Shabbat part 1

Nothing, other than the existence of G-d, is more central to Judaism. In fact, the Torah makes clear that observance of Shabbat is the ultimate recognition of G-d's creation of Heaven and Earth. This is no minor matter, since, until the twentieth century, creation was viewed by most people as an untenable concept. The known laws of physics not only denied the possibility of a creation ex nihilo (from nothing), but the very idea of the world not having existed forever was decried as impossible, from the time of the classical Greeks until the early twentieth century. The idea of the Big Bang took quite a bit of time to be accepted by science. Actually, it was first suggested by RAMBAN in the fourteenth century, but was largely ignored Even now, it is difficult to explain, and no one knows for sure exactly what happened. Judaism has always maintained a view that the world started at a finite time in history, and was the result of a great master plan; not an accident. That in the Torah violation of Shabbat is a capital offense, shows its severity. In Jewish tradition, Shabbat observance has always been the defining feature of a religious Jew. To ignore Shabbat meant to deny creation, and by inference, to deny G-d Himself. We find in the Torah that G-d "rested" on the Shabbat (whatever that means), and so must we. We are also forbidden to make servile use of our beasts of burden, as well as making servile use of our non-Jewish employees. Only a true life and death situation permits violation of the Shabbat. Loss of money or property is never a consideration. In the Torah, we are commanded not to do "Melachah". This does NOT mean "work". It means skilled, creative activity. The word is also used in connection with building the tabernacle in the desert, and we have in the Oral Tradition the idea that the same thirty-nine types of labor involved in building and maintaining it are the same labors Biblically forbidden on Shabbat. By Torah law, exertion is not even considered a problem. You may feel free to carry your couch inside your home all day. However, we read in Isaiah (58:13-14) that we are to avoid our weekday pursuits, (even concerning how we speak or where we go), in order to call the Shabbat "'oneg" ( a delight). (Please remember that commands found in the post-Torah Biblical books are considered as being "rabbinic" rather than Biblical.). Just as blowing the Shofar on Rosh HaShanah is a simple mechanical act, imbued, however, with numerous layers of intent and association, the Shabbat is built upon numerous rules and regulations designed to inculcate a sense of delight, happiness, transcendence, peace, and contentment. These laws can be divided into several categories. The "Biblical" laws; or activities that come under the headings of the thirty-nine categories mentioned above, the rabbinic decrees; some of which are meant as "fences" around a Biblical law, while others are designed to be "mood setters", in keeping with the spirituality of the day. The primary difference between the Biblical and rabbinical laws is that the former may not be violated except in the case of possible loss of life. The latter may be ignored in cases of extreme discomfort. There are later local enactments, which have, arguably, no halachic meaning, as well as "svarot", theoretical constructs, that impart Biblical meaning to things and actions that have no actual source. These came in mostly in the seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries. Many of these are controversial. Not for discussion now, but thus we come to the situation where most Ashkenazim consider brushing teeth or using solid soap as Biblical prohibitions. Most Sepharadic rabbis consider this comical, and the result of faulty logic. In this series, I plan to go through a typical Shabbat, pointing out both what we do and what we feel, as well as differences in customs, especially those based on svara. Please bear in mind that the laws of Shabbat are vast, taking up two full tractates in Talmud (Shabbat and Eruvin). It would be impossible to cover everything, but I hope to provide an understandable and workable framework. "The work is not ours to complete, but neither may we neglect it".

Kashrut: Fact, Fiction, and In Between part 26

The Talmud tells us that if one cut a cucumber with a knife, and the knife had residue of meat, dairy, or something not kosher, all we need to do is clean off the cucumber where we cut it, and we are good to go. However, if we cut "tznon" (usually means radish, but may also mean other pungent vegetables), because of the sharpness of the tznon, plus the pressure of the knife, the tznon becomes meat, dairy, or non-kosher, depending on the status of the knife. Here, the Ashkenazi codifiers take what I consider a huge flight of fancy. Even if the knife was perfectly clean, the food cold, and even if the knife hadn't been used in over twenty-four hours (which normally is considered as imparting a bad taste, if any), the combination of pungency and pressure resurrects the original tastes absorbed in the knife. Hence, this combination is even more powerful than heat in bringing out flavors. On a practical level, this means that if I cut an onion with a knife that was perfectly clean, but had, at some time in the past, been used for meat, that flavor has now reemerged, and renders the onion "meat", which, if cooked with dairy, would render the combination non-kosher. Similarly, if I had a sandwich that contained chili peppers (one of my favorite foods), and I borrowed my non-Jewish friend's knife to cut my sandwich, that pork chop he cut into last January would now render my chili peppers, and hence my sandwich, non-kosher. In the last three hundred years, some have gone further. Since we are not certain of the exact identity of "tznon", we must consider any acidy food as "sharp", with some applying this rule even to an apple! The practical result of this idea is that most Ashkenazim maintain a separate set of knives and cooking utensils for pareve, as your onion, radish, or hot pepper can easily be rendered "meat" or "milk".Sepharadic authorities look upon this with amazement. How does an old, now vile flavor in a knife get resurrected as a good flavor by something sharp? We look in vain in Talmudic sources for this idea. So what was the Talmud telling us, exactly? We know from other Talmudic passages that knives were generally kept for long periods between cleanings. In fact, in the law of "eruv tavshilin", food put aside before a Yom Tov to permit cooking on Yom Tov for Shabbat, we may rely on the congealed fat on our kitchen knives. Since eruv tavshilin requires at least an olive's bulk of food, that means that on an average kitchen knife there was that much grease! Therefore, the Talmud is actually saying that a greasy knife, if cutting ordinary, non-pungent food, needs nothing more than rinsing off the grease from the food. If pungent, we must see the grease as having been absorbed into the outer layer of the food being cut. An interesting aside: the Talmud tells us that if a knife has become non-kosher, or meat or dairy when we don't want it to be these things, it may be plunged ten times into hard ground instead of kashering, since this did not occur under conditions of heat. This is probably the origin of the common, mistaken folk belief that kashering is done by burying the utensil. That about sums it up for kashrut. One side issue is that in the Land of Israel. there are many additional laws regarding produce. These laws mostly do not apply outside the Land, unless eating imported Israeli produce. A few do actually apply everywhere, but the consensus of opinion is that this would only be a concern if we knew that a problem existed, rather than just fearing a possibility. These need be of no concern to the consumer. I hope this series has been helpful! I will post one more article, about the enigmatic labeling of foods "DE" (Dairy Equipment). What are the implications of such a labeling? Next time.

Kashrut: Fact, Fiction, and In Between part 25

As in many things, confusion comes in with stoves and ovens, as the ancient forms of these objects had little resemblance to what we use today. Rules stated about the ancient ovens may or may not be applicable to today's ovens.. The ancient oven was similar to what is called in Arabic a "tab'un"; a sort of drum-shaped (wider at the bottom, narrower at the top) clay (or sometimes metal) device, heated from the outside, where bread was baked by simply slapping it on the inside wall, removing it when ready. Many Yemenites still make matzah this way. (I used to get it when I lived in southern Israel, during my last three years there). Stoves were usually box-like instruments, with one or more holes in the top, in which pots would be placed. There was a fire burning inside, of differing intensities for different sizes of stoves. Later, in Eastern Europe, there was a common type of stove that was actually a room heater, powered by wood or coal,, but whose surface was also used for cooking. I have seen these still in use in Ukraine. Rabbis differ about our modern stoves and ovens. This has great implications for not only kashrut, but for laws of Passover and Shabbat as well. Some see an oven as essentially unkasherable. Its surface is often enamel, which is potentially a kashrut issue, as there is uncertainty as to its status in terms of porousness. Its metal grates, used to hold the pots while cooking, are likewise seen by some as non-kosher, as they often receive overflow of both meat and dairy pots. The oven racks are metal, but they cook without liquid, and would theoretically need "libun" (heating until the metal glows) to make them kosher. Therefore, many people use different grates for dairy and meat pots, or keep them covered with aluminum foil, especially for Passover. (When one walks into an Ashkenazi  kosher home today during Passover, the ubiquitous aluminum foil is blinding. I use none). Many use a blow torch on the oven, and then cover it anyway with metal inserts, since it will never turn white-hot. Others, take a more middle-ground approach. They will leave the oven unused for 24 hours between meat and dairy, as well as before Passover. Then, they will let it run at top heat for an hour or more. This would then be suitable for cooking in or on it, so long as food does not deliberately touch the stove or oven themselves. If a piece of food did happen to fall on it, after twenty-four hours, the stove or oven will no longer be a problem, as we have seen. At that point, kashering is a formality, lest we come to use them within twenty-four hours. The metal grates upon which the pots rest during cooking, will either be heated in the oven or otherwise burnt, and would then be likewise permissible for indirect cooking (that is, in a pot or pan). This is the method most seen. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef permitted simply pouring boiling water on the grates. Rav Y. Abadi takes an entirely different route. He points out that our ovens run at a consistently high heat, unknown in ancient times. Any splatter of food is almost instantly burned. This is also true of the grates. No kashering necessary! For Passover, he recommends getting the oven to top heat, and leaving it there for half an hour. For stovetops, where food may fall inadvertently, they should be cleaned with soap and water, and we are good to go. This is the method that I follow in my home. The only area of care that I exercise, is not to leave both meat and dairy on the oven at the same time, as splatter from pot to pot is not uncommon. Cooking meat and dairy in the same oven at the same time is technically permissible, provided that one of them is covered. I avoid this as well, for fear of splatter. Next time, I will deal with a bit of a controversial topic that I mentioned in passing in my last post: the issue of foods that are not actually hot, but are very pungent. As you have probably guessed, this is a serious issue for Ashkenazim, and a very minor one for Sepharadim. Next time

Kashrut: Fact, Fiction, and In Between part 24

As I pointed out in my post about bugs, there is often a huge gap between theory and reality. Some avoid green vegetables altogether, as eating a bug involves transgressing five Biblical prohibitions. But, in fact, one would have to plan their bug-eating fairly well to transgress even one. In most cases, we are dealing with a rabbinic prohibition, with sufficient doubts that we technically needn't worry. Nevertheless, we do take precautions so as not to esteem the halachah lightly. The same is true of the status of kitchen furnishings. I am excluding the stove and oven, which I will deal with next time. Most kashrut "how-to" sites and periodicals take a super strict approach, believing that non-learned people will be likely to "mess up". Therefore, let's set the bar very high, and maybe they"ll get it right. One generally finds the kashering of sinks, tables, and counter tops dealt with as though we were kashering cooking or eating utensils. Perhaps your experience differs from mine, but I know very few people who heat up their counters and cook directly on them. Not only that, but all but the most careless people, use soap or detergent on these things. Thus, any residues of food that may have escaped our notice, will be rendered as "imparting a bad taste", and therefore meaningless in kashrut terms. Taking an extreme liberal view, is Rav Y. Abadi, who requires nothing more than a rinse with soapy water for counters, sinks, dishwashers, and tabletops, including for Passover preparation. Except for the sink, and some dishwashers, none of these normally reaches the threshold of "yad soledet" (the hand recoils). So there was likely never a forbidden situation to begin with. If there had been, a rinsing with soap would take care of that. The sink is a somewhat different story. We often pour boiling water into it. If it were an eating utensil, it would, indeed need a careful kashering. But it isn't an eating utensil. The only possible concern is if one left a piece of meat sitting in the sink (without soap), and then placed very hot dairy in the sink (likewise, without soap). In that case, a hot utensil could, in fact, become non-kosher. For a dishwasher, very few exceed 130 degrees F. If they do, the soap will take care of the rest.I am mentioning this to show to what extent keeping kosher is simple.Most people aren't as lenient as this, because they wish to avoid even a possibility of a problem. Most people either have separate sinks for meat and dairy, or keep a basin in the sink for meat, changing it for dairy. I also do this, but only as a stringency. It is sort of a "fail safe" measure. Even a super strict posek like Moshe Feinstein wrote that although it is better to use separate basins, there is no problem in using a single sink normally for both meat and dairy.Many other rabbis. such as Rav Ovadia Yosef, recommend some minimal kashering, but would grant that if not done, there is really no prohibition. One popular Lithuanian rabbi, writing in the '70s and '80s, wrote that lye must be poured down the drains before Passover, as "there is much edible food in the drainpipe". If he were still alive, I would drive to his home with a spoon, and put it in his drain and insist he eat it. This garbage has created insecurity in many. Especially for Passover, many people will use no hot water, for fear that the forbidden substances in one's neighbor's sink are being transmitted to ours through the hot water pipe!. Being careful is one thing, but making a mockery of the Torah is another. I will now explain a halachic principle that is essential for further understanding. Its halachic name is Nat Bar Nat (abbreviated from the Hebrew words "a taste giver, son of a taste giver"). If not dealing with forbidden foods, but with permitted meat and dairy, there is a limit to how far we must extend the concern of transmission of taste. If I cook meat in a pot, and then cook a potato in the pot (after the pot has been cleaned) that potato is pareve (neutral; neither dairy nor meat), One may eat that potato with sour cream. Ashkenazim go a step further. They would say that if done, it's OK, but in the first instance, one should not do this, but rather require a further step.If one subsequently heats that potato up in another pot with an egg, that egg may, even according to Ashkenazim, be eaten with dairy. (Most Sepharadim, unlike Ashkenazim, will not have pareve pots, so long as their meat or dairy pots are cleaned after use.) The taste of the original meat simply does not extend that far, hence, pareve food cooked in them remain pareve. All would agree that one cannot cook actual dairy in a meat pot. Now it should be clear why one need not be concerned about a countertop, and have little concern about a sink or dishwasher. A related issue is sharp food, cut with a knife. Ashkenazim consider this an exception to the above principles, posing a problem even if cold, and even if the knife was unused for more than twenty-four hours. I will discuss this further in a subsequent post, but suffice it to say for now that Sepharadic rabbis consider this a misinterpretation of sources. It's fine to be careful, but we must remember what is and isn't a genuine problem. The ways of the Torah are "ways of Pleasantness" (Proverbs 3:17). Relax and enjoy. 

Kashrut: Fact, Fiction, and In Between part 23

That there is no way to kasher an earthenware utensil is a famous principle throughout the Talmud, both in the areas of kashrut and ritual purity. But there are tantalizing hints to the contrary in some rabbinic writings. There is a reference in RAMBAM (and some others, based on a statement in Talmud) that "clay cannot be kashered, unless it is returned to the kiln" and, speaking of baking of matzah for Passover, which was often done on a clay surface, we are told by RAMBAM, that, if the clay surface had been used to bake bread during the year, "it must be covered with burning coals" in order to be used for baking matzah. So, the rule may not be so hard and fast. A great seventeenth-century rabbi, Rabbi Tzvi Ashkenazi, generally known as Chacham Tzvi, "Chacham" (Wise Man) being the usual Sepharadic title for a rabbi.  Although an Ashkenazi by birth, he adopted Sepharadic ways. (A very wise man indeed),He held a minority opinion that compared all utensils to the case discussed in the Talmud of wooden barrels that had held non-kosher wine, needed no kashering after twelve months, as it is impossible that the taste of wine would last that long. Chacham Tzvi opined that this idea would work for everything, even earthenware. This opinion, however, was not widely accepted. Another view was that kashering earthenware is impossible with mere boiling (hag'alah), but boiling three times, would do the trick. This, too, was little accepted. In the twentieth century, Moshe Feinstein wrote a responsum, that expensive china, or a set that had great sentimental value, could be kashered by allowing it to sit unused for a year, and then plunging the utensils three times into boiling water, thus combining the two previously noted opinions. This was widely accepted, with some adding that we can include the doubt if our well-fired china really has the same laws as rough earthenware. (I have already mentioned that some, including yours truly, regard glazed china as glass, and therefore with no need of kashering). This represents a most interesting approach.Several unaccepted views, when taken together, become acceptable. This is known as "tziruf de'ot" (combining opinions). Those who accept this approach compare it to the well-established Talmudic principle of "Sfek Sfeka" (double doubt). For instance, may I drink a cup of coffee in the home of someone who doesn't keep kosher? The issue is that the coffee may have been made in a pot that was recently used for non-kosher. But I have a double doubt. First, was it made in a pot that had been used for non-kosher within the last twenty-four hours (after which it would be irrelevant)? Secondly, perhaps, even if it had been used within twenty-four hours, it may have been with a food that does not taste good with coffee, thereby being considered as imparting a bad taste, which does not make anything else non-kosher. The problem may be seen as similar to tziruf de'ot. Two unknowns come together, and the potential problem may be ignored. This approach is very widely accepted. However, Elijah of Vilna disagreed sharply. A single opinion in halachah, he argued, that has been rejected by virtually all other opinions, does not constitute a "doubt". Having two such non-accepted opinions would still be zero plus zero equals zero. In practice, the view of tziruf is widely used, but the view of Elijah of Vilna causes many to hesitate. (Why not simply ask the host? The fact that he doesn't himself keep kosher, would render his answer suspect). A similar consideration exists in many areas of halachah. In my next post, I'll go into the realities of a kosher kitchen. I will attempt to give equal weight to all positions, but will not hesitate to say what I actually do at home.