Parshas Vayigash 5786 – Intriguing Questions & Answers
Food That Was Left Out of Sight—Leaving a Non-Jewish Worker Alone in a Jewish Home
Q:
I am asked every week (and sometimes, unfortunately, I am not asked…) regarding the common practice of leaving a non-Jew alone in a Jewish home to do cleaning, while food and utensils remain in the house. Is there any permission to do so, or is there concern that the worker may switch the food or use the utensils?
A:
Leaving a Non-Jew Alone When There Is Concern of Switching Foods
The Shulchan Aruch (YD 118:10) writes: If one leaves a gentile in his home where there are items such that if they were exchanged there would be even a Torah-level prohibition, if the Jew goes out and comes in (even if the one who goes out and comes in is a child of nine years of age—see Rema YD 115:1; Shach and Taz ad loc.; and even for Torah prohibitions a child suffices, as explained in Shulchan Aruch YD 69:10), or even if he was away for a long time without informing him that he intended to remain away, it is permitted, and we are not concerned that the gentile switched the items—even if he would benefit from such an exchange—because he fears at every moment that the Jew may come and see him. However, if he informed him that he intended to be away, it is forbidden.
If the gentile derives no benefit from an exchange, it is permitted in all cases, for we do not suspect that he would exchange items merely to cause another to sin, since he has no benefit from doing so. Accordingly, there is much room for discussion in cases where the homeowners do not return from work all day, and there is no element of “going out and coming in.” One must ask upon what basis people rely to leave a gentile alone in the home.
The Shulchan Aruch (YD 118:2) writes that one should be stringent not to leave pots with maidservants when no Jew is in the house and there is no “going out and coming in” (within the time it takes to walk a mil—see Chelkas Binyamin there, Bi’urim s.v. “ve’eizeh”). The Shach (sk. 37) and the Vilna Gaon (sk. 36) explain that the source of this ruling is the Rosh, who discusses a case where the homeowner goes to pray in Shul. He writes that although strictly speaking there is no need to be concerned—either because the maidservants gain nothing from switching the food, or because the homeowner did not say how long he would be in the synagogue—nevertheless, the poskim reject both leniencies.
Regarding the first, one must be concerned that she may add some prohibited substance to improve the dish and thereby benefit, since she herself will also enjoy it (though according to this reasoning, there may be a difference if the non-Jew does not eat from the food prepared for the elderly person, in which case there is no concern, as she derives no benefit). Regarding the second, one must be concerned that she knows how long he typically remains in the shul. Accordingly, in our case—where the elderly person cannot return home on his own—there is certainly room for concern (see also Aruch HaShulchan ad loc. §35).
The Leniency of Food That Was Out of Sight When Found in Its Place
The poskim mention several approaches to be lenient, though these do not permit every circumstance, as will be explained. The Shulchan Aruch (YD 63:2) records that some permit meat that was out of sight if it is found in the place where it was left; the Rema writes that the custom is to be lenient in accordance with this view. The Taz (sk. 3) adds that this applies only if it was found in the place where it was left; if it was found elsewhere—even within one’s home—it is forbidden unless it has an identifying sign or one can recognize it with certainty.
Accordingly, if one left food in a pot on a blech on Shabbos, care must be taken to make an identifying sign (see Rema YD 118:1). In practice, however, it is not so easy to make a sign on a pot. Therefore, some advise installing cameras in the home that record everything that occurs, warning the non-Jew not to touch the food on the fire and informing him that there are cameras in the house.
The Chelkas Binyamin (YD 118, Kuntres Acharon) brings proof that one may rely on cameras in such a case, for the Rema (YD 129:1) writes regarding one who left a non-Jew in his wine shop that even if he locked the door, if there is a crack or hole through which one can see inside, it is considered as open. Accordingly, if the non-Jew knows that the homeowner can watch and see everything he does in the home, he is afraid to switch the food. Although the Rema (end of YD 130) writes that a crack or hole is ineffective at night, that is because the non-Jew assumes the Jew is not standing outside at night to look; with a camera, however, there is no difference between day and night, and therefore there is room to be lenient even at night.
Concerns Regarding the Keilim When a Non-Jew Is Left Alone
It should be noted that in any event, when a non-Jew is alone in the home and the homeowner or others are not coming and going, there is also concern regarding the utensils. B’dieved, Igros Moshe (YD I:61) rules leniently after twenty-four hours have passed, since it is a safek d’rabanan, as explained in the Rema (YD 122:9). Nevertheless, he writes that one must be careful not to leave a non-Jewish woman alone in the home when there is concern that she may cook in the Jew’s utensils.
However, he writes there that if the non-Jew does not cook at all in the homeowner’s utensils and has no permission to bring food into the home, and all that he eats is provided by the homeowner, there is substantial basis for leniency. Contemporary poskim have discussed this serious question at length; see Shu”t Shevet HaLevi (vol. 11, §191), Shu”t Vaya’an David (vol. 6, §116), Shu”t Minchas Asher (vol. 2, §51), and Shu”t Emek HaTeshuvah (vol. 9, §86). I will not elaborate further here, as I have already addressed this topic extensively in my work Ohel Yaakov, Hilchos Ma’achalei Akum.
Is it Permitted for One in the Middle of Krias Shema to Do Pesichah?
Q:
A common question arises when someone arrives late to Shul and is in the middle of reciting Krias Shema. The gabbai, not realizing that he arrived late, asks him to do pesichah. May he fulfill this mitzvah in the middle of Krias Shema, or must he ignore the gabbai?
A:
We will begin with what is stated in Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 63:6), as follows: “One who is reciting Krias Shema may not signal with his eyes, mouth with his lips, or point with his fingers during the first paragraph, which is the primary Kabbalas Ol Malchus Shamayim, for it appears as though he is reciting it casually. For it is written, ‘And you shall speak of them’ (Devarim 6:7), from which we learn: make them fixed.”
The Mishnah Berurah (17–18) writes that even signaling for the sake of a mitzvah is forbidden. Some Poskim are stringent even regarding the second paragraph; however, with for the sake of a mitzvah, all agree that signaling is permitted during the second paragraph.
Accordingly, it appears that pesichah is no worse than signaling with one’s eyes for the sake of a mitzvah, and therefore one who is in the second paragraph may fulfill the mitzvah, just as one may signal for a mitzvah at that point. Therefore, if at the time the gabbai asked him he was in the second paragraph, he should approach and perform the mitzvah.
Furthermore, even if at the time he was asked he was still in the first paragraph, he may begin walking toward the Aron; by the time he reaches it, he will have completed the first paragraph—which is brief—and then he may open the Aron.
Shu”t Shevet HaKehati references the Gemara in Berachos (50a) concerning the severity of the punishment of one who is called to the Torah and does not go up. Although this applies specifically to an aliyah to the Torah and not to pesichah, nevertheless, it is certainly considered a great mitzvah and is permitted when reciting the second paragraph. He further adds that ideally, the gabbai should not call someone whom he sees them reciting Krias Shema; however, if he has already been called, he should go and perform the honor.
Separating Challah in a Gan When the Dough Is Prepared for Distribution
Q:
I have been asked by many women who work in Gans (babysitting groups)—especially now during the days of Chanukah, and throughout the year as well—who wish to give the girls an opportunity to fulfill the mitzvah of hafrashas challah. The teachers are uncertain whether challah may be separated, since the dough is prepared with the intention of being divided, and there is a halachah that dough made to be divided is exempt from the obligation of challah.
A:
The Source for the Exemption of Dough Made to Be Divided
We learn in the Mishnah in Challah (1:7): A baker who prepared leaven to divide is obligated in challah. Women who gave dough to a baker to prepare leaven for them—if there is not in any one portion the requisite measure, it is exempt from challah.
In the Yerushalmi there, Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish dispute the explanation of this ruling. Rabbi Yochanan explains the latter case of the Mishnah to mean that one who prepares dough containing the requisite measure for challah, but does so with the intention of dividing it while still dough into portions, none of which contains the required measure, is exempt from challah.
This is ruled accordingly by the Rambam (Hilchos Bikkurim 6:19) and in Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 326:2): A baker who makes dough to turn it into leaven in order to divide it is obligated in challah, since if it is not sold, he will use it to turn into bread; however, one who makes dough with the intention of dividing it while still dough is exempt from challah.
The Rishonim disagree regarding the parameters of this exemption. From the Rambam it is apparent that not only when the dough belongs to several people, each of whom will take a portion, is there an exemption, but even when the dough belongs to one person who intends to divide it, it is likewise exempt, in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yochanan. The Raavad, however, follows the view of Reish Lakish, that the exemption applies only to dough belonging to two or more people; but dough belonging to a single individual who intends to divide it and distribute it to others is obligated in challah, lest he change his mind and not divide it—and therefore he is obligated b’drabanan.
In the View of the Poskim: Defining “Made to Be Divided”
The Gedolei Haposkim dispute when this exemption of “made to be divided” applies. The Vilna Gaon (426:7) writes that the exemption applies only when the dough is divided among several people; but if one divides the dough and retains all the portions for himself, it remains obligated in challah.
The Pischei Teshuvah (YD 326:2) cites the Levush, Derishah, and Bach, who likewise rule that the exemption applies only when one intends to divide the dough among many people. If he divides it only for himself, it is not considered “made to be divided,” for otherwise how could women customarily knead a challah-measure of dough on Erev Shabbos, separate challah with a brachah, even though they intend to form small rolls that individually lack the required shiur?
Baking Challos in Order to Distribute Them to Others
One may wonder regarding the case of a woman who bakes many challos every Erev Shabbos and sends most of them to her married children each week: is this also considered dough that is “made to be divided,” or perhaps since the division takes place only after baking, the obligation of hafrashas challah already took effect at the time of kneading?
The Shach (YD 326:5) and the Taz (ibid. 2) write that the entire exemption of “made to be divided” applies only when one’s intention is to divide the dough while it is still dough. However, if one intends to divide it only after baking, it is obligated, for the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch make clear that the exemption applies only to dough, not to baked bread.
Consequently, one recites a brachah on this separation even if the challah is separated after baking (see Derech Emunah, Hilchos Bikkurim 6:165), unlike the ruling in Shu”t Minchas Yitzchak (vol. 10, §102), citing Shu”t Eretz Tzvi (§49), who ruled that one should separate without a brachah.
In Practice
A teacher who brings flour and bakes challos in school, with all the students receiving dough to knead for themselves, but none receiving a portion containing the measure that obligates hafrashas challah, should not separate challah, unless the teacher herself retains a portion containing the requisite measure. In that case, it is preferable that she separate challah from her own dough and have in mind to exempt the dough of all the students as well.