5

Is it, in principle, a problem to eat by a shomer-Shabbos Jew who has good intentions, but only basic knowledge of the laws of kashrus?

His involuntary sins--presumed, not known--are not a problem for him. But are they for you?

SAH
  • 19,756
  • 4
  • 56
  • 165
  • Would you get have medical surgery , or even just your teeth tended to by a Doctor/dentist who has good intentions but poor knowledge?? Why should your spiritual health concern you any less than your physical health? – RibbisRabbiAndMore Jun 05 '18 at 18:28
  • 2
    @ribbis because חמירא סכנתא מאיסורא obviously. That's an easy question. – Double AA Jun 05 '18 at 18:35
  • @DoubleAA And for your non-sakana health you choose your medics based on "good intentions"? – RibbisRabbiAndMore Jun 05 '18 at 18:37
  • It seems unreasonable to me that we'd require full-time trained mashgichim in restaurants run by religious Jews but at the same time allow one to eat doubtfully kosher food at someone's house. – Daniel Jun 05 '18 at 19:26
  • 1
    Restaurants must have higher standards al pi halacha. (Wish I could give you the source, but I can't; I just remember learning it.) In the home, for example, we let a housekeeper clean the kitchen unsupervised after our (presumably quite superficial) explanation of the kashrus protocols to her. And as for hasgacha, it is enough that she be aware that someone "could" walk in at any time. – SAH Jun 05 '18 at 20:03
  • 1
    Related https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/11957/ – Double AA Jun 05 '18 at 21:55
  • Source for my first claim (above) is at @DoubleAA's link (above). – SAH Jun 06 '18 at 00:11
  • 1
    @SAH you have been making useful posts on this site for years, and they been a huge help to me as an in-progress BT, but this is the first known instance of you actually posting in Yeshivish! (we do not generally use "by" to mean "with" in Standard English). Balaei status officially obtained. Mazel! – יהושע ק Jun 06 '18 at 16:01
  • @JoshK Well, I'll be darned. Thank you so, so much! ... And as for "by," I have always had something of a soft spot for the "act British, speak Yiddish" school of things. Even if I didn't, "by" is just so much more compact than any so-called standard alternative. ... Good luck doing whatever you are doing in Peru; hope all is well "by" you! Bye! – SAH Jun 07 '18 at 02:11

1 Answers1

3

The following is from Mishnah Demai 4:2. The translation is mine, following Bartenura. To keep things straight I’m referring to the people in question as Reuven and Shimon instead of “him” and “him.”

הַמַּדִּיר אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכַל אֶצְלוֹ, וְהוּא אֵינוֹ מַאֲמִינוֹ עַל הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת, אוֹכֵל עִמּוֹ בַּשַּׁבָּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַאֲמִינוֹ עַל הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לוֹ מְעֻשָּׂרִין הֵן. וּבְשַׁבָּת שְׁנִיָּה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּדַר מִמֶּנּוּ הֲנָיָה, לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר:

If Reuven makes a neder that Shimon cannot benefit from him if Shimon does not eat by him, but Shimon doesn’t trust Reuven regarding Ma’aser, Shimon may eat by Reuven for Reuven’s Shabbos Sheva Berachos, even though Shimon doesn’t trust him regarding Ma’aser, as long as Reuven tells him Ma’aser has been taken. If it’s the Shabbos after Sheva Berachos, then even if Reuven made a neder against benefit, Shimon cannot eat by him until he takes off Ma’aser himself.

Drawing the analogy over to “regular” Kashrus, since meat can’t be shechted again once it’s already neveilah, Shimon would be stuck and unable to eat by Reuven.

Now, it’s not an exact comparison: Demai is only Rabbinic, and so it’s much more lenient than other prohibitions against eating; maybe that’s the only reason that they were lenient in a case where he made a neder. By ordinary Kashrus, which is much stricter, certainly Shimon would be unable to eat by him.

It should be noted that some cases people are generally strict not to eat when there’s nothing wrong with it. Take eating on glass plates: glass does not absorb and therefore can be used for both milchigs and fleishigs, provided it’s cleaned and beyond 24 hours from its last use at the strictest (see, ex., here. Some people insist on being stricter, but it’s not necessary. There are many such instances; the line of logic above is only when the food is a concern of being actually treif.

Edit: Somehow it totally slipped my mind before, but ultimately this ends up being a classic case of Safek d’Oraisa l’chumra.

DonielF
  • 34,262
  • 4
  • 40
  • 143
  • "Demai is only Rabbinic, and so it’s much more lenient than other prohibitions against eating" - no! Maaser is deoraisa and a chiyuv misa biydei Shamayim - STRICTER than most of kashrus (except cheilev and blood, but the butcher handles those nowadays, and chametz during Pesach). Demai is a Rabbinic formalized structure applied on top of the deoraisa of maaser. I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but if anything, the argument goes the other way - there's no structure like demai for normal kashrus, so you fall back to deoraisa rules of neemanus. – Heshy Jun 05 '18 at 19:36
  • "Some people insist on being stricter, but it’s not necessary." You might not think it's necessary but seemingly they do. – Double AA Jun 05 '18 at 20:04
  • @Heshy In many cases of Demai we’re lenient, as the case in question, rather than the general rule of Safek d’Oraisa l’Chumra (which ought to be the real answer now that I say that). – DonielF Jun 05 '18 at 22:38
  • @DoubleAA The point is that the Halacha doesn’t. – DonielF Jun 05 '18 at 22:38
  • "the Halacha doesn't" You might not think that but seemingly they don't think that – Double AA Jun 05 '18 at 22:46
  • @DoubleAA First, while that’s probably true in most cases, it’s certainly not in all. Second, why should it matter if were addressing what the Halacha wants from them? – DonielF Jun 05 '18 at 22:51
  • @DonielF I wish I could understand this answer better, but my knowledge is insufficient. Please let me know if this interpretation is correct: It seems the mishnah's conclusion is that in the case of 2 extenuating circumstances, one may be lenient and eat by him, but not in the case of only 1. However, you argue (though some commenters disagree, and I might too) that Demai is less strict than the kashrus problems at stake in my question. Therefore you conclude that to eat in the person's kitchen in my question would require more than 1 + – SAH Jun 06 '18 at 00:18
  • @DonielF ...extenuating circumstance, and would therefore be prohibited l'chatchila. So far correct? – SAH Jun 06 '18 at 00:19
  • @SAH So far so good. – DonielF Jun 06 '18 at 02:38
  • @DonielF Great. So I guess I'm wondering, like other commenters, why we conclude that the kashrus violations in question are definitely d'oraisa, whereas demai is definitely d'rabbanan. I don't have the knowledge to address the second part; as for the first, you refer to shechita, but that is one thing that is likely not a problem at the d'oraisa level in my scenario (assuming the person in question is knowledgeable enough to buy meat at least with a hechsher, which I see as falling under "basic" kashrus knowledge). – SAH Jun 06 '18 at 02:43
  • 1
    @SAH I was just giving an example. Demai is generally classified as a d’Rabbanan, and so is much more lenient in many cases. Other types of Kashrus are almost always d’Oraisa (though not always), and it’s to those that I refer. Take the case of Joe, who went to Hebrew school and knows that if you go to the store and get food labeled as “Kosher” that it’s okay. He even knows that milk and meat together is forbidden. But he doesn’t know that you need separate dishes, even if they’re cleaned in between uses. Beli’os are d’Oraisa, and my logic would apply. – DonielF Jun 06 '18 at 02:51
  • @DonielF The whole point of demai is that any time you have a concern of demai, you also have a concern of tevel deoraisa. There are typically other ways around the deoraisa (רוב עמי הארץ מעשרין הם), but you can't say the only concern here is derabbanan. – Heshy Jun 06 '18 at 10:01
  • @DonielF Are bliyos really d'oraisa? (Always?) -- I believe you, but why?? – SAH Jun 06 '18 at 10:37
  • @SAH The main sugya is sprinkled throughout Avodah Zarah, but the source is in Parshas Mattos regarding libun and ha’agalah. That discussion is at the very end of the masechta. So really it would depend on what kind of bli’os, but in my case I was talking about basar b’chalav d’Oraisa. – DonielF Jun 06 '18 at 16:02
  • @Heshy Perhaps saying Demai is d’Rabbanan is the wrong word to use so much as the Rabbanan were more lenient regarding Demai. Perhaps רוב עמי הארץ מעושרין הן is the reason. – DonielF Jun 06 '18 at 16:03
  • @DonielF Wow, very interesting. I'm becoming convinced by your argument bit by bit. That said, I would still love to hear what a(nother) gadol says on this. – SAH Jun 07 '18 at 02:07
  • @SAH No, I think you had it right before the parentheses. I can read a Mishnah. That hardly makes me a Gadol. :) – DonielF Jun 07 '18 at 02:34
  • @DonielF Well, I am personally very glad and impressed that you can read a mishnah, as most of the world including me cannot. You are therefore a gadol in my eyes, and I didn't want to imply not in others' ;) – SAH Jun 07 '18 at 02:37