If you have multiple shuls in your neighborhood, are you permitted to walk passed one of them to pray in a further shul, or is that a problem of אין מעבירין על המצוות, “don’t pass over a mitzvah”?

Question: If you have multiple shuls in your neighborhood, are you permitted to walk passed one of them to pray in a further shul, or is that a problem of אין מעבירין על המצוות, “don’t pass over a mitzvah”?

Answer:

The Talmud (Sotah 22a) recounts a story of a widow who despite living near one shul, would go each day to pray in the Beit Medrash of Rebbi Yochanan. He asked her why she would go through all the trouble to travel further and not pray in the shul close to her home? She responded that she assumed she would get שכר פסיעות, extra reward for traveling further to perform the mitzvah of tefilla. Base on this episode, the Magen Avraham rules that it is actually preferable and a mitzvah to travel to the further shul to get this reward for extra travel. Rav Ovadia quotes a number of other poskim who agree with this approach. It would seem that this group of poskim are not concerned with the issue of אין מעבירין על המצוות.

The Talmud (Yoma 70a) says that one who sees the Kohen Gadol reading the Torah does not see the bull and goat that are burned, and vice vera. However, the Talmud explains that this is just a practical incapability as they are both performed at the exact same time. But it would not be a violation of אין מעבירין על המצוות since you are not actually an active participant in one mitzvah so it would not be considered passing over the mitzvah. Rav Ovadia suggests the same is true when passing one shul to go to another; since you are not actively engaged in tefilla at the first shul, passing it is not a violation of אין מעבירין על המצוות.

Rav Ovadia suggests that if the shul closer to you does not have a minyan, then you would have to pray there so that the entire minyan is not undone.

Rav Moshe Pardo suggests another reason why there is no concern of אין מעבירין על המצוות in our situation. Although tefilla is a daily obligation, praying in a minyan is not an absolute obligation. Therefore, אין מעבירין על המצוות would not be applicable to this mitzvah at all.

The שו׳׳ת ישכיל עבדי concurs that there is no issue here and he concludes that it is well known in the old city of Yerushalayim that there are numerous shuls on the same block and people pass one to go to another. Clearly there is no issue of אין מעבירין על המצוות.

However, Rav Shimon Greenfield takes issue with the Magen Avraham and claims there is no שכר פסיעות, reward for extra travel here. He says that would only apply if the further shul has more congregants so the concept of ברוב עם הדרת מלך would apply (there is more glory for Hashem when we are in the multitudes), or if they learn Torah in that Shul. Rav Ovadia says this is not the opinion we follow.

Rav Ovadia mentions other considerations that would allow you to pray in the shul that is further from your home:

1.      One has an established מקום קבוע in his shul and, therefore, he need not forgo that to pray in the closer shul.

2.     If you are choosing the other shul because the Chazan is a bigger יראי שמים then that is ok as well.

Summary: It is permissible to travel to a shul further from your home and one need not be concerned with אין מעבירין על המצוות.

Someone who is obligated to recite the bracha of Hagomel and did not recite it immediately, how long does he have to recite it?

Question: Someone who is obligated to recite the bracha of Hagomel and did not recite it immediately, how long does he have to recite it?

Introduction: Based on Tehillim (107), the Talmud in Brachot (54b) says:

 אַרְבָּעָה צְרִיכִין לְהוֹדוֹת: יוֹרְדֵי הַיָּם, הוֹלְכֵי מִדְבָּרוֹת, וּמִי שֶׁהָיָה חוֹלֶה וְנִתְרַפֵּא, וּמִי שֶׁהָיָה חָבוּשׁ בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִים וְיָצָא.

Four must offer thanks to G-d with a thanks-offering and a special blessing. They are: Seafarers, those who walk in the desert, and one who was ill and recovered, and one who was incarcerated in prison and went out.

An individual who finds himself in one of these four situations is obligated to thank Hashem. In the times of the beit hamikdash, that would mean brining a Korban Todah. Nowadays, Chazal instituted a bracha called Birchat Hagomel,

where the reciter says,

בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה’ אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם הַגּוֹמֵל לְחַיָּבִים טוֹבוֹת שֶׁגְּמָלַנִי כָּל טוֹב

Blessed are You, Lord our God, ruler of the world, who rewards the undeserving with goodness, and who has rewarded me with goodness.

Then the congregation responds, מִי שֶׁגְמַלְךָ כֹּל טוֹב הוּא יִגְמַלְךָ כֹּל טוֹב סֶלָה

May he who rewarded you with all goodness reward you with all goodness forever.

Here are some basic halachot  of Birchat Hagomel:

1.    The bracha should preferably be recited in the presence of a minyan of ten men (including the man reciting the bracha).

2.    Preferably there should be two Torah scholars present as part of the minyan.

3.    Preferably one should recite the bracha while standing

4.    It is customary to recite the bracha during Shachrit after kriyat hatorah and it is customary to give the reciter an aliyah.

5.    There is a debate if this bracha is limited exclusively to these four categories of people, or if anybody who is saved from a life threatening situation should recite it. Most poskim assume the latter. However, this is true if it was clearly a life threatening situation. If is was almost life threatening the halacha is not as clear. Therefore, one should consult his Rabbi to decide if you recite Hagomel after a car accident to determine if the bracha is warranted.

6.    A surgery that requires general anesthesia is assumed to be a life threatening situation and would warrant a bracha.

7.    Does flying on an airplane or a boat fall into this category of a dangerous situation?

a.    This is subject to some debate. Some assume it does for any flight, while others disagree that statistics show that airplane travel is less dangerous than traveling by car. With this logic one would never recite the bracha after flying on an airplane. However, the most accepted opinion is we combine the two categories from the Talmud that we only recite it if one travels by plane over an ocean or desert.

b.    When traveling over the ocean or desert, one would typically recite the bracha after his return flight home. However, many poskim suggest that when flying to Israel you should recite it both when arriving in Israel and when returning home.

c.    Someone who took a cruise in the ocean or a large sea should recite the bracha when he returns home.

8.    Our question considers the time period you have after the life threatening event or crossing the sea in which the bracha can be recited.

Answer: The basis for this question is based on the fact that the Talmud never mentions a time frame or some maximum amount of time that can pass between the time you experience an event that requires you to recite Hagomel and actually saying it.

1.    Tur writes that if you delay, you can still recite it as long as you still want to say the bracha. Some poskim explain that since Hagomel is patterned after the korban todah (thanksgiving) and that korban can be brought anytime, as long as you want to show thanksgiving, so too, birchat hagomel can be said indefinitely.

2.    Maran Beit Yosef quotes this but then says that the Orchot Chaim in the name of Ramban who says that there is a three day limit. He bases this on the Talmud in Eruvin (65a) that says that when someone arrives home from a long journey he should wait three days before praying since the exhaustion of the journey will not allow him to concentrate properly. Apparently for three days he is a called a בן דרך and thus Ramban says by Birchat Hagomel you should only have three days to recite it and after that you have lost the opportunity.

3.    Rashba writes that you have up until five days to recite it.

4.    Ra’ah adds another element that preferably one should recite Hagomel in the presence of a minyan of ten men. However, if a minyan is not present, you should wait up to 30 days to get a minyan to recite it, but after that you can recite it alone.

Maran Beit Yosef in Shulchan Aruch writes like the Tur above that technically you can say it indefinitely, but it is preferable not to let 3 days pass before reciting it.

Rav Ovadia proceeds to quote a number of later poskim who give a five day limit on Hagomel. He then raises the question of if we should heed to this position based on the principle of ספק ברכות להקל, when dealing with a doubt in a case of a bracha, we usually are lenient and do not recite the bracha, so why not be strict here as well after five days have passed? Rav Ovadia answers that this case does not constitute a real halachic doubt since Maran Beit Yosef knew of theses stricter opinions and yet was not concerned by them and ruled that the real law is one can say hagomel indefinitely. Rav Ovadia also quotes the sefardic Torah giant, Chida who agrees with the Shulchan Aruch.

Summary: While it is preferable to recite hagomel within three days of the incident requiring the bracha, and if you pass three days better not to pass five day, yet, if you did delay longer you can still make the bracha any time you have the opportunity to do so.

(Summary based on יחוה דעת חלק ג׳ סימן יד׳)

Are donuts made by a non-Jew a problem of Bishul Akum?

Question: Are donuts made by a non-Jew a problem of Bishul Akum?

Rav Ovadia focuses on the situation where non-Jews are making donuts in a Jewish home, but we will broaden the question to donuts made in Dunkin Donuts or some other commercial facility.

Introduction:

To properly understand this topic we need to distinguish between the halachic topics of בישול עכו׳׳ם and פת עכו׳׳ם. Bishul Akum refers to food cooked by a non-Jew, while Pat Akum refers to bread or bread family products baked by a non-Jew.

1.     בישול עכו׳׳ם – Food cooked by a non-Jew usually refers to any method of cooking other than baking bread products. This would mean boiling, deep frying, roasting, etc. of any non-bread products. This means that a Jew cannot eat any food cooked exclusively by a non-Jew. This applies whether the food is cooked in the Jews home, restaurant or any commercial facility.

a.     How to make the food considered Bishul Yisrael?

There is a big debate between Sefardic and Ashkinaz poskim as to how much does the Jew have to take part in the cooking process for it to be considered Bishul Yisrael? Sefardim take a much stricter approach, requiring the Jew to have an active role in the cooking process such as placing the food in the oven or mixing the ingredients, while Ashkinazim are more lenient and hold that as long as a Jew put on the oven or stove, the rest of the cooking can be done by the non-Jew. (It goes without saying that all other rules of overseeing the non-Jew to make sure only kosher ingredients go into the food must be strictly adhered to according to both Ashkinazim and Sefardim.)

b.     Other factors in Bishul Akum - as discussed in last week’s halacha, if a food is either נאכל כמות שהוא חי - edible raw or אינו עולה על שולחן מלאכים, wouldn’t be served on the table of a king it is not subject to the rules of Bishul Akum. CLICK HERE to read more about this in last week’s halacha. Presumably, donuts will fit into the category of being served at a kings table and thus subject to the laws of bishul akum (not withstanding the factors we will discuss below).

2.     פת עכו׳׳ם – This refers to bread or bread family products baked by a non-Jew. This halacha has an unusual history. The Talmud in Shabbat (17b) states that בית הלל ובית שמאי added a rabbinic prohibition to eating bread baked by a non-Jew. However, the Talmud Yerushalmi (Avoda Zara2:8) says that Beit Din revoked this prohibition, at least in part. They reasoned that bread was a staple of everyone’s diet and it wasn’t easy to find Jewish bakers who could bake enough for the community. Since there was not enough bread to go around, keeping this halacha would be unattainable. Based on the Talmudic principal of אין גוזרים גזרה על ציבור אלא אם כן רוב הציבור יכולים לעמוד בה (עבודה זרה לו.) – that Chazal only added prohibitions if the majority of the community would be able to keep it. While the prohibition would remain to eat bread baked by a non-Jew in his or her home, eating bread baked by a non-Jew in a commercial setting was permitted (obviously you still need a mashgiach to be sure all the ingredients are kosher).

What would be the halacha in a place where Pat Yisrael is readily available as it is today in Israel and in most Jewish neighborhoods in the NY Metro area and beyond?

Rambam says that the leniency of eating פת נחתום או פת פלתר, the bread of a non-Jewish commercial baker is only where Pat Yisrael is not available. Maran Beit Yosef rules this way in Shulchan Aruch as well. The Rema, however,  states that nowadays, this remains the halacha even in locations where Pat Yisrael is readily available. The Sefer K’neset Hagedolah is also lenient based on the logic that so long as the Jewish bakers cannot provide all the bread and bread family products for the entire neighborhood, the פת פלתר  remains permissible. (I would argue that since this halacha applies to all bread and bread family products such as cookies, cakes, pretzels, etc. there may not be enough of these available made by Jews or Jewish companies.) Rav Ovadia quotes other sources that agree with the more lenient approach and that it seems many Sefardic countries also followed the lenient approach and he himself says that is the Sefardic custom today. In short, this is why the minhag of most Jews today is to be lenient and buy bread, bagels, cakes, cookies, pretzels, etc. from commercial companies that adhere to all kashrut rules, but do not have Jewish bakers on premises. (i.e. Entenmann’s, drakes, Bachman’s, Arnolds, Lender’s, Thomas, etc.)

Answer:

Now let’s focus on the question of donuts made by a non-Jew. The real issue is do we treat donuts as a baked item or a cooked item? If they are considered baked, then there is much more room for leniency as we just discussed. If they are considered a cooked item since they are deep fried, then this will become more complex.

The ריב׳׳ש says that donuts that are deep fried in oil and have thin dough are not treated like a bread product, and is, therefore, subject to Bishul Akum. Thus, we could not eat these made by a non-Jewish baker (unlike “baked” products as discussed above).

The next point of debate requires a some introduction. We are all aware that when making a bracha before eating bread, we make המוציא לחם מן הארץ and when complete, we say ברכת המזון. We also know that when eating foods made with the five grains we say בורא מיני מזונות before eating them and על המחיה afterwards. There is a category of mezonot foods called פת הבא בכיסנן which is a big topic beyond the scope of this week’s halacha, but suffice it to say that although you make a בורא מיני מזונות on them and an על המחיה on them, if you eat a very large amount of them, you would actually have to say ברכת המזון and not על המחיה. Donuts fall into this category.

Based on this, Tosfot quote Rabbeinu Chananel as saying that any food that is in this category of פת הבא בכיסנן and would require bentching if eating a lot of it, would maintain the status of a bread product and NOT be subject to the rules of Bishul Akum. Maran Beit Yosef and the Rema rule this way as well. However, not all poskim agree to this. Maran Beit Yosef quotes other poskim who say that it is determined by the intent when it is cooked. So if donuts are deep fried in oil, which is considered a cooking process (not baking), it would be considered a cooked product and subject to bishul akum. This would also mean donuts would not be considered פת הבא בכיסנן so the bracha achronal would remain על המחיה regardless of how much you consumed.

Who should we follow?

Rav Ovadia says that since this is a subject of debate and it is not totally clear which opinion is correct, we should apply our normal rules of doubt, ספק:

1.     For brachot we should say ספר ברכות להקל  and we would not bentch on eating a large amount of donuts.

2.     For deciding if it should be Bishul Akum or פת פלתר, we can be lenient and treat it like a bread product. Thus bishul akum would not apply and if the donuts were made for commercial purposes they would be permissible.

Based on this, it would be permissible to eat donuts made in a commercial kitchen like Dunkin Donuts even if a Jew had no part in the process. This is because we treat it as a bread product which falls under the heter of פת פלתר.

As a side point, I would imagine that in Dunkin Donuts or other facilities under a local or national hashgacha, there probably is a Jew who turns on the fire as well.

a.     This would make the situation even better for Ashkinazim as even if you took the strict side and consider donuts not a bread item, they are now bishul Yisrael since a Jew turned on the oven.

b.     For Sefardim, this would raise an interesting issue as mentioned in the introduction, they generally require a Jew to have a larger role in the cooking process (like mixing the food or placing it in the over) to consider it Bishul Yisrael. However, Rav Ovadia in the next Teshuvah collects a number of reasons to allow Sefardim to be lenient as well.

Returning to the question of donuts made by a non-Jew in a Jew’s house (where we are certain all ingredients are kosher.) The only difference here is that it is in a private home and not a commercial setting, thus if treated as bread product, we still need a Jew to turn the flame on. If treated like a cooked item, Ashkinazim would be ok if the flame is turned on by a Jew. But what about for Sefardim?

Rav Ovadia quotes Tosfot who quote the Ra’avad who say that bishul akum only applies when the non-Jew cooks in his/her own home, but when cooked in the house of a Jew, there is no concern. Although the vast majority of poskim disagree with this opinion, we can combine this opinion with the doubt around whether donuts are subject to bishul akum at all. However, in this situation, since it is not a commercial bakery, Rav Ovadia only permits this if the Jew is sure to turn the flame on himself.

Summary:

1.     Donuts made by a non-Jew, but cooked in a Jewish home are permissible so long as the Jew lit the flame. This is a chiddush for Sefardim who otherwise would not be lenient by Bishul Akum if the only thing the Jew does is light the flame (as opposed to putting it in the oven or mixing the food).

2.     Donuts made in Dunkin Donuts or some other commercial bakery will be permissible on a number of levels.

a.     The company providing hashgacha will be sure to require a Jew to light the flame. In that case it is no different than being made in a Jewish home in terms of bishul.

b.     As stated above, we can assume that most poskim would consider the donuts a bread product and thus not subject to bishul akum at all. They would be subject to the rules of pat akum, which is permissible when baked in a commercial bakery.

(Summary based on שו׳׳ת יחוה דעת חלק ה׳ סימן נג׳)