In industrial processing if they are running flax and wool anywhere near each other I'd be surprised if there weren't traces of the one fiber in the other fiber. Both Linen and Wool tend to be higher end fibers, and are probably processed at the same location in many cases.
posted
Also, while linen and cotton are both plant fibers, they have incredibly different textures -- especially when processed by hand, no by machine or with the various chemical processes used today.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This came up on one of the Obama threads, but I thought that rather than bumping that, I'd make it a separate discussion. Joe Lieberman's degree of Jew-ness came up, and I wondered if someone committed to being Orthodox could in sincerity run for president.
Is there any process for going from being observant to orthodox, or if you publicly violate Shabbos is that "it" for the rest of your life?
Is the law of Shabbos like the Kosher law, in that you have a greater responsibility to preserve life (I seem to recall there is an exception for oxes in mires)? Does the president ever preserve lives on Shabbos?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: This came up on one of the Obama threads, but I thought that rather than bumping that, I'd make it a separate discussion. Joe Lieberman's degree of Jew-ness came up, and I wondered if someone committed to being Orthodox could in sincerity run for president.
This came up when Lieberman was running for VP. The simple answer is yes, but some things would have to be worked out in advance (just as they do for, say, a JO doctor, which Stephan pointed out).
quote:Is there any process for going from being observant to orthodox
Of course. Repentance. Which he already did once in his life (he was completely non-observant as a young adult). And I'd be thrilled if he made a similar choice again.
quote:Is the law of Shabbos like the Kosher law, in that you have a greater responsibility to preserve life (I seem to recall there is an exception for oxes in mires)? Does the president ever preserve lives on Shabbos?
Yes, and yes (although saving an animal's life on Shabbos would not generally be reason to violate Shabbos). Certainly there are things that a president could conceivably need to do on Shabbos that would save lives. As I said, one plans ahead to minimize things like (necessary) Shabbos violations.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: This came up on one of the Obama threads, but I thought that rather than bumping that, I'd make it a separate discussion. Joe Lieberman's degree of Jew-ness came up, and I wondered if someone committed to being Orthodox could in sincerity run for president.
I would never, ever, vote for a Jew for either President or VP. Basically, as far as I'm concerned, the President of the US has to have the welfare of the US as his chief priority. And a Jew should have the welfare of the Jewish people as his. It'd be nice to think that there will never be a conflict between the two, but obviously, they aren't necessarily always going to be the same thing. I couldn't respect a Jew who put the US over his people, and I couldn't accept a President who did not.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I would never, ever, vote for a Jew for either President or VP. Basically, as far as I'm concerned, the President of the US has to have the welfare of the US as his chief priority. And a Jew should have the welfare of the Jewish people as his. It'd be nice to think that there will never be a conflict between the two, but obviously, they aren't necessarily always going to be the same thing. I couldn't respect a Jew who put the US over his people, and I couldn't accept a President who did not.
...and this differs from any other religious or ethnic group how, exactly? Granting your ostensibly "obvious" premise for the sake of the argument, why would you be able to respect a member of any other religious, cultural, or ethnic group who didn't put the welfare of that religious, cultural, or ethnic group first? And why would the fact of being Jewish make one unable to qualify for the same dispensation?
(Or is the point that you could accept a president you didn't respect only if he weren't Jewish?)
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: ...and this differs from any other religious or ethnic group how, exactly? Granting your ostensibly "obvious" premise for the sake of the argument, why would you be able to respect a member of any other religious, cultural, or ethnic group who didn't put the welfare of that religious, cultural, or ethnic group first? And why would the fact of being Jewish make one unable to qualify for the same dispensation?
Thank you. I was trying to word a similar response without much luck.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I would never, ever, vote for a Jew for either President or VP. Basically, as far as I'm concerned, the President of the US has to have the welfare of the US as his chief priority. And a Jew should have the welfare of the Jewish people as his. It'd be nice to think that there will never be a conflict between the two, but obviously, they aren't necessarily always going to be the same thing. I couldn't respect a Jew who put the US over his people, and I couldn't accept a President who did not.
...and this differs from any other religious or ethnic group how, exactly? Granting your ostensibly "obvious" premise for the sake of the argument, why would you be able to respect a member of any other religious, cultural, or ethnic group who didn't put the welfare of that religious, cultural, or ethnic group first? And why would the fact of being Jewish make one unable to qualify for the same dispensation?
(Or is the point that you could accept a president you didn't respect only if he weren't Jewish?)
I'm a Jew. I don't have any problem at all with a Christian president not putting fellow Christians first. I don't have any problem with a black president not putting fellow blacks first. In fact, I'd prefer it, in both cases.
But a Jew who puts the welfare of the US ahead of the welfare of his fellow Jews is a skunk, as far as I'm concerned. Why would I ever want to vote for a skunk?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still not seeing how this doesn't equate to "I'd rather a Christian skunk than a Jewish skunk."
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Capital cases cannot be tried unless there is a Sanhedrin which meets on the Temple Mount. During the 40 years preceding the destruction of the Second Temple, there was such general lawlessness that the Sanhedrin moved off of the Temple Mount specifically in order to make it impossible to judge capital cases.
Other items of Jewish law cannot be enforced without an operating system of Jewish courts, which doesn't currently exist.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
bleh, I just typed up a nice long post and it got eaten by the interweb, so here's the short version:
Understanding that my knowledge of the area is certainly not full, and thus some portion of these questions may be moot:
1) Why did the Sanhedrin neuter itself of the ability to try capital cases? (if it didn't do it of its own will just let me know)
2) Why is the Sanhedrin not re-formed right now?
I understand that there are any number of logistical issues with finding the right group of people to fulfil the job, but it seems to me that if you want to keep up the claim that the Torah should still be followed to the letter, that efforts should be made to fulfil the Law to the fullest extent possible.
Note: if I'm just unaware of an ongoing but incomplete process of re-forming the Sanhedrin exactly for these purposes just let me know.
With my limited understanding of the situation: claiming that you're not stoning people for a controversial law because you don't have the valid judging body in place even though it could be put back in place seems like a cop out.
also note: I'm not saying that stoning or the like would be rampant were the Sanhedrin in place, but at least the possibility would be there.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: 1) Why did the Sanhedrin neuter itself of the ability to try capital cases? (if it didn't do it of its own will just let me know)
Like I said, with the Roman occupation and the various sects, lawlessness was rampant. They decided to exile themselves from the Temple Mount so that they wouldn't have to kill people.
Understand... the optimum situation for us is to be living in our land, independently, at peace, learning Torah and keeping the commandments. In such a situation, crime and violence is a rare thing. Capital punishment is virtually unheard of, because the strictures surrounding it make it tantamount to suicide.
But in a time when sectarianism runs rampant, and the Sicarii are out knifing their political opponents, and no one cares about right and wrong, using a legal mechanism to make capital punishment impossible strikes me as a particularly good idea.
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: 2) Why is the Sanhedrin not re-formed right now?
The Romans knew that the Jewish court system was the glue that kept us together as a single nation, regardless of how far we were dispersed. So they dissolved it and made ordination of new rabbis illegal. The penalty for violating this ban was the murder of the entire town in which ordination was granted.
Once ordination had ceased for a generation, we were kind of stuck. According to one of our great Sages, Moses Maimonides, ordination can be reestablished, and it has been, using his technique, more than once. The most well known time was in the 16th century, but it was done again more recently, and a nascent Sanhedrin was established in Tiberias.
It's not a real Sanhedrin. It's the seed around which they're hoping a real Sanhedrin will crystalize. But it's a step in the right direction, in my opinion. Of course, the Sgan Av Beit Din of the body (a high position that I can't exactly translate) used to be my rabbi when I was living in Israel. It's funny, because he and I spent a lot of time talking about ways in which ordination could be renewed. Had my life not taken the path it has since 1995, I'd probably be very much involved with the nascent Sanhedrin right now.
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: I understand that there are any number of logistical issues with finding the right group of people to fulfil the job, but it seems to me that if you want to keep up the claim that the Torah should still be followed to the letter, that efforts should be made to fulfil the Law to the fullest extent possible.
You're preaching to the choir. It's probably the single biggest failing of Torah observant Jews today. For 16-17 centuries, we couldn't have a Sanhedrin. We developed institutions to the best of our ability in lieu of it. The division of our people into Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Yemenite, etc, with different laws and customs, is one of the results. It's gotten to the point where many of us have made a virtue of a necessity, to the point where when it's become possible to do something about it, habit, more than anything else, is preventing us.
This is something I wrote a number of years ago. Years before the nascent Sanhedrin was formed.
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: Note: if I'm just unaware of an ongoing but incomplete process of re-forming the Sanhedrin exactly for these purposes just let me know.
We are. But as you'll probably see, if Rivka comments on the nascent Sanhedrin (which she has in the past), there are Orthodox Jews who have little but scorn for the attempt. For a long time, all we could do was say, "God will send the Messiah, and then things will be better. Then we'll have a Sanhedrin. Then we'll have the Temple." And aside from saying that, there was nothing we could actually do. A lot of Orthodox Jews still feel that way, despite the many changes that have happened over the past century.
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: With my limited understanding of the situation: claiming that you're not stoning people for a controversial law because you don't have the valid judging body in place even though it could be put back in place seems like a cop out.
It is and it isn't. Any loophole in the law can be (and often is) viewed as a cop-out. But we're talking about a law created by God. If He put the loopholes in there, it's because He wanted to provide that option.
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: also note: I'm not saying that stoning or the like would be rampant were the Sanhedrin in place, but at least the possibility would be there.
So long as there are Jews who would happily go into public and light a fire, in the presence of two witnesses who have explained the details of what commandment is being violated and the punishment prescribed for it, and there are plenty of those around today who would do it specifically to contest Torah law, no Sanhedrin is going to sit on the Temple Mount.
Then again, as things stand right now, Jews aren't even allowed to pray on the Temple Mount, so even if we wanted the Sanhedrin to meet there, the State of Israel would never allow it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth.
I do not have scorn for the current Sanhedrin; I just do not consider it valid. For a slew of reasons, ranging from the political to the halachic.
But mostly because it is claiming to be something it is not: representing all halachically observant Jews. I think the idea is a fine one. I think the implementation has been seriously flawed, and I am unsure if in the current climate it is possible to have an implementation that is not so flawed.
That makes me sad, not scornful.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think - although my Hebrew is more than a little rusty...
This is why I like hatrack, in just one evening I have found a fascinating new area to look into. Thanks again, in advance for your time and efforts in answering!
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm getting a little overwhelmed now by the movements. What exactly would a "Traditional" synagogue be? A handful of congregants appear to be fully observant, including the Rabbi, but I saw cars parked there on a Saturday and the women and men appear to sit together.
I had assumed all along it was Orthodox.
Also I had a very unique (for me at least)experience there. I got there a little early for a meeting, and their representative said they needed 10 men for a brief service. When saying I knew no more then half a dozen words in Hebrew, he said all I had to do was be present. There was a woman there that we appeared to be there for. I got the impression that someone she knew was either sick or dead, any light on this would be great! All I know is that 10 Jewish men are required for certain things.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where are you, Stephan? In Chicago, a "traditional" synagogue isn't affiliated with any movement. It's a synagogue that basically has Orthodox services except for the mixed seating. No microphones on Shabbat, no playing with the liturgy, no nothing except for the seating. I'm not quite sure how it started, but folks around here seem to think it's mostly a Chicago phenomenon.
But there are a lot of Orthodox synagogues in the US where some of the membership are less than fully observant. Some of them are in the process of becoming more observant, and that can take longer or shorter for different people. It took me about 4 years.
A minyan is made up of 10 Jewish men aged 13 (and a day) or over. Technically, a warm body is all that's needed for it. A warm, breathing body. <grin>
My guess is that the woman needed to say kaddish. When a close relative dies (parent, spouse, sibling or child), we say kaddish for them for the first 11 months after burial, and on the anniversary of the death each year (according to the Jewish calendar). That anniversary is called the yahrzeit (anniversary, in Yiddish).
You can't say kaddish except in the presence of a minyan. It's one of a few items in the liturgy that require a minyan.
You should try walking down Yoel Salomon street in Jerusalem during the afternoon. There are minyanim going for mincha (afternoon service) pretty much constantly, and you're likely to get pulled in to help make a minyan.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Where are you, Stephan?
Annapolis, MD
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
A minyan is made up of 10 Jewish men aged 13 (and a day) or over. Technically, a warm body is all that's needed for it. A warm, breathing body. <grin>
My guess is that the woman needed to say kaddish. When a close relative dies (parent, spouse, sibling or child), we say kaddish for them for the first 11 months after burial, and on the anniversary of the death each year (according to the Jewish calendar). That anniversary is called the yahrzeit (anniversary, in Yiddish).
Ah, ok. We say kaddish at the Reform congregation every Friday night for all the anniversaries of that week, so now I know where that custom came from. My mom still lights a yahrzeit candle on the anniversary of her parents deaths.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, I hate that. But it is rarely worth engaging someone in that sort of situation. Sometimes (and you have to know the person well enough to be able to gauge whether this is likely to make problems) you can say something like, "I disagree, but I like you too much to argue about it. Now, about that doohickey-thingamabob you wanted . . ."
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: So how do you bite your tongue when a client walks in you otherwise like starts talking about:
How Jews have been denied by their leaders the ability to read the new testament?
Isaiah talks all about Jesus.
I think my tongue is starting to bleed.
1: Well for one how would you prefer to have somebody respond to you if you were saying that?
2: They are probably Christians, they are entitled to interpret Isaiah as they honestly feel is correct. If some Jewish folks were talking about how it would be nice if the messiah spoken of by Isaiah would show up, I wouldn't get angry and start thinking, "Fools! He came over 2000 years ago, get a clue!"
Ah criminey I forget that this is the, "Ask the Rebbetzin" thread. SORRY! Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade: I'm going to hazard a guess that you also overlooked the "client" context? The issue isn't one of getting angry about an opposing viewpoint, as you seem to be implying; rather, it's dealing with somebody who's overstepping normal boundaries for a business-based relationship.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: So how do you bite your tongue when a client walks in you otherwise like starts talking about:
How Jews have been denied by their leaders the ability to read the new testament?
Isaiah talks all about Jesus.
I think my tongue is starting to bleed.
1: Well for one how would you prefer to have somebody respond to you if you were saying that?
2: They are probably Christians, they are entitled to interpret Isaiah as they honestly feel is correct. If some Jewish folks were talking about how it would be nice if the messiah spoken of by Isaiah would show up, I wouldn't get angry and start thinking, "Fools! He came over 2000 years ago, get a clue!"
Ah criminey I forget that this is the, "Ask the Rebbetzin" thread. SORRY!
You should hear what he said about Mormons. I don't take that personally, so I actually argued that one.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: So how do you bite your tongue when a client walks in you otherwise like starts talking about:
How Jews have been denied by their leaders the ability to read the new testament?
Isaiah talks all about Jesus.
I think my tongue is starting to bleed.
1: Well for one how would you prefer to have somebody respond to you if you were saying that?
2: They are probably Christians, they are entitled to interpret Isaiah as they honestly feel is correct. If some Jewish folks were talking about how it would be nice if the messiah spoken of by Isaiah would show up, I wouldn't get angry and start thinking, "Fools! He came over 2000 years ago, get a clue!"
Ah criminey I forget that this is the, "Ask the Rebbetzin" thread. SORRY!
You should hear what he said about Mormons. I don't take that personally, so I actually argued that one.
Was the client aware that you are Jewish?
Also not to sound pessimistic but you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a disparaging comment about Mormons that I have not yet heard.
I went to school in a Lutheran private school, ironically I ended up hanging with the "God Squad" folks, (Very into protestantism and anything Jesus.) They were an amazing group of folks, for some reason their leaders and the school faculty often needed a swift kick to the butt.
As weird as it sounds, I learned to be tolerant of other people's beliefs in large part from them.
edit: BTW thanks for being a defender of the faith Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ]Was the client aware that you are Jewish?
Also not to sound pessimistic but you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a disparaging comment about Mormons that I have not yet heard.
I went to school in a Lutheran private school, ironically I ended up hanging with the "God Squad" folks, (Very into protestantism and anything Jesus.) They were an amazing group of folks, for some reason their leaders and the school faculty often needed a swift kick to the butt.
As weird as it sounds, I learned to be tolerant of other people's beliefs in large part from them.
edit: BTW thanks for being a defender of the faith
Definitely knew I am Jewish. He complimented my "I support the Israeli Defense Force" bumper sticker. He was talking about his Jewish son-in-law that is joining a Messianic church. I think he would have been fine if I had debated him, he loves to debate and doesn't consider it arguing. I think I would have just gotten to heated for the work place.
I went to a Catholic high school, so I know the feeling.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't really know how Jews could be said to be denied the ability to read the New Testament. I mean, that's just weird. Maybe he was expecting you to say "We can read the New Testament" or some other opening for him to offer you a New Testament.
It also made me wonder how much the average Christian reads the New Testament. I asked about the messianic prophecies in Isaiah once, I think Rivka once told me that translations prepared by Christians naturally favor a reading of Christ fulfilling those prophecies. It was probably earlier in this thread...
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: :waves to Stephan from Baltimore:
I don't really know how Jews could be said to be denied the ability to read the New Testament. I mean, that's just weird. Maybe he was expecting you to say "We can read the New Testament" or some other opening for him to offer you a New Testament.
It also made me wonder how much the average Christian reads the New Testament. I asked about the messianic prophecies in Isaiah once, I think Rivka once told me that translations prepared by Christians naturally favor a reading of Christ fulfilling those prophecies. It was probably earlier in this thread...
I'm not 100% sure what he meant by it. From the surrounding statements I would imagine he was saying by not studying it on a regular basis we are missing out on its truth? I hope he wasn't saying the Rabbis have some secret conspiracy not allowing us to read it.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: :waves to Stephan from Baltimore:
I don't really know how Jews could be said to be denied the ability to read the New Testament. I mean, that's just weird. Maybe he was expecting you to say "We can read the New Testament" or some other opening for him to offer you a New Testament.
It also made me wonder how much the average Christian reads the New Testament. I asked about the messianic prophecies in Isaiah once, I think Rivka once told me that translations prepared by Christians naturally favor a reading of Christ fulfilling those prophecies. It was probably earlier in this thread...
I'm not 100% sure what he meant by it. From the surrounding statements I would imagine he was saying by not studying it on a regular basis we are missing out on its truth? I hope he wasn't saying the Rabbis have some secret conspiracy not allowing us to read it.
That is what I thought you were stating the client in effect said.
Not so much secret conspiracy but in the same vein as ministers who say to their congregations, "If you let the Mormon missionaries into your home or read a single page from the Book of Mormon you are making Jesus cry."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: So how do you bite your tongue when a client walks in you otherwise like starts talking about:
How Jews have been denied by their leaders the ability to read the new testament?
Heh. I would have said something like, "Heck, no. I've read it. Wait... is that the one with the robot from the future who wants to kill the woman who's going to give birth to the head of the resistence? No, hold on... there was this movie about a fairy who died and then came back to life when kids started clapping their hands. Was that it?"
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Isiah talks all about Jesus.
Nah. But King David does. Psalms 146:3-4.
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I think my tongue is starting to bleed.
posted
Hey, rivka: kosher question for you, and I realize I could probably look things up and figure this out on my own, but I figured I'm lazy and it's easier and faster to ask you.
I'm having a snack of Trader Joe's Butternut-Apple soup (mmm, it's so delicious served warm with some cheese and garlic croutons floated in it, but I digress.) It's marked kosher and pareve; so far so good, I know what that means. So then I was noticing on the allergy alerts (yes, I'm a freak, I'm always reading labels, even when they don't apply to me) that it's made on shared equipment with fish.
This brings to mind a question. You mentioned in a thread a while back that fish and meat are not supposed to be served together, right? I was unclear at the time, is this more like a "can't eat meat and dairy" restriction or a "can't eat meat and foods prepared on dairy equipment-- but can serve the dairy equipment food separately and afterwards" restriction? (If the latter, then there being no problem with a pareve food being prepared on shared equipment with fish makes more sense to me.)
Anyway, no reason for asking but, you know, idle curiosity. Care to enlighten me? Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
All fish is parve, which means it isn't meat by kosher rules (however, not all fish is kosher, parve or otherwise). Also, you can have dairy and meat, but they have to be prepared and cooked in completely separate "kitchens" (I know that people often have separate fridges and ovens, but I don't know how much beyond that is common in personal homes), and served on separate plates and utensils.
posted
ketchupqueen, meat and fish can be prepared using the same utensils. Technically, they could even be served on the same plate if they didn't touch. However, generally we take away a fish plate before serving meat.
The fridge and oven are generally not kashros issues. You can use the same oven and fridge for both. The issues are generally utensils, plates, cookware, sinks, counters, dishracks, etc.
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bok, I know all about the meat/dairy thing (well, not ALL, but enough for a very curious non-Jew who wishes to respect the beliefs and practices of her Jewish friends), I was just curious about fish. If it is pareve, as you say, I am curious about why not serve it with meat. Rivka is good for the "philosophy behind the rule" links so I was hoping for some enlightenment here.
Thanks, Chanie, but I still would like to know why. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basically, the Talmud says that eating meat and fish together is unhealthy. It doesn't really explain why.
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chanie: ketchupqueen, meat and fish can be prepared using the same utensils. Technically, they could even be served on the same plate if they didn't touch.
Chanie is correct, although some will not cook fish in a fleishig (meat) pot. (I will.)
Not eating meat and fish together is neither a biblical commandment nor a rabbinical one -- it is a custom. (A very, very strong custom, but still not a law.) What that means in practical terms is that while I would not serve meat and fish together, I don't have separate dishes -- I don't even worry about washing dishes with bits of meat together with dishes with bits of fish. It also means that while Lea & Perrins worcestershire sauce cannot be used in meat dishes, most cheap brands can. (The brand names use substantial amounts of anchovies; the cheap brands just a bit.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
So then I was noticing on the allergy alerts (yes, I'm a freak, I'm always reading labels, even when they don't apply to me) that it's made on shared equipment with fish.
