Nullification - Revision history

YitzchakSultan1: /* Inedible Forbidden Foods (Nifsal Machila) */

2025-05-16T14:22:19Z

Inedible Forbidden Foods (Nifsal Machila)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:22, 16 May 2025
Line 221:		Line 221:

	==Inedible Forbidden Foods (''Nifsal Machila'')==		==Inedible Forbidden Foods (''Nifsal Machila'')==
	#A forbidden food which spoiled and became inedible is biblically permitted but rabbinically forbidden.<ref>The [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44929&st=&pgnum=144 Minchat Cohen Tarovet 1:9] writes that the Rambam Machalot Asurot 14:11 implies that eating forbidden food which is inedible is biblically permitted but forbidden rabbinically. He says further that it is even rabbinically permitted if it is mixed into a mixture even if there is a majority of forbidden ingredients as is evident from Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 103:1. Pri Megadim M"Z 103:1 cites this.</ref>		#A forbidden food which spoiled and became inedible is biblically permitted but rabbinically forbidden.<ref>The [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44929&st=&pgnum=144 Minchat Cohen Tarovet 1:9] writes that the Rambam Machalot Asurot 14:11 implies that eating forbidden food which is inedible is biblically permitted but forbidden rabbinically. He says further that it is even rabbinically permitted if it is mixed into a mixture even if there is a majority of forbidden ingredients as is evident from Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 103:1. Pri Megadim M"Z 103:1 cites this.

			Details of what is considered inedible by today's standards or previous standards see Menuchat Mordechai pp. 220-221 quoting Rav Azriel Auerbach.</ref>
	# If someone eats forbidden foods that are made completely inedible it is nonetheless a rabbinic prohibition. The rabbinic is classically known as ''achshevey'' (Hebrew: אחשביה, lit. he made it important) it is considered as though he considered it edible since he intentionally eating it.<ref>		# If someone eats forbidden foods that are made completely inedible it is nonetheless a rabbinic prohibition. The rabbinic is classically known as ''achshevey'' (Hebrew: אחשביה, lit. he made it important) it is considered as though he considered it edible since he intentionally eating it.<ref>
	* Those who hold of achshevey: Rosh Pesachim 2:1 writes that if someone ate burnt chametz that wasn't edible even to a dog violates a prohibition since he made it significant by eating it. This is further explained by the Trumat Hadeshen responsa 129 and codified by Shulchan Aruch O.C. 442:9.		* Those who hold of achshevey: Rosh Pesachim 2:1 writes that if someone ate burnt chametz that wasn't edible even to a dog violates a prohibition since he made it significant by eating it. This is further explained by the Trumat Hadeshen responsa 129 and codified by Shulchan Aruch O.C. 442:9.

YitzchakSultan1 at 18:32, 13 July 2023

2023-07-13T18:32:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:32, 13 July 2023
Line 272:		Line 272:
	<references />		<references />
	[[Category:Kashrut]]		[[Category:Kashrut]]
			{{Kashrut}}

Unknown user: /* Dvar Sheyesh Lo Matirin */

2023-04-26T03:36:31Z

Dvar Sheyesh Lo Matirin

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:36, 26 April 2023
Line 122:		Line 122:
	#Something which is forbidden to someone and for others would be considered permitted after a time according to some is considered dvar sheyesh lo matirin, while according to many isn't considered dvar sheyesh lo matirin for the person for whom it is forbidden. For example, if something was intentionally cooked on Shabbat and was mixed in another food it is a dispute whether that considered dvar sheyesh lo matirin.<ref>The Rama 102:4 quotes Rabbenu Yerucham that it isn't considered dvar sheyesh lo matirin if for someone else it is permitted after a time. However, the Magen Avraham 318:2 argues since it is permitted for someone else after a time and it is like bikkurim. However, the Chavot Daat 102 disputes that point. Mishna Brurah 318:5 and Badei Hashulchan 102:54 cite the dispute without any resolution.</ref>		#Something which is forbidden to someone and for others would be considered permitted after a time according to some is considered dvar sheyesh lo matirin, while according to many isn't considered dvar sheyesh lo matirin for the person for whom it is forbidden. For example, if something was intentionally cooked on Shabbat and was mixed in another food it is a dispute whether that considered dvar sheyesh lo matirin.<ref>The Rama 102:4 quotes Rabbenu Yerucham that it isn't considered dvar sheyesh lo matirin if for someone else it is permitted after a time. However, the Magen Avraham 318:2 argues since it is permitted for someone else after a time and it is like bikkurim. However, the Chavot Daat 102 disputes that point. Mishna Brurah 318:5 and Badei Hashulchan 102:54 cite the dispute without any resolution.</ref>
	#A majority that isn’t in front of us to ascertain (''ruba dlayta kaman'') is effective even for a dvar sheyesh lo matirin.<ref>Ran Beitzah 3b s.v. vdavka, Rabbenu Peretz Pesachim 7a s.v. bhar, Ritva Pesachim 7a s.v. umi, Rabbenu Dovid Pesachim 9b, Tzlach Pesachim 7a s.v. ulbatar, Peni Yehoshua Pesachim 7a s.v. btosfot lifnei, Mordechai Beitzah n. 651. See Rashba (Avodat Hakodesh Bet Moed 5:4:58) who is strict on a ruba dlayta kaman for a dvar sheyesh lo matirin. Though it seems there that it is only a minhag, Maggid Mishna Yom Tov 4:24 quotes the Rashba as holding it is asur. See however, Rashba Beitzah 7b s.v. ki who sounds like he’s lenient. Magen Avraham 513:3 is strict.</ref>		#A majority that isn’t in front of us to ascertain (''ruba dlayta kaman'') is effective even for a dvar sheyesh lo matirin.<ref>Ran Beitzah 3b s.v. vdavka, Rabbenu Peretz Pesachim 7a s.v. bhar, Ritva Pesachim 7a s.v. umi, Rabbenu Dovid Pesachim 9b, Tzlach Pesachim 7a s.v. ulbatar, Peni Yehoshua Pesachim 7a s.v. btosfot lifnei, Mordechai Beitzah n. 651. See Rashba (Avodat Hakodesh Bet Moed 5:4:58) who is strict on a ruba dlayta kaman for a dvar sheyesh lo matirin. Though it seems there that it is only a minhag, Maggid Mishna Yom Tov 4:24 quotes the Rashba as holding it is asur. See however, Rashba Beitzah 7b s.v. ki who sounds like he’s lenient. Magen Avraham 513:3 is strict.</ref>
	#''Kol dparish'' is effective even for dvar sheyesh lo matirin.<Ref>Pitchei Teshuva 102:1, Tzlach Pesachim 7a s.v. ulbatar</ref>		#''Kol dparish'' is effective even for dvar sheyesh lo matirin.<Ref>Pitchei Teshuva YD 102:1, Tzlach Pesachim 7a s.v. ulbatar</ref>
	#Something subject to a dispute whether it is forbidden or an unanswered question of the gemara is nullified and not subject to the rules of dvar sheyesh lo matirin.<ref>Gidulei Hekdesh 330:2 citing Pri Chadash, Rabbi Akiva Eiger (responsa 65 and hagahot YD 16), Shagat Aryeh 90, and Pri Megadim (Intro to Yom Tov 2:1:27) unlike the Taz 497:9. Gidulei Hekdesh supports the Taz fom Rashi Eruvin 39b s.v. lo. Yabia Omer EH 6:2 follows Pri Chadash and quotes Maharsham 2:156 who prove from Tosfot Yoma 47b s.v. hadar and Rabbi Akiva Eiger 65 s.v. v'af who proves from Ran Nedarim 47b like Pri Chadash. </ref>		#Something subject to a dispute whether it is forbidden or an unanswered question of the gemara is nullified and not subject to the rules of dvar sheyesh lo matirin.<ref>Gidulei Hekdesh 330:2 citing Pri Chadash, Rabbi Akiva Eiger (responsa 65 and hagahot YD 16), Shagat Aryeh 90, and Pri Megadim (Intro to Yom Tov 2:1:27) unlike the Taz 497:9. Gidulei Hekdesh supports the Taz fom Rashi Eruvin 39b s.v. lo. Yabia Omer EH 6:2 follows Pri Chadash and quotes Maharsham 2:156 who prove from Tosfot Yoma 47b s.v. hadar and Rabbi Akiva Eiger 65 s.v. v'af who proves from Ran Nedarim 47b like Pri Chadash. </ref>
	# Something that had a previous presumption of being permitted (''chezkat heter'') is nullified and not subject to the rules of dvar shyesh lo matirin.<ref>Gidulei Hekdesh 330:2 quoting Nodeh Beyehuda EH 38. He supports it from Eruvin 56a.</ref>		# Something that had a previous presumption of being permitted (''chezkat heter'') is nullified and not subject to the rules of dvar shyesh lo matirin.<ref>Gidulei Hekdesh 330:2 quoting Nodeh Beyehuda EH 38. He supports it from Eruvin 56a.</ref>

Unknown user: /* Dvar Sheyesh Lo Matirin */

2023-04-19T20:46:26Z

Dvar Sheyesh Lo Matirin

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:46, 19 April 2023
Line 123:		Line 123:
	#A majority that isn’t in front of us to ascertain (''ruba dlayta kaman'') is effective even for a dvar sheyesh lo matirin.<ref>Ran Beitzah 3b s.v. vdavka, Rabbenu Peretz Pesachim 7a s.v. bhar, Ritva Pesachim 7a s.v. umi, Rabbenu Dovid Pesachim 9b, Tzlach Pesachim 7a s.v. ulbatar, Peni Yehoshua Pesachim 7a s.v. btosfot lifnei, Mordechai Beitzah n. 651. See Rashba (Avodat Hakodesh Bet Moed 5:4:58) who is strict on a ruba dlayta kaman for a dvar sheyesh lo matirin. Though it seems there that it is only a minhag, Maggid Mishna Yom Tov 4:24 quotes the Rashba as holding it is asur. See however, Rashba Beitzah 7b s.v. ki who sounds like he’s lenient. Magen Avraham 513:3 is strict.</ref>		#A majority that isn’t in front of us to ascertain (''ruba dlayta kaman'') is effective even for a dvar sheyesh lo matirin.<ref>Ran Beitzah 3b s.v. vdavka, Rabbenu Peretz Pesachim 7a s.v. bhar, Ritva Pesachim 7a s.v. umi, Rabbenu Dovid Pesachim 9b, Tzlach Pesachim 7a s.v. ulbatar, Peni Yehoshua Pesachim 7a s.v. btosfot lifnei, Mordechai Beitzah n. 651. See Rashba (Avodat Hakodesh Bet Moed 5:4:58) who is strict on a ruba dlayta kaman for a dvar sheyesh lo matirin. Though it seems there that it is only a minhag, Maggid Mishna Yom Tov 4:24 quotes the Rashba as holding it is asur. See however, Rashba Beitzah 7b s.v. ki who sounds like he’s lenient. Magen Avraham 513:3 is strict.</ref>
	#''Kol dparish'' is effective even for dvar sheyesh lo matirin.<Ref>Pitchei Teshuva 102:1, Tzlach Pesachim 7a s.v. ulbatar</ref>		#''Kol dparish'' is effective even for dvar sheyesh lo matirin.<Ref>Pitchei Teshuva 102:1, Tzlach Pesachim 7a s.v. ulbatar</ref>
	#Something subject to a dispute whether it is forbidden or an unanswered question of the gemara is nullified and not subject to the rules of dvar sheyesh lo matirin.<ref>Gidulei Hekdesh 330:2 citing Pri Chadash, Rabbi Akiva Eiger (responsa 65 and hagahot YD 16), Shagat Aryeh 90, and Pri Megadim (Intro to Yom Tov 2:1:27) unlike the Taz 497:9. Gidulei Hekdesh supports the Taz fom Rashi Eruvin 39b s.v. lo.</ref>		#Something subject to a dispute whether it is forbidden or an unanswered question of the gemara is nullified and not subject to the rules of dvar sheyesh lo matirin.<ref>Gidulei Hekdesh 330:2 citing Pri Chadash, Rabbi Akiva Eiger (responsa 65 and hagahot YD 16), Shagat Aryeh 90, and Pri Megadim (Intro to Yom Tov 2:1:27) unlike the Taz 497:9. Gidulei Hekdesh supports the Taz fom Rashi Eruvin 39b s.v. lo. Yabia Omer EH 6:2 follows Pri Chadash and quotes Maharsham 2:156 who prove from Tosfot Yoma 47b s.v. hadar and Rabbi Akiva Eiger 65 s.v. v'af who proves from Ran Nedarim 47b like Pri Chadash. </ref>
	# Something that had a previous presumption of being permitted (''chezkat heter'') is nullified and not subject to the rules of dvar shyesh lo matirin.<ref>Gidulei Hekdesh 330:2 quoting Nodeh Beyehuda EH 38. He supports it from Eruvin 56a.</ref>		# Something that had a previous presumption of being permitted (''chezkat heter'') is nullified and not subject to the rules of dvar shyesh lo matirin.<ref>Gidulei Hekdesh 330:2 quoting Nodeh Beyehuda EH 38. He supports it from Eruvin 56a.</ref>

Unknown user: /* Dvar Sheyesh Lo Matirin */

2021-11-04T15:38:54Z

Dvar Sheyesh Lo Matirin

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:38, 4 November 2021
Line 123:		Line 123:
	#A majority that isn’t in front of us to ascertain (''ruba dlayta kaman'') is effective even for a dvar sheyesh lo matirin.<ref>Ran Beitzah 3b s.v. vdavka, Rabbenu Peretz Pesachim 7a s.v. bhar, Ritva Pesachim 7a s.v. umi, Rabbenu Dovid Pesachim 9b, Tzlach Pesachim 7a s.v. ulbatar, Peni Yehoshua Pesachim 7a s.v. btosfot lifnei, Mordechai Beitzah n. 651. See Rashba (Avodat Hakodesh Bet Moed 5:4:58) who is strict on a ruba dlayta kaman for a dvar sheyesh lo matirin. Though it seems there that it is only a minhag, Maggid Mishna Yom Tov 4:24 quotes the Rashba as holding it is asur. See however, Rashba Beitzah 7b s.v. ki who sounds like he’s lenient. Magen Avraham 513:3 is strict.</ref>		#A majority that isn’t in front of us to ascertain (''ruba dlayta kaman'') is effective even for a dvar sheyesh lo matirin.<ref>Ran Beitzah 3b s.v. vdavka, Rabbenu Peretz Pesachim 7a s.v. bhar, Ritva Pesachim 7a s.v. umi, Rabbenu Dovid Pesachim 9b, Tzlach Pesachim 7a s.v. ulbatar, Peni Yehoshua Pesachim 7a s.v. btosfot lifnei, Mordechai Beitzah n. 651. See Rashba (Avodat Hakodesh Bet Moed 5:4:58) who is strict on a ruba dlayta kaman for a dvar sheyesh lo matirin. Though it seems there that it is only a minhag, Maggid Mishna Yom Tov 4:24 quotes the Rashba as holding it is asur. See however, Rashba Beitzah 7b s.v. ki who sounds like he’s lenient. Magen Avraham 513:3 is strict.</ref>
	#''Kol dparish'' is effective even for dvar sheyesh lo matirin.<Ref>Pitchei Teshuva 102:1, Tzlach Pesachim 7a s.v. ulbatar</ref>		#''Kol dparish'' is effective even for dvar sheyesh lo matirin.<Ref>Pitchei Teshuva 102:1, Tzlach Pesachim 7a s.v. ulbatar</ref>
			#Something subject to a dispute whether it is forbidden or an unanswered question of the gemara is nullified and not subject to the rules of dvar sheyesh lo matirin.<ref>Gidulei Hekdesh 330:2 citing Pri Chadash, Rabbi Akiva Eiger (responsa 65 and hagahot YD 16), Shagat Aryeh 90, and Pri Megadim (Intro to Yom Tov 2:1:27) unlike the Taz 497:9. Gidulei Hekdesh supports the Taz fom Rashi Eruvin 39b s.v. lo.</ref>
			# Something that had a previous presumption of being permitted (''chezkat heter'') is nullified and not subject to the rules of dvar shyesh lo matirin.<ref>Gidulei Hekdesh 330:2 quoting Nodeh Beyehuda EH 38. He supports it from Eruvin 56a.</ref>

	===Chametz===		===Chametz===

Unknown user: /* Min Bmino Veino Mino */

2021-10-04T18:51:39Z

Min Bmino Veino Mino

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:51, 4 October 2021
Line 57:		Line 57:

	#If there's a mixture of like tasting ingredients and unlike tasting ingredients and the forbidden ingredient isn't recognizable. If (1) the volume of the like-tasting ingredient is greater than the volume of the forbidden ingredient and (2) the volume of the permitted ingredients, both those of similar and dissimilar tastes, is sixty times that of the forbidden ingredient the mixture is permitted.<ref>The Shulchan Aruch YD 98:2 is lenient even if there's a doubt if there's sixty but the Shach 98:6 disagrees because it is a biblical issue so one couldn't be lenient in a case of doubt. However, if there's a certain sixty that is permitted according to everyone. Pri Megadim M"Z 98:3 clarifies this as well.</ref>		#If there's a mixture of like tasting ingredients and unlike tasting ingredients and the forbidden ingredient isn't recognizable. If (1) the volume of the like-tasting ingredient is greater than the volume of the forbidden ingredient and (2) the volume of the permitted ingredients, both those of similar and dissimilar tastes, is sixty times that of the forbidden ingredient the mixture is permitted.<ref>The Shulchan Aruch YD 98:2 is lenient even if there's a doubt if there's sixty but the Shach 98:6 disagrees because it is a biblical issue so one couldn't be lenient in a case of doubt. However, if there's a certain sixty that is permitted according to everyone. Pri Megadim M"Z 98:3 clarifies this as well.</ref>
	#If there's a mixture of like tasting ingredients and unlike tasting ingredients and the forbidden ingredient isn't recognizable. If (1) the volume of the like-tasting ingredient is equal to or less than the volume of the forbidden ingredient but (2) the volume of the permitted ingredients, both those of similar and dissimilar tastes, is sixty times that of the forbidden ingredient, some poskim hold that the the mixture is permitted, while others argue.<ref>The Pri Megadim (Shaar Hataarovet 3:1 s.v. vnistapakti) has a doubt about a case in which there's 1/2 a piece of nevelah meat, 1/2 a piece of kosher meat, and 30 pieces of vegetables. On the one hand, one will taste the taste of meat in the 30 pieces of vegetables and since the taste of meat is comprised of both the kosher and non-Kosher it is forbidden. Yet, the Kereti assumes that this is permitted since the taste of the non-Kosher meat dispersed into sixty times its volume of Kosher ingredients. The Pri Megadim proves from the Taz OC 318:15 that it is forbidden. In OC M"Z 318:15 he points out that the Rama and Eliya Rabba seem to be lenient on this question as long as the forbidden ingredient wasn't sufficient on its own to give a taste because of [[Zeh Vezeh Gorem]]. Likutei Megadim quotes the Maharam Shik YD 114 who says that it is permitted since there's no way that something permitted can cause Chozer Vneer from the ~~gemara~~ Bechorot 20a. But there would be less than 60 it would be forbidden biblically since the meat is tasted. He also quotes the Bet Yehuda 98:2 s.v. nireh who is lenient since the taste of the forbidden ingredient is masked by the permitted ingredient. See Rambam (Machalot Asurot 15) who also implies it is permitted.</ref>		#If there's a mixture of like tasting ingredients and unlike tasting ingredients and the forbidden ingredient isn't recognizable. If (1) the volume of the like-tasting ingredient is equal to or less than the volume of the forbidden ingredient but (2) the volume of the permitted ingredients, both those of similar and dissimilar tastes, is sixty times that of the forbidden ingredient, some poskim hold that the the mixture is permitted, while others argue.<ref>The Pri Megadim (Shaar Hataarovet 3:1 s.v. vnistapakti) has a doubt about a case in which there's 1/2 a piece of nevelah meat, 1/2 a piece of kosher meat, and 30 pieces of vegetables. On the one hand, one will taste the taste of meat in the 30 pieces of vegetables and since the taste of meat is comprised of both the kosher and non-Kosher it is forbidden. Yet, the Kereti assumes that this is permitted since the taste of the non-Kosher meat dispersed into sixty times its volume of Kosher ingredients. The Pri Megadim proves from the Taz OC 318:15 that it is forbidden. In OC M"Z 318:15 he points out that the Rama and Eliya Rabba seem to be lenient on this question as long as the forbidden ingredient wasn't sufficient on its own to give a taste because of [[Zeh Vezeh Gorem]]. Likutei Megadim quotes the Maharam Shik YD 114 who says that it is permitted since there's no way that something permitted can cause Chozer Vneer from the Gemara Bechorot 20a. But there would be less than 60 it would be forbidden biblically since the meat is tasted. He also quotes the Bet Yehuda 98:2 s.v. nireh who is lenient since the taste of the forbidden ingredient is masked by the permitted ingredient. See Rambam (Machalot Asurot 15:22) who also implies it is permitted.</ref>

	==Foods with a Higher Ratio of Nullification==		==Foods with a Higher Ratio of Nullification==

Unknown user: /* Min Bmino Veino Mino */

2021-10-03T00:58:54Z

Min Bmino Veino Mino

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:58, 3 October 2021
Line 57:		Line 57:

	#If there's a mixture of like tasting ingredients and unlike tasting ingredients and the forbidden ingredient isn't recognizable. If (1) the volume of the like-tasting ingredient is greater than the volume of the forbidden ingredient and (2) the volume of the permitted ingredients, both those of similar and dissimilar tastes, is sixty times that of the forbidden ingredient the mixture is permitted.<ref>The Shulchan Aruch YD 98:2 is lenient even if there's a doubt if there's sixty but the Shach 98:6 disagrees because it is a biblical issue so one couldn't be lenient in a case of doubt. However, if there's a certain sixty that is permitted according to everyone. Pri Megadim M"Z 98:3 clarifies this as well.</ref>		#If there's a mixture of like tasting ingredients and unlike tasting ingredients and the forbidden ingredient isn't recognizable. If (1) the volume of the like-tasting ingredient is greater than the volume of the forbidden ingredient and (2) the volume of the permitted ingredients, both those of similar and dissimilar tastes, is sixty times that of the forbidden ingredient the mixture is permitted.<ref>The Shulchan Aruch YD 98:2 is lenient even if there's a doubt if there's sixty but the Shach 98:6 disagrees because it is a biblical issue so one couldn't be lenient in a case of doubt. However, if there's a certain sixty that is permitted according to everyone. Pri Megadim M"Z 98:3 clarifies this as well.</ref>
	#If there's a mixture of like tasting ingredients and unlike tasting ingredients and the forbidden ingredient isn't recognizable. If (1) the volume of the like-tasting ingredient is equal to or less than the volume of the forbidden ingredient but (2) the volume of the permitted ingredients, both those of similar and dissimilar tastes, is sixty times that of the forbidden ingredient, some poskim hold that the the mixture is permitted, while others argue.<ref>The Pri Megadim (Shaar Hataarovet 3:1 s.v. vnistapakti) has a doubt about a case in which there's 1/2 a piece of nevelah meat, 1/2 a piece of kosher meat, and 30 pieces of vegetables. On the one hand, one will taste the taste of meat in the 30 pieces of vegetables and since the taste of meat is comprised of both the kosher and non-Kosher it is forbidden. Yet, the Kereti assumes that this is permitted since the taste of the non-Kosher meat dispersed into sixty times its volume of Kosher ingredients. The Pri Megadim proves from the Taz OC 318:15 that it is forbidden. In OC M"Z 318:15 he points out that the Rama and Eliya Rabba seem to be lenient on this question as long as the forbidden ingredient wasn't sufficient on its own to give a taste because of [[Zeh Vezeh Gorem]]. Likutei Megadim quotes the Maharam Shik YD 114 who says that it is permitted since there's no way that something permitted can cause Chozer Vneer from the gemara Bechorot 20a. But there would be less than 60 it would be forbidden biblically since the meat is tasted. He also quotes the Bet Yehuda 98:2 s.v. nireh who is lenient since the taste of the forbidden ingredient is masked by the permitted ingredient.</ref>		#If there's a mixture of like tasting ingredients and unlike tasting ingredients and the forbidden ingredient isn't recognizable. If (1) the volume of the like-tasting ingredient is equal to or less than the volume of the forbidden ingredient but (2) the volume of the permitted ingredients, both those of similar and dissimilar tastes, is sixty times that of the forbidden ingredient, some poskim hold that the the mixture is permitted, while others argue.<ref>The Pri Megadim (Shaar Hataarovet 3:1 s.v. vnistapakti) has a doubt about a case in which there's 1/2 a piece of nevelah meat, 1/2 a piece of kosher meat, and 30 pieces of vegetables. On the one hand, one will taste the taste of meat in the 30 pieces of vegetables and since the taste of meat is comprised of both the kosher and non-Kosher it is forbidden. Yet, the Kereti assumes that this is permitted since the taste of the non-Kosher meat dispersed into sixty times its volume of Kosher ingredients. The Pri Megadim proves from the Taz OC 318:15 that it is forbidden. In OC M"Z 318:15 he points out that the Rama and Eliya Rabba seem to be lenient on this question as long as the forbidden ingredient wasn't sufficient on its own to give a taste because of [[Zeh Vezeh Gorem]]. Likutei Megadim quotes the Maharam Shik YD 114 who says that it is permitted since there's no way that something permitted can cause Chozer Vneer from the gemara Bechorot 20a. But there would be less than 60 it would be forbidden biblically since the meat is tasted. He also quotes the Bet Yehuda 98:2 s.v. nireh who is lenient since the taste of the forbidden ingredient is masked by the permitted ingredient. See Rambam (Machalot Asurot 15) who also implies it is permitted.</ref>

	==Foods with a Higher Ratio of Nullification==		==Foods with a Higher Ratio of Nullification==

Unknown user: /* Intentional Bitul */

2021-09-24T14:31:41Z

Intentional Bitul

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:31, 24 September 2021
Line 179:		Line 179:
	==Intentional Bitul==		==Intentional Bitul==

	#It's forbidden to intentionally mix forbidden food into permissible food so that it should become nullified. <ref>Gemara Beitzah 4a, Shulchan Aruch YD 99:5. The Raavad ([http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8897&st=&pgnum=24 Isur Mashehu ch. 2]) considers this to be biblically forbidden, while the Ran ([http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14310&st=&pgnum=609 Chullin 35b]) and [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9381&st=&pgnum=256 Rashba (Torat HaBayit 31b)] hold that it is derabbanan. See Bet Yosef Y"D 99, Shach 99:7, and Chachmat Adam 52:6 </ref>		#It's forbidden to intentionally mix forbidden food into permissible food so that it should become nullified. This rabbinic prohibition is called ''ein mevatlin isur lechatchila'' (Heb. אין מבטלין איסור לכתחלה; lit. "It is forbidden to initially nullify a prohibited item").<ref>Gemara Beitzah 4a, Shulchan Aruch YD 99:5. The Raavad ([http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8897&st=&pgnum=24 Isur Mashehu ch. 2]) considers this to be biblically forbidden, while the Ran ([http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14310&st=&pgnum=609 Chullin 35b]) and [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9381&st=&pgnum=256 Rashba (Torat HaBayit 31b)] hold that it is derabbanan. See Bet Yosef Y"D 99, Shach 99:7, and Chachmat Adam 52:6 </ref>
	##If one did so intentionally, the food is forbidden for the person who did the nullification and his family as well as the person on whose behalf it was done and his family.<ref>The Yerushalmi Orlah 3:6 states that if a person did nullify a prohibited item, if done so intentionally it is forbidden if unintentionally it is permitted. This is echoed in the opinions of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yose in Gittin 54b. The Rambam (Maachalot Asurot 15:25, according to the Bet Yosef 99:5), [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9381&st=&pgnum=256 Rashba (Torat HaBayit 31b)], and Tur 99:5 codify this as the halacha. Shulchan Aruch YD 99:5 concurs. The [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9381&st=&pgnum=257 Rashba (Torat HaBayit 32a)] writes that the food is forbidden for the person doing the nullification as well as the one for whom it was does on his behalf so that he doesn't benefit from his sinful actions. The Rashba cites the Rambam and Raavad in agreement with this idea. Shulchan Aruch YD 99:5 codifies this. Additionally, the Maharshal cited by the Taz 99:10 writes that anytime it is forbidden for the person it is also forbidden for his whole family. The Kaf HaChaim 99:45 agrees. See Kaf HaChaim 99:46 regarding the dispute whether the penalty against one who did nullification includes the pot as well. </ref> If the person on whose behalf it was done didn't know about it, it is permitted for him.<ref>Taz 99:10, Kaf HaChaim 99:44</ref>		##If one did so intentionally, the food is forbidden for the person who did the nullification and his family as well as the person on whose behalf it was done and his family.<ref>The Yerushalmi Orlah 3:6 states that if a person did nullify a prohibited item, if done so intentionally it is forbidden if unintentionally it is permitted. This is echoed in the opinions of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yose in Gittin 54b. The Rambam (Maachalot Asurot 15:25, according to the Bet Yosef 99:5), [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9381&st=&pgnum=256 Rashba (Torat HaBayit 31b)], and Tur 99:5 codify this as the halacha. Shulchan Aruch YD 99:5 concurs. The [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9381&st=&pgnum=257 Rashba (Torat HaBayit 32a)] writes that the food is forbidden for the person doing the nullification as well as the one for whom it was does on his behalf so that he doesn't benefit from his sinful actions. The Rashba cites the Rambam and Raavad in agreement with this idea. Shulchan Aruch YD 99:5 codifies this. Additionally, the Maharshal cited by the Taz 99:10 writes that anytime it is forbidden for the person it is also forbidden for his whole family. The Kaf HaChaim 99:45 agrees. See Kaf HaChaim 99:46 regarding the dispute whether the penalty against one who did nullification includes the pot as well. </ref> If the person on whose behalf it was done didn't know about it, it is permitted for him.<ref>Taz 99:10, Kaf HaChaim 99:44</ref>
	##Others, however, may benefit from the mixture if it wasn't done specifically for their sake. <ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 99:5 </ref>		##Others, however, may benefit from the mixture if it wasn't done specifically for their sake. <ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 99:5 </ref>

Unknown user: /* Introduction to Taste of Forbidden Foods */

2021-05-27T22:04:56Z

Introduction to Taste of Forbidden Foods

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:04, 27 May 2021
Line 2:		Line 2:
	==Introduction to Taste of Forbidden Foods==		==Introduction to Taste of Forbidden Foods==

	#There’s a dispute between Rashi<ref>Rashi chullin 98b</ref> and Tosfot<ref>Tosfot Chullin 98b s.v. Rava based on the Gemara Pesachim 44b which derives from the pasuk that bread with the taste of wine is biblically forbidden to a nazir.</ref> whether we consider the taste of a forbidden food like the actual forbidden food itself on a biblical level or only on a rabbinic level. Rashi holds it is only rabbinic and Tosfot holds it is biblical. One ramification of this is if there’s a mixture of a forbidden food in a liquid mixture of another taste which was permitted, if it is unclear whether there is sixty times the volume<ref>Badei Hashulchan 98:12 rules that nullification depends on the volume and not weight.</ref> of the forbidden food according to Rashi it is permitted and according to Tosfot it is forbidden. We hold like Tosfot. <ref>Shulchan Aruch 98:1-2, Badei Hashulchan 98:1. Bet Yosef 98:1 argues that Rashi would agree that if there's a proportion of a kezayit within a pras of the mixture it is biblically forbidden. Even though Rashi Avoda Zara 67b isn't clear that he agrees, the Ritva Avoda Zara 67a s.v. amar agrees with the Bet Yosef. See Pesachim 44a as well.</ref>		#There’s a dispute between Rashi<ref>Rashi chullin 98b</ref> and Tosfot<ref>Tosfot Chullin 98b s.v. Rava based on the Gemara Pesachim 44b which derives from the pasuk that bread with the taste of wine is biblically forbidden to a nazir.</ref> whether we consider the taste of a forbidden food like the actual forbidden food itself on a biblical level or only on a rabbinic level. Rashi holds it is only rabbinic and Tosfot holds it is biblical. One ramification of this is if there’s a mixture of a forbidden food in a liquid mixture of another taste which was permitted, if it is unclear whether there is sixty times the volume<ref>Badei Hashulchan 98:12 rules that nullification depends on the volume and not weight.</ref> of the forbidden food according to Rashi it is permitted and according to Tosfot it is forbidden. We hold like Tosfot.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 98:1-2, Badei Hashulchan 98:1. Bet Yosef 98:1 argues that Rashi would agree that if there's a proportion of a kezayit within a pras of the mixture it is biblically forbidden. Even though Rashi Avoda Zara 67b isn't clear that he agrees, the Ritva Avoda Zara 67a s.v. amar agrees with the Bet Yosef. See Pesachim 44a as well that kezayit kdei achilat pras is biblical according to everyone. Minchat Cohen 1:2 and Lechem Mishna Machalot Asurot 15:2 ask on Bet Yosef that Rashi Avoda Zara doesn't sound like he agrees. For answers for the Bet Yosef see Rabbi Akiva Eiger and Chavot Daat.
			* The Rash Tavul Yom 2:3 writes that Kezayit Bkdei Achilat Pras is biblical even regarding min bmino. However, Maharam Chalavah Pesachim 44a explicitly disagrees. Tosfot Pesachim 44a and Ritva A"Z 67b s.v. amar also disagrees with the Rash. See Baal Hameor Pesachim 44a who seems to agree with the Rash.</ref>
	#A food that fell into a mixture and was nullified and then falls into another mixture that second mixture is also forbidden unless there’s nullification. <ref>Gemara Chullin 108b, Rama 98:4</ref> However, if that item fell back into that same mixture it is still nullified with the original sixty times the forbidden item.<ref>Rama 98:4. See Badei Hashulchan 98:61 who explains why we don’t assume that the forbidden taste reawakens when the forbidden item falls in again.</ref>		#A food that fell into a mixture and was nullified and then falls into another mixture that second mixture is also forbidden unless there’s nullification. <ref>Gemara Chullin 108b, Rama 98:4</ref> However, if that item fell back into that same mixture it is still nullified with the original sixty times the forbidden item.<ref>Rama 98:4. See Badei Hashulchan 98:61 who explains why we don’t assume that the forbidden taste reawakens when the forbidden item falls in again.</ref>
	#Forbidden foods require sixty times for nullification even if it less than the requisite amount of a [[kezayit]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch 98:6</ref>		#Forbidden foods require sixty times for nullification even if it less than the requisite amount of a [[kezayit]].<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 98:6</ref>
	#Spices which are intrinsically forbidden aren’t nullified in sixty as long as their taste is recognizable. <ref>Rama 98:8. See Badei Hashulchan 98:84 whether this is biblically forbidden or rabbinically. The Taz holds that this only applies to spices or sharp foods but not everything that has a strong taste. See Badei Hashulchan 98:87 for a variant opinion.</ref>		#Spices which are intrinsically forbidden aren’t nullified in sixty as long as their taste is recognizable. <ref>Rama 98:8. See Badei Hashulchan 98:84 whether this is biblically forbidden or rabbinically. The Taz holds that this only applies to spices or sharp foods but not everything that has a strong taste. See Badei Hashulchan 98:87 for a variant opinion.</ref>

Unknown user: /* Intentional Bitul */

2021-02-01T04:14:11Z

Intentional Bitul

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:14, 1 February 2021
Line 201:		Line 201:
	*The Taz 99:15 discusses this Rashba at length and offers two alternate explanations of the Gemara Avoda Zara 33b. Based on Rashi, the water is permitted since it dilutes the wine absorption and ruins it. Additionally, the Ran (Avoda Zara 12b) explains that it is permitted to fill up the wine containers used by the non-Jews for wine in order to Kosher them and even though in the process the water will nullify the wine absorption it is permitted since that isn't one's intent. The Taz concludes in disagreement with the Rashba.		*The Taz 99:15 discusses this Rashba at length and offers two alternate explanations of the Gemara Avoda Zara 33b. Based on Rashi, the water is permitted since it dilutes the wine absorption and ruins it. Additionally, the Ran (Avoda Zara 12b) explains that it is permitted to fill up the wine containers used by the non-Jews for wine in order to Kosher them and even though in the process the water will nullify the wine absorption it is permitted since that isn't one's intent. The Taz concludes in disagreement with the Rashba.
	*The Shulchan Aruch YD 99:7 rules like the Rashba and the Kaf Hachaim 99:73 and Aruch Hashulchan 99:49 write that one can rely on the Rashba only if 24 hours have passed.</ref>		*The Shulchan Aruch YD 99:7 rules like the Rashba and the Kaf Hachaim 99:73 and Aruch Hashulchan 99:49 write that one can rely on the Rashba only if 24 hours have passed.</ref>
	#Some rishonim hold that it is permissible to nullify something prohibited if one doesn't intend to nullify it.<ref>Ran Avoda Zara 12b s.v. iybaya posulates that there is no prohibition to nullify something forbidden if one's intention isn't to benefit from the prohibited food. Tosfot Chachmei Angliya Pesachim 30a s.v. ulshmuel, Tosfot Rabbenu Peretz Pesachim 30a s.v. amar rav, Rabbenu Peretz cited in Tur 453:3, Rivash 349, Maharam Mrotenburg (Prague edition n. 190), Rashba (teshuva 463), and Orchot Chaim (Machalot Asurot n. 43, cited by Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 84:13) all have this same approach. Shaar Hamelech (Machalot Asurot 15:25) wonders why the Ran in Pesachim 30a don't address Tosfot's question there the way Rabbenu Peretz answered the question considering that in Avoda Zara he accepts that approach.</ref>		#Some rishonim hold that it is permissible to nullify something prohibited if one doesn't intend to nullify it.<ref>Ran Avoda Zara 12b s.v. iybaya posulates that there is no prohibition to nullify something forbidden if one's intention isn't to benefit from the prohibited food. Tosfot Chachmei Angliya Pesachim 30a s.v. ulshmuel, Tosfot Rabbenu Peretz Pesachim 30a s.v. amar rav, Rabbenu Peretz cited in Tur 453:3, Rivash 349, Maharam Mrotenburg (Prague edition n. 190), Rashba (teshuva 463), and Orchot Chaim (Machalot Asurot n. 43, cited by Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 84:13) all have this same approach. Shaar Hamelech (Machalot Asurot 15:25) wonders why the Ran in Pesachim 30a don't address Tosfot's question there the way Rabbenu Peretz answered the question considering that in Avoda Zara he accepts that approach. See Shoel Umeishiv 2:65 who tries to resolve this issue.</ref>

	==Noten Taam Lifgam==		==Noten Taam Lifgam==