B'rachot in Dispute - Introduction

BE"H I am planning a series in 3 parts or more on various B'rachot that are debated or subject to Halachic controversy.

Part 1 - An outline List of Disputed B'rachot according to several categories. This list may grow due to feedback

Part 2 - Mar'eh M'komot in Halachic literature that discuss these cases. This may be the largest component

Part 3 - Analyzing the sources and categories, especially inductively, to find common underlying dynamics that trigger such disputes.

Best Regards,
RRW

Exploring Parameters of Halachah for our Time

Originally published on 6/1/11, 8:12 pm.
Certainly we see changes in Halachah towards Humrot. For example, who grew up with a Fleishig Oven? Thus leaving Traditional Halachah behind poses risks of going-out-of-bounds
Yet the alternative presented by the Left of "Halachic Fundamentalism" is no solution either. How can we address the shifts in technology? Do we become Luddites in order to enshrine a "status quo we can believe in"?

Here are some topics I'd like to address over the next few weeks

1. Intellectual Property as addressed by Torah
2. Microwave Cooking
3. Brain Stem Death
4. New Behaviours in the realm of Human Sexuality
5. Bicycles on Yom Tov

The common thread is how to apply or to expand existing Torah principles without doing violence to Halachah or even Hashqafah? Some principles may fall outside strict Halachic guidelines but well within Aggadic Values.
A Corollary to this is exploring any Naffqa Minah between expanding old existing Halachah for new situations vs. Brand new Social Policy Legislation.

Shalom,
RRW

NISHMA: Policy -- Orthodoxy and Homosexuality

Originally published 12/30/10, 6:24 pm.
Our new blog, NISHMA: Policy, is devoted to analyzing policy issues within the world of Torah.

The latest post concerns Orthodoxy and Homosexuality and attempts to look at the issue from a holistic approach, identifying sub-issues as part of the greater picture.

We invite you to take a look...and comment.

Seeing Policies Everywhere 3 - Harchaqa

Sources:
See Rambam Hilchot Hametz Touger Edition 1:9+10

Rambam says that the penalty for eating Hametz in the 7th hour one is Malkut Rambam says that the penalty for eating Hametz in the 6th hour is Makkat Mardut For the 5th hour - nada. [Lechem Mishneh makes this point] [Touger quotes] Tzofnat Panei'ach 83 who makes the following hilluq The 6th hour is an issur d'rabbanan The 5th hour is ONLY a safeguard [viz. G'zeira mishum yom hm'unan] - Thus we see an illustration between an issur d'rabbanan and a g'zeira d'rabban - IE when that g'zeira is a syag

-------------------------
Tangentially supporting this:

The aforementioned SA Harav hilchot Sukkah 629:29-33

re: n'sarim that are assur as schach due to a ch'shash. There b'diavad - they're OK - Normally what is Pasul for s'chach is always passul, but not here since it's ONLY due to ch'shash.

Disclaimer: I do not mean to imply that every g'zeira d'rabbanan has no post facto consequences. Rather that it occupies a specific place along the spectrum. And at times it's akin to a "minhag"

KT
RRW

Seeing Policies Everywhere 2 - G'zeria Talmudic and in Codes

Here is an example of a post-Talmudic policy Humra - essentially protecting what is originally itself a Talmudic g'zeira Or perhaps merely ignoring the Talmudic g'zeira's original parameters, and redefining them to match current realities.

Re: Using N'sarim [roofing boards or planks] for s'chach - 4 t'fachim or even those less....

I was learning with my havruta the following: SA Harav Hilchot Sukkah 629:29-33

As my havruta has asked me "how can we make a g'zeira to a g'zeira?". * IE the Talmud was gozeir against n'sarim gt:: 4 t'fachim - and posqim said nowadays even if lt: 4.

Original Talmudic g'zeira: see s'ief 29 fn 195-199 [viz. No nsarim allowed gt: 4 t'fachim]

Then see s'if 32 "v'achshav bizman hazeh... " fn 209 and his lashon "g'zeira shema yeisheiv" [viz. Any nesser big enough NOW for a tiqra [ceiling] is also under the G'zeira]

Background:

See Rambam MT Hilchot Sukkah 5:7 and Hagahot Maimoniyyot 6 in the name of Sefer Mitzvot Qatan

[Also Tur 629 quoting Sma"q and Darchei Moshe 629:9 quoting Hagahot Maimoniyot.]

Then See Shulchan Aruch R Caro O"H 629:18 where he terms it "minhag" [as per Tur and sources above] but seems more machmir in terms of scope [namely any nesser period - regardless of size. Whilst the posqim above seemed concerned only about a nesser that is contemporary use for roofing. Perhaps SA was writing shorthand]

Then see Mishanh Brurah 629:49 "Yeish mai-harishonim .."That it's "assur midina"[Shaar haTziyyun 72 - same sources as fn 209 above]

In summary The G'zeira of SA Harav may simple be that of a "minhag-G'zeira" - analogous to Qitniyyos. Rambam's MT himself uses this term.

The MB apparently morphs the Minhag to be Machmir as actual "din". The dynamics here are unclearBottom Line:Post-Talmudic G'zeirot/Policies are Still being promulgated by posqim. Some are more transparent as g'zeirot, others seem to be "masquerading" as something else.

* to answer my havrusa's question I will say that there are TWO versions of G'zeirot [there are many more, but we"ll keep it simple]

Gz'eira#1 is TALMUDIC; Gz'eira#2 is Post-Talmudic "hanhagah. "There is a hanhagga from Rishonim to protect the g'zeira of the Talmud, or to simple redefine its parameters [as stated above] Based upon Rambam, this is a top-down "hanhaggah" legislated [not pasqened] by rabbis and its long-term authority is determined by acceptance.

KTRRW

Seeing Policies Everywhere 1 - Transparency

Rav Shmuel Wosner: Can A Baal Korei Read The Torah With A Transparent Overlay? » Matzav.com - The Online Voice of Torah Jewry

[Rav Wosner] answers that technically this is permitted since reading through plastic or glass is considered reading the actual scroll. However, he says that he does not feel comfortable giving his stamp to this new innovation. He suggests solving the problem in the traditional way, which is for someone with a Chumash to whisper into the ear of the Baal Korei and the Baal Korei read from the Sefer Torah.

http://matzav.com/rav-shmuel-wosner-can-a-baal-kriah-read-the-torah-with-a-transparent-overlay


So when a gadol/rav/poseiq says not to do that which is "technically permitted" is this:

1. Policy?
2. Da'at Torah?
3. 1=2 anyway ;-)
4. Making up new Halachah?

KT
RRW

Seeing Policies Everywhere - Gerut 1

In the wake of the Gerut Controversy, I'm offering an educated but NOT an expert opinion on this matter I have posted this in another forum and I will BEH expand upon this further.

I think that making a policy l'chatchila to be strict is certain within the purview of Beth Din - l'migdar Milta OTOH - The highly controversial decision to revoke. Gerut retroactively seems to me as unprecedented Those who were already converted b'di'avad should all be grandfathered in as legitimate converts - perhaps barring some kind of scam.

AISI:
On a go forward basis we can then decide new "policy" particularly as "hora'at sha'ah" But I'm no dayan, so this is just an opnion - not a p'saq.»

KT
RRW

Seeing Policies Everywhere 17

In Shulchan Aruch Orach Hayyim 440:2 we are told that for any Hametz that we are NOT obligated to destroy, - we should [still] construct a M'hitzah 10 t'fachim high lest we forget and come to eat it.

The Be'er Hagolah 5 attributes this advice to a Meimra of Rav.

Questions for contemplation:

A. Had this SAME harchaqah been issued by a Rishon such as Rashi or Rambam or Tosafot, would we perceive it any differently?

B. Or what if an Acharon such as the M'chabeir or the Rema or the Mishnah Brurah had been the first to issue this ruling - would it really matter?

Finally, what if we figured this out on our own? Would this have been an over-the-top humra, or just plain common sense?

KT
RRW

Seeing Policies Everywhere 16

I recently post this on the Avodah List


Here are some related concepts

A Halachah v'ein morin kein
B Shimush vs. Text
C The language of Halacha
D Da'as teireh
E Meta-Halachah

It just seems obvious to me that rabbinic Judaism does not always strictly conform to textual standards and that meta considerations take over at times

A Not intermarrying
B Not running coffeemaker on timer on Shabbos
C Kashrus agencies certifying defensively to avoid certain gray areas
D Not using dishwashers for both dairy and meat simultaneously

To someone in the field and seeing both texts and real-life mimetics all are hashkafically obvious EVEN when the letter of the law might be different.

Relying on the letter of the law is helpful at times and often necessary "bishat had'chaq" or "b'diavad". We need to allow for accidents, extreme urgencies, we need flexibility

As policies, such minimalism will IMHO undermine simple piety and z'hirut. It's a bad plan at the outset to look for loopholes

Loopholes are OK AFTER the fact [post facto]

Q'doshim Tihyu

KT
RRW

Seeing Policies Everywhere 15

See Rema Yoreh Dei'ah 68:11 that even though we do NOT construe a kli sheini as m'vashel, nevertheless l'chatchila we do not singe off the hair [IOW we don't do m'liggah] in a kli sheini
Until the blood has been properly removed.

Exceptions are made for the sake of Guests or for Shabbat.

If this were absolute Halachah - such exceptions could be problematic.

KT
RRW

Seeing Policies Everywhere 14

I have been involved with debating some very touchy subjects re: the stated and unstated policies of various Kashrut Agencies and Administrators

In defense of some gray areas, I have raised some arguments that tended to support the agencies positions.

It seems several cyberspace colleagues have hostile positions towards those same agencies and therefore "went into a tizzie" re: my posts

They demanded that my arguments be compelling - rather than merely supportive. IOW it was not enough for them to see that sources tended to support those policies, rather the policies must flow strictly from sources that would dictate these positions. IOW Kashrut Agencies should have zero latitude to make a judgment call, nor should Rich Wolpoe support them unless there is no defensible alternative!

I really wonder how many individuals or institutions in Jewish life take such an absolute minimalist position. Does every Rabbi have to stick to the very LEAST required by Talmud or Shulchan Aruch?

I have suggested that the minimalists - assuming they are sincere - direct their energies to creating their own kashrut agency that will conform to their feelings and afford them the least restrictive policies on any given matter! After all in North America we have the freedom to start a new private enterprise and to give it a "charge" to follow the dictates of its owners or directors.

If Kashrut Agencies have indeed been over-stepping their bounds, then the marketplace will make these new and improved changes most welcome! And that would put pressure on existing agencies to re-think their positions.

OTOH, if the marketplace rejects such revisions, then railing against the agencies for having "good business sense" is simply futile and ultimately counter-productive.

KT
RRW

Seeing Policies Everywhere 13

My Havruta and I were learning Hilchot Shabbat in Zichru Torat Moshe [ZTM] and Q'hilat Yom Tov [QYT]


In siman 52 on Miqach v'mimkar the QYT 1 states - and we do not do Qiddushin on Shabbat

Then comes policy
There is a famous t'shuva of Rema [number not available now] about an extraordinary case when the Rema made an exception.

Several criteria were elaborated to provide that exception.

The final line
"P'shita" that we should be cautious at the outset to avoid this situation - quoting Hayei Adam [same author as ZTM]

AFAIK, the Rema himself prohibited weddings on erev Shabbat and YT

And now we can summarize

• Halachah:
No Qiddushin on Shabbat

• Policy: No Weddings before Shabbat or YT lest it extend into Shabbat

IR A harchaqah as a result of an incident - a maaseh shehayah.

KT
RRW

Seeing Policies Everywhere 12

Re: Niqqur [trabering or porging]

Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Dei'ah 65:13

If a m'naqqer left and we do not know if he is an expert in Niqqur, and there is no expert around - it's muttar.

Rema:
And [but] if it's possible to show it to an expert we do NOT rely on the m'naqqer.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan: "Verify Verify Verify"

Relying on assumptions - as per Rema - is an option absent any other process of verification

This in Talmudic parlance is akin to
"Rubba d'leita kamman." A Majority not in front of us [aiui - in order to verify]

But when verification is possible/feasible -it's simply not policy to rely upon anything less.

KT

RRW

Seeing Policies Everywhere 11

See Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Dei'ah 64 re: Hilchot Heilev - as in unkosher fat.
See especially Halachot 16-19
Also Rema 21 about the tabbach doing Niqqur before the sale.


Notice:
• How much is really Halachah mei'iqqar hadin?

• How much is policy?

KT
RRW

Seeing Policies Everywhere 10

Re: hag'alat keilim

Sources Rema O"Ch 452:2
Ba'er Heitev 14
[NB: citation from Shach from YD 95]
MB 20
Sha'ar HaTziyyun 23, 24

The Rema recommends "nahagu" never kashering an unkosher Ben Yomo
Pot? Why in case the water is less than 60 times that pot, it's a problem

This concern does not seem to be Talmudic. Nevertheless the Mishnah Brurah does treat this concern as a "gzeira" lest one mag'i'll a vessel in less than 1/60. A classic g'zeira formulation.

So mei'iqqar hadin as long as one has enough volume of water to make 60 times the problematic pot, it's OK to do hag'alah l'chatchilah.

However, the Rema presents us with a policy to not exploit this and to wait a day - at least l'chat'chila.

KT,
RRW

Seeing Policies Everywhere 9

Re: The issue of using Plastic Overlays containing Vowels and Troppe.

Notice that in both cases [for better or for worse] the iiqqar hadin is set aside for policy purposes.

From Mahpach Group,
Ari Kinsberg:

«while looking up something unrelated i came across r. wosner's original teshuvah. it is from 1989.

r. menashe klein also had a teshuvah on the matter from 1990/.see below for both

shabbat shalom-ari kinsberg

R Wosner:

שו"ת שבט הלוי חלק ח סימן כטב"ה, יום ג' אמור תשמ"ט לפ"קכבוד ידידינו היקר הרב המפואר כש"ת מוה"ר יצחק פלדמן שליט"א אחדשה"ט וש"ת. יקרתו קבלתי ואשר שאל אודות ביה"מ שלכם שאין בעל קורא בשבת וחשבתם עצה שיש להניח פלסטיק על יריעות ס"ת וכותבים עליו הטעמים והנקודות ואותיות ס"ת רואים דרך הפלאסטיק ובשבת בשעת קרה"ת מניחים הפלאסטיק על הס"ת ובדרך זה כ"א שיודע קצת טעמים יכול לקרות בנקל. ובתשובת הדבר אומר דאעפ"י דמעיקר הדין הדבר נוטה להיתר היות שרואים צורת אותיות הס"ת דרך פלסטיק השקוף, והטעמים והנקודות אינם כתובים על הס"ת עצמו אלא על הפלסטיק, ועיין יו"ד סו"ס רע"ד, ועיין בתשובת שבט הלוי ח"ג סי' קמ"ו דמש"כ שם להחמיר לכתחילה בדין ס"ת המנוקד ע"י חקיקה בקלף שלא בדיו כלל לא שייך כאן כמובן. מ"מ אין דעתי נוחה להנהיג חדשות לקרא דרך הפסק פלסטיק או זכוכית הגם אם נדון שבמקום שצריך ראי' יהי' זה נדון כראי' גמורה ואכ"מ בזה, ואין זה דומה לבעל קורא שאינו יכול לקרות רק דרך משקפים שלו. ואל לנו להתחכם נגד המבואר בשו"ע או"ח סי' קמ"ב ס"ב דישוב שאין מי שיודע לקרות בתורה כהלכתה בדקדוק וטעמים אפ"ה יקראו בתורה כהלכתה, מ"מ יותר טוב שמי שהוא ילחוש לקורא הטעמים מתוך חומש בלחש דאם יודע להבין מתוך הפלסטיק ק"ו שיבין מתוך החומש. והרני דו"ש בברכה מרובה, מצפה לרחמי ה'

R Klein:
שו"ת משנה הלכות חלק יא סימן רמב להניח פלאסטיק מנוקד על הס"ת ולקרות כך עש"ק לסדר ויקרא התש"נ בנ"י יצו"א. בחודש אשר בו ישועות מקיפות, ישלח לנו גואל צדק בדחיפות, ויגאלנו גאולת עולם, ובתוכם ידי"נ הרה"ג וו"ח נו"נ כש"ת מוה"ר אהרן מאיר קרויס שליט"א מ' אב"ד מלבורן. רב בב"פ. מח"ס זכרון יהושע. אחדשכ"ת בידידות. מכתבו קבלתי וגם המצורף והיות כי הייתי בארצינו הקדושה לקיים מצות ובנה ירושלים עיה"ק ואך חזרתי הביתה לא יכולתי להשיב בלתי היום. ובדבר אשר נשאל מהרב יצחק פעלדמאן מבערכעם בעלגיע בביה"מ שאין להם בעל קורא מצוי בימי הקיץ ויש עצה לכתוב הטעמים ולנקד נקודות על פלאסטיק (בלע"ז) ולהניח הפלאסטיק על היריעות וממילא יהיה קל לקרות אפי' למי שאינו בעל קורא אי שפיר דמי. ולפענ"ד יש לעיין אי זה בכלל איסור של נקודות ולכאורה אין בזה איסור משום ס"ת מנוקד אלא שיש לחוש שהעולה יחשוד שזה ס"ת מנוקד שהרי לא יבחין שזה על הפלאסטיק וא"כ עכ"פ משום חשדא יהא אסור או שאפשר דאנן לא גזרינן גזירות משום חשדא אטו שיכתבו טעמים, ומשום הפלאסטיק שקורא ולא מן הכתב יש לעיין בזה אי זה מקרי בע"פ ולכאורה לא גרע מבעל קורא שיש לו בתי עינים (בריללען בלע"ז) שג"כ מפסיק בין הכתב ובין העין וכנראה דלא בעי לראות דוקא בעין פקיחא בלי הפסק רק כל שיראה הכתב כשר, וקצת ראיה מנפל שעוה על האות שאם כיסה האות לגמרי ואינו ניכר אסור לקרות בס"ת ומיהו מותר לגרור השעוה וחזר ונתכשר ולא הוה חק תוכות עיין מג"א ופר"ח ובאה"ט א"ח סי' ל"ב סי"ז ואם השעוה צלולה ונראה האות מתוכו אם הוא בחול יגרור ואח"כ יקרא ואם הוא בשבת שאינו יכול לגרור כיון שהאות נראה מתוכו יקרא כך וכשר ויצא ידי קריאה עיין ביאור הלכה א"ח סי' ל"ב סי"ז הנ"ל. וא"כ לכאורה הכ"נ כיון שנראה הכתב ע"י הפלאסטיק יהיה כשר לקראת בו מעיקר דינא עכ"פ. האמנם להלכה לפענ"ד אין לעשות דבר כזה אלא יקרא מי שהוא ויעמודשו"ת משנה הלכות חלק יא סימן רמב אחד לנגדו בחומש ויקרא לפני הקורא בלחש שלא ישמעו כל העם רק הקורא והוא יקרא אחריו כמבואר בש"ע א"ח סי' קמ"ב ס"ב בישוב שאין מי שיודע לקרות בתורה בדקדוק ובטעמים יקראו בתורה בברכה כהלכתה וכתבו הלבוש וש"פ דאם יש מי שיודע עכ"פ לקרות הטעמים מתוך החומש יקרא זה מתוך החומש לפני האיש הקורא בס"ת להורות הדרך בנקודות וטעמים וכיון שכבר מבואר בש"ע כיצד יעשו בכה"ג כן יש לנהוג ואין לשנות כלל. דושה"ט וכאש"ל בלב ונפש, מנשה הקטן

KT
RRW

Seeing Policies Everywhere 8

Why do we use Kosher Dish Soap?

Dish Soap is not edible, it is nifsal mei'achilah, so why does it need to be made with Kosher Ingredients?

Is this a mere Humra b'alma or a serious Policy Matter that requires by Policy - not mei-iqqar hadin - to use only "kosher soap"?

KT
RRW

Seeing Policies Everywhere 7

A S'phardic Rav and I were discussing Post-Talmudic practices.

He mentioned to me that the idea of separate pots for meat and dairy is a later policy and is not rooted in Talmudic Law. IOW a poor family could continually kasher a pot back and forth , or for S'phardim rely on Na"t bar Na"T to use a day old pot l'chatchilah.

I'm not sure of the precise logistics re: using a day old pot.

He also said that since glass does not absorbed it is inherently Pareve and could "swing both ways" [my words NOT his]

Thus it appears that "separate dishes" is not an absolute Halachic requirement but a Policy

Note: I prefaced our discussion with a general observation that about 80% of what we do is Post-Talmudic. Of course this was "guzma" because I never actually went through everything we do, but things like Qaddish, the nusach hat'fillah etc. [Not the foundational principles] really coalesced in Gaonic times.

KT
RRW

Seeing Policies Everywhere 6

Tearing Q'RIAH during Chol Hamoed

Sources:
SA 547:6
Beer Hagolah 8
Rema. There
Ba'er Hetev 4
Shaarei T'shuvah 4
Mishnah Brurah 16,17

Mechabeir:
Restricts Q'riah somewhat during Chhm Based upon mishna in Elu m'galchin

Viz.
ONLY relatives over whom one must mourn, plus Hacham, Adam Kasher....

Rema:
Bnei Ashk'naz [IE "Yekkes"] only tear for parents on Chol hamoed..

MB 15 Concludes: following Rema
"Where there is no clear minhag we tear on behalf of all of them [IE the ones enumerated by the m'chabeir] because that is the "Iqqar Hadin"

Implying where there IS a clear Minhag to the contrary that Minhag DOES Override "Iqqar Hadin" - [at least in this matter and probably for all laws of Aveilut]

We cannot CHOOSE this Minhag, however. The default IS indeed "iqqar hadin". We must acquire the minhag as a bona fide b'nei Ashk'naz [or another place with this Minhag]

How that happens is a subject for a future post BEH.

KT
RRW

Seeing Policies Everywhere 5

The policy here is re: Kashrut "Kol d'efshar levarurei - m'varinan"

IOW we verify as much as possible and rely upon Rov and Hazaqah only as a fallback position.


RRW: See Rema YD 1 "Kol d'efshar levarurei m'varinan"

R Akiva Miller:
«Whatever we *can* clarify, we *do* clarify. (That Rema is not talking about food ingredients, but about who is qualified to be a shochet. Still, it's a great sound bite.)»

RRW:
It's more than a sound-bite if Posqim consider this a fundamental principle in issur v'heter.
Especially if they are applying it as an "unconscious" axiom.

------------------------

"Et hatai ani mazkir"

I always pooh-poohed learning Hilchot Sh'chitah as a [relative] waste of time for most rabbinical students. [Especially when NOT learning Hilchot Treifot with it.]


Many rabbanim insisted that Hilchot Sh'chitah teaches the student fundamental elements of p'saq

B"H I have become enlightened [the hard way] and I see that a number of POLICIES are embedded in Hilchot Sh'chita.

EG Talmudic Halachah requires no "S'micha" or "Qabbalah" for Sh'chitah, but Ashkenazic practice DOES!

It is simple to see how that gets extended to formal hashgachah for many areas of Kashrut. This is especially true today - when chemicals have made the industry highly sophisticated.

KT
RRW