Volume 44 Number 83
Produced: Mon Sep 20 6:41:36 EDT 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Bishul Akum for Sephardim (2)
[Joshua Hosseinof, Chana Luntz]
Can one eat at Jaine restaurants in India (4)
[Chana Luntz, Dov Teichman, Chana Luntz, Dov Teichman]
Following the minhag of your HOST
[Carl Singer]
Following the minhagim of the husband
[Akiva Miller]
Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin -- chumras
[Yehuda Landy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joshua Hosseinof <JHosseinof@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:51:48 -0400
Subject: Bishul Akum for Sephardim
See Yechaveh Daat vol. 5 #54 where Rav Ovadia Yosef permits sefardim to
eat in restaurants and hotels that follow the more lenient Ashkenazic
practice of having the mashgiach only light the fire. He relies on the
fact that there are many different disputes amongst the rishonim as to
how broad the issur of bishul akum is, among them whether it applies to
a non-jew who cooks in the home of a jew, a non-jew who is cooking
because he is an employee, the fact that in a restaurant or hotel the
people eating will not even see the person cooking, and also whether the
issur of bishul akum applies to muslims who would be the likely cooks in
Israel. Although on each individual dispute amongst the rishonim, Rav
Ovadia Yosef would agree with the more stringent opinion, nevertheless,
the fact that there are so many disputes, and with more than a single
posek holding the lenient positions on the issues he is comfortable
using this as a sefek sefeka (double doubt) which enables him to rule
leniently to permit Sefardim to eat at hotels and restaurants that apply
the laws of bishul akum according to the ashkenazic practice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana Luntz <Chana@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:04:53 +0100
Subject: Re: Bishul Akum for Sephardim
Martin Stern writes:
> Incidentally this raises the question of how Sephardim can eat at
>functions catered under Ashkenazi supervision since, from my experience
>as a mashgiach, most employ non- Jewish cooks and the only Jewish
>participation is to light the fires. Can any Sephardi contributors
>explain?
Well Rav Ovadiah has a teshuva (Yechave Daat Chelek 5, Yoreh Deah siman
54) which deals with this question (well really with staying in a Jewish
hotel that has non Jewish cooks, as is common in Israel, but there are
clearly common features). He holds that Sephardim may stay and eat in
such hotels, although those who wish to be strict, a blessing is upon
them.
The basis of his logic is that it is sfek sfeka [double uncertainty].
Firstly, the halacha may be like the Rashba who holds that there is no
bishul akum problem for workers in the house of a yisroel (which is what
these hotels are deemed to be - query whether a caterer is the same) and
secondly the halacha may be like the Ashkenazim who hold that lighting a
fire is enough, and therefore given that bishul akum is only rabbinic, a
sfek sfeka, even against Maran! is enough to make it mutar l'chatchila
[permissable up front] (although a baal nefesh would presumably be
machmir [strict].
Ksiva v'chasima tova
Chana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana Luntz <heather_luntz@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:44:14 +0100
Subject: Re: Can one eat at Jaine restaurants in India
Dov Teichman Writes:
>Even if all ingredients are kosher there may be the issue of Bishul
>Akum to deal with for many foods.
I am no expert on the food of the Jaines, but if they are strict
vegetarians would not most of their dishes be made from items that can
be eaten raw?
And even if not, if they are that strict, would any of their foods be
considered oleh al shulchan melachim [suitable to be eaten at the table
of kings].
Bit of background here for the general reader - the prohibition of
bishul akum [food cooked by a non Jew] does not apply to food which
either:
a) can be eaten raw (say carrots); or
b) is not suitable to be eaten at the table of kings (more difficult to
easily identify - although I have heard possibly mythical stories about
chief rabbis attempting to engage the Queen [of England] in discussions
of her diet to identify what is considered suitable to be eaten at the
table of kings). [See Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah siman 113, si'if 1]
> In turn the pots/pans may be forbidden.
Don't we assume that stam kelim of a non Jew are aino ben yomo [ie we
assume unless there is any knowledge to the contrary that a pot or pan
of a non Jew has not been used in the last 24 hours for forbidden foods]
(Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah siman 122, si'if 6)?
This would surely be even more true in the case of people whom as far as
we are aware never cook or eat forbidden foods.
Regards
Chana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <DTnLA@...> (Dov Teichman)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:13:37 EDT
Subject: Re: Can one eat at Jaine restaurants in India
Chana Luntz writes:
Don't we assume that stam kelim of a non Jew are aino ben yomo [ie
we assume unless there is any knowledge to the contrary that a pot
or pan of a non Jew has not been used in the last 24 hours for
forbidden foods] (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah siman 122, si'if 6)?
This would surely be even more true in the case of people whom as
far as we are aware never cook or eat forbidden foods.
It seems to be that it would be quite likely that a food such as rice,
potatoes or asparagus that is NOT eaten raw and IS suitable to be eaten
at the table of kings would be served and cooked in this
restaurant. That must be determined.
Regarding the Keilim, the Rashba and the Rosh argue whether the Bishul
Akum decree extends to the utensils. The Rashba argues that we are not
only forbidden to eat the food eaten by the non-Jew, but the utensils
that touch hot food that a non-Jew cooked are also rendered not Kosher.
The Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 113:16) cites both the view of the Rashba and
the Rosh, but it presents the Rashba's STRICT view as the primary view.
The Aruch Hashulchan (113:50) writes that the Rashba's strict ruling is
accepted as normative. BTW this presents a big problem in homes where a
gentile housekeeper cooks using all kosher ingredients while using the
pots/pans of the household. Those utensils must be kashered.
Furthermore, do we apply the rule of "stam keilim einam bnei yoman" in a
restaurant where it is common knowledge that they are constantly cooking
everyday?
Ksiva Vachasima Tovah,
Dov Teichman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana Luntz <Chana@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:54:17 +0100
Subject: Re: Can one eat at Jaine restaurants in India
Dov Teichman writes:
> Regarding the Keilim, the Rashba and the Rosh argue
> whether the Bishul Akum decree extends to the
> utensils.
> [See resr above]
Hold on a minute. The Rashba is also the one that holds that the decree
of bishul akum does not extend to avadim and shifchos shelanu [ie the
kind of servants we have today] who cook in the house of a yisroel (Shut
HaRashba chelek 1, siman 68).
The minhag in Ashkenaz was to rely on this Rashba l'chatchila (see eg
Sde Chemed (mareches bishulei goyim siman 1)), but even if you do not
hold so, I can't see how you can build two chumras on top of one
another. Either you hold like the Rashba that there is a problem with
kelim in the case of bishul akum, but no bishul akum for a gentile
housekeeper, or you do not hold like the Rashba, in which case while you
might have a problem with bishul akum in having your gentile housekeeper
cook for you, you will not need to kasher the plates.
> Furthermore, do we apply the rule of "stam keilim einam bnei yoman"
> in a restaurant where it is common knowledge that they are
> constantly cooking everyday?
Why would a restaurant differ from anywhere else? Everybody in their
own home would be expected to cook every day - and certainly in days
gone buy people did not own enough pots that you expected them to give
them a lot of rest nor did they own refrigerators and freezers which
allowed them to keep food for days and weeks the way we can. I can't
see why a restaurant would be any different, and in fact more likely
than historically for keilim not to be used for 24 hours.
Kasiva v'chasima tova
Chana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <DTnLA@...> (Dov Teichman)
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:18:23 EDT
Subject: Re: Can one eat at Jaine restaurants in India
Chana Luntz writes:
The minhag in Ashkenaz was to rely on this Rashba
l'chatchila (see eg Sde Chemed (mareches bishulei goyim
siman 1)), but even if you do not hold so, I can't see how
you can build two chumras on top of one another. Either you
hold like the Rashba that there is a problem with kelim in
the case of bishul akum, but no bishul akum for a gentile
housekeeper, or you do not hold like the Rashba, in which
case while you might have a problem with bishul akum in
having your gentile housekeeper cook for you, you will not
need to kasher the plates.
I didn't make up that chumra, see the Tur in this siman who says that
according to the Rashba (who the halacha is like) one must be careful
with ones utensils if you have a gentile cooking in your house. (The
Be'er Heitev quotes it too.) Furthermore, regarding a housekeeper you
employ the Rama also paskens that only B'DIEVED may you rely on the
opinion that bishul akum doesn't apply to gentile housekeepers.
Why would a restaurant differ from anywhere else? Everybody in
their own home would be expected to cook every day - and certainly
in days gone buy people did not own enough pots that you expected
them to give them a lot of rest nor did they own refrigerators and
freezers which allowed them to keep food for days and weeks the
way we can. I can't see why a restaurant would be any different,
and in fact more likely than historically for keilim not to be
used for 24 hours.
I don't have the sefer with me but see Shu"t Yechaveh Daas Vol 4. #42
who brings many poskim who do make a distiction between keilim in a
restaurant and those owned by an ordinary gentile. However, even if you
dont make that distinction, and you say that the kelim in a restaurant
are considered NOT bnei yoman, the Shulchan Aruch still says that one
may NOT l'chatchila ask a gentile to cook in his utensils for you (YD
122:6)
Another issue to consider about these Jaine Indians is although they
claim to be very strict vegetarians, do gentiles have believability to
that effect? Some of the preparers of the food may not be as frum as we
think. I doubt that they have Ne'emanus to say "we guarantee that there
are no bugs or animal products in our food."
Dov Teichman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:07:19 -0400
Subject: Following the minhag of your HOST
> When a married woman and her husband return to her father's house for
> Shabbat, does she follow the minhagim she grew up with (e.g.; washing
> hands before or after kiddush, standing or sitting for kiddush;
> covering her hair for kiddush, etc., or that of her husband, who will
> also be making kiddush?
Having had the pleasure of hosting guests at our home for many, many
years and having been guests in many people's homes it seems that the
generally accepted SOCIAL approach to all this (and I'm specifically NOT
talking about daughter / husband / father) is that the host will ask
guest if, for example, they wish to make their own kiddish. BUT if one
is being yotzai the host's kiddish that in any case good manners and
social custom dictate that one does as their host does. So if my host
stands to make kiddish, I stand when he does -- even though it's not my
minhag. If, however, I'm making my own kiddish (as a guest) then I
remain seated as is my minhag. Now I recall being at a meal where there
were multiple guest families each making their own kiddish. In that
case I stood for the host's kiddish as is his custom but sat quietly
through all the other kiddishes (standers, "poppers" and sitters) as I
saw these a being only for that specific family.
That said, what is the halacha?
Carl A. Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:29:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Following the minhagim of the husband
Perets Mett wrote <<< For a married woman, the wishes of her husband
take precedence over kibud av (YD 240:17, Shakh s"k 19) >>>
I have seen this many times, but I've never seen an explanation of why
it should be so, or how it is derived from the Torah.
Both husbands and wives have an obligation to honor their parents.
Both husbands and wives have an obligation to honor their spouses.
But in cases of conflict, the wife must give primary consideration to
her husband, whereas the husband must treat his wife as secondary to his
parents.
Why?
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yehuda Landy <nzion@...>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:42:18 +0200
Subject: Re: Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin -- chumras
I must say that I am pretty shocked by this posting. This is a case
of inaccurate facts, jumping to conclusions and basing your halachic
actions on these conclusions.
To get the facts straight, there were no Tefillin found with five
parshiyot, at least not among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Tefillin were not
round either. They may have not been perfectly square but that probably
had to do with the conditions existing then. The mishnah in Megilah does
mention round tefillin which are invalid, this just proves that among
secretarian groups tefillin were different, thus no halachic proof can
be brought from them. Some parshiyot found in the Dead Sea area
contained more than just our parshiyot, (in some cases also including
Aseret Hadibrot) mostly psukim before and after, but clearly they were
the same parshiyot we have today. It is also clear that they made every
effort to keep the same order we have today (although the Rashi and
Rabbeinu Tam order may have existed already then). You suggest an
answer to the question how things were before Rashi and Rabbeinu
Tam. But your theory doesn't automatically become fact and the basis for
halacha. There are many other possibilities.
Wishing all a k'sivah v'chasimah tovah
Yehuda Landy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 44 Issue 83
