gentile wine, as it had been their custom to do so.
===> You lied as well Robert, during the thread about violence at the
Wall last month. You stopped responding when I cut and pasted your
quotes that showed you were lying.
> A few days later, Josh comes on and start lying, and falsely
>claims that I said something different. Josh then proceeds to say
>what I wrote was false, and that in fact the Rama reluctantly gave
>a heter to a community, allowing them to drink gentile wine, as it
>had been their custom to do so.
>
> That, as you can see, is exactly what I have been saying all along!
>Josh is lying when he claims that I said otherwise. This is not the
>first time he pulled this stunt.
===> You should not call the kettle black, Robert.
Randy
Robert Kaiser
mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman) says:
>Robert, I have read what you wrote on this subject, and it was clear
>from your comments to me and others that the Rema was sipposidly
>making a general rule that allowed stam Yayin. Maybe that was not
>subject to prove that is the clear meaning of what you wrote.
I didn't mean to imply that, and I regret giving that impression.
I just would like to point out that I recently sent a post to the
newsgroup on just this subject, explaining in a very brief way, the
reasoning behind the Conservative teshuva:
At a request of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards
of the Rabbinical Assembly (CJLS) Rabbi Israel Silverman
made a study of the question and reported his findings in
a responsum. He found that wine making in the United States
in fully automated (his study did not cover imported wines)
and no human hand comes in contact with the wine from the
momemnt the grapes are put into containers and brought to
the winery until the wine appears in sealed bottles. Wines
manufactured by this automated process may not be classified
as wine manufactored by gentiles and thus do not come under
the interdict against the using of stam yaneem.
A more recent investigation by the CJLS has shown that some
wineries use a small amount of dairy or non-kosher substances
as fining agents in the processing of wine. As such, it
is urged that only rabbinically certified wines be served
at the home, at the synagogue and at communal events.
There is, however, basis for the view that considers the
forbidden substances in the finding agents nullified, and
such wines are thus not uncategorically unkosher or dairy.
Whenever situations make it unfeasible or impossible to
refrain from drinking them, one who drinks them is not
drinking unkosher wine. If one uses such wine in one's
home, it does not render the home unkosher. Only certified
wines - preferably from Israel - should be used for ritual
purposes in the synagogue.
> If you now agree with Josh's reading, that the Rema refered to
> a specific community. (Do you know where Mehrin is?)
I always have agreed with this reading. I tried to say so
explicitly in a couple of posts, including a post from last week
(please see the attached post below).
>And that he said that it
>was forbidden to generalize from the tshuva.
I concur! In general, one shouldn't generalize. But one can,
and perhaps even should (?) follow it when a posek rules for a similar
situation. Each situation is unique, thus some situations would be
less applicable, and some more so.
>How can you feel
>comfortable with what the Conservative psak says? They are clearly
>ruling contrary to the explicit statement of the Rema.
Considering the American Jewish practice of drinking gentile
wine, the Rama's teshuva at the very least is a good indication of
how the problem can be dealt with. But like all good teshuvot, a
posek should say "This line of reasoning by itself may not be enough,
are there other halakhic grounds?" Indeed, that is what Rabbi
Silverman did when he made his analysis (summarized above).
Please note that his analysis doesn't cover non-American
wines, nor wines made in any other fashion other than automated.
Shalom,
Robert
Robert Kaiser
r...@NOSPAM.adnc.com (Randy B) says:
>> You miss my point. Josh lied about what I posted to this
>>newsgroup. In past weeks, I had told people here that the Rama (Rabbi
>>Moses Isserles) reluctantly gave a heter to a community, allowing
>>them to drink gentile wine, as it had been their custom to do so.
>
>===> You lied as well Robert, during the thread about violence at the
>Wall last month. You stopped responding when I cut and pasted your
>quotes that showed you were lying.
Folks, this is a blatant lie. Randy Barnes is - for some
stupid reason - trying to convince us that he is a sick man, and
is pretending that he is unable to distiguish fantasy from reality.
What he is talking about simply never happened.
Everything I ever wrote about violence at the Kotel was backed
up, many times, from many sources. His bizarre claims to the contrary
are based purely on hatred, and are simply not based in reality. His
claim that I refused to answer him is equally false. (That of course
is verifiable, ss anyone here can see said replies on Dejanews).
Robert
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) writes:
>Jonathan J. Baker says:
Well, if Josh wasn't saying that you personally distort and twist
other people's statements to "prove" your wild allegations, I am.
Note that the extracted 4 lines below *came* from DejaNews, your
claim of 5/22 that a) the responsum allowed use of stam yeinam in
some communities (not just one as you now claim in agreement with
Josh) and b) that the responsum was censored. That it was omitted
from some editions is true, but what documentation do you have
that it was *censored*, rather than left out because it was
thought inauthentic?
>>> I know. That is exactly what I said - many times!. Please
>>Liar (tm). The following is the closest I found to such a claim:
>>======================================
>> The responsa authorizing the use of stam yeenam in some
>>communites is from the she'lot-u-teshuvot of Rabbi Moses Isserles,
>>number 124. Note that this responsum was censored and omitted from
>>many editions. It appears in the Cracow edition, 1710.
>>======================================
>>That's "some" in your claim, while Josh cited the Rema saying "one".
>>Technically, then, it is not "exactly" what you said.
> Jon, please get help. I know you have some serious issues
Bob, please get help. I know you have some serious issues
>regarding your seething hatred of non-Orthodox Jews. We all also
regarding your seething hatred of all Orthodox Jews outside the leftmost
wings of Modern ORthodoxy. We all also
>know that you see imaginary plots to murder homosexuals. But the
know that you cannot understand sarcasm - which was what the "imaginary
plot to murder homosexuals" was. But the
>proper response is to seek help, and not spew hateful lies on this
proper response is to seek help, and not spew hateful lies on this
>newsgroup.
newsgroup.
> For those new to this thread, please note that it is a
For those new to this thread, please not ehtat it is a
>*verifiable* fact that Jon Baker is a compulsive liar. You see,
*verifiable* fact that Bob Kaiser is a compulsive liar. You see,
>all my posts have been publicly archived at http://www.dejanews.com/
all our posts have been publicly archived at DejaNews
>This presents proof of Jon's lies, and proof that I have been telling
This presents proof of Bob's lies, and proof that I have been telling
>the truth all along.
the truth all along.
> For convinience, I enclose one such post below, with message
For convenience, I included one such post above. Here is the
>ID header information.
ID header information:
==============================================================
Subject: Re: Are non-Orthodox forms JEWISH or JUDAIC??
From: kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser)
Date: 1998/05/22
Message-ID: <3565f...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
==============================================================
> The text of his teshuva was very clear: It was *not* about sick
>people. It was about religious Jews from a town where the custom
>was to drink gentile wine. The question posed to him was "Is it Ok
>to drink gentile wine? Are there halakhic grounds to sanction this?"
>And though he expressed reluctance, he ends up by saying that, yes, he
>does find grounds for sanctioning it.
NOW you say that, now that Josh has read the teshuva and come up
with a different reading that than which you claimed it was.
Five days earlier you had said something somewhat different as
quoted above. If you claim that this desperately bedieved
solution can allow Jews today lechatchilah to drink stam yeinam,
then you are twisting and distorting the intention of the teshuvah
in question. If Rabbi Golinkin uses such reasoning, then as a
loud defender of *the truth*, it is incumbent on you to acknowledge
such distortion for what it is. However, when the distortion
supports your lies, you will not see it for distortion.
This is typical of your method: make a shaky claim, someone else
challenges you on it, you call them a liar, they go and look up the
source and explain it, you then claim that "that's what I said all
along." even when it is clear to all that that was *not* whatyou
had initially claimed. Is it any surprise that practically everyone
who reads your posts knows you to be a compulsive liar, who hides
his own lack of grasp of truth behind a facade of calling everyone
who disagrees with him (and can read Hebrew) liars?
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Jonathan J. Baker
In <is...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) writes:
>"Daniel B. Schwartz" <schwa...@worldnet.att.net> says:
>> And based on that very reluctant heter, the Conservativemovmenet feels it
>>is allowed to drink stam yeinam? That is absolutly absurd. It is also
>>dishonest, anti-Halachik, and makes Conservative poskim look like idiots.
> Please stop writing fiction. That is *not* the only basis
>for the permission to use stam yeinam, and you it. Your claim to the
>contrary is simply pathetic.
He knows it? How does he know it? His only source for the nature
of the C heter to drink American stam yeinam is *you*. You claimed
that the heter is based on that teshuvah from the Rama. So if his
claim to the contrary is pathetic, it's only based on the pathetic
[mis]information he received from you.
> If you wish to disgaree with the reasoning that the Conservative
>poseks have used, you are free to do so, but it is disheartening to
>see you still delieberatly spreading lies about the contents of the
>teshuva.
If they are lies, they are lies that *you* told him.
> Do you honestly feel that you serve Orthodox Judaism best by
>spreading lies about non-Orthodox Jews?
Do you honestly feel that you serve Conservative Judaism best by
spreading lies about non-Orthodox Jews and calling them psychotic?
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Craig Winchell
Robert Kaiser <kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu> wrote in article
<35775...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>...
> mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman) says:
> >Robert, I have read what you wrote on this subject, and it was clear
> >from your comments to me and others that the Rema was sipposidly
> >making a general rule that allowed stam Yayin. Maybe that was not
> >your intention but I am sure there is enough on Deja News on this
> >subject to prove that is the clear meaning of what you wrote.
>
>
> I didn't mean to imply that, and I regret giving that impression.
> I just would like to point out that I recently sent a post to the
> newsgroup on just this subject, explaining in a very brief way, the
> reasoning behind the Conservative teshuva:
>
>
> At a request of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards
> of the Rabbinical Assembly (CJLS) Rabbi Israel Silverman
> made a study of the question and reported his findings in
> a responsum. He found that wine making in the United States
> in fully automated (his study did not cover imported wines)
> and no human hand comes in contact with the wine from the
> momemnt the grapes are put into containers and brought to
> the winery until the wine appears in sealed bottles.
B"H
Incorrect. There are many times when human hands have the opportunity to
contact wine. In fact, I don't know of any California winery where there
is *absolutely* no physical contact with the wine.
> Wines
> manufactured by this automated process may not be classified
> as wine manufactored by gentiles and thus do not come under
> the interdict against the using of stam yaneem.
Again, yayin nesech was created when a wave offering was performed with an
open vessel of wine (as far as I know), where there needn't have been
actual physical contact between the idol worshiper and the wine. I
understand the original definition of stam yeinam to be wine where there
was the opportunity of movement of an unsealed vessel, but where it was
questionable whether it was dedicated to idols. I understand the present
prohibition against stam yeinam to be patterned after the prohibition of
yayin nesech, which didn't require direct contact. Thus, if my
understandings are correct, even if there is absolutely no direct physical
contact between the nonJew and the wine in a winery, there would still be
stam yeinam.
>
> A more recent investigation by the CJLS has shown that some
> wineries use a small amount of dairy or non-kosher substances
> as fining agents in the processing of wine. As such, it
> is urged that only rabbinically certified wines be served
> at the home, at the synagogue and at communal events.
> There is, however, basis for the view that considers the
> forbidden substances in the finding agents nullified, and
> such wines are thus not uncategorically unkosher or dairy.
I will let a rabbi discuss the ins and outs of nullification.
> Whenever situations make it unfeasible or impossible to
> refrain from drinking them, one who drinks them is not
> drinking unkosher wine.
This is a true copout. What would make it unfeasable or impossible to
refrain from drinking nonkosher wine?
> If one uses such wine in one's
> home, it does not render the home unkosher. Only certified
> wines - preferably from Israel - should be used for ritual
> purposes in the synagogue.
Well, there goes mine, because it's made in good old Sonoma County,
California. Why are Israeli wines preferable, from the Conservative
perspective?
>
>
> > If you now agree with Josh's reading, that the Rema refered to
> > a specific community. (Do you know where Mehrin is?)
>
> I always have agreed with this reading. I tried to say so
> explicitly in a couple of posts, including a post from last week
> (please see the attached post below).
>
>
>
> >And that he said that it
> >was forbidden to generalize from the tshuva.
>
>
> I concur! In general, one shouldn't generalize. But one can,
> and perhaps even should (?) follow it when a posek rules for a similar
> situation. Each situation is unique, thus some situations would be
> less applicable, and some more so.
You'll pardon me if I don't hold by your posek.
>
>
>
> >How can you feel
> >comfortable with what the Conservative psak says? They are clearly
> >ruling contrary to the explicit statement of the Rema.
>
> Considering the American Jewish practice of drinking gentile
> wine, the Rama's teshuva at the very least is a good indication of
> how the problem can be dealt with.
In my opinion, it is highly illogical, and destructive, reasoning. Because
the majority of Jews in the USA couldn't care less about kashrus, therefore
we have a minhag? Foolishness!! I'm sure that not even Silverman believes
that.
> But like all good teshuvot, a
> posek should say "This line of reasoning by itself may not be enough,
> are there other halakhic grounds?" Indeed, that is what Rabbi
> Silverman did when he made his analysis (summarized above).
>
> Please note that his analysis doesn't cover non-American
> wines, nor wines made in any other fashion other than automated.
As I say, even in highly automated wineries there is some direct wine
contact.
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN
>
>
> Shalom,
>
> Robert
>
>
> *****************************
>
>
http://x4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=356808211&CONTEXT=897003228.586874880&hi
Harry Weiss
Robert Kaiser (kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu) wrote:
: Jonathan J. Baker says:
: >> I know. That is exactly what I said - many times!. Please
: >
: >Liar (tm). The following is the closest I found to such a claim:
: >======================================
: > The responsa authorizing the use of stam yeenam in some
: >communites is from the she'lot-u-teshuvot of Rabbi Moses Isserles,
: >number 124. Note that this responsum was censored and omitted from
: >many editions. It appears in the Cracow edition, 1710.
: >======================================
: >
: >That's "some" in your claim, while Josh cited the Rema saying "one".
: >Technically, then, it is not "exactly" what you said.
: Jon, please get help. I know you have some serious issues
: regarding your seething hatred of non-Orthodox Jews. We all also
: know that you see imaginary plots to murder homosexuals. But the
: proper response is to seek help, and not spew hateful lies on this
: newsgroup.
: For those new to this thread, please note that it is a
: *verifiable* fact that Jon Baker is a compulsive liar. You see,
: all my posts have been publicly archived at http://www.dejanews.com/
: This presents proof of Jon's lies, and proof that I have been telling
: the truth all along.
: For convinience, I enclose one such post below, with message
: ID header information.
: Robert
: ***********************************************************
: http://x4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=356808211&CONTEXT=897003228.586874880&hitnum=5
: Subject: Re: Are non-Orthodox forms JEWISH or JUDAIC??
Read your own quote Bobo,. You are such a pathological liar (Is it
offical conservative dogma to be pahtological liars or is that just a
Kaiser characteristic) While you say the question is from one community
(as most tshuvat originate based on one case) you last sentce says yes it
can be sanctioned. What the Rama does say and Josh brought down is that
he could find some reason not to condemn what that one community was
doing and he specifically says NO ONE else should use that. Now the
conservative church leaders turn around what the Rama says to give a
heter overall. What more proof is needed to show that c is not Judaism.
: Robert
Harry Weiss
Robert Kaiser (kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu) wrote:
: Yisrael Rice <yr...@linex.com> says:
: >>Two weeks ago, Robert Kaiser posted a Conservative *responsa* that permitted
: >>drinking gentile wine (STAM YEINAM) quoting the *permissive* tshuva of
: >>the REMA (Tshuvat Ha'Rema 124). >It seemed that a certain Jewish
: >>community (Mehrin) had the custom to drink
: >Robert, is there a conservative responsa using this as a Heter or not?
: There is a Conservative responsa which notes this teshuva of
: the Rama, and considers it as a very important factor. Considering
: the flexible and precedent oriented nature of the responsa literature,
: this alone could be considered grounds for a posek to allow all
: gentile wine in a place like America, where it is the minhag to drink
: gentile wine.
NO observant Jew in America has a minhag to drink gentile wines.
Gentiles always drank Gentile wines. Is C going to allow pork now since
most people in America eat pork. has the conserative religion strayed so
far from Judaism.
: However, this reasoning by itself is *not* presented as
: sufficient; the Conservative teshuva is more rigorous. The main
: thrust of the Conservative teshuva develops along another line of
: reasoning, and deals with how wine is made in manual, semi-automated,
: and totally automated processes, and how this relates to its
: classification in halakha.
: Josh and Daniel's claims to the contrary are simply false,
: with zero basis in reality.
Zev Sero
OK, thanks to Jonathan Baker, I've finally read this teshuva, which,
contrary to Kaiser's assertions actually appears in several editions
of Teshuvot Harama. The fact that it was omitted from some editions
*could* be due to censorship, but that would be pure speculation, and
I don't know of any legitimate basis for such an idea; perhaps a more
likely explanation would be that there were doubts as to its
authenticity. Someone (Moshe Shulman?) mentioned that there was some
reason to think that it might have been written by an anonymous student
of the Rema, and erroneously included in some editions of his teshuvot;
I can't remember what basis was offered for this theory - can anyone
help?
But for the purpose of discussion, let's assume that the teshuva is
genuine. Having read it, I can now discuss it intelligently.
The first and most important point to make is that, contrary to Kaiser's
assertion, it does *not* permit the drinking of gentile wines. It most
emphatically asserts that the Jews in Moravia are *wrong* to drink such
wines, and compares them to those of another community who eat the
stomach fats that nearly all Jews consider to be chelev, which carries
a penalty of karet for eating it (the same penalty as for eating on
Yom Kippur, or for eating chametz on Pesach). The author makes this
point several times, to be absolutely sure that nobody should think that
he's giving any sort of heter to the Moravian Jews to continue with
their unlawful behaviour. Thus, the C use of this teshuva to permit
the drinking of gentile wines is an unadulterated fraud.
The teshuva is about the custom `specifically in Moravia and in general
in other countries' to drink gentile wines.
So what radical conclusions *does* the Rema (or whoever else wrote it)
come to in this teshuva? He lists three conclusions:
The first and most important conclusion is that the Moravian Jews who
drink gentile wines are not to be considered flagrant violaters of the
law, and therefore not to be trusted on any matter of kashrut or any
other issue, but should rather be considered to be in genuine error.
He shows how a scholar of good will could come to such an erroneous
conclusion, and therefore speculates that the Moravian Jews may once
have had a Rabbi who permitted it, and that since then they've been
relying on that mistaken ruling, so it's not their fault, and their
word is to be trusted, even on the kashrut of wine; i.e., if a Moravian
Jew certifies that wine is kosher according to our standards we may
believe him, even though he himself drinks wine that is treif by our
standards.
The second conclusion is that Rabbis should be aware of the existence
of this chain of logic that would permit wine that has been touched
by a gentile, and therefore should not be overly strict in interpreting
the law. He compares this to the gemara's logical demonstration that a
dead reptile (which the Torah explicitly says is tamei) is in fact
tahor. In his opinion the point of that piece is not just to show how
logic can be used to prove any conclusion, however absurd (which is the
standard interpretation), but rather the gemara's point is to show that
the fact that a dead reptile is tamei is not based on logic but only on
the Torah's explicit command, and therefore it ought not to be extended
beyond what the Torah demands. If it were logically valid, then it
would make sense to be strict with it, and extend it to similar
situations; since it it's logically invalid, all we have to go on is
what the Torah says, and so we can't go beyond that. The Rema suggests
that a similar consideration applies to these wines, and Rabbis should
not go overboard in extending the prohibition to new circumstances.
The third conclusion is that sick people may make use of such wines for
healing, not only by applying it topically but even to drink it, so long
as it's for genuine medicinal reasons. He contrasts this with the
Rivah's position that even nowadays it's forbidden to make any use at
all of gentile wines, even for healing, and possibly even when life is
in danger (because it comes under the heading of idolatry). He warns,
though, that by `a sick person' he means only someone who is confined
to his bed, and says that if an ambulatory patient takes advantage of
this `heter' to drink such wine, `God will never forgive him'.
A corrolary of this conclusion, one that the Rema repeats in his notes
on the Shulchan Aruch, is that nowadays gentile wines are only forbidden
for drinking, but it's permitted to make other use of them, e.g. to buy
and sell them, or to take them in payment of a debt. (Commerce in
gentile wines was later banned by a decree of the Council of Four Lands,
BTW).
Another important point the Rema makes is that a distinction must be
drawn between gentile wines, and Jewish wines that were touched by a
gentile. Even in circumstances where the latter can be permitted, the
former may not be.
--
Zev Sero, posting from Toronto - support Toronto in '03
zs...@bigfoot.com
Y...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6l7oan$4...@shekel.mcl.cs.columbia.edu>,
jba...@news.cs.columbia.edu (Jerry B. Altzman) wrote:
>
> In article <6l75vv$p...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>,
> Moshe Shulman <mshu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >from your comments to me and others that the Rema was sipposidly
> >making a general rule that allowed stam Yayin. Maybe that was not
>
> was that in *one* edition of teshuvot ha-rema (which was later censored
> and only available in one edition) the Rema said such-and-such, whereas
> the rest of you are looking at the censored edition, which said so-and-so.
> Since people are looking at different versions of the teshuvah, different
> conclusions are reachable.
>
> Robert: Is this so?
>
> Please note that I am *not* taking sides on this issue one way or another
> in this post.
I've looked this whole mess up on DejaNews and I think it's a combination of
factors (as usual). One is what you cited, plus the initial confusion when
mr. Kaiser referred to the Shulchan Aruch instead of the ReMA. Then several
people conflated that with the C ruling on stam yeinam, thinking he cited
this teshuva as the only reason for it (some not-so-clear phrasing on his
part), and jumped down his throat. There having been several instances where
Mr. Kaiser has (deliberately or not) confused issues, such a response is
understandable but not justified. Mr. Kaiser does have this propensity of
calling people liars. Too often he gets the same in return, even though
misunderstanding on both sides is often the culprit. The level of vitriol is
at an unnecessary high level. Let's judge people favorably as long as we can.
All in all, I'd say the attack on Mr. Kaiser on this particular issue was
misguided and that IMHO he wasn't lying. Neither were his opponents; just a
lot of confusion all around as to who said what and when.
Peace,
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are the one species that can formulate a vision of what values are
worth pursuing -- and then pursue the opposite." -- Nathaniel Branden
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) writes:
>authenticity. Someone (Moshe Shulman?) mentioned that there was some
>reason to think that it might have been written by an anonymous student
>of the Rema, and erroneously included in some editions of his teshuvot;
>I can't remember what basis was offered for this theory - can anyone
>help?
I thought I saw a line in it referring to "rabbeinu", which sounds
like something a student might say. I don't know if it's even fair
to say it was "erroneously" included - it may just be editorial
discretion. How many of the teshuvot in Igros Moshe, particularly
in the later volumes, were written by R' Moshe Tendler over his
father-in-law's signature?
>A corrolary of this conclusion, one that the Rema repeats in his notes
>on the Shulchan Aruch, is that nowadays gentile wines are only forbidden
>for drinking, but it's permitted to make other use of them, e.g. to buy
>and sell them, or to take them in payment of a debt. (Commerce in
>gentile wines was later banned by a decree of the Council of Four Lands,
>BTW).
Drinking stam, or consumption? Could one make a sauce with gentile
wine?
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Randy B
>
> r...@NOSPAM.adnc.com (Randy B) says:
>>> You miss my point. Josh lied about what I posted to this
>>>newsgroup. In past weeks, I had told people here that the Rama (Rabbi
>>>Moses Isserles) reluctantly gave a heter to a community, allowing
>>>them to drink gentile wine, as it had been their custom to do so.
>>
>>===> You lied as well Robert, during the thread about violence at the
>>Wall last month. You stopped responding when I cut and pasted your
>>quotes that showed you were lying.
>
>
> Folks, this is a blatant lie. Randy Barnes is - for some
>stupid reason - trying to convince us that he is a sick man, and
>is pretending that he is unable to distiguish fantasy from reality.
>What he is talking about simply never happened.
===> Yes it did, and no, I am not a sick man Robert.
>
>
> Everything I ever wrote about violence at the Kotel was backed
>up, many times, from many sources.
===> You made claims that violence was happening on a regular basis,
than you claimed you didn't, and I put together your quotes to show
that you were indeed either confused or lying. After that, you dropped
out of the discussion.
His bizarre claims to the contrary
>are based purely on hatred, and are simply not based in reality. His
>claim that I refused to answer him is equally false. (That of course
>is verifiable, ss anyone here can see said replies on Dejanews).
===> Indeed it is, which makes me wonder why you always attack me
personally like this. I don't hate anybody, and have never made any
statements that would indicate I did. Why are you doing this, Robert?
Calling me sick, and accusing me of hatred?
Randy
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <3576c...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>, kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) writes:
>
> Josh Backon bac...@vms.huji.ac.il says:
>>Two weeks ago, Robert Kaiser posted a Conservative *responsa* that permitted
>>drinking gentile wine (STAM YEINAM) quoting the *permissive* tshuva of
>>twisting and distorting the truth is again evident. Today, I read the
>>Tshuvat ha'Rema 124 in the original. Needless to say, the Remah NEVER
>>permitted the drinking of stam yeinam.
>
>
> Josh is lying.
>
Thank you Bobo.
>
>>It seemed that a certain Jewish community (Mehrin) had the custom to drink
>>gentile wine and the Rema was asked how to deal with this. He states:
>>"V'CHEN ANI OMER B'DAVAR KI YAREH ANOCHI L'OMRO, SHE'LO YILAMDU OVREI
>>AVEIRA MAKOM LISMOCH ALAV V'YAKILU OHD YOTER"(briefly: he doesn't want
>>anyone to get the wrong impression to rely on his SPECIFIC reference
>>to the Mehrin community and sin even more) "AF AL PI SH'EIMO K'DAT
>>V'HALACHA (even though what the Mehrin community is doing goes against Jewish
>>law).
>>He then finds some reasons why to be lenient for this SPECIFIC community.
>
>
> I know. That is exactly what I said - many times!. Please
> stop spreading your lies. I know that you have a pathological hatred
> of Conservative Jews, but that is no reason to make yourself look like
> a fool. Everyone here on this saw me say that the Rama reluctantly
> gave a heter to this one community. I never once claimed otherwise.
He gives a SEMI-heter, more of mental gymnastics than a heter. And
he categorically states that under no circumstance is this to be
construed as blanket permission for any other community.
> Your lies to the contrary seem designed to make Orthodox Jews look
> like liars and fundamentlists,
>
> Are you sure you're not a mole?
>
>
Kaiser, if you ever publicly state that I am a liar, I will sue you
for every penny you own. On the other hand, your mental state
being what it is may be a mitigating factor.
Josh
> Robert
Robert Kaiser
jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) says:
>Well, if Josh wasn't saying that you personally distort and twist
>other people's statements to "prove" your wild allegations, I am.
Do you enjoy spreading lies and hatred about fellow Jews?
Please, get help, Jon.
>Note that the extracted 4 lines below *came* from DejaNews, your
>claim of 5/22 that
You're a pathological liar. As everyone here on the group
has plainly seen, the truth is that
(a) I wrote about this topic multiple times
(b) I gave TWO sources for the teshuva, multiple times
(c) I explained the reasoning at least 3 times.
And all of these posts are publicly archived on Dejanews for
everyone to see. You can spread all the lies you want about what I
wrote, but the truth is out there, accessible on the Dejanews archive.
>This presents proof of Bob's lies, and proof that I have been telling
>the truth all along.
Folks, please ignore Jon. He is a compulsive liar, with an
immense hatred towards all Conservative Jews. Instead of reading his
dishinestly edited version of my posts, one should actually read the
*actual* set of posts I sent.
If anyone here has trouble locating the original messages ,
I'd be happy to send them to you.
Robert Kaiser
Robert Kaiser
jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) says:
>>> And based on that very reluctant heter, the Conservativemovmenet feels it
>>>is allowed to drink stam yeinam? That is absolutly absurd. It is also
>>>dishonest, anti-Halachik, and makes Conservative poskim look like idiots.
>
>> Please stop writing fiction. That is *not* the only basis
>>for the permission to use stam yeinam, and you it. Your claim to the
>>contrary is simply pathetic.
>He knows it? How does he know it?
Because I already posted it, in some detail, THREE times to
this newsgroup. And you saw this as well.
>His only source for the nature
>of the C heter to drink American stam yeinam is *you*. You claimed
>that the heter is based on that teshuvah from the Rama.
This of course is not true; As everyone here has seen, I have
repeatedly posted the basis of the Conservative teshuva, along with
references for people to look up if they wish.
Jon's claims to the contrary are pure fiction. Sure, I
did say that the Rama reluctantly allowed gentile wine for a certain
community where it had been the custom, but Jon is simply lying
when he claims that its the only basis for the Conservative teshuva.
It isn't, nor did I ever claim that. He's simply lying out of
baseless hatred.
Robert
Robert Kaiser
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il says:
>Kaiser, if you ever publicly state that I am a liar, I will sue you
>for every penny you own. On the other hand, your mental state
>being what it is may be a mitigating factor.
Josh, you indeed are a liar. You are also one of the most
angry and hateful people I have ever had the misfortune of meeting.
I truly think that people like you lead to incitement and violence,
and I am horrified to imagine that people might actually think that your
religion is somehow representative of Judaism.
Robert
Daniel B. Schwartz
You fool. You don't kow how to read a teshuva. The Rema clearly says that
whatever tzad of heter he has is to be limited to the specific facts with
which he deals. In other words, that heter cannot be applied to any other
situation. The use of it by the Conservative movement therefore to permit
stam yeinam is a gross misapplication and is totally meritless. It is also
either negligent or intentionally misleading and dishonest.
Robert Kaiser <kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu> wrote in article
<35773...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>...
> The text of his teshuva was very clear: It was *not* about sick
> people. It was about religious Jews from a town where the custom
> was to drink gentile wine. The question posed to him was "Is it Ok
> to drink gentile wine? Are there halakhic grounds to sanction this?"
> And though he expressed reluctance, he ends up by saying that, yes, he
> does find grounds for sanctioning it.
>
>
>
> Robert
>
Daniel B. Schwartz
Robert Kaiser <kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu> wrote in article
<35775...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>...
>
> Yisrael Rice <yr...@linex.com> says:
> >>Two weeks ago, Robert Kaiser posted a Conservative *responsa* that
permitted
> >>drinking gentile wine (STAM YEINAM) quoting the *permissive* tshuva of
> >>the REMA (Tshuvat Ha'Rema 124). >It seemed that a certain Jewish
> >>community (Mehrin) had the custom to drink
>
> >Robert, is there a conservative responsa using this as a Heter or not?
>
>
> There is a Conservative responsa which notes this teshuva of
> the Rama, and considers it as a very important factor. Considering
> the flexible and precedent oriented nature of the responsa literature,
> this alone could be considered grounds for a posek to allow all
> gentile wine in a place like America, where it is the minhag to drink
> gentile wine.
What??? You're suggesting that since it's a minhag for Jews to sin, the
sins should be permitted? Get real you idiot!!! Why not just throw out the
Torah with Stam Yeinam because most people have the "minhag" to transgress
it! Since you make such a ludicrous suggestion, you clearly have no regard
at all for the integrity of Halacha. You do not even adhere to
Conservative Judaism's tenets. You have no real religion.
>
>
> However, this reasoning by itself is *not* presented as
> sufficient; the Conservative teshuva is more rigorous. The main
> thrust of the Conservative teshuva develops along another line of
> reasoning, and deals with how wine is made in manual, semi-automated,
> and totally automated processes, and how this relates to its
> classification in halakha.
Why not present the teshuva in its' entirety for analysis?
>
>
> Josh and Daniel's claims to the contrary are simply false,
> with zero basis in reality.
Blah blah
>
>
> Robert
>
>
Robert Kaiser
Gee, I'm so hurt.
> You don't kow how to read a teshuva. The Rema clearly says that
>whatever tzad of heter he has is to be limited to the specific facts with
>which he deals.
I know. In fact, *I* said this as well. In fact, this is
true for every teshuva by every posek. I never claimed otherwise.
Please stop with your red herrings.
> In other words, that heter cannot be applied to any other
>situation. The use of it by the Conservative movement therefore to permit
>stam yeinam is a gross misapplication and is totally meritless. It is also
>either negligent or intentionally misleading and dishonest.
Do you feel that publicly slandering all Conservative Jews
will make us want to convert to Orthodoxy? It seems more likely to
me that you are a mole, being paid to discredit Orthodox Judaism, so
as to drive undecided to join non-Orthodox movements. If that's
indeed the case - its working.
Robert
Eliot Shimoff
In article <35775...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>,
Robert Kaiser <kai...@biosys.net> wrote:
> There is a Conservative responsa which notes this teshuva of
>the Rama, and considers it as a very important factor. Considering
>the flexible and precedent oriented nature of the responsa literature,
>this alone could be considered grounds for a posek to allow all
>gentile wine in a place like America, where it is the minhag to drink
>gentile wine.
Is the term "minhag" used by the R'ma, or in the C responsum?
The reason I am asking is that "minhag" is an awfully broad term --
it covers everything from the second day of Yom Tov outside of
Israel to cheesecake on Shavuot and latkes on Chanuka -- but I've
never seen the term minhag used to refer to a violation of halakha.
(I am assuming here that the widespread use of Gentile wines by US
Jews preceeded the CJLS responsum, so that it was, in fact, a violation
of C halakha until then.)
--
Eliot Shimoff (shi...@umbc.edu) | Interested in Talmud study
Proud saba of Tani, T'mima, | by email?
Moshe, Hillel, and Tsivia! | Visit my website ...
(Space reserved for new entries) | http://www.umbc.edu/~shimoff
Robert Kaiser
"Daniel B. Schwartz" <schwa...@worldnet.att.net> says:
>> There is a Conservative responsa which notes this teshuva of
>> the Rama, and considers it as a very important factor. Considering
>> the flexible and precedent oriented nature of the responsa literature,
>> this alone could be considered grounds for a posek to allow all
>> gentile wine in a place like America, where it is the minhag to drink
>> gentile wine.
>
> What??? You're suggesting that since it's a minhag for Jews to sin, the
>sins should be permitted? Get real you idiot!!!
Daniel, please stop publicly labelling the Rama as an idiot.
That indeed was his reasoning, as his been confirmed by others on
this newsgroup.
The Rama was neither an idiot, nor was he claiming that it is
a minhag for Jews to sin. In fact, his point was that drinking gentile
wine is *not* necessarilly a sin, and in certain cases, can be grounded
in halakha.
Just because you disgaree with him is no reason to call him an
idiot. And don't pretend that you're calling Conservative Jews idiots,
because what you commented on was the Rama's own stated reasoning.
>You do not even adhere to
>Conservative Judaism's tenets. You have no real religion.
Thank you for your concern. I'm sure this temper tantrum will
convince many Jews of the boundless love that Orthodox Judaism has
to offer them.
>> However, this reasoning by itself is *not* presented as
>> sufficient; the Conservative teshuva is more rigorous. The main
>> thrust of the Conservative teshuva develops along another line of
>> reasoning, and deals with how wine is made in manual, semi-automated,
>> and totally automated processes, and how this relates to its
>> classification in halakha.
>
> Why not present the teshuva in its' entirety for analysis?
I *did* give the references for it, many times. If you want
to go to the library and get the book its in, please do. And if you
have a text scanner, and want to scan it in, please do.
By the way, you seem to pretend that you have the right to demand
that every Conservative Jew be at your beck and call to type in all
our teshuvot for your pleasure. is the converse true? Will you type
in all Orthodox teshuvot that others demand?
Robert
Eliot Shimoff
Robert, citing the C responsum ...):
> Whenever situations make it unfeasible or impossible to
> refrain from drinking them, one who drinks them is not
> drinking unkosher wine.
This line is the one that puzzles me. I can understand why CJLS
wanted to allow driving to shul on Shabbat. I can appreciate the
motivation behind the Lieberman clause in a ketubah.
But what were the compelling reasons that motivated CJLS to
adopt its position on stam yeynam? What are the circumstances
in which it is unfeasible or impossible to refrain from drinking
these wines? If other foods are served at the same time (as is
commonly the case), does one drink the wine but not eat the food?
If one can demur on the food, why not on the wine? And if it is
unfeasible or impossible to avoid drinking the wine, does a man
wear a kippah, and recite the brachot before and after drinking the wine?
Moshe Shulman
>From: "Craig Winchell" <gan...@ganeden.com>
>> of the Rabbinical Assembly (CJLS) Rabbi Israel Silverman
>> made a study of the question and reported his findings in
>> a responsum. He found that wine making in the United States
>> in fully automated (his study did not cover imported wines)
>> and no human hand comes in contact with the wine from the
>> momemnt the grapes are put into containers and brought to
>
>Incorrect. There are many times when human hands have the opportunity
to
>contact wine. In fact, I don't know of any California winery where
there
>is *absolutely* no physical contact with the wine.
That is my understanding. I had been there many years ago.
--
Moshe Shulman mshu...@ix.netcom.com 718-436-7705
http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus Chassidus Website
Moshe Shulman
>From: kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser)
>Yisrael Rice <yr...@linex.com> says:
>>>Two weeks ago, Robert Kaiser posted a Conservative *responsa* that
permitted
>>>drinking gentile wine (STAM YEINAM) quoting the *permissive* tshuva
of
>>>the REMA (Tshuvat Ha'Rema 124). >It seemed that a certain Jewish
>>>community (Mehrin) had the custom to drink
>>Robert, is there a conservative responsa using this as a Heter or
not?
>the Rama, and considers it as a very important factor. Considering
>the flexible and precedent oriented nature of the responsa literature,
>this alone could be considered grounds for a posek to allow all
>gentile wine in a place like America, where it is the minhag to drink
>gentile wine.
Robert, here is the problem. This is a false methodology. The
translations we have seen here make it clear that the Rema himself
stated that the people acting there were doing so CONTRARY to the
halacha, and that others SHOULD NOT act that way. (The reason why he
would write such a thing for THEM is interesting and maybe we should
discuss this in another thread.) However to extend it as a general
heter for yayim stam is clearly a misuse of the tshuva. As to the
'custom'. This is an error. We do not consider 'custom' things done
by people who are either ignorant of halacha, or have no interest in
it. Those Jews in America who have an interest in halacha have never
heard of such a minhag. Now, if they were to write EXACTLY as the
Rema that it is forbidden and that people should not drink it
however, those who have until now not been careful need not change.
There 'might' be a point. I still would contend they are in error,
but at least they are trying to stay within the bounds of halacha in
general and the spirit and meaning of his tshuva specifically. The
only thing that I can conclude is that the authors of that tshuva
have no interest in the intentions of the Rema, and what he is
ruling, but in furthering an agenda.
>However, this reasoning by itself is *not* presented as
>sufficient; the Conservative teshuva is more rigorous. The main
>thrust of the Conservative teshuva develops along another line of
>reasoning, and deals with how wine is made in manual, semi-automated,
>and totally automated processes, and how this relates to its
>classification in halakha.
I am aware of the process. There is human intervention at various
stages.
Jonathan J. Baker
>>Well, if Josh wasn't saying that you personally distort and twist
>>other people's statements to "prove" your wild allegations, I am.
> Do you enjoy spreading lies and hatred about fellow Jews?
>Please, get help, Jon.
Clearly you enjoy doing so.
>>Note that the extracted 4 lines below *came* from DejaNews, your
>>claim of 5/22 that
> You're a pathological liar. As everyone here on the group
>has plainly seen, the truth is that
>(a) I wrote about this topic multiple times
Indeed.
>(b) I gave TWO sources for the teshuva, multiple times
A Conservative teshuvah that you know full well is not easily accessed
by the Orthodox posters; and
A teshuva from the Rema, which others have read and have demonstrated
that it cannot serve as a basis for a general heter.
(We'll ignore the original attribution of the latter to the R' Yosef
Karo, chalk it up to CRS, from which many of us suffer).
>(c) I explained the reasoning at least 3 times.
Changing the explanation each time, all the while claiming that
"That's what I've been saying all along."
N.B.-this is where the actual lying comes in.
> And all of these posts are publicly archived on Dejanews for
>everyone to see. You can spread all the lies you want about what I
>wrote, but the truth is out there, accessible on the Dejanews archive.
Indeed. I went through DejaNews while writing this present post,
searching in Power Search for group soc.culture.jewish,
authors kai...@pnb.physiology.sunysb.edu and kai...@biosys.net.REMOVE,
subject 'non-Orthodox forms', and have not found anything to contradict
anything I've said on this thread.
>>This presents proof of Bob's lies, and proof that I have been telling
>>the truth all along.
> Folks, please ignore Jon. He is a compulsive liar, with an
>immense hatred towards all Conservative Jews. Instead of reading his
>dishinestly edited version of my posts, one should actually read the
>*actual* set of posts I sent.
This is the other place where his lying comes in, in insulting
and callin liars, everyone who disagrees with him and has the
temerity to a) look up the references he cites, and b) actually
says what those sources say.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Daniel B. Schwartz
Robert Kaiser <kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu> wrote in article
<35780...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>...
>
> jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) says:
> >>> And based on that very reluctant heter, the Conservativemovmenet
feels it
> >>>is allowed to drink stam yeinam? That is absolutly absurd. It is
also
> >>>dishonest, anti-Halachik, and makes Conservative poskim look like
idiots.
> >
> >> Please stop writing fiction. That is *not* the only basis
> >>for the permission to use stam yeinam, and you it. Your claim to the
> >>contrary is simply pathetic.
>
> >He knows it? How does he know it?
>
>
> Because I already posted it, in some detail, THREE times to
> this newsgroup. And you saw this as well.
Actually, you never did. You have never posted a citation for the
teshuva.
Daniel B. Schwartz
>
> Gee, I'm so hurt.
>
>
> > You don't kow how to read a teshuva. The Rema clearly says that
> >whatever tzad of heter he has is to be limited to the specific facts
with
> >which he deals.
>
>
> I know. In fact, *I* said this as well. In fact, this is
> true for every teshuva by every posek. I never claimed otherwise.
> Please stop with your red herrings.
Please stop with your inacuracies and distortions
>
>
> > In other words, that heter cannot be applied to any other
> >situation. The use of it by the Conservative movement therefore to
permit
> >stam yeinam is a gross misapplication and is totally meritless. It is
also
> >either negligent or intentionally misleading and dishonest.
>
>
> Do you feel that publicly slandering all Conservative Jews
> will make us want to convert to Orthodoxy? It seems more likely to
> me that you are a mole, being paid to discredit Orthodox Judaism, so
> as to drive undecided to join non-Orthodox movements. If that's
> indeed the case - its working.
You're right. I've been found out. I'm actually a high ranking official
in the conservative movement. Get a life Bobboboborino
>
>
> Robert
>
Daniel B. Schwartz
Robert Kaiser <kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu> wrote in article
<35782...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>...
>
> "Daniel B. Schwartz" <schwa...@worldnet.att.net> says:
> >> the Rama, and considers it as a very important factor. Considering
> >> the flexible and precedent oriented nature of the responsa literature,
> >> this alone could be considered grounds for a posek to allow all
> >> gentile wine in a place like America, where it is the minhag to drink
> >> gentile wine.
> >
sin, the
> >sins should be permitted? Get real you idiot!!!
>
>
> Daniel, please stop publicly labelling the Rama as an idiot.
Cute BobboBobborino, but nonsense. I never called anybody here an idiot
except for you-you idiot.
> That indeed was his reasoning, as his been confirmed by others on
> this newsgroup.
That was not his reasoning at all-stop intentionally distorting his words
(but then again you're a Conservative Jew you can't help it)
>
> The Rama was neither an idiot, nor was he claiming that it is
> a minhag for Jews to sin. In fact, his point was that drinking gentile
> wine is *not* necessarilly a sin, and in certain cases, can be grounded
> in halakha.
No he did not. Zev Sero already posted the correct readong of the
teshuva. You are wrong-your are a dangerous ignoramous.
>
> Robert
>
Simcha Streltsov
Robert Kaiser (kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu) wrote:
: gentile wine in a place like America, where it is the minhag to drink
: gentile wine.
in fact, before a first Jew (Columbus (-:?) arrived to America -
Americans were following this minhag all the time!! -
I heard some X-ve Rabbis wanted to allow scalping for the reasons,
but decided against it because they did not find it prohibited
anywhere in the Talmud, thus it was not really an innovation
shabbat shalom
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
Micha Berger
On 5 Jun 1998 13:40:54 -0400, Eliot Shimoff <shi...@umbc.edu> wrote:
: The reason I am asking is that "minhag" is an awfully broad term --
: it covers everything from the second day of Yom Tov outside of
I think the technical definition is a practice decided by consensus of the
masses rather than by halachic authority.
Common uses:
1- A ruling specific to a given community, other community's Rabbis ruled
otherwise. This doesn't fit the technical definition.
2- A stringent ruling accepted by a given community not as halachah, but as
something appropriate. (e.g. glatt as observed by Hungarian Jews, as opposed
to the Sepharadi halachic ruling for Bet Yosef meat -- which qualifies for #1,
above.)
3- A nice practice, that no one ever suggested is the halachah.
4- A practice they picked up because the ideal was unavailable.
I think only #s 2 and 3 fit the technical definition.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5828 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 5-Jun-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
Robert Kaiser
"Daniel B. Schwartz" <schwa...@worldnet.att.net> says:
>> >> Please stop writing fiction. That is *not* the only basis
>> >>for the permission to use stam yeinam, and you it. Your claim to the
>> >>contrary is simply pathetic.
>>
>> >He knows it? How does he know it?
>> Because I already posted it, in some detail, THREE times to
>> this newsgroup. And you saw this as well.
> Actually, you never did. You have never posted a citation for the
>teshuva.
Daniel, you are very confused here. Jon was talking about
the Conservative teshuva, not the Rama's. He was asking, how does
Daniel know what the reasoning in the Conservative teshuva is?
And I pointed out that the reasoning behind the Conservative
teshuva indeed _had_ been explained on this newsgroup, a number of times.
No one ever claimed that the Rama's teshuva had been posted
here in full. PLEASE stop arguing against things no has ever claimed.
Robert
Harry Weiss
Craig Winchell (gan...@ganeden.com) wrote:
: Robert Kaiser <kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu> wrote in article
: <35775...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>...
: > mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman) says:
: > >Robert, I have read what you wrote on this subject, and it was clear
: > >from your comments to me and others that the Rema was sipposidly
: > >making a general rule that allowed stam Yayin. Maybe that was not
: > >your intention but I am sure there is enough on Deja News on this
: > >subject to prove that is the clear meaning of what you wrote.
: >
: >
: > I didn't mean to imply that, and I regret giving that impression.
: > I just would like to point out that I recently sent a post to the
: > newsgroup on just this subject, explaining in a very brief way, the
: > reasoning behind the Conservative teshuva:
: >
: >
: > At a request of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards
: > of the Rabbinical Assembly (CJLS) Rabbi Israel Silverman
: > made a study of the question and reported his findings in
: > a responsum. He found that wine making in the United States
: > in fully automated (his study did not cover imported wines)
: > and no human hand comes in contact with the wine from the
: > momemnt the grapes are put into containers and brought to
: > the winery until the wine appears in sealed bottles.
: B"H
: Incorrect. There are many times when human hands have the opportunity to
: contact wine. In fact, I don't know of any California winery where there
: is *absolutely* no physical contact with the wine.
Remember you can't let the facts get in the way of Kaiser's opinions.
: > Wines
: > manufactured by this automated process may not be classified
: > as wine manufactored by gentiles and thus do not come under
: > the interdict against the using of stam yaneem.
: Again, yayin nesech was created when a wave offering was performed with an
: open vessel of wine (as far as I know), where there needn't have been
: actual physical contact between the idol worshiper and the wine. I
: understand the original definition of stam yeinam to be wine where there
: was the opportunity of movement of an unsealed vessel, but where it was
: questionable whether it was dedicated to idols. I understand the present
: prohibition against stam yeinam to be patterned after the prohibition of
: yayin nesech, which didn't require direct contact. Thus, if my
: understandings are correct, even if there is absolutely no direct physical
: contact between the nonJew and the wine in a winery, there would still be
: stam yeinam.
: >
: > A more recent investigation by the CJLS has shown that some
: > wineries use a small amount of dairy or non-kosher substances
: > as fining agents in the processing of wine. As such, it
: > is urged that only rabbinically certified wines be served
: > at the home, at the synagogue and at communal events.
: > There is, however, basis for the view that considers the
: > forbidden substances in the finding agents nullified, and
: > such wines are thus not uncategorically unkosher or dairy.
: I will let a rabbi discuss the ins and outs of nullification.
: > Whenever situations make it unfeasible or impossible to
: > refrain from drinking them, one who drinks them is not
: > drinking unkosher wine.
: This is a true copout. What would make it unfeasable or impossible to
: refrain from drinking nonkosher wine?
:
: > If one uses such wine in one's
: > home, it does not render the home unkosher. Only certified
: > wines - preferably from Israel - should be used for ritual
: > purposes in the synagogue.
: Well, there goes mine, because it's made in good old Sonoma County,
: California. Why are Israeli wines preferable, from the Conservative
: perspective?
Actually you wines are prefreable to most Israeli wines because of
quality. (Of course I happen to really like Yarden Merlot. I haven't
seen any Gan Eden Merlot)
For those unfamiliary with Craig'w wines, they are probably the best
quality California wines (in the varieties he makes) and have won
numerous awards in competition with the best of the non Kosher wines.
With wines of that quality as well as those made by other Jewish
wineries, in the US, Israel and elsewhere, I can't see why anyone would
even want to drink non kosher wine.
: > : >
: > > If you now agree with Josh's reading, that the Rema refered to
: > > a specific community. (Do you know where Mehrin is?)
: >
: > I always have agreed with this reading. I tried to say so
: > explicitly in a couple of posts, including a post from last week
: > (please see the attached post below).
: >
: >
: >
: > >And that he said that it
: > >was forbidden to generalize from the tshuva.
: >
: >
: > I concur! In general, one shouldn't generalize. But one can,
: > and perhaps even should (?) follow it when a posek rules for a similar
: > situation. Each situation is unique, thus some situations would be
: > less applicable, and some more so.
: You'll pardon me if I don't hold by your posek.
Especially when the writer of the psak specifically prohibited using his
psak for any other usage. Unfortunately the Rama's fear of having his
Psak used by sinners to justify sinning came true.
: >
: >
: >
: > >How can you feel
: > >comfortable with what the Conservative psak says? They are clearly
: > >ruling contrary to the explicit statement of the Rema.
: >
: > Considering the American Jewish practice of drinking gentile
: > wine, the Rama's teshuva at the very least is a good indication of
: > how the problem can be dealt with.
: In my opinion, it is highly illogical, and destructive, reasoning. Because
: the majority of Jews in the USA couldn't care less about kashrus, therefore
: we have a minhag? Foolishness!! I'm sure that not even Silverman believes
: that.
: > But like all good teshuvot, a
: > posek should say "This line of reasoning by itself may not be enough,
: > are there other halakhic grounds?" Indeed, that is what Rabbi
: > Silverman did when he made his analysis (summarized above).
: >
: > Please note that his analysis doesn't cover non-American
: > wines, nor wines made in any other fashion other than automated.
: As I say, even in highly automated wineries there is some direct wine
: contact.
: Craig Winchell
: GAN EDEN
: >
: >
: > Shalom,
: >
: > Robert
: >
: >
: > *****************************
: >
: >
: http://x4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=356808211&CONTEXT=897003228.586874880&hi
: tnum=5
: >
: > Subject: Re: Are non-Orthodox forms JEWISH or JUDAIC??
: > From: kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser)
: > Date: 1998/05/27
: > Message-ID: <356b5...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>
: > Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
: > [More Headers]
: > [Subscribe to soc.culture.jewish]
: >
: >
: > Josh Backon says:
: > >The Tshuvat Ha'Remah (124) did **NOT** permit stam yeinam to anyone:
: > >he permitted it in the case of someone who was sick and needed the
: > >wine (as a remedy). And there were many who opposed this psak of the
: > >Remah....
: > >...
: > >One of the most odious things Chazal referred to was DISTORTING and
: > >TWISTING of halachic rulings. The Silverman *ruling* is a perfect
: > >example how a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.
: >
: >
: > Josh, you are reading the wrong teshuva! The teshuva I am
: > discussing can pretty much only be found in the 1710 Cracow edition
: > - other editions of the Rama's responsa were censored by later rabbinic
: > authorities. Look, I've pointed this fact out three times now, and
: > each time you ignore the teshuva, and refer some other one that is
: > not the topic of discussion.
: >
: >
: > The text of his teshuva was very clear: It was *not* about sick
: > people. It was about religious Jews from a town where the custom
: > was to drink gentile wine. The question posed to him was "Is it Ok
: > to drink gentile wine? Are there halakhic grounds to sanction this?"
: > And though he expressed reluctance, he ends up by saying that, yes, he
: > does find grounds for sanctioning it.
: >
: >
: >
: > Robert
: >
Robert Kaiser
r...@NOSPAM.adnc.com (Randy B) says:
>===> You made claims that violence was happening on a regular basis,
>than you claimed you didn't, and I put together your quotes to show
>that you were indeed either confused or lying. After that, you dropped
>out of the discussion.
Folks, this NEVER happened. I don't know why, but Randy is
simply lying. Outrageously. And I have all the posts, archived on
Dejanews, to prove it. If there is anyone who is interested, please
write me and I'll get you the info you request.
>===> Indeed it is, which makes me wonder why you always attack me
>personally like this. I don't hate anybody, and have never made any
>statements that would indicate I did. Why are you doing this, Robert?
>Calling me sick, and accusing me of hatred?
Do you think that you can still get away with your cover up
of the continual violence at the Kotel - Its *still* happening, even
up to just last week. You can spread all the lies you like, lies
that end up hurting women and Conservative Jews, but the truth is out
there, both archived on Dejanews and on the front pages of many newspapers.
I'd advise you to stop being dishonest about such things.
People here can choose between believing you - or all the eyewitness
testimony of police, and people assaulted in Haredi rampages. Believe
me, except for a handful of historical revisionists, no one will believe
you. (for good reason!)
I wonder if Randy will now accuse me of secretly being the
editor of all the newspapers that wrote these stories, and that I
somehow secretly control them !?
Robert
Robert Kaiser
Due to the games that some extremists are palying, some people
have managed to change the topic of this thread. I wanted to discuss
kashrut in general, and the kashrut of wine in specific. Others simply
wanted to to insult non-Orthodox Jews. I'm not playing their game
anymore. They can distort the truth all they want - but I'm going
to talk about Judaism. I guess they'd rather do other things.
Below is a short excerpt from a sermon by Rabbi Konigsburg, a
Conservative rabbi from Temple Sinai of Hollywood. I think it will
provide a good insight into the reason why Jews keep kosher.
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
**************************************
Another important observance we can use at the beginning is Kashrut.
The Jewish Dietary Laws are designed not to be a burden, but to offer
us some control in our lives. Like Shabbat, the intention is not to
change all at once, but to make a start, and gradually move forward on
the ladder of observance. A starting place may be to just stop eating
things that are clearly forbidden. An end to pork, or shellfish.
A beginning can be made when we stop having meat with milk at home.
Or we can decide that we will do all our meat shopping at the Kosher
Butcher. Just giving up one particular food also can serve as a beginning.
We can add to our observance by extending Kashrut into other areas of
our life. From home to outside the house, from outside the house to
inside the house. Having one Kosher prepared meal at home each week.
Looking at labels when shopping. Each step brings us closer to spiritual
fulfillment through the food we eat.
Kashrut teaches us that in spite of the fact that eating is part of
human instinct, this does not mean that it has to control our lives.
Our need to eat, such a basic part of the animal within us can be
raised to a higher purpose. It is not for G-d that we structure what
we eat, but for the feeling of wonder and awe that comes when we take
control of that part of ourselves that so often seems so out of control.
Rabbi Ira Stone explains:
"The system known as Kashrut works on three levels. The first is an
arbitrary disciplining of the urge to eat by proscribing certain
beasts and permitting others. It makes us aware that we are dealing
with death and are embarking on a road that separates us from the
divine. The second prescribes a method for introducing compassion:
it injects a moment-of-life into a process otherwise death filled. ...
Finally, by emulating the method of ritual slaughter use by the
priests at the Temple in Jerusalem to slaughter the sacrifices,
we try to elevate the act of eating to the life giving heights of
that ritual. We struggle to become aware of our own death and, by
sharing it with G-d, experience the possibility of transcending
death. Thus an act which begins as an expression of our coarsest
mortality helps us move closer to our most sublime potential for
immortality.
[R. Ira Stone, "Seeking the Path to Life"]
Robert Kaiser
While others wish to use this newsgroup for purposes other than
yiddishkeit, I wish to utilize it for the purpose it was intended for
- Judaism. So all those who wish to read or print lies and slander,
just skip this message. It ain't for you. It for Jews who wish to
learn a little about Judiasm. Radical, nu?
An excerpt from:
"An Introduction to the Philosophy and Laws of Immersing Vessels"
Excerpted from http://www.innernet.org.il/tevilah.htm
Which Utensils Require Immersion?
The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 75b) states that immersion of vessels applies
to utensils that are used in preparing food (or eating food) and that come
into direct contact with the food. The commentator Pri Chadash, Yoreh
De'ah 120:1, citing the Rashba, explains that this principle is evident
from the verse, "Whatever was used over fire must be put through fire
and purged." Only food utensils are used over fire; they alone absorb the
forbidden food which makes reconditioning necessary. Avney Neizir
adds that utensils which were not used for food by a non-Jew before
purchase by a Jew need not be kashered, but they still require immersion
if they are to be used in food preparation.
The Talmud adds that since the biblical text refers explicitly to metal
utensils, only they require immersion. Wood, bone, or earthen utensils
are exempted from the requirement altogether. Since the biblical text
refers specifically to those utensils which were captured as spoils of war
and then became the irrevocable property of the victors, immersion of
vessels (as opposed to kashering) only applies when an actual transfer of
ownership from non-Jew to Jew has taken place. Utensils which are lent
or rented would, therefore, be exempt.
Glass Utensils
The Gemara (Avodoh Zarah 75b) states:
Rav Ashi said that glass utensils require immersion since they can be
repaired when they are broken, like metal utensils.
Thus, although the Biblical source only mentions metal utensils, the
Talmud extends the biblical principle to include glass. Authorities
disagree as to whether the requirement of immersion for glass utensils is,
in fact, a biblical or rabbinic requirement. Most authorities consider
immersion of glass a rabbinic requirement. The Beith Yosef, in Kessef
Mishneh, Hilkhoth Maakhaloth Asuroth 17:6, asks why Maimonidies
omits mentioning that glass utensils require immersion, but it appears that
the Beith Yosef overlooked the fact that Maimonidies does mention this
requirement in Hilkhoth Maakhaloth Asuroth 17:3.
20. In his glosses to the Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 120:1, Rabbi
Akiva Eiger refers to the K'nesseth HaGedolah's discussion of a large
earthenware utensil coated with lead and used for storing wine. After
citing Mahari MiLida's contention that immersion is not required for
storage utensils, K'nesseth HaGedolah quotes Issur VeHeter HaArukh
58, which rules that large containers for storing wine do require
immersion. K'nesseth HaGedolah concludes that the Issur VeHeter may
be referring only to metal utensils or earthenware containers coated on
both sides; one should act stringently with these containers and immerse
them. Since there is a dispute over containers that are coated on the
inside (see paragraph 7), the lenient opinion may be relied on in the case
of large utensils; they may be used without tevilah. Binath Adam, Sha'ar
Issur VeHeter 66, discusses immersing large vats that contain more than
forty se'ah. Citing Tosafoth, Tractate Pesachim 109b, the author rules
that large metal utensils which contain more than forty se'ah are
susceptible to tum'ah. He concludes that size is not a factor which would
exempt them from immersion. (The volume measurement of forty se'ah
is discussed in Chapter 7, note 2.)
The Orukh HaShulchan 120:39, and Darkey Teshuvah 120:5, in the
name of Tuv Ta'am VaDa'ath, present a contrary position: A receptacle
containing forty se'ah is not considered a utensil for immersion. Tuv
Ta'am VaDa'ath concedes if it contains less than forty se'ah it requires
immersion and comments that it is unclear why it is not customary to
immerse such containers. For a discussion of utensils used for
commercial purposes, see Chapter 3, paragraphs 11-14.
Please see the whole essay at:
http://www.innernet.org.il/tevilah.htm
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <35775...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>, kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) writes:
>
> Yisrael Rice <yr...@linex.com> says:
>>>Two weeks ago, Robert Kaiser posted a Conservative *responsa* that permitted
>>>drinking gentile wine (STAM YEINAM) quoting the *permissive* tshuva of
>>>the REMA (Tshuvat Ha'Rema 124). >It seemed that a certain Jewish
>>>community (Mehrin) had the custom to drink
>
>>Robert, is there a conservative responsa using this as a Heter or not?
>
>
> the Rama, and considers it as a very important factor. Considering
Good grief ! How can the Tshuvat HaRemah (124) be a "very important
factor" in permitting stan yeinam when the Remah EXPLICITLY AND
REPEATEDLY states that it is absoutely NOT to be construed as a blanket
permission for ANY OTHER community ?
Do you really have to be so disengenuous ?
> the flexible and precedent oriented nature of the responsa literature,
> this alone could be considered grounds for a posek to allow all
> gentile wine in a place like America, where it is the minhag to drink
> gentile wine.
>
ROTFL !!!
>
> However, this reasoning by itself is *not* presented as
> sufficient; the Conservative teshuva is more rigorous. The main
> thrust of the Conservative teshuva develops along another line of
> reasoning, and deals with how wine is made in manual, semi-automated,
> and totally automated processes, and how this relates to its
> classification in halakha.
>
But Craig, who owns and operates a winery and who obviously knows the
industry inside-out, informed you that this is not the case.
>
> Josh and Daniel's claims to the contrary are simply false,
> with zero basis in reality.
>
Naturally :-) :-) Only Bobo Kaiser is normal.
>
> Robert
Josh
>
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <35772...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>, kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) writes:
> Y...@my-dejanews.com says:
>>
>>Mr. Kaiser, it would've helped here if you clarified exactly what Mr. Backon
>>is allegedly lying about. When he talks about "C propensity for twisting,
>>etc.", he seems to mean the authors of the C responsa in question, not
>>necessarily you.
>
>
> You miss my point. Josh lied about what I posted to this
> newsgroup. In past weeks, I had told people here that the Rama (Rabbi
> Moses Isserles) reluctantly gave a heter to a community, allowing
> them to drink gentile wine, as it had been their custom to do so.
>
> claims that I said something different. Josh then proceeds to say
> what I wrote was false, and that in fact the Rama reluctantly gave
> had been their custom to do so.
KLOTZ KASHA # 99: if the Remah only *reluctantly* gave a semi-heter to one
community, then how on earth does the Conservative clergy come out with
a responsa that gives a carte blanche permission for EVERYONE to drink
stam yeinam when the Remah himself in no uncertain terms made it very
obvious that this semi-heter would apply to NO ONE else ???
>
> That, as you can see, is exactly what I have been saying all along!
> Josh is lying when he claims that I said otherwise. This is not the
> first time he pulled this stunt.
>
I detest shoddy scholarship and I despise fraudulent misuse of texts to prove
a point to fit one's politically correct agenda.
Josh
>
> Robert
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) writes:
> Do you think that you can still get away with your cover up
>of the continual violence at the Kotel - Its *still* happening, even
>up to just last week. You can spread all the lies you like, lies
YM "occasional", not "continual." HTH.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Jonathan J. Baker
In < kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) writes:
> While others wish to use this newsgroup for purposes other than
>yiddishkeit, I wish to utilize it for the purpose it was intended for
>- Judaism. So all those who wish to read or print lies and slander,
>just skip this message. It ain't for you. It for Jews who wish to
>learn a little about Judiasm. Radical, nu?
OK, but you might want to change the subject. An Orthodox article
on tevilas kelim has little to do with a "Conservative response on
stam yeinam".
BTW, do many C Jews tovel their pots and glassware?
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Zev Sero
On 5 Jun 1998 09:43:09, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote:
>In <> zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) writes:
>>authenticity. Someone (Moshe Shulman?) mentioned that there was some
>>reason to think that it might have been written by an anonymous student
>>of the Rema, and erroneously included in some editions of his teshuvot;
>>I can't remember what basis was offered for this theory - can anyone
>>help?
>I thought I saw a line in it referring to "rabbeinu", which sounds
>like something a student might say.
That's not in the teshuva; it's a footnote written by the editors of the
modern edition. The copy you gave me is a bit confusing in that way,
because the footnotes are inserted into the text, offset by crosses at
the beginning and end.
>>A corrolary of this conclusion, one that the Rema repeats in his notes
>>on the Shulchan Aruch, is that nowadays gentile wines are only forbidden
>>for drinking, but it's permitted to make other use of them, e.g. to buy
>>and sell them, or to take them in payment of a debt. (Commerce in
>>gentile wines was later banned by a decree of the Council of Four Lands,
>>BTW).
>Drinking stam, or consumption? Could one make a sauce with gentile
>wine?
No. There's no difference between drinking wine, or eating it frozen,
or cooking it into a sauce; once something is treif, it's treif. The
Rema's big heter is to permit deriving benefit from the wine, on the
grounds that the goyim in Europe did not have the custom of pouring
libations to their god.
--
Zev Sero, posting from Toronto - support Toronto in '03
zs...@bigfoot.com
Zev Sero
On 5 Jun 98 15:12:10 GMT, kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert
Kaiser) wrote:
> Jon's claims to the contrary are pure fiction. Sure, I
>did say that the Rama reluctantly allowed gentile wine for a certain
>community where it had been the custom,
A claim which is completely false, as the author of the teshuva you
eventually identified did *not* permit it, but in fact explicitly
said that the Moravian custom was wrong, and that the reason he
decided to write the teshuva in the first place was so that sinners
would not point to the Moravian Jews as proof that the wine must be
OK, since the O Jews in Moravia drink it.
Zev Sero
On 5 Jun 98 11:38:38 GMT, bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>Good grief ! How can the Tshuvat HaRemah (124) be a "very important
>factor" in permitting stan yeinam when the Remah EXPLICITLY AND
>REPEATEDLY states that it is absoutely NOT to be construed as a blanket
>permission for ANY OTHER community ?
Or, indeed, for that one. The most important distortion in Kaiser's
description of that teshuva is his claim that the author, however
reluctantly, did permit it for one community. The plan fact is that
he did *not* permit it, and was quite clear that the Moravian Jews'
custom of drinking it was *wrong*.
Zev Sero
On 5 Jun 1998 17:55:15 GMT, mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman) wrote:
>translations we have seen here make it clear that the Rema himself
>stated that the people acting there were doing so CONTRARY to the
>halacha, and that others SHOULD NOT act that way. (The reason why he
>would write such a thing for THEM is interesting and maybe we should
>discuss this in another thread.)
>[...] Now, if they were to write EXACTLY as the
>Rema that it is forbidden and that people should not drink it
>however, those who have until now not been careful need not change.
>There 'might' be a point.
He didn't write that they needn't change their ways; the teshuva isn't
written to them, it's to someone who asked about how *we* should regard
them. The Rema says that since there is a legitimate-sounding chain of
reasoning which would result in permitting the wine, we should assume
that some Rabbi years ago in Moravia erroneously permitted it, and so
they are not flagrant sinners but rather are sinning unintentionally,
through ignorance of the law. There is no question that if a Moravian
Jew asked the Rema whether he may continue his custom of drinking the
wine, the Rema's answer would be an unconditional *NO*.
Zev Sero
On 5 Jun 98 17:03:36 GMT, bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>Everyone here on this saw me say that the Rama reluctantly
>> gave a heter to this one community. I never once claimed otherwise.
>He gives a SEMI-heter, more of mental gymnastics than a heter. And
>he categorically states that under no circumstance is this to be
>construed as blanket permission for any other community.
Or by that one. He says that they are to be regarded as unintentional
sinners, rather than flagrant ones, because their custom may be based
on a legitimate error, rather than on open disregard for the law. He
speculates that some Rabbi many years ago must have mistakenly ruled
that it was permitted, and the Moravian Jews have been following that
psak ever since, not realising that it was in error. That is the *only*
slack he cuts them.
Zev Sero
On 5 Jun 98, kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) wrote:
> "Daniel B. Schwartz" <schwa...@worldnet.att.net> says:
>>> There is a Conservative responsa which notes this teshuva of
>>> the Rama, and considers it as a very important factor. Considering
>>> the flexible and precedent oriented nature of the responsa literature,
>>> this alone could be considered grounds for a posek to allow all
>>> gentile wine in a place like America, where it is the minhag to drink
>>> gentile wine.
>> What??? You're suggesting that since it's a minhag for Jews to sin, the
>>sins should be permitted? Get real you idiot!!!
> Daniel, please stop publicly labelling the Rama as an idiot.
>That indeed was his reasoning, as his been confirmed by others on
>this newsgroup.
No, it wasn't, and no, it hasn't.
> The Rama was neither an idiot, nor was he claiming that it is
>a minhag for Jews to sin. In fact, his point was that drinking gentile
>wine is *not* necessarilly a sin, and in certain cases, can be grounded
>in halakha.
This is an outright fabrication. The Rema is very clear that gentile
wine is forbidden, even in areas where the law has been ignored for
generations. The *only* circumstances in which he does permit it is
for a person so sick that he is confined to his bed, and who needs wine
for medicinal purposes.
>Just because you disgaree with him is no reason to call him an
>idiot. And don't pretend that you're calling Conservative Jews idiots,
>because what you commented on was the Rama's own stated reasoning.
Rather, the reasoning that you falsely attributed to the Rema.
Robert Kaiser
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il says:
>KLOTZ KASHA # 99: if the Remah only *reluctantly* gave a semi-heter to one
>community, then how on earth does the Conservative clergy come out with
>a responsa that gives a carte blanche permission for EVERYONE to drink
>stam yeinam
Josh, please stop lying about the contents of the Conservative
teshuva. You are free to agree or disagree with it, but it is dishonest
to lie about the contents of that teshuva. That only dishoners yourself.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, the basis of the CJLS
responsa is *not* the Rama's teshuva. As you well know, that was
only one such consideration, and in fact the main thrust of the
CJLS teshuva was another line of reasoning entierly.
Even if you must disagree with it, please do not lie about it.
Robert
Robert Kaiser
zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) says:
>
>> The Rama was neither an idiot, nor was he claiming that it is
>>a minhag for Jews to sin. In fact, his point was that drinking gentile
>>wine is *not* necessarilly a sin, and in certain cases, can be grounded
>>in halakha.
>
>This is an outright fabrication. The Rema is very clear that gentile
>wine is forbidden, even in areas where the law has been ignored for
>generations. The *only* circumstances in which he does permit it is
>for a person so sick that he is confined to his bed, and who needs wine
>for medicinal purposes.
Zev, why are you calling Jon J. Baker, Myself and Josh Backon
all liars? Allthough we disagree on the validity of the Conservative
teshuva, we all admit that the Rama wrote reluctantly a teshuva allowing
the use of gentile wine in a community wher it had been the minhag.
Please stop writing historical revisionism.
Robert
Robert Kaiser
zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) says:
>
>Or, indeed, for that one. The most important distortion in Kaiser's
>description of that teshuva is his claim that the author, however
>reluctantly, did permit it for one community. The plan fact is that
>he did *not* permit it, and was quite clear that the Moravian Jews'
>custom of drinking it was *wrong*.
Which is it Zev? In this post, you claim that the Rama did
write such a teshuva, while in a previous you denied he wrote such
a teshuva.
That's the trouble with historical revisionists, they can't
keep all their lies straight from one day to the next.
Robert
Robert Kaiser
I found the following summary at Steven Weintraub's kashrut
page. Its well worth looking into, very educational, and without
any polemics.
Shalom,
Robert
http://www.pswtech.com/~stevenw/jewish/kosher/l2.nonmeat_regulation.html
1.Grapes (particularly grape juice products) - Because of the long
standing practice to grow grapes (particularly wine) for idolatry, the
Rabbis prohibited the eating of grape and grape products if they were
grown by an unsupervised non-Jew. Grape juice must not be in the
possession of a non-Jew unsupervised unless it is made unfit for
idolatry by boiling (Thus most kosher wine is quick boiled to allow
non-Jewish middle-men to handle it). The Orthodox adhere to this
strictly. The Conservative CJLS recognizes (under a teshuvah of
Rabbi Silverman) that this is no longer a problem and have relaxed
this prohibition to allow general use of grape and grape products, but
supervised grape products are still to be used for ritual purposes. A
recent investigation by Rabbi Dorff has shown that treif components
might be used and wine production. As a result a change in this
policy to only allowing supervised wine may soon take place.
Robert Kaiser
mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman) says:
>>There is a Conservative responsa which notes this teshuva of
>>the Rama, and considers it as a very important factor. Considering
>>the flexible and precedent oriented nature of the responsa literature,
>>this alone could be considered grounds for a posek to allow all
>>gentile wine in a place like America, where it is the minhag to drink
>>gentile wine.
>Robert, here is the problem. This is a false methodology. The
>translations we have seen here make it clear that the Rema himself
>stated that the people acting there were doing so CONTRARY to the
>halacha, and that others SHOULD NOT act that way. (The reason why he
>would write such a thing for THEM is interesting and maybe we should
>discuss this in another thread.) However to extend it as a general
>heter for yayim stam is clearly a misuse of the tshuva.
I understand what you mean. I think that the differences
come from how much weight we give to the custom of America Jewry.
Under what circumstances should we be stringent, and under what
circumstances whould we try and make leniencies? If we have any choice
in the matter, we don't want to rule in such a way that most Jews are
considered lawbreakers. On the other hand, we don't want to remove
all rabbinic restrictions in order to make the actions of non-observant
people in accord with the law. So what to do?
When one views the summary of Conservative halakha on kashrut
(as in R. Issac Klein's "A Gudie to Jewish religious Practice) we end
up seeing that about 98% of the rabbinic rules are actually the same
in Orthodoxy and Conservative Judaism! Using the halakhic methodology
of the Conservative movement, people can - and have ! -proposed making
even more kashrut laws much more lenient. [Such proposals can be found
in volume I of the new 3 volume set of CJLS responsa] The interesting
thing to note is that in almost all cases, while many Conservative
rabbis found such proposals reasonable, they nevertheless did not act
on them. For almost all cases, they ruled that the customary halakha
must not change, with certain exceptions (e.g. processed gelatin,
mono-and di-glycerides, and American wine made by totally automatic
processes)
I just wish to point out that the Conservative position actually
rejected most proposed changes, and indeed is somewhat more 'conservative'
than many might have thought.
> As to the
>'custom'. This is an error. We do not consider 'custom' things done
>by people who are either ignorant of halacha, or have no interest in
>it. Those Jews in America who have an interest in halacha have never
>heard of such a minhag.
This is *very* true. As early as 1900, Solomon Schechter
pointed this out, and he ruled that we can no longer accept the custom
of the Jewish people, as a whole, as having valid meaning. As you
pointout, most Jews are ignorant of halakha, and indeed, they are
probably ignorant of the reasons why halakha should be understood as
binding in the first place. As such, Schechter promoted the idea
that we must only consider the actions and opinions of those who
truly accepted the law as normative, and made some sort of good faith
effort to live by it. Minhag would not be determined by Klal Yisrael,
as such, but only by the committed segment of Klal Yisrael.
Fianlly, just to clarify my intentions, I am tying to explain
the reasoning behind the CJLS teshuva, but I don't expect to try and
convince anyone that it has to right. I'd just like people to know
that the people who made it truly are trying to deal with the issue
in a normative halakhic fashion, in a framework where they believe
that halakha is binding.
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
Harry Weiss
Robert Kaiser (kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu) wrote:
How much of an imbecile are you bobo. READ the Tshuvah. What does the
RAMA say (not some C interpretation, but the actual response) It is not
historical revisionism to translate what the Rama says.
Harry Weiss
Robert Kaiser (kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu) wrote:
: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) says:
: >
: >Or, indeed, for that one. The most important distortion in Kaiser's
While I understand that is far more than can be expected from a C to
understand simple Hebrew, the Rama is not allowing, but giving an
"excuse" not to call these people purposeful sinners.
Zev Sero
On 7 Jun 98, kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) wrote:
> zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) says:
>>Or, indeed, for that one. The most important distortion in Kaiser's
>>description of that teshuva is his claim that the author, however
>>reluctantly, did permit it for one community. The plan fact is that
>>he did *not* permit it, and was quite clear that the Moravian Jews'
>>custom of drinking it was *wrong*.
> Which is it Zev? In this post, you claim that the Rama did
>write such a teshuva, while in a previous you denied he wrote such
>a teshuva.
A teshuva exists; I don't know for a fact that the Rema wrote it, and
in fact in the paragraph you quote I don't identify the author. I don't
know why it was omitted from *some* editions (not all but one, as you
claimed) of Teshuvot Harama, but one possible reason might have been
that there were doubts as to the authenticity of its authorship. But
if you're talking about a teshuva from the Rema that *permits* goyishe
wine, however reluctantly, even to just one community, then I can say
unconditionally that no such teshuva exists, and your claims to the
contrary are untrue.
Zev Sero
On 7 Jun 98, kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) wrote:
> zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) says:
>>> The Rama was neither an idiot, nor was he claiming that it is
>>>a minhag for Jews to sin. In fact, his point was that drinking gentile
>>>wine is *not* necessarilly a sin, and in certain cases, can be grounded
>>>in halakha.
>>This is an outright fabrication. The Rema is very clear that gentile
>>wine is forbidden, even in areas where the law has been ignored for
>>generations. The *only* circumstances in which he does permit it is
>>for a person so sick that he is confined to his bed, and who needs wine
>>for medicinal purposes.
> Zev, why are you calling Jon J. Baker, Myself and Josh Backon
>all liars? Allthough we disagree on the validity of the Conservative
>teshuva, we all admit that the Rama wrote reluctantly a teshuva allowing
>the use of gentile wine in a community wher it had been the minhag.
The only one I'm calling a liar here is you, Kaiser. I think that Josh
was insufficiently clear in his summary of the teshuva, so I clarified
the crucial point in this debate, i.e. despite your claims to the
contrary, the author of the teshuva does *not* permit the consumption
of gentile wines for the Jews of Moravia, despite their longstanding
practise of doing so. AFAIK Jon hasn't read the teshuva carefully,
because I've got his copy (I'll drop it by this evening or tomorrow,
Jon), and is relying mostly on Josh's and my summaries. And no matter
how many people you could rally who would back up your claim, I would
know that I was right and you were wrong for the simple reason that I've
*read* the thing and you haven't.
Robert Kaiser
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il says:
>
>Kaiser, two days ago you posted (and I quote): "There is a Conservative
>tshuva on stam yeinam and they noted the tshuva of the Remah AND
>CONSIDERED IT A VERY IMPORTANT FACTOR"...
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Make up your mind. Or is this another case of Bobo retreating or retracting
>when shown all the flaws in the Conservative *responsum* ?
Josh, please stop writing fiction about my posts.
Everything I said, still stands. The Conservative teshuva does
indeed quote the Rama, and Conservative Jews do consider that teshuva
an important factor. Nevertheless - despite your repeated lies to the
contrary - the Conservative teshuva does *not* rely on the reasoning
of the Rama, and instead is based on a separate line of reasoning.
If you are still unable to understand this, I can't help you.
I'm truly sorry if you are as dumb as you are pretending to be.
Robert
Moshe Shulman
>From: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero)
>>Rema that it is forbidden and that people should not drink it
>>however, those who have until now not been careful need not change.
>>There 'might' be a point.
>He didn't write that they needn't change their ways; the teshuva isn't
>written to them, it's to someone who asked about how *we* should
regard
>them. The Rema says that since there is a legitimate-sounding chain
of
>reasoning which would result in permitting the wine, we should assume
>that some Rabbi years ago in Moravia erroneously permitted it, and so
>they are not flagrant sinners but rather are sinning unintentionally,
>through ignorance of the law. There is no question that if a Moravian
>Jew asked the Rema whether he may continue his custom of drinking the
>wine, the Rema's answer would be an unconditional *NO*.
This is even worse.
--
Moshe Shulman mshu...@ix.netcom.com 718-436-7705
http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus Chassidus Website
Moshe Shulman
>From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
>On 5 Jun 1998 13:40:54 -0400, Eliot Shimoff <shi...@umbc.edu> wrote:
>: The reason I am asking is that "minhag" is an awfully broad term --
>: it covers everything from the second day of Yom Tov outside of
>: Israel to cheesecake on Shavuot and latkes on Chanuka...
>I think the technical definition is a practice decided by consensus of
the
>masses rather than by halachic authority.
No minhag is valid until it is accepted by rabbanim.
Moshe Shulman
>From: kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser)
>a minhag for Jews to sin. In fact, his point was that drinking
gentile
>wine is *not* necessarilly a sin, and in certain cases, can be
grounded
>in halakha.
No Robert. All those who have seen his words (and some have
transcribed them here) show clearly that the Rema says that they are
acting contrary to halacha. He points out possible erronious
reasoning that they used.
Jonathan J. Baker
>>> The Rama was neither an idiot, nor was he claiming that it is
>>>a minhag for Jews to sin. In fact, his point was that drinking gentile
>>>wine is *not* necessarilly a sin, and in certain cases, can be grounded
>>>in halakha.
>>This is an outright fabrication. The Rema is very clear that gentile
>>wine is forbidden, even in areas where the law has been ignored for
>>generations. The *only* circumstances in which he does permit it is
>>for a person so sick that he is confined to his bed, and who needs wine
>>for medicinal purposes.
> Zev, why are you calling Jon J. Baker, Myself and Josh Backon
>all liars? Allthough we disagree on the validity of the Conservative
>teshuva, we all admit that the Rama wrote reluctantly a teshuva allowing
>the use of gentile wine in a community wher it had been the minhag.
I just read the teshuvah in the regular "old" edition of Shu"t haRema
at the Stoliner shul (or at least the beginning and the end, where
the disclaimers are). Zev is completely accurate, and you are not.
The teshuvah of the Rema did not *allow* the use of Gentile wine in
the communties of Moravia. Had the Jews of Moravia asked him about
it, he would have said "Of course not, what do you think I am, an
idiot"? What the teshuvah did was to find a faulty line of reasoning
that a rabbi who was a poor scholar might have figured out, and based
on that faulty reasoning, the poor scholar might have permitted
Gentile wine. On that basis, he absolved the Moravian Jews from
blame for doing something that was so clearly against halacha. Not
that he said they were right to do so, but that they were not at
fault for doing the wrong thing. Had they intentionally drunk gentile
wine *knowing that it was against the law*, they would have been
totally untrustworthy as far as kashrut or anything else. By the
same token, if the Conservatives rely on the Rema's invented reasoning,
they would explicitly make themselves untrustworthy.
Now, if the Conservative teshuvah does not rely on the Rema's reasoning,
on what reasoning does it rely? Despite your protestations to the
contrary, you have not yet posted any summary of Silverman's reasoning
for permitting stam yeinam, other than the allegation that humans
hands do not touch the wine from the time the grapes are harvested
to the time the wine is bottled and packed. Is that it? If so,
Craig Winchell the Gan Eden vintner has already said that it's a
crock of hooey - one always has to check the wine during the processing.
> Please stop writing historical revisionism.
Please stop writing false statements about fellow Jews.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Jonathan J. Baker
>>Or, indeed, for that one. The most important distortion in Kaiser's
>>description of that teshuva is his claim that the author, however
>>reluctantly, did permit it for one community. The plan fact is that
>>he did *not* permit it, and was quite clear that the Moravian Jews'
>>custom of drinking it was *wrong*.
> Which is it Zev? In this post, you claim that the Rama did
>write such a teshuva, while in a previous you denied he wrote such
>a teshuva.
He was quite consistent. The Rema wrote a teshuvah which did not
permit the Moravian Jews to drink gentile wine, yet did not place
the blame for their drinking it on them as individuals or as a
community, but rather on their past rabbinic leadership.
> That's the trouble with historical revisionists, they can't
>keep all their lies straight from one day to the next.
That's the trouble with your arguing Conservative positions. Not
only can't you read the primary sources, you can't even understand
the arguments raised against the Conservative teshuvot.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) writes:
>A teshuva exists; I don't know for a fact that the Rema wrote it, and
>in fact in the paragraph you quote I don't identify the author. I don't
>know why it was omitted from *some* editions (not all but one, as you
>claimed) of Teshuvot Harama, but one possible reason might have been
>that there were doubts as to the authenticity of its authorship. But
Further on the censorship question. I read the teshuvah today in
a modern reprint of a 19th-century edition (couldn't tell you the
original pub date, but the typefaces were certainly mid-to-late-19th
century style). So clearly it has been included in editions since
1710.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <357ae...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>, kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) writes:
>
> zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) says:
>>
>>>a minhag for Jews to sin. In fact, his point was that drinking gentile
>>>wine is *not* necessarilly a sin, and in certain cases, can be grounded
>>>in halakha.
>>
>>This is an outright fabrication. The Rema is very clear that gentile
>>wine is forbidden, even in areas where the law has been ignored for
>>generations. The *only* circumstances in which he does permit it is
>>for a person so sick that he is confined to his bed, and who needs wine
>>for medicinal purposes.
>
>
>
> Zev, why are you calling Jon J. Baker, Myself and Josh Backon
> all liars? Allthough we disagree on the validity of the Conservative
> teshuva, we all admit that the Rama wrote reluctantly a teshuva allowing
> the use of gentile wine in a community wher it had been the minhag.
The Remah did NOT give a heter to this community. He showed (by certain
mental gymnastics) why they weren't to be called sinners (actually what's
called their NE'EMANUNT, a.k.a. reliabilty regarding wine).
I'm not expecting amaratzim who have a 10th grade knowledge of talmud to
actually understand simple PSHAT in a PSAK halacha. Your problem, Mister
Kaiser, is that you think these Jewish illiterates actually know somethimg.
I have a big surprise for you: they don't. A little knowledge can be
a very dangerous thing.
Ask Hadass for her translation of my direct transliteration of what
the Remah wrote. She's an Israeli and Conservative. Hadass, I throw
the gauntlet :-) Check my original posting for the transliteration.
I suggest, Mister Kaiser, that you spend say 10 years learning Hebrew and
studying in a yeshiva before you post incredibly shoddy Conservative
*responsa* since they are so full of holes, it doesn't take an Albert
Einstein to find the flaws inherent in them.
>
> Please stop writing historical revisionism.
>
Please stop making an immense fool of yourself time and time again.
Josh
>
> Robert
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Kaiser, two days ago you posted (and I quote): "There is a Conservative
tshuva on stam yeinam and they noted the tshuva of the Remah AND
CONSIDERED IT A VERY IMPORTANT FACTOR"...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Make up your mind. Or is this another case of Bobo retreating or retracting
when shown all the flaws in the Conservative *responsum* ?
Don't you have any integrity ????
>
> Even if you must disagree with it, please do not lie about it.
>
> Robert
Kaiser, my specialty isn't psychiatry but I do have enough training
in the field to know that you are literally one of sickest young persons
I have ever encountered in my life.
Josh
Harry Weiss
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
: In article <357ae...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>, kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) writes:
: >
: >>
: >>> The Rama was neither an idiot, nor was he claiming that it is
: >>>a minhag for Jews to sin. In fact, his point was that drinking gentile
: >>>wine is *not* necessarilly a sin, and in certain cases, can be grounded
: >>>in halakha.
: >>
: >>This is an outright fabrication. The Rema is very clear that gentile
: >>wine is forbidden, even in areas where the law has been ignored for
: >>generations. The *only* circumstances in which he does permit it is
: >>for a person so sick that he is confined to his bed, and who needs wine
: >>for medicinal purposes.
: >
: >
: >
: > Zev, why are you calling Jon J. Baker, Myself and Josh Backon
: > all liars? Allthough we disagree on the validity of the Conservative
: > teshuva, we all admit that the Rama wrote reluctantly a teshuva allowing
: > the use of gentile wine in a community wher it had been the minhag.
: The Remah did NOT give a heter to this community. He showed (by certain
: mental gymnastics) why they weren't to be called sinners (actually what's
: called their NE'EMANUNT, a.k.a. reliabilty regarding wine).
: I'm not expecting amaratzim who have a 10th grade knowledge of talmud to
: actually understand simple PSHAT in a PSAK halacha. Your problem, Mister
: Kaiser, is that you think these Jewish illiterates actually know somethimg.
: I have a big surprise for you: they don't. A little knowledge can be
: a very dangerous thing.
If he had a 10th grade knowledge, there would not be 1/10 of the problems
with Kaiser. The problem is that he lacks even a fourth grade education
in Talmud or Hebrew.
: Ask Hadass for her translation of my direct transliteration of what
: the Remah wrote. She's an Israeli and Conservative. Hadass, I throw
: the gauntlet :-) Check my original posting for the transliteration.
: I suggest, Mister Kaiser, that you spend say 10 years learning Hebrew and
: studying in a yeshiva before you post incredibly shoddy Conservative
: *responsa* since they are so full of holes, it doesn't take an Albert
: Einstein to find the flaws inherent in them.
: >
: > Please stop writing historical revisionism.
: >
: Please stop making an immense fool of yourself time and time again.
: Josh
: >
: > Robert
Moshe Shulman
>From: kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser)
The question is always what is the reason and source of the custom.
When it is, like wine in America, a custom based on a lack of
knowledge of halacha. Then we do not call that a 'minhag.' If someone
will not listen to halacha, then in some cases a Rabbi will give THAT
PERSON a heter (if it is a Rabbinic law and there are a number of
other conditions.) But in no case would you see it allowed for
general use. I heard that Reb Moshe would forbid the printing of some
of his poskim, since they were done for that reason. (I know of a
case where a Rabbi gave a heter for someone not to have more children
since they already had two - a boy and a girl, and they were intent
on not listening anyway. Since it is better they THINK they are
still following halacha, and this case was for them alone, he acted
in that way.)
>When one views the summary of Conservative halakha on kashrut
>(as in R. Issac Klein's "A Gudie to Jewish religious Practice) we end
>up seeing that about 98% of the rabbinic rules are actually the same
>in Orthodoxy and Conservative Judaism! Using the halakhic methodology
>of the Conservative movement, people can - and have ! -proposed making
>even more kashrut laws much more lenient. [Such proposals can be
found
>in volume I of the new 3 volume set of CJLS responsa] The interesting
>thing to note is that in almost all cases, while many Conservative
>rabbis found such proposals reasonable, they nevertheless did not act
>on them. For almost all cases, they ruled that the customary halakha
>must not change, with certain exceptions (e.g. processed gelatin,
>mono-and di-glycerides, and American wine made by totally automatic
>processes)
My problem again is methodology. IF one is consistant then by
accepting a certain halachic principle the person will be at times
machmer, and others meikel.
>> As to the
>>'custom'. This is an error. We do not consider 'custom' things done
>>by people who are either ignorant of halacha, or have no interest in
>>it. Those Jews in America who have an interest in halacha have never
>>heard of such a minhag.
>This is *very* true. As early as 1900, Solomon Schechter
>pointed this out, and he ruled that we can no longer accept the custom
>of the Jewish people, as a whole, as having valid meaning. As you
>pointout, most Jews are ignorant of halakha, and indeed, they are
>probably ignorant of the reasons why halakha should be understood as
>binding in the first place. As such, Schechter promoted the idea
>that we must only consider the actions and opinions of those who
>truly accepted the law as normative, and made some sort of good faith
>effort to live by it. Minhag would not be determined by Klal Yisrael,
>as such, but only by the committed segment of Klal Yisrael.
But it would appear that in this case, they are violating this
principle.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <35de10b2....@news.idt.net>, zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) writes:
> On 7 Jun 98, kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) wrote:
>> zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) says:
>>> Kaiser wrote:
>
>>>>a minhag for Jews to sin. In fact, his point was that drinking gentile
>>>>wine is *not* necessarilly a sin, and in certain cases, can be grounded
>>>>in halakha.
>
>>>This is an outright fabrication. The Rema is very clear that gentile
>>>wine is forbidden, even in areas where the law has been ignored for
>>>generations. The *only* circumstances in which he does permit it is
>>>for a person so sick that he is confined to his bed, and who needs wine
>>>for medicinal purposes.
>
>> Zev, why are you calling Jon J. Baker, Myself and Josh Backon
>>all liars? Allthough we disagree on the validity of the Conservative
>>teshuva, we all admit that the Rama wrote reluctantly a teshuva allowing
>>the use of gentile wine in a community wher it had been the minhag.
>
> was insufficiently clear in his summary of the teshuva, so I clarified
> the crucial point in this debate, i.e. despite your claims to the
> contrary, the author of the teshuva does *not* permit the consumption
> of gentile wines for the Jews of Moravia, despite their longstanding
> practise of doing so. AFAIK Jon hasn't read the teshuva carefully,
> because I've got his copy (I'll drop it by this evening or tomorrow,
> Jon), and is relying mostly on Josh's and my summaries. And no matter
> how many people you could rally who would back up your claim, I would
> know that I was right and you were wrong for the simple reason that I've
> *read* the thing and you haven't.
I have a cute idea: photocopy the 4 page tshuva, scan it, format it
in JPEG, and post to the net (in order to drastically save space, you'd
want to use wavelet compression: www.cengines.com). Then let people
like Hadass (Israeli and Conservative) comment on what the Remah
actually wrote.
Too bad we didn't do that 18 months ago when Lapidus posted the
Conservative version of what the ACHIEZER wrote on GERUT (conversion).
I'm sure that computer-literate people with access to a scanner could
easily pull this off. If I knew how to scan and place in JPEG format, I
would have done this ages ago.
Josh
Simcha Streltsov
Robert Kaiser (kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu) quotes:
: The Jewish Dietary Laws are designed not to be a burden, but to offer
: us some control in our lives. Like Shabbat, the intention is not to
: change all at once, but to make a start, and gradually move forward on
: the ladder of observance. A starting place may be to just stop eating
if this is indeed a position of many C- Rabbis and excuse the word
"laiety", I dont see where the hostility towards more observant Jews
comes from - and what prevents a C- person who has an intention to
move up that ladder to also come to a O- shul or even a Talmudic scholar
to give a talk at their synagogue - why not associate oneself with people
who can give you a hand?
ps if you happen to fit the description above and agree with the quote,
maybe you should simply call a local Kollel and arrange someone coming
to give a class
pps see also R Dessler "Strive for Truth" (letters to Eliyahu) -
he is discussing this "ladder of Yaakov" and how some people who
are injured are often trying to use any means available to them trying
to climb up
Simcha Streltsov
Zev Sero (zs...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
: eventually identified did *not* permit it, but in fact explicitly
: said that the Moravian custom was wrong, and that the reason he
: decided to write the teshuva in the first place was so that sinners
: would not point to the Moravian Jews as proof that the wine must be
: OK, since the O Jews in Moravia drink it.
one would think - how can one think about using a strange minhag to justify
something that is written about a number of times -
RK came and demonstrated to us how wise was Rema in his knowledge of
human wishful thinking - that evidently did not become better in the
500 years - thanks to RK again for clarifying to us what Rema was thinking
about
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
Zev Sero
On 8 Jun 98 08:12:35 GMT, bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>I have a cute idea: photocopy the 4 page tshuva, scan it, format it
>in JPEG, and post to the net (in order to drastically save space, you'd
>want to use wavelet compression: www.cengines.com).
Please *don't* post it. Put it on a web page and post a pointer to it.
Usenet is *not* for binary postings, except in newsgroups designated for
that purpose Just as you wouldn't spam for a worthy cause, don't post
binaries to usenet either.
--
Zev Sero Programming: the art of debugging an empty text file
zs...@bigfoot.com
jlap...@my-dejanews.com
In article <1998Jun8.081235@hujicc>,
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> I have a cute idea: photocopy the 4 page tshuva, scan it, format it
> in JPEG, and post to the net (in order to drastically save space, you'd
> like Hadass (Israeli and Conservative) comment on what the Remah
> actually wrote.
>
> Too bad we didn't do that 18 months ago when Lapidus posted the
> Conservative version of what the ACHIEZER wrote on GERUT (conversion).
Rabbi Golinkin's teshuva, which cites the Achiezer, is available in Hebrew for
purchase from the RA Israel. Dr. Backon has the good fortune of being able to
discuss the teshuva in person with the author. I hope that he does.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <6lgafs$d3t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jlap...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> In article <1998Jun8.081235@hujicc>,
> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> I have a cute idea: photocopy the 4 page tshuva, scan it, format it
>> in JPEG, and post to the net (in order to drastically save space, you'd
>> want to use wavelet compression: www.cengines.com). Then let people
>> like Hadass (Israeli and Conservative) comment on what the Remah
>> actually wrote.
>>
>> Too bad we didn't do that 18 months ago when Lapidus posted the
>> Conservative version of what the ACHIEZER wrote on GERUT (conversion).
>
> Rabbi Golinkin's teshuva, which cites the Achiezer, is available in Hebrew for
> purchase from the RA Israel. Dr. Backon has the good fortune of being able to
> discuss the teshuva in person with the author. I hope that he does.
Thank God Golinkin's deceased grandfather, Rav Golinkin from Worcester MA,
was spared the embarrassment of seeing how his grandson is making
a mockery out of everything he held dear. At least Golinkin junior spent
one year post-high school at a real yeshiva. On the other hand, a little
knowledge is a very dangerous thing.
Josh
Micha Berger
On Sun, 07 Jun 1998 06:42:49 GMT, Zev Sero <zs...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
: There is no question that if a Moravian
: Jew asked the Rema whether he may continue his custom of drinking the
: wine, the Rema's answer would be an unconditional *NO*.
Just to reiterate in stronger terms...
The author of the teshuvah explicitely says within the teshuvah that it is NOT
to be used as "proof" that stam yeinam is permissable. The conclusion of the
teshuvah IS THE EXACT REPUDIATION of the C position. The idea that it became
a factor (primary or not) in a responsum that tries to permit SY is absurd,
even though true.
Up there with Graetz's quote about Hillel's creation of the d'rash
methodology. The "proof-text" itself concludes the opposite of what it was
cited for.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5831 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 8-Jun-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
Simcha Streltsov
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
: I have a cute idea: photocopy the 4 page tshuva, scan it, format it
: in JPEG, and post to the net (in order to drastically save space, you'd
: want to use wavelet compression: www.cengines.com). Then let people
: like Hadass (Israeli and Conservative) comment on what the Remah
: actually wrote.
I suggest getting the information on someone's web page -
ask men...@torah.org for example
: Too bad we didn't do that 18 months ago when Lapidus posted the
: Conservative version of what the ACHIEZER wrote on GERUT (conversion).
: I'm sure that computer-literate people with access to a scanner could
: easily pull this off. If I knew how to scan and place in JPEG format, I
: would have done this ages ago.
: Josh
: > --
: > Zev Sero, posting from Toronto - support Toronto in '03
: > zs...@bigfoot.com
--
jlap...@my-dejanews.com
In article <1998Jun8.153637@hujicc>,
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> >> Too bad we didn't do that 18 months ago when Lapidus posted the
> >> Conservative version of what the ACHIEZER wrote on GERUT (conversion).
> >
for
> > purchase from the RA Israel. Dr. Backon has the good fortune of being able
to
> > discuss the teshuva in person with the author. I hope that he does.
>
> Thank God Golinkin's deceased grandfather, Rav Golinkin from Worcester MA,
> was spared the embarrassment of seeing how his grandson is making
> a mockery out of everything he held dear. At least Golinkin junior spent
> one year post-high school at a real yeshiva. On the other hand, a little
> knowledge is a very dangerous thing.
Can we look forward to your speaking to Rabbi David Golinkin in Jerusalem?
While a little knowledge is indeed a very dangerous thing, challenging the
knowledge of someone with Rabbi Golinkin's background is even more dangerous.
I you have any doubts, then try it. But don't worry, he'd be nice to you
since menschlichkeit runs in his family.
Josh, why don't you too take a month's break from the Internet, as I
suggested to Messrs. Kaiser and Baker? It's better than engaging in OCD
(sic) wars. This is just a friendly suggestion, not a flame. I myself have
cut back, especially since I enjoy working with my congregation.
Daniel B. Schwartz
Robert Kaiser <kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu> wrote in article
<357b1...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>...
> If you are still unable to understand this, I can't help you.
> I'm truly sorry if you are as dumb as you are pretending to be.
Am I missing something, or does the above make any sense to anyone?
>
>
> Robert
>
Daniel B. Schwartz
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote in article <1998Jun8.010635@hujicc>...
>
> Kaiser, my specialty isn't psychiatry but I do have enough training
> in the field to know that you are literally one of sickest young persons
> I have ever encountered in my life.
>
> Josh
Kaiser isn't so young. If I read his posts in their totality correctly,
he is over 35 y.o. He may be childish in his Jewish education, but he is
no child
>
>
>
Robert Rubinoff
In article <357ae...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>,
Robert Kaiser <kai...@biosys.net> wrote:
> I found the following summary at Steven Weintraub's kashrut
>page. Its well worth looking into, very educational, and without
>any polemics.
>http://www.pswtech.com/~stevenw/jewish/kosher/l2.nonmeat_regulation.html
> 1.Grapes (particularly grape juice products) - Because of the long
> standing practice to grow grapes (particularly wine) for idolatry, the
> Rabbis prohibited the eating of grape and grape products if they were
> grown by an unsupervised non-Jew. Grape juice must not be in the
> possession of a non-Jew unsupervised unless it is made unfit for
> idolatry by boiling
(Note: I've seen Steven Weintraub's kashrut materials, and they are generally a
pretty good summary of what's involved. However, in this case:)
There are a few mistakes in this summary (at least according to what I've read
and been taught):
1) The prohibition is only on grape juice and wine, not on grapes themseleves.
(I don't know how the issue of the almost inevitable squeezing out of grape
juice from the grapes during processing is handled; perhaps grape juice is not
an issue if it's never separated from the actual grapes?)
2) The prohibition on wine handled by (or in the unsupervised custody of)
idolators is from the Torah, not Rabbinic.
3) Nowadays, the prohibition on "non-Jewish" wine is generally not on the basis
of idolatry, but rather as a precaution against intermarriage. *This*
prohibition is a Rabbinic extension.
Robert
Joel N. Shurkin
In article <357ae...@news.ic.sunysb.edu> ,
kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) wrote:
Š Grape juice must not be in the
> possession of a non-Jew unsupervised unless it is made unfit for
> idolatry by boiling (Thus most kosher wine is quick boiled to allow
> non-Jewish middle-men to handle it). Š
Which, many people feel, also make it unfit to drink.
----------------------
Joel N. Shurkin
Science Writer
500 Jupiter Terrace
Santa Cruz, California
95065
jo...@nasw.org
phone: 408.438.3877
fax: 408.438.4848
http://www1.oup.co.uk/bin/readcat?title=Am+I+Crazy
http://web.wwnorton.com/engines.htm
"I think I think; therefore, I think I am."
Ambrose Bierce
Moshe Shulman
>From: bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
>> The only one I'm calling a liar here is you, Kaiser. I think that
Josh
>> was insufficiently clear in his summary of the teshuva, so I
clarified
>> the crucial point in this debate, i.e. despite your claims to the
>> contrary, the author of the teshuva does *not* permit the
consumption
>> of gentile wines for the Jews of Moravia, despite their longstanding
>> practise of doing so. AFAIK Jon hasn't read the teshuva carefully,
>> because I've got his copy (I'll drop it by this evening or tomorrow,
>> Jon), and is relying mostly on Josh's and my summaries. And no
matter
>> how many people you could rally who would back up your claim, I
would
>> know that I was right and you were wrong for the simple reason that
I've
>> *read* the thing and you haven't.
>in JPEG, and post to the net (in order to drastically save space,
you'd
>want to use wavelet compression: www.cengines.com). Then let people
>like Hadass (Israeli and Conservative) comment on what the Remah
>actually wrote.
>easily pull this off. If I knew how to scan and place in JPEG format,
I
>would have done this ages ago.
I would love to see a copy of this. Someone could email it to those
who are interested.
Harry Weiss
Joel N. Shurkin (jo...@nasw.org) wrote:
: In article <357ae...@news.ic.sunysb.edu> ,
: kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) wrote:
: =8A Grape juice must not be in the
: > possession of a non-Jew unsupervised unless it is made unfit for
: > idolatry by boiling (Thus most kosher wine is quick boiled to allow
: > non-Jewish middle-men to handle it). =8A
: Which, many people feel, also make it unfit to drink.
Not necesarily unift, but not as good, thus less likely to result in the
socializing that would create intermarriage.
: ----------------------
: Joel N. Shurkin
: Science Writer
: 500 Jupiter Terrace
: Santa Cruz, California
: 95065
: jo...@nasw.org
: phone: 408.438.3877
: fax: 408.438.4848
: http://www1.oup.co.uk/bin/readcat?title=3DAm+I+Crazy
: http://web.wwnorton.com/engines.htm
: "I think I think; therefore, I think I am."
: Ambrose Bierce
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
Jay Lapidus
I think that this thread has seen better days! I'm awaiting my next
appointment.
On 8 Jun 1998 17:51:26 GMT, "Daniel B. Schwartz"
<schwa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote in article <1998Jun8.010635@hujicc>...
>> Kaiser, my specialty isn't psychiatry but I do have enough training
>> in the field...
Doctor, how are you at bedside manner?
>> to know that you are literally one of sickest young persons
>> I have ever encountered in my life.
As I learned in pastoral counseling, "If you spot it, you got it!"
Anyway Dr. Josh, how would your diagnosis translate into DSM4 terms?
>Kaiser isn't so young. If I read his posts in their totality correctly,
>he is over 35 y.o. [snip]
Perhaps, compared to Dr. Backon, Robert is indeed a young
whippersnapper!
Daniel, you are a lawyer. Last month, Josh and Robert threatened to
sue each other. Would you consider representing either one on a
contingency basis?
Actually, neither needs a lawyer. Each needs a shadchan.
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@USA.NET> ******************************
| | * "Nonsense is nonsense, but *
__ |__ |__ * the history of nonsense is *
| | | | | | | | \| | | * a very important science." *
|__| | __| \|/ __| |\ | * - Rabbi Saul Lieberman z"l *
******************************
http://members.tripod.com/~jlapidus/index.html
J. Olson
On 6 Jun 1998, Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
> OK, but you might want to change the subject. An Orthodox article
> on tevilas kelim has little to do with a "Conservative response on
> stam yeinam".
>
> BTW, do many C Jews tovel their pots and glassware?
>
Most who know the difference do. The point of this question?
Jess Olson
Joel N. Shurkin
In article <6lh9fe$1ch$1...@goldenapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu> , rubi...@cs.cmu.edu
(Robert Rubinoff) wrote:
>3) Nowadays, the prohibition on "non-Jewish" wine is generally not on the basis
>of idolatry, but rather as a precaution against intermarriage. *This*
>prohibition is a Rabbinic extension.
>
I have an innocent question: what does the handling of wine have to do with
intermarriage?
j
----------------------
Joel N. Shurkin
Science Writer
500 Jupiter Terrace
Santa Cruz, California
95065
jo...@nasw.org
phone: 408.438.3877
fax: 408.438.4848
http://www1.oup.co.uk/bin/readcat?title=Am+I+Crazy
Daniel B. Schwartz
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in article
<357c5b69...@news.snet.net>...
> I think that this thread has seen better days! I'm awaiting my next
> appointment.
> >Kaiser isn't so young. If I read his posts in their totality correctly,
> >he is over 35 y.o. [snip]
>
> Perhaps, compared to Dr. Backon, Robert is indeed a young
> whippersnapper!
>
> Daniel, you are a lawyer. Last month, Josh and Robert threatened to
> sue each other. Would you consider representing either one on a
> contingency basis?
Probpably not. There is no real damage-thus no fee. :-)
>
> Actually, neither needs a lawyer. Each needs a shadchan.
My wife (of three weeks) has many friends
Craig Winchell
Robert Rubinoff <rubi...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote in article
<6lh9fe$1ch$1...@goldenapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu>...
> In article <357ae...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>,
> Robert Kaiser <kai...@biosys.net> wrote:
> > I found the following summary at Steven Weintraub's kashrut
> >page. Its well worth looking into, very educational, and without
> >any polemics.
>
> >http://www.pswtech.com/~stevenw/jewish/kosher/l2.nonmeat_regulation.html
>
> > 1.Grapes (particularly grape juice products) - Because of the long
> > standing practice to grow grapes (particularly wine) for idolatry,
the
> > Rabbis prohibited the eating of grape and grape products if they were
> > grown by an unsupervised non-Jew. Grape juice must not be in the
> > possession of a non-Jew unsupervised unless it is made unfit for
> > idolatry by boiling
>
> (Note: I've seen Steven Weintraub's kashrut materials, and they are
generally a
> pretty good summary of what's involved. However, in this case:)
> There are a few mistakes in this summary (at least according to what I've
read
> and been taught):
> 1) The prohibition is only on grape juice and wine, not on grapes
themseleves.
B"H
Correct.
> (I don't know how the issue of the almost inevitable squeezing out of
grape
> juice from the grapes during processing is handled; perhaps grape juice
is not
> an issue if it's never separated from the actual grapes?)
Correct. Since there has never been intentional separation of the juice
from the skins and seed, it is still considerd to be grapes. Thus, even at
the crusher, there is no halachic problem, with the possible exception of
leading people to believe that it is therefore ok to have nonJews
contacting the wine. This factor is enough to dissuade kashrus agencies
from allowing nonJews in contact with the crush equipment, including
hoisting and dumping the grapes. If it did occur, however, it would not be
usser to use wine made from the grapes.
> 2) The prohibition on wine handled by (or in the unsupervised custody of)
> idolators is from the Torah, not Rabbinic.
Correct. The prohibition against yayin nesech, dedicated wine, is from the
Torah. Since unsupervised open vessels of wine have the real possibility
of having been dedicated, they are also prohibited from having any benefit
whatsoever derived from them. However, since few would consider most
modern goyim to be idol worshippers, most would consider the prohibition
against the use of such wines in modern times to be rabbinic in origin,
although based upon the more stringent laws of yayin nesech. Thus, on
these modern wines, most would consider the limitation to be simply a
prohibition against the drinking of such wines. Interestingly, wine, may
be double sealed (with a sign) into a container and handled even by idol
worshippers.
> 3) Nowadays, the prohibition on "non-Jewish" wine is generally not on the
basis
> of idolatry, but rather as a precaution against intermarriage. *This*
> prohibition is a Rabbinic extension.
Correct, although I would say it is a precaution against socializing with
nonJews which would necessarily lead to assimilation, and possibly to
intermarriage. As such, it is a law decreed to preserve the Jewish people.
It is interesting to note that since these dietary restrictions (against
foods cooked and baked by nonJews, nonJewish cheese and nonJewish wine)
were relaxed by certain groups of Jews, intermarriage among such groups has
increased substantially. In my neck of the woods, well over 50% of
marriageable Jews intermarry. The key is to limit social interaction to
very controlled circumstances. If Judaism has any inherent value
whatsoever (which of course I and many Jews believe it does), it is
incumbent on us and our generations to preserve these rabbinic enactments,
and perhaps even to enact a few more, in order to preserve the Jewish
people.
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN
>
> Robert
>
>