Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 246

Mon, 12 Dec 2011

• 1. Re: new chumrah (David Cohen)
• 2. Hamakom yinachem eschem (Prof. Levine)
• 3. new chumrah (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: new chumrah (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: new chumrah (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Gid Hanasheh (Henry Topas)
• 7. Re: new chumrah (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: new chumrah (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of Australia (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Re: new chumrah (Ben Waxman)
• 11. Re: new chumrah (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 12. Re: new chumrah (Zev Sero)
• 13. tzitz eliezeer..... (Harvey Benton)
• 14. Re: new chumrah (Zev Sero)

As far as bishul yisrael cosiderations go, the "kippah policy" under
discussion seems a little counterintuitive.  Usually, if I see somebody
wearing a kippah, then I can make a reasonable assumption that he chose to
wear it because he is an observant Jew.  But I know that the kippah is
required as part of the company dress code, then I can no longer make that
assumption.  Yes, it may be that every Jew has a chezkas kashrus until
demonstrated otherwise whether he wears a kippah or not.  I'm just saying
that if one does not start with that assumption, then I think that the
"mandatory kippah" policy would be counterproductive.

Leaving the bishul akum issue aside, I can see a restaurant owner reasoning
to himself, "Really, we have the appropriate safeguards in place to ensure
the kashrus of the food regardless of the fact that people who are not
observant Jews are working here.  But because we know that customers may
irrationally feel more confident of the kashrus if they think that all of
the employees are observant Jews, we will institute a dress code that will
lead customers to a correct conclusion (that the food is reliably kosher)
based on incorrect assumptions."  The relevant halachic question then
becomes whether or not such reasoning constitutes ona'ah.

In defense of the policy, though, it may just be analogous to a business
requiring its employees to wear ties, even though nobody expects customers
to think that the employees continue wearing their ties after they go home.
 There is an intangible customer service benefit to having customers
interact with employees who are "properly dressed," and in a religious
neighborhood, being properly dressed includes wearing a kippah.

-- D.C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111209/c5b69417/attachment-0001.htm>

At 11:47 AM 12/9/2011, R. Micha  wrote:

>On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 06:20:38PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> > Tonight I raised the issue of why we do not use the singular when we say
> > Hamakom when she is the only one sitting.  Someone said that this was
> > raised when some rabbi was present and he said that one should use the
> > plural "since the Neshama of the deceased is also present."...
>
>I have heard that too, but I think it's a general issue. Do you say
>"Shalom Aleikhem" even to just one person?
>
>Besides, what if you're at a daughter mourning her mother, do you say
>"eskhen" instead of "-em"? (For that matter, "neshamah" is lashon
>neqeivah, maybe if the niftar was a man as well...)
>
>I think that either
>1- we simply don't customize such matbei'os, or
>2- we address "you and yours". Perhaps there is a general notion about
>blessing people as part of the community more than as individuals. We
>are even pretentious enough to say "Selach lanu", admitting others'
>guilt rather than to stand alone...

Someone familiar with German minhagim whom I asked about this sent me 
the following:

The minhag is to use the singular when indicated. The sign used by 
KAJ states the use of both.
However, I have heard what the Rabbi said regarding the inclusion of 
the Neshama.
I guess that custom has spread and taken hold.

If the neshama of the deceased is present in the home in which he 
lived,  then, if there are no relatives to mourn and hence no aveilim 
and a minyan is held in the house of the nifter, should those who are 
at the minyan say Ha Makom even though there is no Avel present?

Suppose only one of the aveilim accompanies the nifter to EY for 
burial and sits for a time in EY before returning to the US.  Is the 
neshama there also and hence one would say eschem according to this 
reasoning.  Or is the neshama just in the home where the nifter lived 
and hence one should use only the singular if there is only one Avel 
sitting for a time in EY?

I really do not understand what it means to say "the Neshama of the 
deceased is also present."  Why does the Neshama need comforting and 
what does it mean to comfort a Neshama?  YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111209/74a72af1/attachment-0001.htm>

At 11:47 AM 12/9/2011, R. Eli Turkel wrote:

><<Weinberg adds, however, that anyone who places food over a flame must at
>least observe the Jewish Sabbath. "It's not a question of clothing, it's
>Jewish law," Weinberg says.>>
>
>see
>http://www.haaretz
>.com/print-edition/news/kashrut-inspectors-jerusalem-burger-joint-worke
>rs-must-don-kippot-1.400439
>
>what is the reason for such a halacha?
>As far as I know even a goy can put the food on a pre-existing fire

I presume that this has to do with the differences between Ashkenazim 
and Sefardim when it comes to bishul akum.

From  http://bit.ly/uQNLnC


PILOT LIGHTS

There is a dispute among the Rishonim (early commentators) whether 
bishul akum is negated when a Jew contributes to the cooking process 
by lighting the fire before a non-Jew places a pot of food on the 
stove, The major codifiers of Jewish law argue this point as well.

Rav Yosef Caro, author of the Shulchan Oruch, subscribes to the 
stringent opinion, and this is the custom practiced by Sephardic 
Jewry. According to this view, a Jew must place the pot on a burning 
fire in order that the food be considered bishul 
yisrael<http://oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/playing_with_fire_by_rabbi_
yaakov_luban_senior_rabbinic_coordinator_ou_kash#fn8422401934ee24f3d578fc>7. 
Alternatively, a Jew may turn on the fire after a non-Jew placed the 
pot on the cold 
stove<http://oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/playing_with_fire_by_rabbi_
yaakov_luban_senior_rabbinic_coordinator_ou_kash#fn4417851484ee24f3d580cd>8, 
The Ramo follows the lenient opinion, and allows a gentile to place 
raw food on a fire that was ignited by a Jew. Since the Jew has a 
share in the overall process, the food is, not considered to be 
bishul akum. The Ramo goes one step further, and writes that if a Jew 
has even a partial role in preparing the fire, bishul akum does not 
apply. For example, if a Jew added a wood chip or any other fuel to 
the 
fire<http://oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/playing_with_fire_by_rabbi_
yaakov_luban_senior_rabbinic_coordinator_ou_kash#fn9716348094ee24f3d588a2>9, 
or alternatively, if a non-Jew lit a fire from another fire which was 
originally ignited by a Jew, there is no restriction of bishul akum. 
In both of these instances, the fire is considered aish yisrael (fire 
of a Jew) because of the involvement of the Jew. Jews of Ashkenazic 
descent follow this ruling, and accordingly, a non-Jew may turn on a 
gas burner which is ignited from a pilot light that was lit by a 
Jew<http://oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/playing_with_fire_by_rabbi_
yaakov_luban_senior_rabbinic_coordinator_ou_kash#fn2181290504ee24f3d5906c>10. 
However, stoves with pilot lights are no longer common, and it is 
important that observant Jews realize the serious halachic concerns 
associated with meals prepared by hired 
help<http://oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/playing_with_fire_by_rabbi_y
aakov_luban_senior_rabbinic_coordinator_ou_kash#fn257088954ee24f3d5983e
>11. 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111209/08b099ab/attachment-0001.htm>

On 9/12/2011 10:30 AM, Michael Kopinsky wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name <mailto:z...@sero.name>> wrote:
>
>     There used to be a place on Kings Hwy, which is a heavily Sefardi area,
>     that had a sign advising customers that if they were Sefardi they should
>     advise the mashgiach of this, so he could put their food on the fire for
>     them.
>
>
> Leshitasam, doesn't bishul akum treif the keilim?

1. AIUI (though I haven't seen it inside) ROY paskens that bediavad
one can rely on the Ramo in this.  Thus, the "issur" that is absorbed
in the keilim is bediavad muttar.

2. In a private home one could certainly rely on the heter of Keilim
Divnei Rehnus.  Whether this heter extends to a restaurant is a question
I've long had.  But it would surely not extend to a grill which one can
see with ones own eyes being used by nochrim.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:

>  At 11:47 AM 12/9/2011, R. Eli Turkel wrote:
>
> <<Weinberg adds, however, that anyone who places food over a flame must at
> least observe the Jewish Sabbath. "It's not a question of clothing, it's
> Jewish law," Weinberg says.>>
>
> see
> http://www.haare
> tz.com/print-edition/news/kashrut-inspectors-jerusalem-burger-joint-wo
> rkers-must-don-kippot-1.400439
>
> what is the reason for such a halacha?
> As far as I know even a goy can put the food on a pre-existing fire
>
>
> I presume that this has to do with the differences between Ashkenazim and
> Sefardim when it comes to bishul akum.>>
>

I put down even a goy for emphasis. The original statement was for a non
shomer shabbat Jew. As far as I know bishul Akum doesnt apply to
non-religious Jews as there is no problem marrying the daughter/son of a
chiloni


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111210/11f110cd/attachment-0001.htm>

Shavua Tov,

We have an issur of gid hanasheh which is from this morning's parshah.

However, the construct of most lavin are those misinai with some exceptions, mostly related to the korban pesach which predates sinai.

Here we have a mitzvah with a construct of "al kayn lo yochlu" which isn't in a loshon of a particular tzivui.

Can any of the chevreh please point out where I might find more discussion
of this?  I've looked at Chulin but it appears to be glossed over as the
minhag of bnai yaakov.

Thank you and Kol Tuv,

Henry Topas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111210/b887bb5c/attachment-0001.htm>

On 10/12/2011 11:05 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> I put down even a goy for emphasis. The original statement was for a
> non shomer shabbat Jew. As far as I know bishul Akum doesnt apply to
> non-religious Jews as there is no problem marrying the daughter/son of
> a chiloni

OTOH a mechalel shabbos befarhessia, dino kenochri, so there's at least
a shayla.  Having a shomer shabbos put the food on solves the shayla.
And having all staff wear kippot stops the customers from worrying about
it.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

At 11:05 AM 12/10/2011, Eli Turkel wrote:
 >>As far as I know even a goy can put the food on a pre-existing fire
 >
 >I presume that this has to do with the
 >differences between Ashkenazim and Sefardim when it comes to bishul akum.>>
 >
 >
 >I put down even a goy for emphasis. The original
 >statement was for a non shomer shabbat Jew. As
 >far as I know bishul Akum doesnt apply to
 >non-religious Jews as there is no problem
 >marrying the daughter/son of a chiloni?
 >
 >
 >--
 >Eli Turkel

Doesn't a non Shomer Shabbos Jew have the status
of a gentile when it comes to things s/he cooks?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111211/392ae105/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB wrote discussing when a treif piece of meat gets mixed up with two
kosher ones:
> It is a three way machloqes -- (a) you can't even them at all, (b) only
> zeh achar zeh and (c) they may even be eaten bevas achas.

Not to mention Rashi's shita that you have to give one piece to the dogs.

> But I think the issue is in how we define rov and whether the
> probabilities add if we rely on them in one maaseh, if we rely in them
> altogether, or not add at all. Can mi'ut be undone through
> recombination, and if so, how?
> 
> To my mind, the parallel case in taaroves would be subjecting the
> mixture to a cenrafuge. Now, eg, the top of the mix has too much issur
> for bitul. Does one thereby undo the bitul?

See this is where I disagree.  I think you need to distinguish the case of
the three pieces of meat and the genuine mixture case, by which I mean eg
the classic case of a drop of milk falling into a meat stew.  In the latter
case, it seems to me it is nothing to do with probabilities, it has to do
with the drop of milk being completely overwhelmed by the meat stew and
thereby disappearing from existence, with its identity and particularly its
taste disappearing.  There is no more issur, period, it has been overwhelmed
by heter, and what is left is solely a permissible meat stew. Centrifuge is
therefore irrelevant.  The forbidden milk no more exists in Torah terms than
these microscopic bugs that we keep swallowing from the air and water and
food, they don't count.

But in the case of the three pieces of meat, there really genuinely is a
piece of treif meat in there that has not disappeared from existence, and
which everybody knows about.  Now the Rosh's position that it is completely
mutar to eat by one person in one go is based on applying the gezeras
hakasuv - achrei harabim l'hatos.   Were it not for the gezeras hakasuv he
would not hold this either.  Just as a person can be put to death based on
the necessary majority of the Sanhedrin, despite the very real existence of
a miut who holds that he is not guilty, so too can a person eat these three
pieces of meat in one go despite everybody knowing that by doing so, somehow
in there he has eaten a piece of treif meat.  Just as the miut is deemed not
to exist vis a vis the Sanhedrin's majority decision, similarly the treif
piece of meat is deemed not there and converted to the majority status by
fiat of the Torah, and just as the opinions of those minority of the
Sanhedrin who hold he is not guilty are deemed null and void, and they are
forbidden to say afterwards that actually I voted for not guilty, so to is
this piece now null and void.

On the other hand, those who disagree with the Rosh, clearly do rely on some
element of probability - ie they are happy for one to eat it only if at the
time of eating (or overall for that person) there is only a minority
probability that the person is eating treif.  This is similar to the nine
shops case, where again it really is a question of a certain degree of
probability, there is a one in nine chance that this particular piece of
meat is treif.  They take this view even though these are cases of de'iqah
leqaman. Similarly and even more clearly, whether a minor girl will turn out
to be an iylanis is a matter of statistical probability, the case of deleisa
leqaman.

 
> We were talking about consuming the approved-but-not-certified product.
> I
> believe it's really a case of both probability AND taaroves. After all,
> we aren't relying on bitul for a substance we know to be there, we are
> relying on bitul in order to not have to know -- the issur is itself
> only
> "present" as a mi'ut (or perhaps even ruba) deleisa leqaman.

No, I believe we are relying on bitul for a substance we know to be there,
but which is insignificant (ie overwhelmed by the heter).  You can't rely on
this kind of bitul in order not to have to know, because how do you know
that the thing that you do not know about is sufficiently insignificant to
trigger bitul, since if it is greater than a sixtieth, then it won't trigger
bitul, so you have to know.  The dispute therefore as I understand it is
between products where the supervisory authority, using their economic
clout, say to the non Jewish manufacturer, you have to take out this
ingredient in order to get a heksher, and products where the supervisory
authority checks and determines that if there is any non kosher product the
product is mevatel in the whole and says it is therefore approved.  I don't
think it has anything to do with ika or leisa lequaman, and certainly not
with ruba deleisa leqaman, which would render that particular piece treif.
I think you are extending the nine shops case  beyond anywhere anybody would
be prepared to go with it.  I don't believe that anybody says that if  nine
out of ten kinds of available soy sauce are kosher, then the kosher
authorities won't ask the manufacturer of an approved product which brand of
soy sauce it uses, assuming soy sauce is an ingredient which cannot be
deemed batul in the final product, simply because most brands available are
kosher.  That appears to be what you are suggesting.  

That is in terms of bitul, but there are other aspects, such as chazaka,
that also need to be considered.  An authority granting an approval might
rely on a chazaka (such as kelim of an akum are aino bein yomam), in order
that they don't have to know, but that isn't bittul precisely (well only
that once the kli is not ben yomo, then any blios are nifgam, but it is a
different halacha that is being triggered).  Whereas the authorities
granting certification are likely to go in and insist that they supervise
and check that the kelim are not ben yoman or insist on kashering them and
maintaining supervision of their kashrus.  In that sense an authority
relying on chazaka is indeed relying on probabilities - eg that if the
manufacturer says that the run is only used for product X, that even if
there is nobody coming in and checking that, if indeed it was used for
product Y, then probably it was done at least a day before any part of
product X is produced (since changeover of runs takes time), so you can rely
on the kelim being ano ben yomam.  And I am sure there are other chazakos
that come into play (probably better ones than this one, which is just what
came off the top of my head).  A chazaka is also about probability, most
situations X are like Y, but despite them being rebuttable, one relies on
them precisely because you don't know or so you don't have to know.  


> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana

I would say that it stops customers from thinking about it.

Ben

On 12/11/2011 1:45 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
>
> OTOH a mechalel shabbos befarhessia, dino kenochri, so there's at least
> a shayla.  Having a shomer shabbos put the food on solves the shayla.
> And having all staff wear kippot stops the customers from worrying about
> it.
>

R' ZS:
<SNIP>
And having all staff wear kippot stops the customers from worrying about
it.
-----------------------


requiring that the workers cover their heads? Why would they care?

KT,
MYG

On 11/12/2011 1:10 PM, Ben Waxman wrote:
> On 12/11/2011 1:45 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
>>
>> OTOH a mechalel shabbos befarhessia, dino kenochri, so there's at least
>> a shayla. Having a shomer shabbos put the food on solves the shayla.
>> And having all staff wear kippot stops the customers from worrying about
>> it.

> I would say that it stops customers from thinking about it.

Haynu hach.  You make sure that whoever works behind the grill is
shomer shabbos, and you make sure that all the staff, whether they
work behind the grill or not, look as if they might be shomer shabbos,
so it doesn't occur to customers to worry about it.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

from halacha . net,?
i don['t havbe access to the tzitz eliezer, however, how can children be "obligated" 

to perform mitzvot ( i was always taught, that the reason they say berachot, etc) 

is just to "train" them, and/or for chinuch purposes. 

Question: Although a Bar Mitzvah is a very significant, happy occasion, I
find that? Askenazim will still? say Tachenun if the Bar Mitzvah is? held
on?? a Monday or Thursday; the? Sephardim, I understand,? do not. In
view of the fact that we do not say? Tachanun? during the 7 days following a
chasana, nor do we say Tachnenun when there is a Bris, what is the rationale for its being
recited in shul during a Bar Mitzvah celebration? 
Dear? Irvin 
This question has been dealt with in the past by halachic authorities.? In the
esponsa "Nahar Mitzrayim", it states that the custom is not to say tachanun when
the Bar Mitzva boy is present on his 13th birthday.? Rav Ovadia Yosef,shlit"a,
in Responsa "Yabia Omer" (vol.1,no.27 and vol.4, no. 14) brings additional
proofs for this opinion.? On the other hand, among Askenazim, this is not the custom,
and to explain this, Rav Eliezer Waldenberg, shlit"a, in Responsa Tzitiz Eliezer (vol
11, no.17) writes among other reasons that since a minor is also Rabbinically obligated in
mitzvot, we do not make a distinction between this obligation and the Torah obligation,
since this would appear to be a lack of respect for the Rabbinic obligation. 
? 
? 
?
hmz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111211/e5546617/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/12/2011 3:50 PM, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> R' ZS:
> <SNIP>
>> And having all staff wear kippot stops the customers from worrying about
>> it.

> But wasn't the point of the original article that the Hashgachah was
> requiring that the workers cover their heads?

No, it wasn't.  The article quoted the agency as specifically denying
any such requirement.



-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 246
***************************************

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..."