Volume 48 Number 04
Produced: Tue May 24 5:00:24 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Definition of "Chezkat Kashrut"
[Josh Backon]
The Great Divide (4)
[Stephen Colman, Elazar M. Teitz, Avi Feldblum, Immanuel
Burton]
Minyan and the Great Divide
[Anonymous]
Religious Non-Zionists (2)
[Israel Caspi, Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <BACKON@...> (Josh Backon)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 14:07 +0300
Subject: Definition of "Chezkat Kashrut"
120 years ago, the Aruch haShulchan YOREH DEAH Siman 119 went into great
detail explaining the parameters of "chezkat kashrut". I'll list some
main points:
1) suspicion (that a person doesn't strictly observe kashrut) doesn't
refer to testimony given in court; but even a hint of suspicion is
enough (AH YD 119 #20).
2) if one suspects that the person isn't observant, one is prohibited to
be his guest ("assur l'hitareach etzlo")
3) Chezkat kashrut: person puts on tefillin, goes to shul three times a
day, washes his hands before eating bread, and obligates his family to
observe kashrut (AH YD 119 #11)
I'd suggest going through all 51 paragraphs of this Siman.
Josh Backon
<backon@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <StephenColman2@...> (Stephen Colman)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 08:12:30 EDT
Subject: The Great Divide
A number of people have mentioned, quite correctly, how important Kovod
Habrios is, and as a result, when somebody claims to be 100% kosher, we
should accept that and eat at their house.
However, life is really not that simple. There are many different
standards of kashrus, with many individuals being machmir (stringent) on
themselves. For example with only using milk products that have been
shomered (supervised) from the time of milking, or by only eating
'glatt' meat, or with foods which are supervised by one religious
authority but not by another (and in many instances this is not merely
'political' but based on different understandings of the halochos of
kashrus). If a person takes on a certain Chumrah/ standard for himself
then it has the status of Halochoch for him. Why should he have to
compromise himself ? It should be enough to mention that he has
accepted certain stringencies that he would not expect others to take on
and please do not be offended if as a result he is unable to accept
hospitality from somebody who has not accepted the same stringencies. I
would go as far as to suggest that it would not be kovod Habrios if the
'host' would be upset and try to persuade the other person to eat at his
home....
However, I would go further. In many cases ignorance plays a major part.
I remember as a boy going to a (religious) friend's house to play, and
was quite surprised to find a product (Heinz Baked Beanz) being offered
for lunch. This product was/is without any Hechsher and definitely not
acceptable by the London kashrus authorities. However, that family - out
of ignorance - used it - still calling themselves 'kosher'. Being
involved in outreach, how many times have I heard the phrase - 'we keep
a kosher home', but have then discovered that their definition of
'kosher' differs to mine, with their kitchen containing non-kosher
margerine/cakes/bread/wine etc etc - all out of ignorance. (It wasn't
that long ago that the London Beis Din did not insist on kosher wines
being served at a supervised function - and simply stated that the wines
were not under their supervision).
Surely Kovod Habrios does not mean compromising your accepted standards
so as not to embarrass somebody - but rather the way you communicate
your standards to the other person in a way that does not upset
them. This word, 'communication' is, in my humble opinion, the key to
many problems/arguements within our wider kehilla
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 13:30:09 GMT
Subject: re: The Great Divide
Someone wrote, "I'm under the impression that Jews violating Shabbat
publicly refers only to Jews that violate Shabbat out of spite."
This demonstrates the problem of making Halachic statements based on
impression, rather than by consulting sources. For all other
prohibitions violated, it is only if done out of spite that the person
is disqualified; but there are two cases in which motive is irrelevant:
idolatry and Shabbos. If the person is aware of the prohibition of
Shabbos and violates it publicly, whether for spite or for personal
benefit, his shechitah is not kosher, the wine he touches is prohibited,
and he does not count to a minyan.
Elazar M. Teitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Tues, 23 May 2005
Subject: re: The Great Divide
I'll continue on the "impression" in that I do not have a written
source, but I think that I heard this from my father zt"l. Given what R'
Teitz brings above, why is it that Shabbat differs from
all the other prohibitions? The answer is (and I do not remember talking
about Avodah Zarah in the conversation, but it fits well into the
response) that the public violation of Shabbat was not simply a
violation of the mitzvah of Shabbat, but was the way a person indicated
that s/he was totally rejecting the Jewish people and the Jewish way of
life. This was the practical reality of many hundreds of years. Thus, if
you had a person who publically violated Shabbat, the Halacha treated
that person not as simply one who had sinned, but as one who left the
fold completely and in a spiteful or vindictive way. We therefore had
many of the rules that R' Teitz brought above.
However, if you have someone who drives to shul every Shabbat, may come
during the week, takes part in many shul and other Jewish activities,
donates to Jewish causes etc, it is clear that the person is not
rejecting the Jewish people and the Jewish way of life. In our times,
Shabbat has simply become another Mitzvah, and does not in any way
indicate the type of rejection that was the historical reality till
relatively recently. Most Jews (not Orthodox Jews) even if they "know"
about Shabbat, even if they have had a Jewish Day School education, do
not see the public violation of Shabbat as in any way inconsistant with
being a Jew.
Given this current historical / social reality, it was (as far as I
remember) my father opinion that we cannot use the previous standard of
"public violator of Shabbat" in the manner it was used in the past, and
instead we must view them similar to a violator of any other Mitzvah.
Avi Feldblum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 10:45:50 +0100
Subject: Re: The Great Divide
I am intrigued by the practicalities of stating that non-frum people
don't count towards a minyan. For example, say one is in an airport and
one assembles ten people for a minyan - is one really going to conduct a
survey of all one's fellow travellers to assess their 'eligibility'?
Immanuel Burton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anonymous
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 14:17:21
Subject: Re: Minyan and the Great Divide
In response to my comment, "But a person who is aware of the nature of
Shabbat and its prohibitions and chooses not to observe it, for whatever
reason, or a person who knowingly and spitefully (not for personal gain
or pleasure) violates any commandment -- such a person is indeed not
counted towards a minyan," Jeanette Friedman responded,
"Anonymous assumes that humans are mind-readers, judges of actions that
should be judged by God alone. Since that is not the case--humans are
not mind readers, and should not judge others on issues where they have
nothing to go on except for the fact that a guy isn't wearing a
kippah--the whole point is moot."
It should be pointed out that I did not express an opinion; I quoted a
halacha in Shulchan Aruch. To make the above statement thus represents
disrespect in the extreme for Jewish law.
It is also intellectually dishonest. Nowhere was the comment made about
"judg[ing] others on issues where they have nothing to go on except for
the fact that a guy isn't wearing a kippah." I mentioned two cases:
(1) a person who is aware of the prohibitions of Shabbat and chooses not
to observe it -- no mind-reading necessary to determine that. (Of
course, if we don't know whether or not he is aware of the
prohibitions, he is given the benefit of the doubt, as Perry Zamek
indicated in his response; but if it is known that the person is
aware -- if, e.g., he is a day-school graduate -- it takes no ESP
skills to determine that he is a knowing violator.)
(2) a person who knowingly and spitefully (not for personal gain or
pleasure) violates any commandment. Here, too, if we don't know
otherwise, we give the benefit of the doubt and say that it is
probably for personal benefit; but if it is known that it is done
for spite (someone like Tommy Lapid comes to mind, though it need
not be that extreme a case), that individual is disqualified with
recourse to mind-reading being necessary.
Kiruv is a wonderful goal, and one should never give up on any Jew. But
kiruv is also not an excuse to violate Jewish law. To act otherwise is
to say that the end justifies the means, and is also in direct violation
of a precept of Jewish law: "We do not say 'sin,' in order that a fellow
Jew derive merit." (Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 4a, slightly paraphrased)
The above is also a response to Carl Singer's coments. He also took
issue with my saying that not counting the non-observant to a minyan is
"not far from the truth" by asking, "[I]s truth shades of gray or
absolute?"
Of course, truth is absolute, but non-truth has different gradations of
distance from the truth. To say of an eight-room house that it has 9 is
untrue, but not as far from the truth as saying that it has 100.
Likewise, while the blanket statement of not being counted is untrue, it
is not that far from the truth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Israel Caspi <icaspi@...>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 08:20:52 -0500
Subject: Religious Non-Zionists
On 17 May 2005, <md.stern@...> (Martin Stern ) wrote:
"Personally I find this sort of posturing rather puerile though the same
would apply to someone who refuses to attend a shul on the political
grounds that no prayer for the Israeli state is said. Can't we put our
political disagreements into perspective and not go out of our way to
insult those members of Torah Jewry with whom we may disagree."
IMHO it is neither puerile nor political, but a very serious religious
issue. The Rabbinate has declared the State of Israel to be "raysheet
t'smichat geulataynu." Those who refuse to pray for its welfare claim
an illegitimacy for the existence of a Jewish state on religious, not
political grounds. Yet, in the event of a hostile attack, they will
expect the (illegitimate) government and those who serve in its armed
forces -- for whose welfare they also do not pray -- to protect them...
not relying on their Torah studies as protection which many of them give
as their reason for not themselves serving in the army.
No, it is definitely a religious issue! And unless there is no
alternative, I personally will continue to refuse -- on religious
grounds -- to daven in a shul which does not say the prayer for the
State of Israel and/or for Cha-ya-lay Tza-Hal or, for that matter, to
use a siddur which was published after 1948 that does not contain the
prayer for the State of Israel and/or for for Cha-ya-lay Tza-Hal.
--Israel Caspi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 15:24:36 +0100
Subject: Re: Religious Non-Zionists
on 23/5/05 2:20 pm, Israel Caspi at <icaspi@...> wrote:
> IMHO it is neither puerile nor political, but a very serious religious issue.
> The Rabbinate has declared the State of Israel to be "raysheet t'smichat
> geulataynu."
This point is open to dispute. Whereas the State appointed rabbinate
holds this opinion, there are many others who do not. Whether it is
correct will only be determined with the coming of Mashiach bimherah
veyameinu.
> Those who refuse to pray for its welfare claim an illegitimacy for the
> existence of a Jewish state on religious, not political grounds.
This is not true. Even if the State of Israel is not a messianic
phenomenon, it is still the state in which Jews live and therefore it is
legitimate for those living there to pray for its welfare as much as any
other country, even Tsarist Russia. However the formula suggested by the
State appointed rabbinate with its reference to "reishit t'smichat
geulataynu"may be objectionable on religious grounds. Would Israel Caspi
object to shuls in Israel where a less controversial formula were used?
> Yet, in the event of a hostile attack, they will expect the
> (illegitimate) government and those who serve in its armed forces --
> for whose welfare they also do not pray -- to protect them... not
> relying on their Torah studies as protection which many of them give
> as their reason for not themselves serving in the army.
If this is his objection, would he be happy to daven in a shul outside
Israel where the general principle of praying for the welfare of the
government would refer to the country in which it is? In our shul we
pray for the welfare of our fellow Jews in Israel in addition to our
local ruler.
> No, it is definitely a religious issue! And unless there is no
> alternative, I personally will continue to refuse -- on religious
> grounds -- to daven in a shul which does not say the prayer for the
> State of Israel and/or for Cha-ya-lay Tza-Hal or, for that matter, to
> use a siddur which was published after 1948 that does not contain the
> prayer for the State of Israel and/or for for Cha-ya-lay Tza-Hal.
If he means to include shuls in the diaspora, this is definitely a
political rather than religious stance. Lo be koach velo bechyil asher
beruchi ...
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 48 Issue 4
