[Avodah] chumrot of sefardim

[Chana Luntz]

RLPhM wrote:

> Either (you assume) the din is this wine won't do. In that 
> case, the Ashkenazzi isn't youtze either.
> 
> Or (you assume) the din allows it, only a regional chumre or 
> otherwise minnek says not to. In that case the 
> Seforaddi/Mizrahi is youtze, too, at least bedieved. Even 
> lechatchile, there are aspects like honouring another in 
> general and a host in particular that might override menogem 
> and chumres.
> 
> Or you have a sofek what the din is, then it depends on the 
> exact details and the Rules of the Art of Sfeikes, but 
> there's certainly no difference in din for Jews whose 
> ancestors happened to live in Spain and Iraq vs Germany, is there?
> 

It is more complicated than that.  Basically there is are concepts in
halacha that even if you hold one way in l'chatchila circumstances -
l'din, if there are other poskim who hold differently, you can rely on
those other opinions (even if it is a yachid v'rabim type debate) in
sha'a hadachak type situations).  The idea is that if you have a vadai
machlokus haposkim, that is a form of safek d'rabbanan, on which you can
rule l'kula if you have extenuating circumstances.  Now if your
ancestors happened to live in Spain or Iraq, then you hold, l'din, like
the Shulchan Aruch against the Rema and if your ancestors happened to
live in Germany or Lithuania, you hold l'din like the Rema rather than
the Shulchan Aruch.  BUT there are circumstances where a posek may allow
you to hold like the other, usually more lenient shita, if there is
sufficient rationale to do so. See what I say below regarding hana'ah on
shabbas.

> LPhM

And RMK writes: 

> You are discussing a few different cases here, and I think it 
> is worthwhile to discuss each of these issues individually, 
> as the issues are not identical. 

Agreed.

 I don't think there is any 
> blanket rule of "good for you, good for me". (Except perhaps 
> for hechsherim :-), v'hameivin yavin.)
> 
> 1) Chazara- in most (all?) cases, chazara, especially if done 
> by another person, does not make food assur to eat. (ie, even 
> w/o the factor of "muttar for them" to do, the food is 
> probably not assur for you to eat.)

Is this true?  I note that several people have quoted that in general
being over on an an issur d'rabbanan does not create a hana'ah problem
vis a vis shabbas (actually, while this is clearly the Ashkenazi psak,
it is not so clear that the Shulchan Aruch agreed, although I note that
the Yalkut Yosef brings this psak as the primary din and only notes that
the Shulchan Aruch might not agree in footnote 66 of his chapter on
Orech Chaim siman 318) but I thought that chazara/hatmana were different
(ie as set out in Shulchan Aruch Siman 253 si'if 1 where the food is
specifically said to be assur) rather than based on the general
principle in siman 318 (and certainly the Yalkult Yosef says explicitly
that this is an exception to the rule that d'rabbanan foods are not
assur in footnote 76 of his chapter or hana'a midvar haissur
medrabbanan).

I am also not sure that the problems of chazara are necessarily to be
characterised always as a d'rabbanan.  To take the extreme example,
there are Sephardim (although not the majority as the Shulchan Aruch
does not hold this way) who hold that ain bishel acher bishel for a
d'var lach.  If you hold yesh bishul achar bishul for a d'var lach, my
understanding is that you hold that it is bishul d'orisa.  If you eat at
the home of somebody who hold ain bishul achar bishul in a d'var lach,
can you eat the soup they just warmed up for you?

My understanding of why this is permitted (and certainly why the Yalkut
Yosef permits it) is based on a Pri Megadim (siman 118 si'if katan 10)
which states (and I confess I am quoting the Yalkut Yosef's citation
here) that wherever there is a machklokus haposkim if there is an issur
in relation to a matter or not, b'dieved one can be makil and have
hana'ah from that melacha on shabbas since the issur hana'a in a ma'aseh
on shabbas is only a knas d'rabbanan and therefore since there is a
sfaka drabanan [ie a safek as to how to posken] we go l'kula.  And the
Yalkut Yosef further brings the Magen Avraham (siman 258 si'if katan 11)
and the Mishna Brura siman 318 si'if katan 2)  and 323 (si'if katan 11).

Now it seems clear from the examples brought in the Mishna Brura (and
from the Yalkut Yosef) that this is even if the person did the act
bmezid and certainly if done in ignorance (eg if an Ashkenazi person
were to warm up soup, it would seem that if it was put in front of you
you could eat it, because there are poskim who permit it).  But it is
also phrased as being bideved (which to my mind means that the soup is
already warm and the question is, do you eat it).  What about accepting
an invitation in advance (in circumstances where it is not as though you
are a stranger in town with nowhere else to go) - meaning that you know
that the person is going to cook more food for you erev shabbas, and
then, if they are doing certain acts of chazara that you regard as
impermissible, you know that they will do those for you.  Can that
really be described as bideved?  After all, you are virtually
authorising him to do it on your behalf.  An another example of this is
when others in my husband's yeshiva went to find him (as the token
Sephardi) to get him to put stuff on the blech that somebody had
forgotten to put on erev shabbas.  That is not fully bideved (although
it is in a way, because somebody had forgotten, rendering the
circumstances bideved) but you can see a certain l'chatchila nature of
it.  What if they had not forgotten, but decided to rely on my husband
to do it to save the trouble?

So my understanding was - and I confess when I went to look at the
sources over shabbas I couldn't find it said anywhere, that the reason
why this is l'chatchila permitted, is because the whole idea of the
issur hana'ah is, as the Pri Megadim says, a knas of the rabbanan, and
that no knas attaches when somebody is doing something that is, for him,
mutar.  And the fact that you are riding on his shoulders, and even
getting him to do things with your food, for you, is therefore OK
(except in the specific case of amira l'akum, where it was specifically
banned rabbinically, with the specific reason given so that the issur
should not come to seem light in his eyes - but were it not for this
rationale, and the specific ban, the good for him, OK for you would
apply).

 When it was actually 
> muttar for them to reheat the food based on their poskim, 
> there is even more leniency, since the problem eating food 
> cooked/reheated on shabbos is based on the fact that it was 
> done b'issur, and if they were permitted, this factor doesn't exist.

Agreed. As I said above.

> 
> 2) Kiddush - Note that to be yotzei kiddush, there is NO need 
> for anyone but the mevareich to drink.  Kiddush does, 
> however, need to be made on what is halachically called wine. 
>  I believe that the requirements for wine for kiddush are 
> more stringent than those for it to be hagafen.  For example, 
> according to Ashkenazi psak (correct when/if I err), a drink 
> of 40% grape juice and 60% pear/apple juice is hagafen, but 
> is not good for kiddush or havdalah.  I think ROY requires 
> 5/6 wine to be good for kiddush.  I don't know to what extend 
> the "good for you, good for me" rule would apply re: being 
> yotzei kiddush.  

Well it seems to work in reverse - ie good for you, good for me, in the
sense that if I have not made kiddush, and you have, you are able to
make for me again on the basis of kol yisroel areivim zeh l'zeh, and it
is not a bracha l'vatala for you (while it would be if I was not there).
And the areivim aspect is supposed to be mutual - so why if it is agreed
that I am yotzei my kiddush, are you not dragged along on the grounds of
areivim zeh l'zeh (if you intend and I intend).  If you hold otherwise,
then in far fetched situations (eg where my psak is directly
contradictory to yours, and not just one where there are differences but
an overlap), then areivim zeh l'zeh cannot apply, and yet it is a basic
principle that kol yisroel areivim zeh l'zeh, not just some parts who
follow the same psak.  And in addition it seems to me that the reason
why it has to work this way is because of the other phrase that is
commonly applied here, shomea k'oneh, which surely has to mean that the
one who hears the kiddush, is like the one who speaks (but not
necessarily the reverse), so if the one who speaks is yotzei by the
brocha, that means the one who hears is.  

In terms of being yotzei the hagafen and 
> being allowed to drink a shehakol drink (soda for ashkenazim, 
> or even some wines for sefardim), the issues are different.  
> Even if you are yotzei kiddush you may need to make a 
> shehakol, just like in shul Shabbos morning , when I hear the 
> Rav make kiddush and immediately make mezonos and eat my cookie.
> 

But a borei pri hagafen never paturs a mezonos, there is no safek there.
But here maybe it is indeed wine (maklokus haposkim), and safek
d'rabbanan l'kula (and a bracha shehakol is definitely a d'rabbanan).

> 3) Hamotzi-
> a) Is B'rov am relevant for hamotzi?  Kiddush is a mitzvah, 
> hamotzi is not.  In my Yeshiva, they are makpid that only one 
> person makes kiddush for everyone, but hamotzi is made 
> separately at each table.
> 

One person making hamotzei is the Mishna in Brochos 42a and the Shulchan
Aruch Prech Chaim 167:11 - ie the question is, are you intending to be
kovea seuda together (in the days of the Mishna as indicated by
reclining, in our day by things such as one tablecloth and other
indications).  If yes, one should make the bracha, if not, then one
person should not.  It always seems odd to me that people will give
separate loaves of bread eg to different families who are eating at the
table, when such families have been invited by the baal habayis for a
shabbas meal, and everybody would certainly agree they were intending to
be kovea seuda together (and certainly bench together if there is a
mezumen).  The b'rov am is really the question as to whether it is
better to be kovea seuda together or seperately, and I would have
thought it was clearly applicable.

> b) As mentioned before, it is not clear that you will eat 
> enough for kvias seudah.  216 grams of bread is quite a lot.  
> AIUI, the issue is just the same for hamotzi and birkas 
> hamazon.  (Unless you were planning to be koveia seudah and 
> later change your mind, or vice versa.)

Well if there is a mezumen and you are kovea seuda together, then the
person who benches can patur the others, so you can get out of it the
same way you got in.  If there is no mezumen, then I would have thought
there were greater problems, as the chiyuv to bench is then individual.
Also benching raises d'orisa issues, while having a seuda on shabbas and
kiddush are, I thought d'rabbanan.

> c) Birchos hanehenin are individual chiyuvim, and I don't see 
> why my host being yotzei should automatically means that I am 
> yotzei.  If the correct bracha (for you) on this food is 
> mezonos, why are you yotzei with my hamotzi?  I don't know of 
> a rule that hamotzi works b'dieved on cakes etc, the way 
> Shehakol works on anything, and mezonos (acc. to the Gra) 
> works on all foods.

Well I thought that is why shomea k'oneh does not necessarily work on
birchos hanehenin, but only on a certain select group (eg when people
intend to eat together etc).  
> 
> d) There is also a chiyuv to have a seudah with bread.  This 
> may be easier to solve than the lechem mishneh issue, since 
> the host very possibly will have an already cut loaf of 
> hamotzi bread, but it is still an issue.
> 

> e) Lechem mishneh- ROY seems to understand that lechem 
> mishneh needs to be specifically on bread. 

But you are having lechem mishna on bread, according to the halacha
applying to the one who makes hamotzei for the group and therefore based
on areivim and shomea k'oneh, it seems to me that one ought to be yotzei
by means of him being yotzei.  And b'rov am is the principle that means
that one ought to choose this mechanism over the mechanism of being
kovea seuda seperately and bringing your own challos (because if you are
kovea seuda seperately and you hold for you that what is being utilised
is not bread, then yes I can see the l'chatchila as to bring your own
challos - although again why as a bideved one would not be yotzei even
if he himself made the bracha on the safek haposkim safek d'rabbanan
l'kula, I am not quite sure).

Regards

Chana