Volume 65 Number 97 
      Produced: Wed, 12 Oct 22 05:21:11 -0400

Subjects Discussed In This Issue:

Areshet sefateinu 
    [Martin Stern]
Eating at other people's homes (4)
    [Joseph Kaplan  David Ziants  Ari Trachtenberg  Meir Shinnar]
Eating in one's Rabbi's home or at a Shul kiddush 
    [Prof. L. Levine]
The sacrifices of young bulls and sin-offerings on Succot 
    [Haim Snyder]


From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Oct 11,2022 at 05:17 PM
Subject: Areshet sefateinu

Perets Mett wrote (MJ 65#96):
> Martin Stern wrote (MJ 65#92):
>> In the Altona machzor, it has "kol teru'ateinu" after the malkhiyot and "kol
>> teki'ateinu" after the zikhronot and shofarot.
> Daniel Goldschmidt in the introduction to his edition of the Machzor for Rosh
> Hashanah (p. 48) writes:
> "The communities of West Germany were especially particular to say after the
> malchiyot "ma'azin umakshiv seder teru'ateinu" but after the zichronot and
> shofarot "ma'azin umakshiv seder teki'ateinu" in order to emphasise that the
> tashrat blasts (according to the West German custom [to blow tashrat after
> malchiyot, tashat after zichronot, and tarat after shofarot - a total of ten
> blasts] must include a [correct] terua' whereas there is a doubt regarding the
> terua' in tashat and tarat".

This is all very well except that the Altona machzor follows Minhag Polen,
the East German custom, which had adopted the ruling of Rabbbeinu Tam to
blow tashrat for all three.

Martin Stern


From: Joseph Kaplan <penkap@...>
Date: Sun, Oct 9,2022 at 05:17 PM
Subject: Eating at other people's homes

Prof. L. Levine wrote (MJ 65#96):

> While one may hold that all the members in the shul have a chezkat kashrut,
> this does not mean that everyone has the same kashrus standards. There are
> many hashgachas, and they do not have the same standards. I personally rely
> on the OU and 3 heimishe hashgachas only. I know that most people do not do
> what I do regarding kashrus, and that is certainly their prerogative.  They
> may indeed have a "chezkat kashrut", but it is not the same as my personal
> standards, so I do not eat in other people's homes.

Prof. Levine has put his finger on exactly where he and I (and my rabbi) have
somewhat different ideas about kashrut standards. I, and I believe many others,
have personal kashrut standards that we follow in our own homes and when we eat
out in restaurants and the like. But we recognize that those standards do not
mean the other Orthodox standards are not kosher because we certainly wouldn't
want to be accusing other observant Jews of eating non-kosher. Which results in
the following dilemma when invited to homes of those following different
standards. Do we insist on following our own standards and not share a Shabbat
meal in our friends' home or do we share the meal, hospitality, and friendship
knowing that the food is objectively kosher even if not up to our standards.
There clearly isn't only one right answer as our different responses show. But
there isn't a wrong answer either. 

Which brings me to the concluding comment that I made about a well know MO
rabbi, thinker, and scholar speak who once said the purpose of kashrut is for
Jews to eat together not to see how many houses of Jews you can't eat in.

Prof. Levine commented that there are other purposes of kashrus than what this
MO rabbi stated. For some these may outweigh his assertion about Jews eating

He's exactly right. This is an issue that Orthodox Jews differ about; some
emphasize one value and others another.  Actually makes life more interesting, I

Joseph Kaplan 

From: David Ziants <dziants@...>
Date: Tue, Oct 11,2022 at 06:17 PM
Subject: Eating at other people's homes

The moderator remarked concerning my response (MJ 65#96) to what Joel Rich wrote
(MJ 65#94) asking about eating at homes of other people in one's community -
that he was asking about a rav of a shul or kehillah rather than a private
individual, and I did not notice that part of the question, and apologise for
this. So I gave a general answer that was already discussed on MJ a number of
years ago, regarding anyone in the community, and I quoted the position of Rav
Eliezer Melamed now published in his Pninai Halacha.

I do not see, at least in those chapters, that he makes a distinction between
the rav of the community and anyone else concerning accepting invitations.
According to the parameters he gives, it seems that the rav of the community
need not be any different to any other member of the community with regards to
flexibility vs following one's family custom when eating out, and I understand
from this it would even be a mistake for the rav to act differently from what is
demanded from anyone else, because many community members might want to try and
emulate the rav with regards to this. I also had a quick look in his chapters on
shelichut (becoming rabbanim in communities abroad), but did not see anything on
this point.

With this, I do see rabbanim both in Israel and abroad who are suspicious about
everyone else's standard. There is an example where someone wants to bring a
present of fruit from his fruit tree, and feels more comfortable in bringing
tevel (i.e t'rumot and ma'aserot not yet separated) and making it clear it is
tevel so that t'rumot and ma'aserot can be separated by the recipient with the
requisite b'racha/b'rachot, rather than the recipient being in doubt about this
person doing everything correctly and feeling that he needs to separate again
without a b'racha.

I also understand Joel's question with regards to communities - especially
outside Israel - where many of the members are less knowledgeable in Jewish law
and would come under Rav Melamed's definition of "m'sorati" (traditional) or
even lower - rather than "dati" - but the person thinks that he does everything
perfectly due to this lack of knowledge. It can also be the other way around
where a pulpit "Rabbi" has only a rudimentary knowledge of details like the
parameters of mixing meat and milk - has established for himself and his family
many stringencies that are really not needed, for example covering surfaces like
on Pesach - and feels awkward when he sees the shul goers following kashrut in a
more normative manner.

Mo'adim l'simcha,
David Ziants

From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Tue, Oct 11,2022 at 08:17 PM
Subject: Eating at other people's homes

Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz wrote (MJ 65#96):

> One rav took on himself to eat only Bais Yosef Shechita in order to avoid this
> problem. He even did not eat at restaurants for which he was Rav Hamachsir in
> order to avoid situations that might arise.

Three things came to mind when reading this (none targeted to the author, of

0.  Why is taking on an unnecessary stricture any more appropriate than taking on
    an unnecessary leniency?

1.  I would not feel comfortable eating at a restaurant where the Rav Hamachsir
    refuses to eat.  This refusal to eat represents a very tangible and public 
    lack of faith in the kashrut of the establishment.

2.  I only wish that people were as careful about their interactions with one 
    another as they are with kashrut.


From: Meir Shinnar <chidekel@...>
Date: Tue, Oct 11,2022 at 10:17 PM
Subject: Eating at other people's homes

Yitzchok Levine wrote (MJ 65#96):

> While one may hold that all the members in the shul have a chezkat kashrut,
> this does not mean that everyone has the same kashrus standards. There are
> many hashgachas, and they do not have the same standards. I personally rely
> on the OU and 3 heimishe hashgachas only. I know that most people do not do
> what I do regarding kashrus, and that is certainly their prerogative. They
> may indeed have a "chezkat kashrut", but it is not the same as my personal
> standards, so I do not eat in other people's homes

RYL is entitled to his personal standards. However, he is also recommending
these standards to others, as normative, and is clearly bothered by others
relying on chezkat kashrut.

It therefore may be worthwhile to look at more normative sources. RSZ Auerbach
was asked by the head of Michlala what to advise American students who had dati
le'umi relatives - those relatives normally used Rabbanut hashgachot that the
michlala staff did not rely on. RSZA told him that they may eat at those
relatives - those hashgachot were ok mei'ikar hadin, even if they didn't follow
some shitot he preferred - and when visiting people, that was acceptable. RSZA
remarked that Rav Sonnenfeld (who was first rav of the eirah hacharedis) when
invited to weddings, would eat from hashgachot he normally would not accept
(more details and other related incidents in Ve'alehu lo yibol)

Rav Moshe Feinstein has a tshuvah where he ordered one hashgacha that it had to
accept another hashgacha - unless it had specific issues it could bring to a bet
din. (A rav of a former shul of mine - with impeccable credentials - had a
similar psak - any hashgacha by an Orthodox rav was acceptable unless it was
known that there were problems)

In another tshuva (YD 6:6), when asked about someone who had issues with a
caterer - RMF said that "midina eyn zeh safek clal mishum chashashot shelo
leha'amin lehamashgiach verav - shehatora he'eminatam midin eid echad neeman
be'issurim [according to the law , there is no doubt at all over worries not to
trust the mashgiach and rabbi - the Torah believed them according to the legal
principle that we believe one witness in matters of ritual law]

This position has been confirmed to me in the name of other major rabbis.

It seems clear that the majority of the major poskim by which we live do think
we can rely on regular hashgachot and reliability of other observant Orthodox
people - and that one can accept such invitations. One may have some positions
that one views as normative but others view as chumrot (eg hadash [new wheat
crop before Pesach] outside of Israel) but for most of us that is not a problem.
I think the cited position by rav Melamed is in agreement with this.

I would add that there is a general rule that being strict in one area should
not lead to leniency in another. RYL is very strict in kashrut. However, not
only is he strict personally - but he promotes his stringencies publicly. The
consequence of this publicity is being lenient in denigrating the kashrut and
reliability of others - both other rabbinic supervisions as well as people, both
laity and rabbinic, who rely on our major poskim - and I would argue that such
denigration is problematic

Meir Shinnar


From: Prof. L. Levine <llevine@...>
Date: Wed, Oct 12,2022 at 04:17 AM
Subject: Eating in one's Rabbi's home or at a Shul kiddush

Joel Rich (MJ 65#94) raised the issue of a rabbi eating at congregants' homes. I
would like to broaden the issue and discuss whether a congregant should eat at
his rabbi's home or at a shul kiddush when the food served is approved by one's

In my experience, the rabbi of a shul may not have the same standards as some of
his congregants. Indeed, the rabbi may use hechshers that the congregant does
not use. Or the rabbi may approve take outs that use, for example, meat from
sources that the congregant does not use. The rabbi may allow food to come into
his shul from such sources.

I do not think that a shul rabbi should be considered the ultimate standard
setter for kashrus. In my experience I have standards which differ greatly from
those of most rabbis.

Before eating at a shul kiddush, I always ask, "Where does the food come from?"
More often than not, it is from a place that I do not eat from. Hence, I rarely
eat at a shul kiddish, and, if invited, would respectfully decline an invitation
from a shul rabbi to eat at his home.

Professor Yitzchok Levine


From: Haim Snyder <haimsny@...>
Date: Wed, Oct 12,2022 at 04:17 AM
Subject: The sacrifices of young bulls and sin-offerings on Succot

It is well known that 70 young bulls were sacrificed over the seven days of
Succot, for the 70 nations of the world. It would have been perfectly reasonable
to have brought 10 each day for the 7 days, but this is not what was commanded.
Instead, 13 were brought on the first day, 12 on the second, 11 on the third, 10
on the fourth, 9 on the fifth, 8 on the sixth and 7 on the last day (Hoshana Rabba).

The Vilna Gaon explains this in his perush in parshat Pinchas. He asks about the
sin-offerings, why on days 1,2 and 4 is it written "se'ir izim ehad l'hatat [one
male of the goats for a sin-offering]", whereas on days 3,5,6 and 7 it is
written "se'ir hatat ehad [one he-goat for a sin offering]"?

His answer is that the 70 nations are divided between Yishamel and Esau. The
Torah tells us that Esau was called "se'ir" and the Zohar says that Yishmael was
"se'ir izim". Now we look at the number of young bulls sacrificed on the days
that "se'ir izim" is written and we find that on day one 13 were brought, day
two 12 were brought and day four 10 were brought. The total is 35, exactly half.
And since Yishmael was before Esau [his son in law! - MOD], "se'ir izim" is on
the first day and we don't get to "se'ir" until day 3.

Moadim l'simcha


Haim Shalom Snyder

Petah Tikva


End of Volume 65 Issue 97