Avodah Mailing List

Volume 38: Number 53

Wed, 01 Jul 2020

• 1. Re: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process (Micha Berger)
• 2. FW: Arukh haShulchan and Halachic Process (Chana Luntz)
• 3. Kiddush Levanah (Michael Poppers)
• 4. Induction stovetop halachic status (Marty Bluke)
• 5. brit Yitzchak (mco...@touchlogic.com)
• 6. Re: Induction stovetop halachic status (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Induction stovetop halachic status (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Induction stovetop halachic status (Zev Sero)
• 9. ben Noach and mitzvas kiddush hashem (mco...@touchlogic.com)
• 10. electronics redux (Rich, Joel)

My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and that
the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / minhag she'eino
chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done.

My reason for this is:

1- The Rosh's deipction of someting done "al pi talmid chakham veTC nahag
imahem" fits things like the Rama's defense of milchigs on Shavuos. To my
mind more smoothly than taking "al pi TC" to mean a pesaq, and "veTC nahag
imahem" to mean that the pesaq is general, not just for the sho'el. After
all "pasaq TC leqahillaso" would be both clearer and shorter. (And wouldn't
the Rosh refer to a poseiq as "rav", not "talmid chakham"?)

I see the Rosh's word here as talking about cases like the Rama and
similar defenses elevated a common practice (mihag garua) into a true
minhag (minhag chashuv). It's the endorsement -- al pi talmud chakham
-- that elevates a minhag in chashivus.

2- And then the AhS is simply following the Rosh and the Shakh. No reason
to force the AhS to be a chiddush rather than your guide to how to read
those who came before him.

3- Bet Yosef Chalaq and Glatt cannot both be minhagim chashuvim, because
Sepharadim treat chalaq as din -- with all the seriousness of any other
tereifah, whereas Hungarians are meiqil in questionable cases because it
is "only" minhag. With an awareness that mei'iqar hadin they hold like
the Rama.

So, in practice we distinguish between regional pesaqim and minhagim
chashuvim.

4- Similarly, the case in maqom shanahagu... Is anyone saying here that
someone pasqened for the community that it is actually *assur* to do
melakhah on erev Pesach before sheqi'ah or qabbalas YT? No, the minhag
chashuv here is closer to glatt -- a common practice to go beyond the
letter of the law, that rabbanim gave an endorsement to.

5- Chana brings in lots of examples of regional pesaq. No one denies
they exist! But that doesn't make them minhagim!

Such as Chullin 18b and whether one must shecht at this particular
ring of the trachea. Or R Yosi haGelili allowing poulty and milk.
In none of these cases is their mention of the word "minhag", because
they aren't, they are local pesaqim that weren't nispashtim to other
places.

(And the case of R Yossi haGelili is not even so much a regional pesaq;
although it is closer to that than anything else we discussed. It's less
that he had a different ruling than RYhG didn't want a gezeirah to
be nispasheit. Not a situation we would find outselves in nowadays.)

5- The Tosafos the AhS is citing for a minhag garua refers to local
non-halachic practices. Whether or not people in an area normally carry
things on their head. Whether or not they normally squeeze this particular
fruit for its juice. Both questions have halachic implications, but the
"minhag garua" refers to the metzius that causes that pesaq. As for the
rest of the world, anyone who squeezes this fruit despite the norms of
the region -- "batlah daatam eitzel kol adam".

So now we get to something I feel is actually in reply to what I wrote,
rather than a reiteration of Chana's position:

> No. The Shach, as I mentioned last time, does *not* refer to a Tosfos
> discussing a case where the minhag in question is whether or not one
> normally carries things on their head.  He refers to *this* Tosfos:
...
> And so writes the Tosfos and the Rosh *in perek makom shenahagu*...
> makom shenahagu is in Pesachim, starting on daf 50a, and the Tosfos he is
> referring to is found on 51a d"h "I ata rashay l'hetirin bfinehen" - you are
> not allowed to rule as permitted in front of them...

No, to permit in front of them, the word "rule" is your assersion. In
fact, they cite Rabbeinu Nissim that we are dealing with "devarim
hamutarim, ve'acheirim nahagu bahen issur". Lehalakhah mutar, but others
have a *minhag* to prohibit. So it's a question about a new rav coming
to town and changing minhagim that are lifnim mishuras hadin.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 None of us will leave this place alive.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   All that is left to us is
Author: Widen Your Tent      to be as human as possible while we are here.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF          - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner

RMB writes:

<<My thesis so far has been that a regional pesaq isn't a minhag, and that
the only real minhag is a minhag chashuv. A minhag garua / minhag she'eino
chashuv is just a way of referring what's commonly done.>>

So how under your thesis do you explain the gemora in Eruvin 62b:

Amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel:  Halacha k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, v'Rav
Huna amar: minhag k'Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov.  R' Rabbi Yochanan Amar:
Nahagu ha'am k'Rabbi Yehuda ben Ya'akov?

And the same dialogue in Eruvin 72a (except with Rabbi Meir substituted for
Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov)?  What meaning can you give to the words above
"minhag k..." that fits your definition?

>>My reason for this is:

1- The Rosh's deipction of someting done "al pi talmid chakham veTC nahag
imahem" fits things like the Rama's defense of milchigs on Shavuos. <<

On this, we will just have to agree to disagree, because to me the
straightforward reading is that of a psak of a Talmud Chacham, that he
himself follows, and hence doesn't fit the Rema's defence of milchigs at
all.  And given we disagree on what the words mean, it seem to me that we
have to look at where the Rosh says this.  So where does he say it?  He says
it in his commentary on the gemora in Pesachim.  And it seems to me that you
cannot divorce what he says from the gemora and the rishonim (ie Tosfos)
that were in front of him.  He did not have the Rema's case in front of him
and was not commenting on it.  He did have a whole collection of cases in
front of him, specifically those set out in the gemora and he is referring
to those.  To me, you just keep asserting that your understanding of the
Rosh is what he means, because you like that to be what he means, whereas I
keep trying to bring the surrounding sources (since we cannot agree on the
meaning of the basic wording), to show that it is difficult to say that the
Rosh means this in the context in which he says it.  The Rosh is
fundamentally not poskening here, he is explaining the gemora.  A specific
gemora, the one in Pesachim.  If (the one thing we do agree on) the Rosh is
defining two different scenarios, one al pi Talmud Chacham, and one without,
you have to explain which of the cases in the gemora in front of the Rosh,
ie Pesachim, he puts into the one case, and which into the other.  And then
what the consequences are for those cases - ie what as a consequence can one
do or not do. That is what I have been trying to do.

<<2- And then the AhS is simply following the Rosh and the Shakh. No reason
to force the AhS to be a chiddush rather than your guide to how to read
those who came before him.>>

Here I feel you are not reading what I am saying at all.  I don't know why.
So let me try and ask you this question.  According to the Aruch HaShulchan
what are the two cases of minhag that he is discussing? What is the minhag
chasuv he is discussing, and what is the minhag lo chashuv that he is
discussing?  I mean the specific case (and in particular I want you to focus
on what the Aruch HaShulchan considers to be the minhag chasuv in that
Tosfos, because I think we agree on what he considers to be the minhag
shaino chashuv).

<<3- Bet Yosef Chalaq and Glatt cannot both be minhagim chashuvim, because
Sepharadim treat chalaq as din -- with all the seriousness of any other
tereifah, whereas Hungarians are meiqil in questionable cases because it is
"only" minhag. With an awareness that mei'iqar hadin they hold like the
Rama.>>

Ok fair enough. I wasn't aware enough of the Hungarian view that glatt is
just a chumra, I assumed they also held that it was din. But that just means
that in my view the minhag chashuv was with the Sephardim, and the
Hungarians just had a minhag to go l'chumra, ie a minhag garua.

<<4- Similarly, the case in maqom shanahagu... Is anyone saying here that
someone pasqened for the community that it is actually *assur* to do
melakhah on erev Pesach before sheqi'ah or qabbalas YT? No, the minhag
chashuv here is closer to glatt -- a common practice to go beyond the letter
of the law, that rabbanim gave an endorsement to.>>

I believe that is exactly what Rabbi Yehuda poskens on daf 2b (and 55a).
[Actually, everybody says it is assur after midday when you have a korban
pesach (although the definition of doing melacha is somewhat different than
you are thinking of), and possibly d'orisa, the question under discussion is
solely about doing melacha *from sunrise to midday*, not to shkeia or
qabbalas YT]. Rabbi Yehuda says it is assur to do work before midday, the
term used is assura on 55a.  The Rosh of course knew these gemoras, and in
my view was thinking of them when he referred to the people acting al pi
Talmud Chacham, the Talmud Chacham in question being Rabbi Yehuda.  And that
it is a question of issur the Ri says explicitly on daf 2b (d"h meaimatai
yud daled asur b'asiyat melacha), arguing with Rashi.  And then it is the Ri
who originally brought the language of minhag chasuv al pi talmid chacham
(in the Tosfos I refer to on daf 51a below) that the Rosh then follows,
merely adding the words veTC nahag imahem to the Ri's original distinction.

<<5- The Tosafos the AhS is citing for a minhag garua refers to local
non-halachic practices. Whether or not people in an area normally carry
things on their head. Whether or not they normally squeeze this particular
fruit for its juice. Both questions have halachic implications, but the
"minhag garua" refers to the metzius that causes that pesaq. As for the rest
of the world, anyone who squeezes this fruit despite the norms of the region
-- "batlah daatam eitzel kol adam".>>

I agree that the Tosfos the AhS is citing for a minhag lo chashuv refers to
certain local non-halachic practices, including carrying things on their
head, or squeezing a particular fruit.  That is not the dispute.  However I
pointed out that that *Tosfos* does not use the term minhag lo chashuv, or
minhag garua for any of these, only the AhS does.  But more importantly the
question I keep trying to ask you is what, according to the AhS, is Tosfos's
minhag chasuv in this case?  What is the case that  the AhS says is Tosfos's
contrast to the case of the carrying the things on the head, or squeezing
the particular fruit?  The Tosfos does use the term d'hatam chasuv minhag,
and assuming that the AhS is getting his minhag chasuv from here,  what is
this referring to?  And how can you feed what the *AhS* calls a minhag
chasuv into your understanding of the Rosh?  Please explain to me how the
case that the AhS identifies as Tosfos' minhag chasuv fits into your
definition of minhag chasuv.  What is the "common religious practice,
blessed by rabbinic approval" in this case?

 I wrote:
> No. The Shach, as I mentioned last time, does *not* refer to a Tosfos 
> discussing a case where the minhag in q<<uestion is whether or not one 
> normally carries things on their head.  He refers to *this* Tosfos:
...
> And so writes the Tosfos and the Rosh *in perek makom shenahagu*...
> makom shenahagu is in Pesachim, starting on daf 50a, and the Tosfos he 
> is referring to is found on 51a d"h "I ata rashay l'hetirin bfinehen"
> - you are not allowed to rule as permitted in front of them...

And RMB replied:

<<No, to permit in front of them, the word "rule" is your assersion. In
fact, they cite Rabbeinu Nissim that we are dealing with "devarim hamutarim,
ve'acheirim nahagu bahen issur". Lehalakhah mutar, but others have a
*minhag* to prohibit. So it's a question about a new rav coming to town and
changing minhagim that are lifnim mishuras hadin.>>

I am not quite sure what the disagreement is here. I was just translating
the dibbur hamatchil of the Tosfos when I said " you are not allowed to rule
as permitted in front of them".  I totally agree that this dibbur hamatchil
is about a Rav coming to town and changing minhagim (which is how I
understand ruling that they should do differently).  The fact that the full
content of the Tosfos is not encapsulated in the dibbur hamatchil should not
surprise anybody, and I believe the usual practice is to identify a Tosfos
by the dibbur hamatchil so that people can then find it.  But I am very
puzzled by your objection to my translation of the dibbur hamatchil.  As it
is, as always, a quote from the gemora I have just checked how Artscroll
translate it, and they translate "I ata rashay l'hetirin bfinehen" as "you
are not allowed to rule them permitted before [such people]", which I think
is pretty close to my translation, so it sounds like your objection,
whatever it is, needs to be against Artscroll as well.  Clearly they
understand rashay l'heterin to mean "rule" as well.

The substance of my argument was not regarding the translation of the dibbur
hamatchil, but the content of the Tosfos identified by it, specifically the
Ri, which is where the Shach and the Rosh obtained their distinctions
between a minhag chashuv and a minhag sheino chashuv.

-Micha

Regards

Chana

RDH in Avodah V38n52:
> For the first time I recited it tonight by myself, omitting shalom
aleichem. Has anyone seen this discussed by poskim in the last few months? <
In the past few months, I've only seen one brief Hakhel
<http://www.hakhel.info/index.htm> mention (from Nisan 5780:

*KIDDUSH LEVANA*

17.  *Kiddush Levana* may be said *b?yechidus*. If there are 3 men over
bar-mitzva at home, then it is preferable for them to say Kiddush Levana
 together.

18.  ?*Shalom aleichem ? aleichem shalom*? may be said even when saying
*kiddush levana* yourself. Just say both lines yourself.

).  This MiYodeya page lists one source (last response) and two anecdotes
re the topic of saying "Shalom Aleichem" when alone:
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/1861/shalom-aleichem-in-kiddush-levanah
 .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200629/84a334b5/attachment-0001.html>

I saw a news report that a restaurant in Israel lost its hashgacha because
they switched to an induction stovetop and had an Arab cook. The rabbanut
seems to hold that there is a problem of bishul akum. See
https://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/441824
<https://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/441824?fbclid=IwAR2tw_cVqaoM2jGXqmpmc8qBIkU6h0g3lSy0ea0HyO7Ji67JfjhrRcGZG9U>
especially
the final paragraph.

Can someone explain how an induction stovetop works? Based on how it works
what do the poskim say about it?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200630/4a803c9c/attachment-0001.html>

I just had my first Sephardi grandson 

Does any have a (free) translation to eng or heb of brit Yitzchak (said before Sephardi bris)

???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?' ?"?
[Zohar, Parashas Lekh-Lekha, 90b. -micha]

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/145053/jewish/Zohar-for-the-Brit-Aramaic-Original.htm

thanks,
mordechai cohen

On 30/6/20 11:38 am, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
> I saw a news report that a restaurant in Israel lost its hashgacha 
> because they switched to an induction stovetop and had an Arab cook. The 
> rabbanut seems to hold that there is a problem of bishul akum. See 
> https://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/441824 
> <https://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/441824?fbclid=IwAR2tw_cVqaoM2jGXqmpmc8qBIkU6h0g3lSy0ea0HyO7Ji67JfjhrRcGZG9U>?especially 
> the final paragraph.
> 
> Can someone explain how an induction stovetop works? Based on how it 
> works what do the poskim say about it?

An induction stove has no fire; instead, when you put an iron or steel 
pot on it, it induces a magnetic field in the pot itself, which heats up 
and cooks the food.  When you remove the pot the field stops; when you 
put it back it starts again.

The range itself never even gets hot, except from contact with the hot 
pot that's on it.  You can even put paper down on top of the stove and 
put the pot on that, and the paper will not burn; which is great for 
Pesach.  On the other hand it's unusable for Shabbos & Yomtov.

I don't know what any poskim have said about it, but from this it's 
obvious that the Ashkenazi heter of having the mashgiach light the fire 
in the morning and then letting the nochri cook on it all day will not 
work.  Every time a pot gets put on the stove it's a new action, so the 
Sefardi standard of having a yisrael put all pots on will have to apply. 
Even if the pot is removed for a second, a yisrael will have to put it 
back.  This obviously requires great care and attention, and I'm not 
surprised that the Y'm Rabbanut is not willing to trust that the nochri 
will never put a pot or pan back on the range himself, if the owner 
isn't right there watching and available.

Another interesting question is whether it ever needs kashering, since 
it rarely gets to yad soledes bo.

-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 06:38:37PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
> I saw a news report that a restaurant in Israel lost its hashgacha because
> they switched to an induction stovetop and had an Arab cook. The rabbanut
> seems to hold that there is a problem of bishul akum...

Well the reason for that is, as Zev wrote, because the heat is restarted
every time you put the pot on.

(Although I find it hard to believe the stovetop rarely reaches yad
soledes bo. Doesn't the pot heat the surface it's sitting on?)

I wanted to comment on something else. What I've heard about microwaves
and bishul aku"m involve two arguments:

1- Microwave cooked food is of lesser quality and not oleh al shulchan
melakhim.

2- Technically, the taqanah was about food put al ha'eish, and microwave
cooked food doesn't qualify.

Well, I'm pretty sure that one could produce quality food on an induction
cooker, even if I cannot picture a 5-star chef wanting to take that route.

But that second argument.... R Heinemann writes at
<https://www.star-k.org/articles/articles/1182>:
   Bishul akum does not apply to microwaved food. The Rabbinical
   prohibition of bishul akum applies only to conventional cooking
   methods, eg. cooking, frying, roasting. Food prepared through
   microwaving is not included in the prohibition.

That's different than saying al ha'eish, since you can fry in a pan
on an induction cooker. But is that what he meant? The historical term
would imply that induction cooking isn't "conventional cooking methods"
parallel to those in the original taqanah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 The same boiling water
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   that softens the potato, hardens the egg.
Author: Widen Your Tent      It's not about the circumstance,
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    but rather what you are made of.

On 30/6/20 4:53 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:

> (Although I find it hard to believe the stovetop rarely reaches yad
> soledes bo. Doesn't the pot heat the surface it's sitting on?)

It does, but in my experience not that much.  It gets warm, even very 
warm, but rarely actually hot.


> I wanted to comment on something else. What I've heard about microwaves
> and bishul aku"m involve two arguments:
> 
> 1- Microwave cooked food is of lesser quality and not oleh al shulchan
> melakhim.

I doubt this is true.


> 2- Technically, the taqanah was about food put al ha'eish, and microwave
> cooked food doesn't qualify.
> 
> Well, I'm pretty sure that one could produce quality food on an induction
> cooker, even if I cannot picture a 5-star chef wanting to take that route.

I'm pretty sure induction stoves are used in some top restaurants.

And from the food's point of view the difference between microwaving and 
induction is great.  In a microwave the heat is induced in the food 
itself, not the pot it's in.  Any heat the keli picks up is from the 
food.  In both conventional and induction cooking the food is heated by 
the pot; the difference is merely in how the pot itself is heated.

But the Ramo, 113:13, explicitly says that only cooking on fire was 
forbidden.  So at least for Ashkenazim this whole issue should not 
exist.  Someone should inform this restaurateur, and/or the Rabbanut.


-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

I believe a few issues ago someone asked if benei noach are obligated in mitzvas kiddush hashem
(to be moser nefesh to avoid their 7 mitzvos, as we are obligated wrt murder/arayos/AZ)

See toldos Noah at length on this subject. Pg. 247-270

Email offline if you want scans..

Are they commanded in mitzvas kiddush hashem (no - rambam)
Are they allowed to be moser nefesh for mitzvas kiddush hashem (machlokes)
Are they commanded to be moser nefesh to avoid killing someone (machlokes)
Are they commanded to be moser nefesh to avoid abortion. q
etc

I've posted a number of comments over the years relating to the delicate
dance between poskim and their communities. IMHO (for a long while), as
microelectronics become more embedded in society, the result will be
micro-halachic justified allowances where shabbat is not compromised (even
as the definition of compromised changes with time. (data points- r
moshe-timeclocks, refrigerators...)   Your thoughts?
KT
Joel Rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200701/101b90df/attachment.html>

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



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


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


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

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

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)