Volume 56 Number 07
Produced: Sun Dec 23 20:39:45 EST 2007
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Hashgacha on Restaurant Open on Shabbos (2)
[Shoshana L. Boublil, Joel Rich]
Reliable supervision (or lack thereof) of 2nd Ave Deli
[Eitan Fiorino]
Symmetry and asymmetry between the periods AH-Honetz and Sh'qioh-T
[Martin Stern]
Truma/Masar & the borders of israel (2)
[Shimon S., Chana Luntz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shoshana L. Boublil <toramada@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:40:04 +0200
Subject: Re: Hashgacha on Restaurant Open on Shabbos
Years ago, there was one kosher restaurant on the Kinneret - the Fish
Restaurant at Ein Gev. Everybody ate there.
They had hashgocho - and they were open on Shabbat.
What they did was that they limited what they served on Shabbat,
following the guidelines of hotel restaurants. They had a separate
location that collected the payment on Shabbat -- again like all hotels
do in Israel (except for full Mehadrin hotels).
This went on for years, until a restaurant nearby, without the ability
to follow the same rules, demanded hashgocho as well, even though they
wanted to cook regularly on Shabbat. In the ensuing battle, Ein Gev was
forced to relinquish their hashgocho.
BTW, when talking to them about what happened, they were willing to do
anything required to keep the hashgocho -- including building a
completely separate kitchen that would be used only for Shabbat (despite
the costs). B/c of their neighbour, the rabbis were afraid to continue
and nowadays Ein Gev continues to serve kosher, but without a
certificate, so most religious don't eat there anymore.
This is one case where the results were not kiddush Hashem. The people
at Ein Gev are quite bitter about the whole thing.
Shoshana L. Boublil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:18:22 -0500
Subject: Hashgacha on Restaurant Open on Shabbos
>> "And it still boasts being kosher despite the fact it's open seven
>> days a week, 24 hours a day.
>
>This is NOT an isolated case, there are many such restaurants in
>Manhattan. And there are many agencies who grant them hashgocha.
>
>And it is problematic.
>
>I remember a well-meaning non-Jewish colleague who ordered "kosher" food
>for me for a business luncheon. I really can't expect said colleague to
>know which hasgochas are / are not to MY standards. Once communication
>was established I simplified things with a list of 3 or 4 restaurants
>that were appropriate.
>
>Carl Singer
Non-Jewish ownership in a Jewish community (e.g. dunkin donuts) makes
this much less problematic.
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eitan Fiorino <AFiorino@...>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:09:59 -0500
Subject: Reliable supervision (or lack thereof) of 2nd Ave Deli
With regard to Richard's posting below:
I know little about the kashrut industry and the extent to which its
policies are halachically-driven versus sociopolicically driven, but my
understanding is that non-meat restaurants do not need a mashgiach
temidi in general, which would potentially allow (if other circumstances
permit, such as the existence of a non-Jewish partner) such an
establishment to be open on shabbat yet retain hasgacha. Meat
restaurants, on the other hand, require a masgiach temidi and it seems
hard to imagine how any kashrut agency or mashgiach that one would view
as trustworthy would work on shabbat "supervising" an entire enterprise
of chilul shabbat!! (I'm not talking about pre-paid meals at a
restaurant that is warming things but doing no bishul, that is not the
case with the 2nd Avenue Deli in either its first or second
incarnation).
But don't trust me; here's something I just googled and found on the O-K
website. Based on this description, it seems unlikely that the O-K
would give hashgacha to even a dairy establishment that is open on
shabbat, but they don't discuss the case here of a partnership between
an Orthodox Jew and a non-Jew:
Permanent supervision, or hashgachah temidis, is required for all
meat establishments. We do not make any distinction concerning the
ownership of the establishment. Even if the owner is an Orthodox Jew
conversant in the laws of kashrus, we will not certify his
establishment without a mashgiach temidi. The mashgiach is given the
keys to all the storage areas where meat is kept (e.g., a
freezer). The owner cannot open these storage areas. The mashgiach
will be on premises as long as they are open. We do not require
hashgachah temidis for a dairy restaurant if an Orthodox Jewish owner
or employee is on premises at all times, but a mashgiach visits the
location on a frequent basis. All other dairy restaurants must have
permanent supervision.
In New York, there have definitely been examples of non-meat
establishments having hashgacha despite being open for business on
shabbat (H&H Bagels leaps immediately to mind).
Shabbat shalom,
Eitan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:35:20 +0000
Subject: Symmetry and asymmetry between the periods AH-Honetz and Sh'qioh-T
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:26:58 GMT, Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
wrote:
> Actually, I was recently in a shul ("Shomrei Shabbos" of Boro Park)
> which has a daily "netz" minyan
The word is hanetz, the heh not being the definite article but
indicating a hiphil formation from the root natsats. The word netz means
a falcon which was the symbol of the Egyptian sun-god ra. This is
possibly why Chazal changed the pasuk in Yishaya from "bore ra" to 'bore
et hakol" after barekhu in the morning since it is followed by "hameir
et ha'arets ..." and, with the original wording, it might imply that
that avodah zarah was responsible for the light.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shimon S. <shimons@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:01:39 +0200
Subject: Re: Truma/Masar & the borders of israel
Everything sold under the hechsher of the chief rabbinate is clear of
Tevel. The "Mitzvot Teluyot beaaretz" dept. of the Chief Rabbinate is
well run , despite tending not to believe that Orthodox farmers can be
trusted to keep the halacha themselves . Regarding the borders of Eretz
Yisrael - I live in the Bet Shan Valley , which according to the halacha
doesn't have kedusha shniya . The only difference between us and
"Mainland Israel" is that the hafrasha is done usually without a
bracha. The question about Israeli produce is theoretical at the moment
anyway due to the embargo imposed by most batei din on "heiter mechira"
products!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana Luntz <Chana@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:32:03 -0000
Subject: Truma/Masar & the borders of israel
> Is there some minimum standard that all exporters must adhere to for
> Truma & Masar here in israel
>
> does all produce being exported to the States have even a minimum
> level of Hasgacha that Truma & Masar where taken (like on the State of
> israel level)
Not to answer your question, exactly, but your question implicitly
appears presuppose something that does not seem to be so
straightforward, which is, is there an issue of trumos and ma'asros once
the produce is in chutz l'aretz? This is, of course, a separate
question, because even if produce is exempt from trumos and ma'asros
once in chutz l'aretz, that does not necessarily mean that an exporter
in Eretz Yisroel should and would not be obligated to take. But as this
is a question I have asked on another list without getting a response, I
wouldn't mind asking it here:
The mishna in Chala (perek 2, mishna 1) has a machlokus [dispute]
between R' Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer which states that "peros chutz
l'aretz shenichnas l'aretz chayavin b'chala yezei m'kan l'sham Rabbi
Eliezer mechayav u'Rabbi Akiva patur" [the fruits of outside of Israel
which enter into Israel are obligated in the taking of chala, those that
go out from here [ie Israel] to there [outside Israel] Rabbi Eliezer
obligates and Rabbi Akiva does not obligate] and the Kesef Mishna brings
that the Yerushalmi gives the reason of Rabbi Akiva as being because the
Torah says "ha'aretz asher ani meyvi eschem shama" [the land to which I
will bring you there] "shama atem chayvin be'en peros ha'aretz be'en
peros chutz l'aretz" "shamaya atem chayavin v'ei atem chavyin b'chutz
l'aretz",[there you are obligated whether the fruits come from Israel or
not from Israel, there you are obligated, but you are not obligated
outside of Israel] and it is clear from everybody that we posken in such
a debate like R' Akiva.
Hence the Rambam in Hilchos Terumos perek 1 halacha 22 states:
"Peros eretz yisroel shyetze hutza l'aretz pturin min hachala, u'min
haterumos u'min hama'asros shenemar asher ani mevi eeschem shama. V'im
yezei l'suriya chayvin m'divrehem" [the fruit of Eretz Yisroel that goes
outside of Israel are exempt from chala, and from teruma and from
masros, as it says, that which I will bring you there. And if they go
out to Suria they are obligated rabbinically]
and very similar language is used in the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah,
siman 331, si'if 12, without any dissent from the Rema.
The Shach there si'if katan 20 states that this is "afilu m'peros shel
eretz yisroel d'i m'peros shel chutz l'aretz pshita d'ha chova karka
he". [even from fruit of eretz yisroel because in regard to fruit of
outside Israel it is obvious that this is an obligation of the earth]
So far it would seem, so clear.
BUT, it turns out there is a Mishna L'Melech, on this Rambam (ie hilchos
terumos perek 1 halacha 22) which states that the mishna in chala and
the Rambam are only talking about a case where the produce is exported
before it reached the status of being chayav [obligated] in terumos and
ma'asros (hamachlokus zeh haya davka kshehitchayev b'chutz l'aretz").
But that if exported afterwards it indeed does have the status of tevel,
and is chayav in trumos and ma'asros.
And Rav Moshe (Iggeros Moshe Yoreh Deah chelek 3 siman 127) after
bringing the mishna in chala, the Shulchan Aruch and the Rambam on peros
in chutz l'aretz concludes "l'dina harei kol ha'achronim sovrim
k'chiddush ha Mishna L'Melech she'byezei l'chutz l'aretz achar m'revach
v'chen kol pri acher shenitchayav b'trumos u'masros chayavin b'chutz
l'aretz v'cha issur tevel" [the law is that all the achronim hold like
the chiddush of the Mishna L'melech that if they go out to chutz l'aretz
after the status of revach and so for all other fruit that enter into
trumos and ma'asros they are obligated in chutz l'aretz and have the
issur of tevel]
Unfortunately however, Rav Moshe does not say who "kol ha'achronim" are.
The only person on the page of the Shulchan Aruch who appears to even
bring the position of the Mishna L'melech is the Tzvi L'tzadok (although
he does not quote him explicitly). As mentioned the Shach does not bring
this position (and surely if he held by it he would have brought it in
the si'if katan referred to above), nor can I see it in the Gra (who
does not appear to comment on this portion of the si'if at all).
The Sde Chemed in his index headings under Teruma only discusses "tevel
b'eretz yisroel b'zman hazeh u'bchutz l'aretz b'zman habayis" [tevel in
Eretz Yisroel today and in chutz l'aretz in the time of the beis
hamikdash]- which is interesting because the implication is that there
is nothing to discuss in chutz l'aretz b'zman hazeh [today], although I
may be reading too much into it. I could not find anything in Mishpat
Cohen on topic, or in Minchas Shlomo (he does not appear to refer to
this si'if of the Shulchan Aruch). And again I could find nothing in
Yachave Daat or Yabiat Omer (I was hoping the latter would give me an
insight into whether or not "kol haachronim" included Sephardi achronim
- and in any event, the usual exhaustive citations that are ROY's
trademark).
Certainly if you read the Kesef Mishna on the Rambam there in hilchos
ma'asros perek 1, (which for some reason in my edition is labelled as
si'if katan 23, even though it is clearly on halacha 22), at least by
implication he seems to reject the chiddush of the Mishna L'melech (he
discusses the position of the Ra'avad, there who clearly argues on the
Rambam and is not that different in this regard) which leads me to
speculate that Sephardi achronim might not be so tempted to follow the
Mishna L'Melech - especially if they take a ROY like, "we always follow
Maran" approach.
And a local Sephardi rav told me that it was the accepted position in
the Sephardi world (I don't know if this means universal, or just where
he came from) to say that produce from Eretz Yisroel was not obligated
in trumos and ma'sros once it was chutz l'aretz (I imagine this was a
halacha l'ma'ase question for far more Sephardim than it was for
Ashkenazim - given that exporting produce as far as Ashkenaz in days
gone by was probably pretty rare, while to the lands inhabited by
Sephardim was probably reasonable common). Unfortunately I do not have
anything in writing though, it is just the word of somebody I know.
So, my question is, are there other poskim that disagee with Rav Moshe
on the subject of holding like the chiddush of the Mishna L'Melech?
Have people traditionally been doing some poskening on the basis of
safek d'rabbanan l'kula and sfeik sfeikos where the situation is unclear
(eg maybe the produce was exported before it was chayav in trumos
u'masros and maybe the Rabbanut took (although that you should be able
to establish) and maybe the halacha is not like the Mishna L'melech and
maybe if terumos and ma'asros in eretz yisroel are only d'rabbanan
[another aspect that seems to be the subject of a machlokus and which I
can dwell on if there is interest] then the rabbis were not metaken such
on produce exported to chutz l'aretz into the hands of a non Jew)?
Any further thoughts or information anyone.
Regards
Chana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 56 Issue 7
