Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 120

Tue, 18 May 2010

• 1. Why so few first-borns?? (SBA)
• 2. Re: Donor Kids and Adoption (Chana Luntz)
• 3. Re: Tachanun (Danny Schoemann)
• 4. Re: Creation eternal heretical - hashkafa question (David Riceman)
• 5. onshin shelo min hadin (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: Tachanun (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 7. Re: Creation eternal heretical - hashkafa question (Hankman)
• 8. Re: Creation eternal heretical - hashkafa question (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Tachanun (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 10. Torah and Life (Yitzchok Levine)
• 11. Re: Avos - milsei dachasidusa or not (was [Areivim] more RCA reaction) (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Why so few first-borns?? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: brit (Micha Berger)
• 14. CRC: Revised whiskey alert - answers to some FAQs (Yitzchok Levine)

 I received this question: 
From: AMK

Can somebody explain how is possible that from?shishim riboy yiden  aged 20
-60 there were only 23 thousand bechorim

Most were probably married to at least one wife and possible more.
If they all had children 50% would be boys - thus there should be at least
300 000 bechorim???

SBA

> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:42:04PM +0100, I  wrote:
> : Isn't this precisely where the Ben Sira midrash is usually brought
> into the
> : discussion? ...

And RMB replied

> That's about the child not being a mamzer, since there was no bi'ah
> asurah. RMF invokes it in that context, but the Satmar Rav holds the
> child would be as much a mamzer as if the union were bederekh bi'ah.
...

> But here we're talking now about the child happening to meet another
> child of that donor and marrying a genetic sibling. Would *their* child
> (produced in the traditional way) be a mamzeir?

Sorry, I obviously wasn't clear.  While the focus of much of the discussion
on the Ben Sira midrash is on the child not being a mamzer, there is a
second point that appears to me to be clearly learnt out of this, which is
that Ben Sira is indeed considered the seed of Yirmiyahu, him being referred
to as ben Yirmiyahu throughout.  That, it would seem to me, suggests that he
was considered the full fledged descendent of Yirmiyahu, and subject to the
same rules vis a vis relations with others that any other child would (not
that it would presumably make that much difference in Ben Sira's case, as
pretty much anybody forbidden to him because of his father would also be
forbidden to him because of his mother).

> If the donor isn't Jewish, then they aren't halachic siblings anyway.
> But it's possible that if the donor is Jewish, even RMF would say the
> grandchild is a mamzeir.

Agreed, that it seems to me is the consequence of accepting the Ben Sira
midrash as a basis of psak, if one accepts the first part of it, one ends up
accepting his valid relationship with Yirmiyahu.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana

From: R' Zev Sero

>> Rich, Joel wrote:
>> after you leave? not at all? is it your choice?

> AFAIK the only time it can be said is immediately after shmoneh esrei,

One should not even speak in between, but if one did one can still say
Tachanun.
One may move to a different room for Tachanun.
[Source: MB 131:1:(1) and (2)]

> and if you missed that opportunity you can't say it later.

The MB in 131:2:(20) [vol.2 pg 23] agrees, saying that in a Mourner's
house one doesn't say Tachanun - and "cannot" say it when one gets
home.

However, he then says: "the 'long Vehu Rachum' should be said
afterwards at home. And some are lenient."

- Danny

RCM:
:> Basic hashkafa dictates the fundamental reason for the creation and 
:> existence of the universe is the desire by HKB"H to exercise his hatava 
:> which requires a recipient.
Me:
: This is the RaMChaL's opinion, but it is NOT the Rambam's.  See MN III:25.
RMB:
<<It's also RSG's. See HaEmunah vehaBitachon 3:1.

The Rambam you cite is about tzadiq vera lo, not the purpose of beri'ah
as a whole. He does extend it in the next pereq to explain that mitzvos
must too have purpose -- but not to equate those purposes. Can you point
to a specific line where he addresses our question?

I was thinking perhaps the Moreh 3:13 which opens by saying the question
is absurd -- we cannot know the object of His Will.>>

My mistake.  I did indeed mean III:13 (tr. Friedlander p. 276): "Just as we
do not ask what is the purpose of God's existence, so we do not ask what
was the object of His will ..."

David Riceman

In our ongoing discussion on the possibility of a modern
(nonmessianic) halachic state
one person had mentioned the halacha that we can punish people against halacha
to prevent unlawful behavior.

I recently saw the Ran on Sanhedrin 91 in the din of kipa that he says
explicitly
that this is only a
n emergency rule  but one cannot make a permanent rule since even a prophet
cannot introduce new regulations. Therefore the Ran concludes that kipa
must be a halacha to Moshe from Sinai. Note the Rivash disagrees and claims
that kipa is one of the prerogatives of bet din though presumable he limits
also to emergency measures.

-- 
Eli Turkel

 

<< Question: Is tachanun a din in the individual or the tzibbur or both?
example- you're visiting a friend and daven in a chaddishe minyan on a 
 rebbi's yahrtzeit - do you say tachanun there? after you leave? not at 
 all? is it your choice?>>

<AFAIK the only time it can be said is immediately after shmoneh esrei,
and if you missed that opportunity you can't say it later.>
     Although the Aruch Hashulchan says not to say it, the Mishna B'rura's language is "ein tzarich lomar," implying that one may say it later.
EMT


 
____________________________________________________________
PennyStocks Soaring 600%
Sign up for FREE email alerts on stocks that jump 600% and more!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4bf085b4854c049c29fst06vuc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100516/f448a751/attachment-0001.htm>

RDR wrote:
> It seems to me that your second sentence is predicating time of God,
> while your first sentence is ambiguous. But time is a property of the
> world, not of God; and God's exercising of His hatavah takes place in
> the world. It is not incorrect to predicate will of God, but it should
> follow that it is incorrect to predicate time of God's will.

I apologize for my not taking the care to include the word "always"
in quotes as it too implies time. I naively assumed it would be obvious
that my comment in brackets applied to all such terms I used - not just
"eternal," since I do so for lack of a better vocabulary.

My use of these terms that imply a temporal dimension are a stand in
for the notion that under any and all circumstances (not meaning in
the temporal, for I clearly stated that HKB"H is above [outside] of
zeman), the existance of HKB"H implies the existance of his creation -
the universe. So what you state in your comment I took as a given.

You seem to have ignored what I stated explicitly and jumped on the
implication of the lack of quotes on the word "always" for which I
apologize.




RMB wrote:
> Second, I don't believe your line of reasoning WRT my own position.

> As we already saw the Rambam noting, time is itself a beryah. "Always"
> means across all time -- that time is relevent, but we're discussing
> something that has an infinite time. However, Hashem's eternity isn't
> infinite time, but lemaaleh min hazeman. Time is an irrelevent concept.

> The theory you're promoting acknowledged that time is a nivra WRT maaseh
> bereishis being lemaalah min hazeman, but it falls short by placing
> Ratzon Hashem within zeman.

> Hashem wants (for lack of a better tense) the universe, but there is no
> "when" to that desire. Your argument presumes there is a when -- but it
> is infinitely long.

Please see my comments to RDR I posted just a few minutes ago. Basically,
I had no intention to imply zeman even though I used the unquoted word
"always." If that mislead you, then I apologize for that.

RMB wrote:
> So, even though the existence of the universe depends only on his will,
> Hashem didn't *always* want a universe, and therefore one can't conclude
> the universe always existed. "Always", meaning the time line, is itself
> a product of that Will too.

Again, I repeat, I did not mean "always" in the temporal sense, but used
it to mean (under any circumstances): existence of HKB"H implies existence
of creation. It is in this "timeless" sense that I use the word "eternal."

So I repeat the question. Why don't you buy it? Why does this not mean
that creation is "eternal"? Whether or not you believe the Rambam meant
this or not - where is the flaw in the logic?

Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:38:22AM -0400, Hankman wrote:
: I apologize for my not taking the care to include the word "always"
...
: Please see my comments to RDR I posted just a few minutes ago. Basically,
: I had no intention to imply zeman even though I used the unquoted word
: "always." If that mislead you, then I apologize for that.

The problem isn't the word always. It's inherent in your question.

You want to know why Plato's argument to explain why the universe must
be infinitely old isn't valid.

You are speaking of an infinitely old universe, not an atemporal one.
On that side of the question, you not only imply zeman, zeman is the
iqqar of the statement.

G-d's Will is atemptoral, lemaalah min hazeman. A different thing
altogether. That's the basic mismatch I was referring to.

There is no reason why His atemporal desire maps to an infinite timeline
any more than it makes sense to map it to a finite one. Why not say
that one of the thing He Desires (again, for want of a better tense
for atemporal desire, I'm using the present tense) is a universe of
finite duration. Is it any different than His desiring that I (to pick
another nivra) have finite size, finite longevity and that my abilities
are finite?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 48th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different
Fax: (270) 514-1507             people together into one cohesive whole?

R' Joel Rich asked
> Question: Is tachanun a din in the individual or the tzibbur or
> both? example- you're visiting a friend and daven in a chaddishe
> minyan on a rebbi's yahrtzeit - do you say tachanun there? after
> you leave? not at all? is it your choice?

I would imagine this to be like any other nusach difference. Actually, like
any other *very* *noticable* nusach difference. Would you use your own
nusach of Kaddish or Kedusha there?

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210

The following is from RSRH's essay Sivan I, The Collected Writings of 
RSRH Volume I.

But why then is this celebration [of the giving of the Torah] itself 
on so small a scale, so quiet,
and restricted in the Torah to the fleeting span of but a single day? And
on that day itself the celebration is marked by scarcely one positive
symbol, and is expressed merely in a negative way-by abstaining
from doing any work!

One day only? One quiet day? Only one quiet day for the Torah?
Verily, one cannot say that celebrations and festivals have brought
only blessing into the sphere of the Torah. Celebrations not properly
understood have often been misused in times of religious decadence.
The weaker a generation is, the less willing is it to serve those ideals,
the greatness and truth of which it cannot, after all, entirely deny. The
less a generation is inclined to pay homage to these ideals by dedicating
to them its life and to build an altar to their honour by sacrificing
its possessions and enjoyments, the more eagerly does it grasp at easier
substitutes in order to bedeck itself with lip-service to these ideals.
And thus it builds monuments, institutes festivals and holds banquets,
intoxicating itself with the fragrance of such symbolical veneration, in
order to soothe its conscience for the obvious betrayal and negation of
these ideals in its everyday life.
The same applies to the great ideals, aims and truths of the Torah, if
we betray and deny them in our lives, if we have not the will to devote
our lives to them, if we do not want to realize the truths of the Torah in
our daily existence, refusing to use the symbolism of the festivals for
their realisation. If we celebrate these festivals in order to give a mere
symbolical recognition to the existence of these truths while refusing to
them the power to mould our lives, and sneering at them in practice by
living without thought of the Torah, then the spirit of the Torah
frowns at us too- "I cannot tolerate iniquity combined with solemn meeting.
My soul hateth your new moons and your appointed feasts." (Isaiah 1, 13-14.)

This, then, is the final reason why the Torah rejects any symbolic
expression and even any designation of Shavuoth as the Festival of
Revelation. From the very beginning it should clearly be conveyed to
us that the Torah, the quintessence of all that is good and precious, is
not satisfied that we devote a Festival-be it a day, a week or even a
month-to it. The Torah demands of us the dedication of every hour
and every moment throughout the year.

God has designated the Torah to be the soul of our whole AishDas
the invisible gentle flame of our whole being which permeates
our homes and animates and moulds our being. And just as you can
find organs for all sensual functions of life, and yet will look in vain for
an organ which is the bearer of the soul-because the whole human
organism is its bearer and no part of it can be without the soul-so
also the Torah, the soul of Israel as a national entity, is not limited to a
special day or week or month, because the whole of Israel's life belongs
to it and is to be regulated by it. Any localization within this life would
but limit the realm of the Torah.

Why not a whole week or a month, and why not a symbolical
celebration for the Torah? Because it is not the week nor the month
but the whole year that belongs to the Torah, and this is so because the
Torah does not demand a symbol only, but life and conduct. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100517/5ece0d1c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:30:45AM -0400, Hankman wrote:
: ... In answer to the question about the naming of Avos ... [the Gra]
: says that is to make just this point. As the gemara tells us, one
: meaning of AV is that it is mefurash in Torah whereas a tolda is not. He
: says that throughout Avos the Gr"a keeps pointing out the source in the
: Torah for the opinions in Avos to show that they really are mefurash in
: Torah and thus an av and hence d'Aureisa and not just a "milsei
: dachasidusa."

There is also a second link -- tolados are prohibited because they are
logically included in the av.

Meaning: Avos is called avos because it refers to the categories which
underly halakhah. It's not only no less aboud chiyuvim than the topics
of the other mesechtos, it's about the chiyuvim that are themselves the
reasons for the other chiyuvim. More fundamental.

How different is Avos in content from the truths that R' Simlai said
various nevi'im reduced the 613 mitzvos to -- asos mishpat, ahavas chesed,
and hatznei'a lekhes im E-lokekha; or "simhru mishpat va'asu tzedaqah";
"dirshuni vichyu!"; "tzadiq be'emunaso yichyeh".

Just as R' Simlai later tied the avos of the 613 to various nevi'im's
definition of sheleimus or deveiqus, so does Pirqei Avos discuss goals
of sheleimus as the categories from which the mitzvos emerge as details.


BTW, "Chapters of the Fathers" only reflects the geneological format of
the majority of the first chapter. Not the mesechta as a whole.


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 48th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different
Fax: (270) 514-1507             people together into one cohesive whole?

On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 01:27:45AM +1000, SBA wrote:
: From: AMK
:> Can somebody explain how is possible that from?shishim riboy yiden  aged 20
:> -60 there were only 23 thousand bechorim

We discussed this before. See RGStudent's first post to Avodah (1999) at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n089.shtml#08

and the discussion (2002) at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/
getindex.cgi?section=P#PROPORTION%20OF%20FIRST%20BORNS%20TO%20ALL%20BNEI%20
YISRAEL
(or http://bit.ly/9Xk8Oz )

RDRiceman suggested two effects: (1) astronomical family sizes; (2) if
the bekhorim were the priests, then they're more likely to have been
caught up in the eigel.

I questioned the first one, as you only need an average family size
of 6 (children surviving into adulthood) to get from 70 to 15mm in 210
years. Not even the medrash's 6 per birth.

RDSchoemen raised a similar argument as did RDR but also noted that more
older children would have refused to leave and therefore died in choshekh,
and more bechorim were more likely to have been thrown intho the ye'or.

RGS had the novel suggestion that it's only the bechorim who were born
after Moshe declared them qodesh. Those born beforehand had no special
qedushah (much like the way Pinechas wasn't born into qehunah?), and
thus weren't counted.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 48th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different
Fax: (270) 514-1507             people together into one cohesive whole?

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:35:51PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Question - where is the concept of brit used
: 1. Brit Ben Habesarim
: 2. Brit Milah
: 3. Brit Sinai

There is a question whether beris bein habesarim is distinct from that
commemorated by the milah, or if there is a single beris avos.

Also, whether beris Sinai is distinct from beris avos with both falling
on Yaaqov's descendents, an addition to it but part of the same beris,
or replaces it altogether. Among the issues -- when was /our/ commandment
of milah or not to eat gid hanasheh given, at Sinai or beforehand?

: RYBS speaks of Brit goral forming the Jewish people even unwillingly in Eygpt
: and brit yeud  at Sinai

I think this is beris Avos vs beris Sinai. You're born into beris avos,
thus it's related to goral. You choose to give eidus to the giving of
the luchos ha'eidus, to being part of the eidah.

I'm not sure I fully
: 
: what other britot are there?

I assume you mean between HQBH and people. (Not that between Avraham and
Avimelekh, or made with the Giv'onim, etc...)

The beris with Adam, supplanted by that with Noach.

Also, the beris made in arvos Moav is explicitly "eileh divrei
haberis... MILVAD haberis asher karas itam beChorev." (Dev 28:69) See
also the discussion on Sotah 37b. 48 berisim?

In the past I suggested that beris Sinai was between Hashem and a
collection of individuals, whereas when we were about to enter EY,
He struck a second one with BY as a corporate entity.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 48th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different
Fax: (270) 514-1507             people together into one cohesive whole?

The following is from the CRC.  BTW, when I tried to go to the AKO 
web site at www.akokosher.org I got the message that this web site 
has been attacked. YL

Having trouble reading this email? 
<http://www.mailermai
ler.com/x?function=view&;c=54614143u-2038bba9%2a725232p-e2a3d801>
View 
it in your browser.
<http://m1e.net/c?54614143-zw0ZZpXlJttrc%405331208-1qYHkhjkAzbdY>
KASHRUTH ALERT


----------



The following revised whiskey alert and answers to some of your 
frequently asked questions has been sent out on behalf of AKO





Revised Whisky Alert

May 17, 2010
The AKO Executive Committee has reason to believe that there are 
large liquor companies in the United States which may be owned in 
whole or part by Jews. We are concerned that such companies may not 
have arranged for the sale of their chametz (mechiras chametz) during 
Pesach. These companies primarily manufacture bourbon, cordials, and 
American whiskey, and also deal in a small amount of Scotch and vodka.
Chametz-containing liquors owned, produced and/or aged by 
Jewish-owned companies over Pesach are forbidden as chametz she'avar 
alav haPesach.
Since many liquor products are aged for many years before they are 
sold to the public, it cannot be assumed that these beverages are 
acceptable for kosher use even if they are purchased a long time 
before or after Pesach.

Accordingly, we recommend that Kashrus Agencies and consumers change 
their policies and only consume those alcoholic beverages which [are 
free of standard kosher concerns and] are known to (a) be produced by 
a non-Jewish company or a Jewish-owned company which arranged for the 
sale of their chametz, (b) not contain any chametz, including not 
having chametz secondary grains or malted barley (bourbon and 
cordials are examples of items that may have these forbidden items), 
and/or (c) were not aged over Pesach (e.g. vodka).

The following are some brands which we believe to be subject to the 
above concern:

1792 Ridgemont
51 Ice
99 Schnapps
A. Smith Bowman
Absinthe
Ancient Age
Antique Collection
Barton
Blantons
Bowman
Buffalo Trace
California Deluxe
Canadian Host
Canadian Hunter
Canadian LTD
Canadian Supreme
Colonel Lee
Dr McGillicuddy's
Eagle Rare
Elmer T Lee
Experimental Collection
Fireball
Fleishmann's
George T. Stagg
Hancock's Presidents Reserve
Herbsaint
Highland Mist
House of Stuart
Imperial
Inver House
James Foxe
Kentucky Gentleman
Kentucky Tavern
Lauder's
McAfee's Benchmark
Mix 51
Mr. Boston
Northern Light
Old Charter
Old Thompson
Old Van Winkle
Pappy Van Winkle
Peychaud's
Regan's
Rich & Rare
Rock Hill Farms
Royal Canadian
Sazerac Rye
Ten High
Terra Brazilis
Thomas H. Handy
Tom Moore
Tyrconnell
Van Winkle
Very Old Barton
Virginia Gentleman
W L Weller


Consumers who already own one of these liquors are encouraged to ask 
their personal Rabbi whether returning the bottles to the store is 
considered to be having hana'ah (benefit) from chametz she'avar alav 
haPesach.  Lastly, we note that this notification does not cover the 
serious question of the status of whisky (or other chametz) owned on 
Pesach by a Jewish distributor who does or does not arrange for the 
sale of his chametz; consumers are once again encouraged to discuss 
this question with their personal Rabbi.

For updated information or questions regarding this notification, 
please email AKO at <mailto:liq...@akokosher.org>liq...@akokosher.org.



Whisky Alert
Questions and Answers

May 17, 2010
On May 6th AKO released an alert regarding whisky which has led to a 
considerable number of questions from consumers.  This document will 
address the most common of those questions.

    * The alert was on AKO stationery and quoted the "AKO Executive 
Committee".  Pardon my ignorance, but who are these people?
AKO has been the umbrella group for national and community hashgachos 
in North America and beyond for the past 25 years.  It currently has 
approximately 80 members and the Executive Committee is comprised of 
the administrators of the larger of those hashgachos including 
(alphabetically) cRc (Chicago), CRC/Hisachdus (Brooklyn), COR, 
Heart-K, Kof-K, MK, OK, OU, and Star-K.

     2.   I checked your list and think that it is missing some 
brands owned by the same companies, or you list brands that I think 
are owned by others.  Are you sure your information is accurate?
We spent much time doing our due diligence in investigating the 
multiple layers of the companies involved, but of course it is always 
possible that we missed a few.  If you have a specific example, 
please bring it to our attention and we'll do our best to check into it.
Please note that our list does not include items which are merely 
distributed by the companies in question nor does it include any 
items (e.g. brandy, liqueurs) which we have always recommended as 
requiring a hashgachah.


     3.   The alert lists many brands.  Is everything produced by 
these companies not recommended?
Not at all.  As noted in the alert, some products are produced from 
100% non-chametz or are not aged, and do not pose a concern of 
chametz she'avar alav haPesach.
It is worth noting that although Bourbon must legally contain at 
least 50% corn-based alcohol, it commonly contains chametz as (a) a 
secondary grain-source which may be 20-40% of the product, (b) malted 
barley used to breakdown the starches into fermentable sugar, and/or 
(c) backset from chametz fermentations.  The simple understanding is 
that the presence of any of these forms of chametz would be enough to 
render the Bourbon chametz she'avar alav haPesach (see Mishnah 
Berurah 442:27 & 447:105), but people with specific questions are 
encouraged to consult with their local Rabbi for direction.

     4.   The alert states a number of facts such as that a Jew owns 
these companies and never performed mechiras chometz, however the 
language implies there was a safek (halachic doubt)?
The somewhat ambiguous language came from the legal department but 
the AKO Executive Committee and at least 8 Poskim associated with 
national hashgachos had numerous discussions before releasing this 
alert, and were convinced that there is no safek.

     5.   Are there not numerous halachic reasons to permit whisky 
owned by a Jewish company over Pesach?
The aforementioned group of Administrators and Poskim considered many 
possible reasons to be lenient including the owner's possible mumar 
status,that whisky is produced via distillation (zei'ah), and a 
possible corporate structure of ownership.  This group unanimously 
decided to publicize the alert, as none of the aforementioned reasons 
justified allowing a Jew to purchase these alcoholic beverages.

     6.   What if I already own a bottle of one of the listed 
liquors?  Do I have to throw it out like other chametz she'avar alav haPesach?
Although all of the aforementioned Poskim recommended that a Jew not 
purchase these beverages in the future, some of them were willing to 
consider reasons to be lenient in specific situations for people who 
own considerable amounts of the affected whisky and/or would like to 
return unopened bottles to the store where they bought it.  People 
with these types of questions are encouraged to consult with their 
local Rabbi who will direct them.  [AKO is considering preparing some 
halachic literature for Rabbis to assist them in dealing with the 
complexities of the aforementioned shailos.]
However, it may be helpful for consumers to know that we believe that 
these companies were not always Jewish owned.  Accordingly:

Any products listed on the original alert which were purchased by a 
consumer before Pesach 1992/5752 (and then sold via a personal 
mechiras chametz for the subsequent Pesach holidays), are recommended.
    * Any products listed on the following list which were purchased 
by a consumer before Pesach 2009/5769 (and then sold via a personal 
mechiras chametz for the subsequent Pesach holidays), are recommended:

1792 Ridgemont
99 Schnapps
Barton
Canadian Host
Canadian LTD
Canadian Supreme
Colonel Lee
Fleischmann's
Highland Mist
House of Stuart
Imperial
Inver House
Kentucky Gentleman
Kentucky Tavern
Lauder's
Mr. Boston
Northern Light
Old Thompson
Ten High
Tom Moore
Very Old Barton


For updated information or questions regarding this notification, 
please email AKO at <mailto:liq...@akokosher.org>liq...@akokosher.org.

Chicago Rabbinical Council
2701 W Howard Street | Chicago, IL 60645

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100517/10dfc56b/attachment.htm>

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 120
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."