Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 087

Wednesday, September 4 2002

• Shofar after Maariv during Elul
• understanding 'Devorim hayotzeim min haleiv nichnosim el haleiv'
• Re: Slichot on Yom Kippur
• Minhag of Selichos and AYT
• Situation with 2 Yosef ben Shimon
• Fwd: Halacha-Yomi - Chapter 85: Editor's note
• Re: women drivers
• Re: Egyptian Jewish wheat sprouts custom
• Re: Going to Uman for RH
• Re: Going to Uman for RH
• Re: Going to Uman for RH
• Re: Going to Uman for RH
• Re: Going to Uman for RH
• Re: Going to Uman for RH
• Re: Teaching goyim Torah
• Email file (AKUM.TXT)
• Re: Teaching goyim Torah
• Re: Avodah V9 #86
• Re: Eating Kosher Food in Non-Kosher Restaurants
• Re: Eating fish in treif restaurant

The Mateh Ephraim ("ME") mentions that it used to be the minhag in certain
places (including, but not limited to, Prague) for the shofar to be blown
(not only after shacharis in the morning but also) at night, after maariv.
The ME states that this is not the minhag in his time/place.

I am curious:  Is anyone aware of any communities where they blow the shofar
at night after maariv during Elul?

KT and Kesiva v'Chasima Tova
Aryeh

Recently someone sent me something which included the following piece /
segment from R. Mayer Twersky of RIETS -

"Devarim ha-yotz'im min ha-lev, nichnasim el ha-lev -- words which
are heartfully spoken enter the hearts (of the intended audience).
Reb Yerucham, mashgi'ach of the Mirer Yeshiva in europe, resolved an
apparent empirical refutation of this dictum of chazzal. After all,
don't we often observe heartfully spoken words falling on deaf ears
and insensitive hearts? Reb Yerucham explained chazzal's intention:
when hearts are attuned to each other, the words which are heartfully
spoken enter the hearts of the intended audience."

Does anyone know more about this pshat of Reb Yerucham z"l (e.g. is it
in his published works, is there more to it, etc.) ?

La"d (la'aniyus daati), the statement (IIRC it is not a maamar chaza"l -
rather just a Jewish pisgam / 'wisdom saying' [or something like that
- don't recall the exact term]) seems very general and encompassing,
so it hard to understand limiting it solely to attuned hearts.

I thought of a pshat as follows -

Words from the heart enter the heart - but that doesn't necessarily mean
that they are instantly effective / fully activated. Sometimes they can
lay dormant / unacted upon, etc., for a long time (like an unexploded
but still viable bomb, lihavdil). However the important point is that
they enter the heart and are in place to have an effect in the future,
rather than not gaining entry at all and being lost in the ether.....

Also - perhaps a corollary can be proposed - the (maximum ?) level
of penetration of 'the words from the heart' corresponds to the level
from whence they come. If they originate from 'deep down in the heart'
(IIRC there is an expression in the UK and Ireland 'the cockles of the
heart', connoting a particularly deep level [like the American 'bottom
of my heart' presumably]), they can reach that level in the heart of
a recipient. If they are from a less deep level, they would not reach
as deep.....

Comments ?

Mordechai

In a message dated 8/28/2002 12:11:45pm EDT, Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu writes:
> Are there any other sources that deal with saying slichot today - whether
> there were any good reasons why they were dropped, should one try to
> reintroduce slichot (either in a new shul that doesn't yet have a minhag, 
> or
> in a shul that currently doesn't say slichot) .  Furthermore, is it correct
> that there is uniform acceptance that slichot are preferable lectachila,
> even though we don't require it, or do any view the current minhag as
> something desirable?  what is the minhag in the yeshivot? may one ever drop
> the saying of slichot?

FWIW,
Both the Roedelheim and the Vilna Kol Bo have full sets of slichos for
Shacharis, Mussaf and Mincha

What few people can tell from reading the vanilla texts is that many
khillos recited ONLY a subset of same.

EG, Breuer's rotates its YK Slichos
My shul does the same 3 slichos {usually one akeida} plus the pizmon
plus the Chatanu Tzureinu, etc. for each case. IOW We do NOT rotate.

Shanah Tovah Richard Wolpoe RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In my local shtibl, they do not permit an avel to daven for the amud
during Aseres Yemei Teshuva. That applies to all 3 tefilos.

In the same shul, they do permit the avel to daven for the amud during
Selichos, but not for Selichos themselves. Does anyone have a source
for this?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Where there are two Yosef ben Shimon in one area, there is a solution
to the confusion by including the next generation up in the name, such
as Yosef ben Shimon ben Yaakov; Yosef ben Shimon ben Chaim.

What if both are gerim?

This seemingly strange situation happened in my shul recently. Despite
the fact that it is a small shul, there are two gerim there, with the
same name (single name) ben Avraham. I'm not sure why it never happened
before, but recently one was called to the Torah and both showed up.

Clearly another generation up would not help here; how could one
distinguish, either for a get or in the situation described?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

[R' Ari Lobel is writing about an earlier shi'ur on the laws of
saving items from a fire on Shabbos. -mi]

In a message dated 9/3/02 10:54:54am EDT, lobel@torah.org writes:
> Now, in the days of the Talmud, houses were generally more isolated, and it 
> was therefore more common for situations to arise in which a fire broke out 
> which posed only a danger to one's property, but no danger to human life 
> (See Rema 334:26). This chapter is dealing specifically with this type of 
> situation, in which the Sages were concerned that if people were given 
> permission to carry as much property as they wanted out of the house, they 
> would end up accidentally transgressing the laws of Shabbos in all the 
> panic. As we will see in this chapter, there are exceptions to this 
> limitation.

The following quote appeared on a list and is very familiar I'm sure to most 
of us. Has anyone ever analyzed the historical context?  From what I can 
tell, Jerusalem in Talmudic times had houses/apartments on top of each other 
and I would guess the same was true in "cities".  Is my presumption correct? 
If so, what percentage of people lived in the cities versus on the farm?

KVCT
Joel Rich

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 08:47:33AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
>:> Can custom confer a torah issur on its violation?
>
>: Minhag hasochrim koneh.

>  are you arguing that there's a connection between
> giving a chalos to "what socherim normally do" and practices transmitted
> via mesorah?

Mesorah has nothing to do with this discussion. The discussion originated
when someone expressed the opinion that, in places where women don't
normally drive, a woman who drives might violate "lo silbash kli
gever ...." The person I quoted expressed surprise that local practice
(presumably as opposed to practices transmitted by mesorah) might have
severe halachic ramifications. I gave another example (again not via
mesorah - the mechanism is semichath daath).

Incidentally, where I live almost all minivans are driven by women.
Does the holder of the above opinion also believe that it's assur for men
to drive minivans because of "lo yilbash gever ..."? If you differentiate
based on makes of cars you might even get the Bach to agree.

David Riceman

Andrew Strum wrote of an old but now obscure Egyptian Jewish custom , using 
wheat sprouts as kapparot before Rosh Hashana:
> Further, is the custom of Jewish origins or was it borrowed by the
> Jews of Egypt from their neighbours? Other religious communities in
> Egypt, including the Christian Copts (allegedly descended from the
> ancient Egyptians), practised a similar custom at certain of their
> festivals. 

Why assume Jews borrowed from Egyptians?  Influence could just as easily go 
in the other direction.

Toby Katz

[Thread bounced from Areivim. -mi]

R' Saul Newman posted what seems to be a news article from some unnamed
source, which read:

<<< Rabbi Shlomo Aviner a Chief Rabbi of Beit-El and Yeshivat Ateret
Kohanim came out today against the annual Rosh Hashanah pilgrimage
to the grave of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov (1772-1810). Around 4,000
followers of the teachings of Rabbi Nachman are expected to visit
his grave in Uman, Ukraine. In a letter distributed to synagogues and
Yeshivas around the country, Rabbi Aviner wrote, "[Jewish Law stipulates
that] it is forbidden to leave Israel, except in the performance of a
mitzvah [G-dly commandment]. One who so transgresses must do teshuvah
[repentance]." He went on to say that heaven takes note of those who
forsake their wives and families, leaving them lonely and sad for the
Rosh Hashanah holiday. "Israel," he wrote, "is holier than Uman." >>>

I don't know whether the blame lies with Rabbi Aviner or with the
reporter, but it is very unclear to me what the precise point of Rabbi
Aviner's objections are.

If his objection is that one should not leave Eretz Yisrael except for
a mitzvah, then he should explain why he feels that visiting the kever
of one's rebbe is not a mitzvah.

And if his objection is that one should not leave one's family for Yom
Tov, then I have to wonder if I am mistaken that it has been a common
practice among chassidim for centuries, to leave their families for Yom
Tov to grow in ruchniyus by the rebbe. (IIRC, this is one of the reasons
given why chasidim do not eat in the sukkah for Shmini Atzeres.)

The way it is phrased also makes me suspect that Rav Aviner holds there
to be a mitzvah of Simchas Yom Tov on Rosh Hashana, which I can't remember
hearing elsewhere.

Akiva Miller

>In a letter distributed to synagogues and Yeshivas around the
>country, Rabbi Aviner wrote, "[Jewish Law stipulates that] it is
>forbidden to leave Israel, except in the performance of a mitzvah
>[G-dly commandment]. One who so transgresses must do teshuvah
>[repentance]." He went on to say that heaven takes note of
>those who forsake their wives and families, leaving them lonely
>and sad for the Rosh Hashanah holiday. "Israel," he wrote, "is
>holier than Uman."

Basically, Rav Aviner is criticizing the two century-old chassidishe
minhag of visiting the rebbe for yontev. People greater than he have
failed to be mevatel the minhag (e.g. the story about R' Akiva Eiger and
his grandson). Chasidim consider it a mitzvah to be mekabel penei rabbam
on yontev, and with good reason. This, they claim, takes precedence
over staying with one's family for yontev. Such was the practice for
many years and still continues in some circles, evidently in Bratslaver
circles.

Gil Student

Akiva Miller wrote:
>The way it is phrased also makes me suspect that Rav Aviner holds
>there to be a mitzvah of Simchas Yom Tov on Rosh Hashana, which
>I can't remember hearing elsewhere.

The Sha'agas Aryeh says so (IIRC).  RYBS also said so and brought a ra'ayah
from the fact that Rosh HaShanah is mevatel aveilus.

Gil Student

> The Sha'agas Aryeh says so (IIRC).  RYBS also said so and brought a ra'ayah
> from the fact that Rosh HaShanah is mevatel aveilus.

FWIW, the Mateh Ephraim also says so.

KT and Kesivah v'Chasimah Tovah
Aryeh

On 3 Sep 2002 at 14:14, Gil Student wrote:
> Akiva Miller wrote:
>> The way it is phrased also makes me suspect that Rav Aviner holds
>> there to be a mitzvah of Simchas Yom Tov on Rosh Hashana, which
>> I can't remember hearing elsewhere.

> The Sha'agas Aryeh says so (IIRC).  RYBS also said so and brought a ra'ayah
> from the fact that Rosh HaShanah is mevatel aveilus.

There's a pasuk in Nechemia that says specifically that there's a 
mitzva of simcha on Rosh haShanna. Rav Nebenzahl discusses it in a 
sicha on Ki Savo, and Rav Pincus discusses it in one of his sichos on 
Rosh HaShanna. 

[Email #2. -mi]

Now that I'm home....

The pasuk in Nechemia is 8:10 and see 8:2 for proof that it was said 
on Rosh HaShanna. 

-- Carl

On 3 Sep 2002 at 14:04, Gil Student wrote:
> Basically, Rav Aviner is criticizing the two century-old chassidishe minhag
> of visiting the rebbe for yontev.  People greater than he have failed to be
> mevatel the minhag (e.g. the story about R' Akiva Eiger and his grandson).
> Chasidim consider it a mitzvah to be mekabel penei rabbam on yontev, and
> with good reason. ...

Maybe Rav Aviner would be mechalek between a live Rebbe and a dead 
one? 

-- Carl

In a message dated 09/03/2002 5:57:25pm EDT, T613K@aol.com writes:
> As mentioned in a previous post, my husband, R. Michael Katz, taught
> Noahide classes in Tennessee in the '80's. He found something in Igros
> Moshe--I'll have to leave it to you talmidei chachamim to find it,
> because he is too busy to help me right now.

see y"d 2:132 and 4:41
see also sridei eish 2:90

KVCT
Joel Rich

The sources on the prohibition of a Jew teaching a gentile Torah are:
Gemara in Chagiga 13a "ein mosrin divrei Torah l'Akum". The Rambam in
Hilchot Melachim 10:9 "ein manichim otam l'chadesh dat v'la'asot mitzvot
l'atzman m'da'atam". The Yam Shel Shlomo on the gemara in Bava Kama 38a
(4th Perek) categorically prohibits teaching them anything. See also
the Sefer Chassidim 235 "lo yilamed adam otiot l'galach".

There is a difference of opinion if only teaching them the Oral Law is
prohibited (Shita Mekubetzet end of 2nd perek in Ketuvot 21a; Tiferet
Yisrael on Mishna in Zevachim 14:4; Meshiv Davar III 77; Rabbenu Gershom
M'eor Hagola on Bava Batra 21b "b'tinokot Akum, im rotzeh lilmod sifrei
refuah oh mikra, yachol l'akev alav..."; Meharsha on Chagiga 13a (sitrei
torah) or if even the Written Torah is included in this prohibition
(Tosfot Chagiga 13a d"h ein; Tosfot Bava Kama 38a d"h kar'u); RASH in
Mishna in Machshirin 2:7).

Josh
backon@vms.huji.ac.il

> As mentioned in a previous post, my husband, R. Michael Katz, taught
> Noahide classes in Tennessee in the '80's. He found something in Igros
> Moshe--I'll have to leave it to you talmidei chachamim to find it,
> because he is too busy to help me right now.

> It has to do with a mitzva in P. Ki Savo, Dev.27:1-8. Moshe Rabbenu is
> told to erect and plaster large stones, to write the Torah on them, and
> to place them by the Jordan River. In pasuk ches he is told to write
> on the stones "Be'er hetev" on which Rashi says, "beshivim lashon."
> R. Moshe says, "Who was supposed to read them?" Obviously, the goyim.

As far as I can tell the above is not an accurate representation of
the discussion in the Igros Moshe. YD IV 38.3. Teshuva #38 is a long
and disjointed teshuva (ten parts) concerning many things -the nature
of psak, prohibition of producing brief summaries of complex halachic
discussion that might be misunderstood, translating Torah literature into
English. Rav Moshe's views concerning teaching Torah to goyim comes at
the end of this tshuva 38.10 without any reference to the incident of
writing the Torah on stones.

He also mentions the incident in YD III #90 page 331 "...perhaps the
Written Torah is not prohibited to teach since the Jews were required to
write the Torah on stones in 70 languages when they entered into Israel
in order for the goyim to copy the Torah and to learn it (Sotah 38b). If
it was assur to teach them the Written Law than this act would have been
prohibited. But we need to say that this act was in fact hora'as sha'ah in
which the prohibition was temporarily suspended in order that the goyim
would not have an excuse...But perhaps there is in fact no prohibition
to write the Written Law...Nevertheless this is not a significant proof
since it could readily be understood as an emergency measure in which
a prohibition was suspended.

He concludes pge 333 "One does not have to refrain from learning or
teaching Torah just because a goy is present...even concerning bnei
noach who observe the 7 mitzvos...

Rabbi Bleich (Contemporary Halachic Problems Vol II Chapter 16 page 320)
cites the Meshiv Davar and others who permit teaching the Written Law
based on this sevorah concerning the stones. However he also cites Rav
Kook as "no normative halacha can be derived from this narrative since
the Divine command was limited to a particular incident and occurred
in conjunction with the exodus from Egypt and the revelation at Mount
Sinai. During this unprecedented and unparalleled historical epoch the
Divine Presence was perceived in some manner even by the gentile nations."

            Daniel Eidensohn

> My shul says it only in the morning.  I'm not sure "why".
> 
> There is a pattern however of adding a kapitel after the yom
> 1) Shir Mizmor l'assaf {83 iirc} on days we DO say Tachanun
> 2) Barchi nafshi (105) on Rosh Chodesh
> 3) Mizmor Shir Hannukas (30) on Hanukkah
> 
> In each case above, they are recited ONLY in the morning.
 
        The minhag in Telzer Yeshiva was to say it only in the morning,
but not at all on Shabbos. (I don't know about Succos -- I was never
there during bein haz'manim.)

        However, while 83 may buttress your theory, Borchi Nafshi and
Mizmor Shir are not, in my opinion.  They are added because they are the
Shir shel Yom for Rosh Chodesh and Chanukah, respectively, and of course
SSY is said only in the morning. (The Gr"a, in explaining why not to say
the day-of-the-week mizmor on those days, says it is because "only one
SSY should be said.")

        Incidentally, Borchi Nafshi is 104, not 105.

B'virkas k'sivah vachasimah tovah,
Elazar M. Teitz

In a message dated 9/3/02 2:59:30 PM, Akiva Miller writes:
<< Can someone offer an explanation why 2500 years ago I could have gone
to my neighbor and eat his home-baked bread in his house, and lots of
other things as well, but today I am not able to eat a slice of salmon
there (presuming that I recognize it as salmon and it's not oleh al
shulchan >>

The explanation seems clear enough. The rule against eating kosher food
prepared by non-Jews (or non-Orthodox Jews) or served in non-Kosher
restaurants was created by modern poskim who want to keep observant Jews
from eating food prepared by non-Jews (or non-Orthodox Jews) or served in
non-Kosher restaurants. Treif has little or nothing to do with it. Neither
does halacha, at least as that term was widely used within the observant
Jewish community before World War II. It's a separatist thing.

Not long ago, many non-kosher restaurants with non-kosher cooks and
servers catered to Kosher customers by keeping a supply of fish, salads,
fruit, etc., that could be prepared to order. For example, the fish
(trout, sea bass, salmon, etc. -- nothing suspect) would be cleaned with
a sterilized knife and then broiled or poached in aluminum foil. With a
few herbs, some crushed tomatoes, and a little garlic and olive oil. Add
a fresh salad, steamed broccoli, and a bottle of beer, and you'd have a
Kosher meal. You had to trust the owner or cook, but that was no big deal,
because the restaurant was used to handling such requests. Even today,
there are many hotels who offer this service.

Today, many poskim consider kashruth, in and of itself, to be beside
the point. The larger point is sociological -- that a Torah Jew never
must trust someone who isn't a Torah Jew to enable the Torah Jew to
follow Torah. We prepare our own food, socialize with our own people,
study in our own schools, live in our own neighborhoods, and abide by
our own concept of law. Otherwise we open ourselves to contamination.

Don't look too deeply in our ancient mesorah for a solid justification
for this approach. There isn't any.

David Finch

RAM wrote:
> If a person orders a kosher species in a treif restaurant, the first
> question is relying on the cook that this is in fact a kosher species.
> One answer is that there a some dishes where the fish's identity is clear
> to the customer, such as when some or most skin is still on. And even
> if not, does that make it *vadai* assur d'Oraisa? Or only safek d'Oraisa?

Depending on the circumstances, the non Jew may or may not be halakhically
believable. If he is, no problem. If he isn't, the fish's status is that
of a fish found in that particular establishment. If it is visibly kosher,
it is permitted, if not, its status depnds on whether most fishes there
are kosher or not.

> Next, we have the points raised by RSG about bliah and ben yomo. So
> much is written about this in the poskim, that I can't help but believe
> that these situations came up on a regular (or at least occasional)
> basis in centuries past. I'd love to hear more from the historians about
> the various circumstances. I suppose one might say that most or all of
> those writings involved milchik and fleishik keilim that got mixed up,
> but I'm pretty sure that some of it involved treif ones as well.

Correct. In fact, TB 'Hullin 8a&b discusses the use of knives of non-Jews.
Tos. ad loc questions whether the rule of stam keilim einom bnei yoman
applies. Ditto for the discussion of klei midyan. The Talmud states that
kashering there was to use the vessels that same day. Klei midyan were,
obviously, used for non losher foodstuff.

> When
> they wrote that "stam keilim ainam bnei yoman", what sort of situations
> was it for, if not eating from the kitchen of a non-Jew or a non-frum
> Jew?

Absolutely; see above.

> My point in this paragraph is that from a *keilim* perspective,
> fish in a treif restaurant might actually be mutar even d'rabanan,
> not only d'Oraisa, especially if this particular restaurant was closed
> yesterday for whatever reason.

This doesn't entirely fly. Tos. ad loc. explains that stam keilim
einam bnei yoman should not apply to knives, because they are in use
constantly (I guess knives where once scarce). Same reasoning applies
to a restaurant, unless you come in the morning, after they were closed
yesterrday.

More likely, people reasoned that our kelim are different from those
in the days of the Talmud, and thus there would be no bli'ot issue at
all in stainless steel, glass and cheap glazed porcelain that is more
similar to glass than to anything else. (note that Ritva's argument why
glass doesn't absorb is clearly applicable - from a purely theoretical
standpoint - to stainless steel utensils. His argument, IIRC, is that
glassware is smooth, and we see that it doesn't absorb anything) Since
there are quite some rumors about prominent rabbanim making silent noises
about this being an area that shall be revised biymot hamashia'h (three
people about whom I heard such rumors are RHS, rav Pin'has Scheinberg
and RSZA). The difference between early 20th cent. hamon 'am and those
posqim is that those posqim are steeped in the halakhic process, and
thus appreciate why we need to wait for mashia'h to deal with this.

Note, from a practical standpoint, that expensive restaurants are, from
a theoretical perspective, to be treated as worse than homes even in
this regard, because better chefs often use cast iron pans, and those are
clearly bole'ah, just ask any chef worth his salt and he'll tell you that
one reason to like cast iron is that it keeps a film of leftover food on
its surface which eventually turns into a non sticky surface. Those who
doubt this are welcome to consult a professinoal cookbook a friend gifted
to us, and see firsthand what our (single) cast iron frying pan acts like.

> Which brings us to the point that RSG raised of bishul akum. This is
> pretty tough to avoid, unless the fish is of a sort that's not oleh al
> shulchan melachim. But even if it is, bishul akum is only d'rabanan,
> as R' Moshe Feldman posited in his query.

And there are additional qullot, if the food is not technically cooked,
making the foodstuff altogether permissible. I am not sure about those
parameters, but recall that there are tshuvot re: sardines in cans,
stating that since they are cooked in what is essentially a bain marie,
it is permitted. Also, I can understand that one would generalize the
difference between pat akum and pat palter to cooking. This *may be*
(never looked in to it) even steeped in halakhot relied upon for major
food distribution. At any rate, teh analogy is not crazy, even if posqim
disagree.

<snip>
[there ought to be a food that is prohibited because of bishul akum, yet was 
totally permissible, even from the kitchen of an akum, prior to the gzeirah]
> It would have to be a cooked solid food, and one which is oleh al
> shulchan melachim. It would also have to be one where -- prior to the
> halacha of bishul akum -- a non-Jew could cook it with zero Jewish
> involvement and I could eat it without worrying about the kashrus of
> the kelim involved. On top of all that, it would be a situation which
> might lead to intermarriages, but the involvement of even a single
> Jew throwing a single splinter into the fire would remedy that fear
> of leading to intermarriage.

Disagree with your understanding of the splinter heter. The single
splinter does not prevent intermarriage, but is a technical fulfilment of
the conditions precluding the prohibition. The prohibition differentiates
between bishul akum and nishul Yisrael by noting whether the Jew
contributed. This intended loophole was to make it possible for Jews
to employ non Jewish cooks and also to permit Jews in cases of (travel,
social, governmental) necessity to avoid the prohibition. Since there is
generally (even though there are cases where this need not be) a need
to trespass into the kitchen and explain to somebody present that his
cooking is no good until the Jew does something, this becomes a serious
damper on Jewish-gentile relations.

> This leads me to think that we're *not*
> talking about a non-Jewish maid who does the cooking in a Jewish home,
> as I don't see where there is an intermarriage fear in such a case,
> since it is a Jewish home.

I would argue that the case is stronger, because one is more familiar with
one's maids than with one's neighbour; ever hear of somebody dumping wife
for secretary? However, some posqim agree with you, and inded, there are
a'haronim (AhS IIRC) who permit to rely ex post facto on those shittot,
obviating the need to kasher all keilim that a maid used when cooking.

> If the intention was to put some social distance between the non-Jewish
> maid and the Jewish family, what is added by the requirement for a
> Jew to throw the splinter in the fire? What does that accomplish that
> isn't already accomplished by watching to make sure she doesn't mix
> up the milchiks and fleishiks?

It means that those who would otherwise be unaware of the finer points
of who is or is not halakhically believable will now know that one can't
eat from a gentile's cooking.

> Rather, it seems to me that it must be
> about eating in a *non*-Jewish home or inn. And in such a case, how do
> they know anything about the kashrus of the kelim? If they *did* have
> some sort of way to know about the kashrus of the keilim, surely that
> involvement surpasses the involvement of throwing a splinter in the fire.

There are foods that are prepared in a certain way such that the statement
that rov of these foods are prepared with kosher ingredients only would
be true. If, in addition, we are talking about a case where the keilim
are not ben yomam, or a case where netilah will be sufficient, or a case
of constant libun (barbeques where the fire continues to burn after the
meat has been removed, to the point that it achieves libun), one would
rely on such a rov. This is similar to Rebbi's statement in 'Hulin 95a
that one may buy meat from a non Jew if the slaughterers of that town are
Jews. Further investigatino reveals that this leniency is in force even
though some of the slaughterers are non Jews, as long as the majority
of the meat reaching the non Jewish stores would be of Jewish origins.

> I think we can see my point even more clearly if we compare Pas Palter
> (which they tried to asser, but is still mutar even today) and Pas Akum
> (which they did asser, but was mutar once upon a time). I can see where a
> Palter, a professional baker, could be in a position where it is common
> knowledge that the all breads he bakes are ones which use only kosher
> ingredients, and so there are no problems with the kashrus of his ovens
> either.

Bakers' ovens may not be a problem at all. FYI there are posqim who
permit using the same oven for both milk and meat without requiring
any koshering. Examples are RSS who requires only a 24 waiting period,
and RHS who apparently holds no waiting is required. Bread would be a
little different if the bread is put straight on the oven floor, but
cooked substances are invariably in a pot.

<snip>
> So there must have been a metzius at some
> point in our history in which it was not uncommon to eat bread baked at
> home by an ordinary neighborhood non-Jew, despite any fears about what
> else he used his oven for.

once upon a time the division between private individual and official
baker was less obvious. One may simply decide to sell baked goods because
he baked too much and his damp closet or fridge doesn't work on the
voltage that was then current in the Middle East. ;-)

If one can eat from a palter, why not from an individual, assuming that
the local minhag is to bake without non kosher ingredients at all. Example
is French baguette.

> Okay, this post is longer than I had planned, so let's wrap it up. Can
> someone offer an explanation why 2500 years ago I could have gone to my
> neighbor and eat his home-baked bread in his house, and lots of other
> things as well, but today I am not able to eat a slice of salmon there
> (presuming that I recognize it as salmon and it's not oleh al shulchan
> melachim)?

Because the restaurant prepares other foods as well, such as eel,
mussles, lobster, etc. And foods have a lot more ingredients nowadays,
such as sauces made of multiple ingredients, etc. with all ingedients
there leta'amei 'avido. Even without worries about bli'ot in the plates
and cutlery (assuming that the C clergy are onto something when saying
that the cleaning proess required by law = hag'alah, although halakhicly
that is a non starter since we rule that glazed earthenware is bole'ah,
etc.), there are bli'ot in the pots and pans, and even actual leftovers
in the pans from dishes cooked earlier in the day.

2500 years ago, OTOH (BTW, are you sure that the prohibition on BA
is so old? I would guess not.) food preparation was simpler, with
fewer ingredients, and an inn did not prepare food after one placed an
order. My guess is that they cooked and guests asked "what for dinner"
and they were offered a choice of one out of one or two, both of which
could have been kosher. Thus, if all items on the menu today are kosher
fishes, there is only the issue of yesterday's bli'ot, and stam keilim
will help when eating at decurion Flavius Plautinus Octavius Nero's tent
in the Roman legion's encampment.

> (And a DISCLAIMER for those listmembers who read things which were never
> written: I never said that it's mutar to eat fish in a treif restaurant.
> I just want to know why it is asser.)

OK, OK. We know you and believe you. But, I always thought it is "ass*u*r"
or "ass*oo*r" or (for RSBA and me) "*oo*ser", not "ass*e*r". I ordinarily
wouldn't correct you, except that I heard many people mispronounce this
one and I am at loss trying to understand how this corruption crept in.
Suggestion to this latter conundrum are invited on Areivim.

Ktivah ve'hatimah tovah,
ksieveh ve'hassiemeh toyveh,
a git gebetsht yuhr,
besieres toyves,

Arie Folger

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]