Volume 32 Number 90
                 Produced: Fri Jul  7  5:53:43 US/Eastern 2000

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Cholent Shaliah
         [Ari Kahn]
House fires on Shabbat
         [Tszvi Klugerman]
Kiddush for Daughter
         [Akiva Miller]
Kosher Le'Mehadrin
         [Carl Singer]
Ranges and Ovens
         [Rivkah Isseroff]
         [Perry Zamek]
Tzitzit Question
         [Dov Teichman]


From: Ari Kahn <kahnar@...>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 19:09:35 +0300
Subject: Re: Cholent Shaliah

Chaim Shapiro wrote
> The only issue was taking cholent from a two piece crock pot,
> while the crock pot was still intact and
> cooking.  The individual who took it, stirred the pot while
> he was looking for what he wanted to take.
> Generally there are several criteria that need to be met in
> order for hot food to be taken from on a fire.  This 
> individual was careful of none of them (at least not
> intentionally).The question I asked dealt with the cholent
> that remained in the pot, cooking after he stirred the pot.
Seth Lebowitz wrote
> What I am trying to find out is: (1) Have I misinterpreted
> these laws; or (2) were the facts in your case such that
> these laws do not apply; or (3) are there other poskim who
> disagree with the mishna brura on this point?

For some reason there is confusion on this issue, especially among
people who know a bit of halacha Some of the response is a repetition
what I wrote Volume 26 Number 27 (which is accredited to someone else
even though it has my name on the bottom)

According to halacha if A Jew cooked food (or did almost any Melacha),
it may be used immediately after Shabbat, if a non Jew cooked the food
it may be used only after "kidai sheyaaseh, the amount of time it would
have taken to do the work. The reason that we a stricter regarding work
done by a non Jew is that, we do not suspect that a Jew would break
Shabbat for another Jew. But we do suspect that a Jew would ask a
non-Jew to do work for him (Rambam, Mishna Breura 318:5). The Pri Magdim
325:22 says that the mumer who habitually breaks Shabbat should have the
status of a non Jew regarding this halacha Of Kdai sheyaseh - meaning
that we should treat a Mumer like a non-Jew, because this Jew would
break Shabbat for the benefit of another Jew. The Mishna Breura does not
agree with the Pri Magdim, but there are a number of Poskim who do rule
like the Pri Magadim. In his conclusion the Pri Magadim does say in
passing that the cooking of a mumer would be Bishul Akum! I have not
seen later achronim citing the last line of the Pri Magadim but there
are achronim who rule in accordance with the Pri Magadim, regarding the
staus of food cooked on shabbat by a mumer rendering the food to be like
the food of a non-Jew and therefore require Kidai sheyaasu.

See Minchat Yitzchak Volume 9, section 39. Pskai Teshuvot section 318,
Rav Elyashiv rules like the Pri Magadim , see "Maor Hashabat section 18
note 66* and he cites a letter from Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, who
states that it is difficult to be lenient against the Pri Migadim in
this issue, (also see Ktav Sofer Oruch Chaim section 50)

But the case presented was one of an inadvertent violation of Shabbat
(assuming that the stirring was done) without knowledge of the Laws of
Shabbat and assuming that the stirring constitute a violation of the
Laws of shabbat, therefore we are talking of a case of Shogeg.

If the chulent were cooked "kol tzurcho" then we are dealing with a
Rabbinic violation, if not - there is a possibility of a Torah law
having been broken.

Here there is a distinction between Sfardim and Ashkanazim.  In the
Gemara Rav Yehuda rules that by Shogeg both "Cooker" and beneficiary
must wait until after Shabbat. This is the ruling of the Rambam and the
Mechabar, and thus it is law for Sfardim.

However Rav Meir rules that in a case of Shogeg both "Cooker" and
beneficiary may make use of the food immediately on Shabbat!.  Tosfot
rules like Rav Meir, and the Gra and Chay adam follow suit. The Mishna
Brura rules that in a case of a prohibition which is Rabbinic one may
follow this opinion - and even the "Cooker" may use it. In a case of a
Torah prohibition the Mishna Brura rules we may follow the Gra in a case
of necessity.  I would assume that oneg shabbat - or a main course
constitute necessity. (Here Shat ha dachak is not used rather "makom

However see the remarkable sefer Maor Hashabat (volume 1) which has 108
pages(!!!) on this law of benefiting from food cooked on Shabbat in
footnote 17* he deals with the question of makom hatzruch and cites a
letter from Rav Shlomo Zalmen Auerbach that eating chulent on shabbt is
not a necessity - assuming that one has other food Rav Fisher, and Rav
Elyashiv concur though the logic cited by Rav Elyashiv is that
fundamentally we rule like Rav Yehuda, I am unsure if that is the
intention of the Mishna Berura.  Rav N.N. Gesstentner says that Chulent
on Shabbat is oneg shabbat and is therefore deemed a case of
necessity. Rav Chaim Kanevsky says you can not rule across the board -
it depends on the individual.

Therefore: if Chaim loves his chulent there is not much to talk about -
it is his oneg shabbat and allowed. This is even if the stirring
constitutes a violation of a Torah law, if the stirring is in violation
of a Rabbinic law again the Chulent is allowed, even for the stirrer.

Rabbi Ari Kahn


From: Tszvi Klugerman <Klugerman@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 10:36:40 EDT
Subject: House fires on Shabbat

Eli Turkel writes:
<<Ignoring the question of chillul hashem it is uniformly accepted by all
poskim that any fire within a city is pikuach nefeshand therefore must
be put out on shabbat.  The halacha in SA would apply only to an
isolated farm house where one could leave and the fire would not spread
to other homes.  As the recent fires in New Mexico and Washingtom State
show even forest fires in deserted areas can have great consequences.
Hence, in practice all fires must be put out.>>

While I agree with Eli's statement it should be mentioned that in 1982
or 1983 or 1984 (I can't remember the dates exactly) there was a fire in
the dormitory of a yeshiva (I seem to recall it was the Kol Yaakov
Yeshiva ) in Jerusalem and the talmidim called the fire department. It
was common knowledge at the time that The Rosh Yeshiva disagreed with
their decision since the buildings were of stone and fire would not
spread, all the talmidim were out so there was no one in harm's way ,
and the firemen were Jewish.

I don't recall any posek publicly disagreeing with the above statement. Any 


From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 22:49:23 EDT
Subject: Kiddush for Daughter

In MJ 32:33, Aviva Fee asked about a story which she had heard regarding
a certain rabbi's comments about making a Kiddush on the birth of a

This story might be a sort of Urban Legend, in the sense that the story
is said to have originated with the Steipler Gaon, Rabbi
Y. Y. Kanievski, but Shlomo Pick (MJ 32:39 and 32:80) and Moish Gluck
(MJ 32:58) have brought opposing evidence on whether or not the Steipler
truly ever said such a thing.

I believe that it is proper to investigate the source of the story, but
it is even more important to find lessons which might be learned from
the story, regardless of who originally came up with it.

In MJ 32:38, Rose Landowne asked <<< Was the kiddush a "segula" in a
mystical sort of way, or was it a way of publicizing the fact that the
daughter was available for shiduchim?  Either might have helped. >>>
(Stuart Wise, MJ 32:41, had a similar question.) My feeling is that many
things which are thought of as being a mysical segula, are actually very
logical cause-and-effect relationships, and this one is a good example,
as will be shown below.

There may be other sources for this story, but the place I first read it
was in Drasha, which is one of the many fine e-mail classes published by
Project Genesis (http://www.torah.org), and is written by Rabbi
Mordechai Kamenetzky. In the issue for Parshas Vayera 5758, he wrote:

----- excerpt begins here -----

A man once entered the small study of the revered the Steipler Gaon,
Rabbi Yaakov Yisrael Kanievski with a plea. "I'd like a blessing from
the Rav. My daughter has been looking to get married for several
years. All her friends are married and she would like to get married
too, but nothing is working. Can the Rosh Yeshiva bless her to find her
bashert?  (appropriate one)," he asked.

The Steipler turned to the man and asked, "Is this your first daughter?" 

"No," replied the distraught parent, "Why do you ask?" 

"When she was born did you celebrate with a kiddush?"

The man was perplexed. "No. But, that was 27 years ago," he stammerred,
"and she was my third girl. I may have made a l'chayim while the minyan
was leaving shul, but I never made a proper kiddush. But what does a
missed kiddush 27 years ago have to do with my daughter's shidduch
(match) today?"

"When one makes a kiddush at a festive occasions," explained Rav
Kanievski, "each l'chayim he receives is accompanied by myriad
blessings.  Some are from friends, others from relatives, and those
blessings given by total strangers.

"Among those blessings are definitely the perfunctory wishes for an easy
time in getting married. By not making a kiddush for your daughter, how
many blessings did you deprive her of? I suggest you make your daughter
the kiddush that she never had."

The man followed the advice, and sure enough within weeks after the
kiddush the girl had met her mate.

----- excerpt ends here -----

Drasha, Copyright (c) 1997 by Rabbi M. Kamenetzky and Project Genesis,
Inc. This list is part of Project Genesis: Torah on the Information
Superhighway. Permission is granted to redistribute electronically or on
paper, provided that this notice is included intact.

----- copyright notice ends here -----

I want to stress that I do *not* know for a fact that Rav Kanievski ever
said the things which this story attributes to him. But that is less
important than the message here: When a person gives us a brachah, even
a perfunctory one, we should not take it lightly. And even more so,
should be be sincere and heartfelt when we give others such
blessings. And if you want to know what all this has to do with Parshas
Vayera, click here to read the full Drasha:

Akiva Miller


From: Carl Singer <CARLSINGER@...>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 09:24:08 EDT
Subject: Re: Kosher Le'Mehadrin

<< Unfortunately, I fear that the issue of Kashrut has taken on some
aspects of this historical issue.  I hope I'm wrong (and I'll probably
get flamed for daring to think so), but I think it is an important
enough issue that we should see what influence our chumrot have on the
common jew, religious or not, who suddenly finds their kitchens and
cooking "not good enough" for some other jews.

To emphasize, I'm not talking about basic kashrut, but the chumrot which
divide us.

Shoshana L. Boublil >>

This wonderful mushul brings up interesting issues of derech eretz --
How does one best deal with questions of Kashrut from a social aspect,
as in other people's homes?

The recent "chulent" question -- now clarified, someone stirred the
chulent, thus hastening its cooking (to some, it may have already been
cooked) ---- May I eat it?  -- certainly a worthwhile question (shailoh)

BUT ALSO, how do I respond to the situation (a) determining what
happened, (b) perhaps discussing a priori these issues with either the
host(ess) and the chulent-napping visitor and (c) if my decision is not
to eat the chulent, how to do so / what to say (if anything) to whom?
(D) if my decision is to eat the chulent ....

When inviting guests to our home my wife frequently asks them what they
will eat in regards to three things (in no specific order:) (a)
preferences or distates (b) kashruth (she'll ask a Lubavitcher if
they'll eat such and such a schita, Rubashkin for example) and (c)
allergies and health issues.  The kashruth one can be touchy.

About a year ago we were invited to a Shabbos meal by a BT couple whom
we didn't know that well.  (We have on occasion privately asked
someone's Rabbi, if it was OK to eat at a specific congregants home.)
Everything was fine.  But when we returned the invitation, they
apparently won't eat in our home (there loss) -- sort of got the hint
after 3 or 4 tries.  They needn't worry about getting any further
invites from us.

I know of many congregational Rabbi's who won't eat in ANY congregants
home -- lest they have to refuse to eat in any specific one.  Several
years ago when one of our sons made a siyum on all of Mishneh, we hosted
a small seudah (to have a minyan.)  We brought in catered meals, so our
Rabbi could attend without setting any precedence.

When we were newlyweds living in Philadelphia, Lower Merion Synagogue
had a cake sale.  Each cake was labeled with what it was and who baked
it.  We were new (and I guess relative strangers) and our cake
languished unsold for much of the event.  Either they didn't trust our
kashruth or my wife's baking abilities.  Rebbetzin Levene bought the
cake -- a true act of chesed that saved us from much distress.

Two old stories retold:

Someone once had a delightful posting re: the person who that they had
been "poisoned" (so to speak) when shortly after a fleishig meal, they
were served fruit on a milchig plate.

My wife's response to a wouldbe guest asking "do you toyvel your dishes"
was a simple, "no."  (No explanation given to the questioner.)  --- (A
Litvak through and through - nebach - she doesn't toyvel plastic.  And
better yet she didn't see the need to offer any explanation!)

In a diverse community with multiple standards / chumrahs, kashruth has
certainly taken on a social dimension.  Maybe I was especially naive as
a child in the 50's, but I don't recall any problem eating a homes
within my parent's circle of friends.

Today, I see many synagogues that rule all food must be (a) from an
approved list of caterers or (b) prepared in the shule using shule
utensils, etc.  "Pot luck" dinners (where different people each bring
different entrees, desserts, etc.) seem to be a thing of the past, as
are progressive Succah meals (appetizer at plony A, soup at plony B,
  .... dessert at plony Y, more dessert at plony Z.)

Also, some schools have to be especially vigilant re: children sharing
food, etc.

Food and dining are, after all, major social happenings.

Carl Singer


From: Rivkah Isseroff <rrisseroff@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 08:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Ranges and Ovens

Hi- This may have been discussed already, and if so, perhaps someone
could guide me to the archived discussion. We will be purchasing a new
gas range/oven (in the US), and wanted to be aware of the halachic
ramifications of the options now available--eg things like automatic 24
hr shut off ovens seem problematic for Yomim Tovim, and gas ovens that
don't have a self-clean cycle (like the commercial type Vikings,
Thermadors, Wolfs) --how difficult is this to Kasher for Pesach?  If
anyone has specific knowledge or can direct me to an archive-- Iwould be
most appreciative!

thanks, rivkah isseroff


From: Perry Zamek <jmarksmn@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 16:58:26 +0300 (EET DST)
Subject: Tzedakah

Carl Singer, in MJ v32n86 writes, in response to Chana Luntz:

>We've wrestled this in our household.  For many years I was on the road
>most weeknights -- it was my wife who therefore dealt with most
>mischlochim.  To do so she wrote checks from our joint checking account
>(clearly with mutual understanding, but not to the specific
>transaction.)  This is clearly, an unclear situation vis a vis the above

If I recall correctly, the text of the Tenaim states "Veyishletun
benichseihon shaveh be-shaveh" (They shall control their assets on equal
terms -- my translation). If Carl wrote tenaim, he should then have no
problem with his wife writing cheques from the joint account for

In general, Esther and I discuss each of the payments we make to
tzedakah, either before or soon after making the payment. There has to
be lots of trust in a marriage, and, more specifically, general
agreement on the purposes that Tzedaka money should be put to.

On a similar note, there are occasional door-to-door collections for
foodstuffs in our area. Our 11-year-old children are sometimes put in
the position of being asked to give when we are not at home. What should
they do? In our case, the first time this happened, one of the children
remembered what *we* had given on a previous occasion, and gave
something similar. Afterwards, when we came home, he asked if he had
done the right thing. Naturally we were pleased with what he had done. I
am well aware that not all parents would agree with this approach, and
would suggest that the children be taught to say "We can't give unless
we check with our parents." Any comments?

However, how does these points now fit in with the halacha quoted by

Perry Zamek


From: Dov Teichman <DTnLA@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 02:09:26 EDT
Subject: Re: Tzitzit Question

Rabbi Yisroel Finman <NISHMAT@...> writes:

 <<  A garment made of solid pieces of leather does not require
 tzitzis. If the leather were cut into strips and woven or interlaced,
 then it would require tzitzts.
 The same criteria would hold true for other materials, like plastics.>>

Actually, Reb Moshe Feinstein in the first responsa of Vol. 2 of Igros
Moshe Orach Chaim refers to a Ra"sh and R' Ovadiah MiBartenura in
Tractate Keilim, as well as the Rambam in Mishna Torah, to prove that
leather garments, EVEN if woven from strips of leather, do NOT require
Tsitsis. Based on this, he concludes that artificial materials such as
Nylon and Rayon do not require Tsitsis, even if woven.

The Tzitz Eliezer (Rabbi Eliezer Waldenburg) in vol.12 # 3 argues with
Reb Moshe Feinstein's interpretations and quotes Reb Yonasan Shteif's
responsa as well as Reb Tzvi Pesach Frank's responsa in Har Tzvi to
conclude that one should not wear Nylon/Rayon garments without tsitsis
attached, as there is good reason to conclude that they are obligated in
the mitzvah of tsitsis.  I believe there is an article on this subject
in the sefer "Torah LoDaas" Vol. 2 in parshas Shlach.  

Dov Teichman


End of Volume 32 Issue 90