When Is It Permitted to Benefit the Lender and Checking for Bugs: Difference between pages

From Halachipedia
(Difference between pages)
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
==Gifts or Favors from the Borrower==
==General Rules of Checking for Bugs==
#It is forbidden to give a gift or interest even before or after a loan from another Jew and certainly during the loan.<ref>Mishna Bava Metsia 75b, Shulchan Aruch YD 160:6</ref> If someone does so they violated avak ribbit.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 160:6, Shach 160:8. Bet Yosef 160:5 inquires whether giving a gift after the loan that was specified for the loan is considered a Biblical violation of ribbit or only rabbinic. He notes that the Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:3 who writes that one only violates ribbit Biblically if it was specified at the time of the initial loan would think this is only rabbinic ribbit. See Bet Yosef 166:3 that perhaps Rashi holds it is Biblical.</ref>
===Before or After the Loan===
# Some say that it is permitted to give a gift before or after the loan from another Jew if you don’t specify that it is because of the loan.<ref>Tur 160:6, Bet Yosef citing Rosh, Hagot Mordechai 433, Smak 260, and Rashi 73b s.v. achulei, Rama 160:6. Smag cited by Tur 160:6 makes a compromise to allow it if it is a small gift.</ref> However, others disagree.<ref>Rambam Malveh Uloveh 5:11, Shulchan Aruch 160:6</ref> Ashkenazim follow the first opinion and Sephardim the second.<ref>Laws of Ribbis p. 87 is lenient.</ref>
# All agree that it is forbidden if it is a large gift or if you specify it is because of the loan.<ref>Rama 160:6</ref> The determination of a large and small gift depends on the people and context. Any gift which people would understand is in gratitude<ref>Netivot Shalom 160:12 quotes the Machaneh Efraim 17 who says that if one gives a gift explicitly out of gratitude it is permitted, however, that is completely rejected by the Hagahot Ashri 5 and Rashba b"b 138b.</ref> for the loan is forbidden.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 160:48</ref>
# Some say that everyone agrees if one’s intention is to give it because of the loan it is forbidden.<ref>Shach 160:10, Taz 160:3, Chelkat Binyamin 160:45</ref> However, there is an opinion that it is permitted if one doesn’t specify that it is for the loan.<ref>Chavot Daat 160:3 writes that even if one intends to give a gift in order to get a loan it is permitted as long as one doesn’t specify that it is for the loan. Pitchei Teshuva 160:7 cites this.</ref> For example, paying to be able to buy on credit is forbidden.<Ref>The Laws of Ribbis p. 87</ref>
# Some say that it is permitted to give a gift before or after the loan from another Jew if you usually give the lender such gifts.<ref>Tosfot 64b s.v. achal, Sefer Hatrumot 2:46:3:11, Rambam Malveh Uloveh 5:12, Bet Yosef 161:4</ref> It is permitted for a borrower to hand a tissue to the lender since it is a common courtesy.<ref>Laws of Ribbis p. 90</ref>
# If it is a long time after the loan it is permitted to give a gift that isn't because of the loan.<ref>Bet Yosef 160:6 proves from Tosfot Gittin 20b that it is permitted to give a gift to the lender a long time after the loan. Shach 160:10 agrees but adds that if one specifies that the gift is because of the loan it is forbidden even if it is a while later. Chelkat Binyamin 160:49 argues and concludes that there is what to rely upon to be lenient.</ref> This statue of limitations to gifts depends on the context. As long as it is clear that it is because of the loan it is forbidden, but once it isn't clear that it is because of the loan it is permitted.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 160:49</ref>
# If the borrower and lender have become friends because of the loan and at this point in their relationship it would be normal to give such a gift for the friendship such as for a celebration and not because of the loan it is permitted. This is only permitted if it is clear that the gift is for the friendship and not the loan.<ref>Netivot Shalom 160:6:13:4</ref>


===Mitzvot===
#There are four types of vegetables and fruits with respect to checking bugs.
# It is forbidden to teach one’s lender or his son Torah during the duration of the loan unless he did so regularly before the loan.<ref>Rambam Malveh Vloveh 5:12, Shulchan Aruch 160:10. See Chavot Daat 160 who writes that according to the Rashba responsa 799 it should be permitted to teach him Torah since the lender didn't gain any financial gain. Nonetheless, Chavot Daat explains that we follow the Rambam who holds that any expenditure of money or time of the borrower for the sake of the lender is forbidden.</ref>
##Vegetables that the chance of finding a bug in a serving is less than a miyut hamatzuy<ref>Yalkut Yosef v. 2 p. 212 quotes the Mishkenaot Yakov 17 but seems to conclude that the halacha is like the Rivash 191 that miyut hamatzuy is close to rov. He cites there Bedikat Hamazon p. 181 who quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman as holding like the Mishkenot Yakov, See Shevet Halevi 4:81 who is concerned for less than 10%.</ref> of bugs is permitted and doesn't need to be checked at all.<ref>Badei Hashulchan 100:46 citing Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 84:8</ref>
# It is forbidden to do the pidyon haben of one's son with one's lender.<ref>Mishnat Ribbit 4:24 citing Ketav Sofer 146, Brit Yehuda 11 fnt 49. Mishnat Ribbit points out (based on S"A Y.D. 160:23) that this is forbidden even if the lender didn't stipulate in the beginning of the loan that the borrower must do the pidyon haben with him.</ref>
##Vegetables that the chance of finding a bug in a serving is more than a miyut hamatzuy of bugs but less than 50% needs to be checked. This obligation is rabbinic.<ref>Badei Hashulchan 100:46 citing Shach 84:26</ref> If a person washed the vegetables and afterwards there's less than a miyut hamatzuy there's no longer an obligation to check the vegetables.<ref>Yalkut Yosef Iser Vheter p. 318 he clarifies that if after washing there was less than a miyut hamatzuy it would be sufficient to wash it without checking it.</ref>
#It is forbidden to buy an honor in Shul for one's lender.<Ref>Shach 166:1</ref>
##Vegetables that the chance of finding a bug in a serving is 50% needs to be checked and the obligation to check is biblical. If it was cooked in a stew and stirred with a spoon in a way that might have crushed the bugs without being checked, after the fact the food is permitted since it could be that there weren't bugs and it could be that the bugs were crushed.<ref>Badei Hashulchan 100:46 citing Shach 84:35</ref>
##Vegetables that the chance of finding a bug in a serving is greater than 50% then they are forbidden until it is completely checked. If it was cooked without being checked it is forbidden.<ref>Badei Hashulchan 100:46</ref>
#With regard to fruits that are supposed to be checked, checking the majority of the fruits is not enough to ascertain that the rest are kosher.<ref>Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 46:36 </ref>
#If one notices a dot (that is not moving) on a fruit or vegetable, but even someone familiar with insects cannot identify it as a bug without a microscope, it would be permitted.<ref>Halichos Shlomo Moadim (Pesach), pg. 176 and Shevet HaLevi 7:122 </ref>
#Most poskim hold that you do not need to use a magnifying glass to check for bugs.<ref>Aruch HaShulchan YD 84:36, Iggerot Moshe YD II: 146, Halichos Shlomo, Moadim (Pesach) p. 176, and Yechave Daat 6:47. </ref>
#Even though bugs are disgusting, nonetheless it would make a mixture forbidden since it is a living creature and isn't nullified.<ref>Pri Chadash 103:5 and Kaf Hachaim 103:5 unlike the Aruch Hashulchan 103:11. The Pri Chadash proves his point from the Rambam (Machalot Asurot 2:21). The Kaf Hachaim proves his point from the Shulchan Aruch 103:4 and Torat Chatat 85:24 (which was written by the Rama, but the version which is a proof is from an emendation and not the Rama). Some achronim including the Panim Meirot and Chavot Yair agree with the Aruch Hashulchan in explaining the Rama to mean that something isn't a briyah as long as it is now pagum since it is a bug. However, the Gra 103:2 and Pri Chadash 103:5 explain that the Rama is talking about a good tasting food that became spoiled.</ref>
#If a hechsher is placed on a vegetable you can assume that it is permissible to eat without further checking unless stated explicitly. This doesn't necessarily mean that there are zero bugs in the bag. Either the hechsher might mean that the vegetable has a instance of infestation less than miyut hamatzuy (10%) and doesn't need checking, they rely upon checking three sample sizes in a larger batch, or they rely upon the washing and checking of the quality control supervisor of the company.<ref>[https://oukosher.org/blog/consumer-kosher/in-the-bag-kosher-certification-of-bagged-salads/ OU Hechsherim on Salads]. The source for checking three out of a larger sample is from Tuv Taam Vdaat 1:123.</ref>


===Favors, Kind Gestures, and Saying Thank You (Ribbit Devarim)===
==Specific Foods==
# It is forbidden to give any benefit to the lender. Even a nice word or greeting them with a simple word hello can be forbidden if a person didn’t usually say hello before the loan and one is doing it because of the loan.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 75b, Rambam Malveh Vi'Loveh 5:12, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 160:11</ref> This is called Ribbit Devarim and is a rabbinically forbidden form of ribbit.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 160:95, The Laws of Ribbis (Rabbi Reisman) Chapter 3:note 16, Bris Yehuda 11: note 62, Horaa Berura 160:56, Chochmat Adam 131:11<br>
===Bugs in Water===
Is it Diroayta or Dirabanan?
* Sefer Hatrumot Shaar 46:3:13, as well as the Ran (Ketubot 46b or 16b in Dapei Harif) say that this prohibition is dirabanan. See also Rambam Peirush Hamishnayot. Chelkat Binyamin 160:95, The Laws of Ribbis (Rabbi Reisman) Chapter 3:note 16, Bris Yehuda 11: note 62, Horaa Berura 160:56, Chochmat Adam 131:11 all write that this is the accepted opinion, and the pasuk quoted by the Gemara is just as asmachta.
* Rav Elchonon Wasserman (Kovetz Shiurim Kiddushin Ot 77) writes that the implication of Tosafot Kiddushin 8b “Tzedaka Minayin” is that this prohibition is actually from the Torah. (See there where he questions such a possibility. See also Yabea Omer YD 4:9 where he discusses whether Tosafot really hold that way). Sefer Yereim 118 and Smag (Rav 193) hold this way. Yabea Omer 4:9 quotes this as the opinion of the Rivash 147 as well</ref>
# Ribbit Devarim only applies during the duration of the loan and not before or afterwards.<ref>Rabbenu Yerucham Meisharim 8:1, Meyuchas LRitva Bava Metsia 68b s.v. visura, Radvaz 3:1060, Chelket Binyamin 160:99 and 95 citing Ran Ketubot 46a, Sefer Hatrumot 3:13, Shulchan Aruch 160:10</ref> Some say that even after the loan is repaid it is forbidden to thank someone for a loan explicitly because of the loan; also it is forbidden to flatter someone to give you a loan before the loan begins.<reF>Horah Brurah on 160:11 citing Shulchan Aruch Harav 160:9</ref>
# Many poskim permit thanking the lender with a simple thank you<ref>see [https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/866229/rabbi-aryeh-lebowitz/from-the-rabbi-s-desk-the-prohibition-to-say-thank-you/ Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz]<br>
* [https://www.torahbase.org/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%AA-%D7%9B%D7%99-%D7%AA%D7%A6%D7%90-%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%93%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95%D7%91%D7%98%D7%95%D7%91%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%94/ Rav Osher Weiss] argues emphatically that a simple thank you is permitted and proper
* Horaa Berura 160:60 permits this as well because it is just being polite. Additionally, since he will respond with a "you're welcome," the two pleasantries cancel each other out. He adds (Shaar Hatziyun 137) that it would only be allowed at the time of borrowing or repaying, but not at a random other time where it isn't necessary.
* [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?a=16507 Rabbi Gershon West] says in the name of Rav Shmuel Fuerst, that even though Rav Moshe Feinstein writes that publishing a thank you in a sefer is not permitted, he would allow saying a thank you when borrowing.
* Chacham Ovadia Yosef (Halichot Olam 8: pg. 14) allows it. Ribbis Le-Or Ha-Halachah cites from Chacham Ben-Zion Abba Shaul that one can be lenient in this matter</ref> Others question the permissibility since it is giving something to the lender in return for the loan in addition to the original loan. Some are lenient since it is a generally accepted custom to thank people for very small favors and so it is rude to do otherwise and if the entire expression of gratitude is minimal it is like it was normal to do beforehand. see also Orchos Rabbenu 4: pg. 65 who writes that when the Chazon Ish would lend someone money, he would tell them not to say thank you<ref>
* Chelkat Binyamin 160:108 presents reasons to be lenient since thanking someone for a loan is merely a sign of derech eretz and not in exchange for the loan. See there at length. Additionally, he cites Minchat Shlomo 1:27:1 and 2:68 based on Graz is strict.<br>
</ref>
# It is forbidden to write in a sefer thank you to someone who lent you money in order to publish a sefer.<ref>Igrot Moshe YD 1:80. There he permits writing that Hashem should bless the person since that is a mitzvah to publicize someone who does a mitzvah. Darkei Teshuva 88 quotes the Erech Shai who is machmir and the Marbeh Torah who is lenient. Yabea Omer YD 4:9 recommends that if one wants to thank a lender, that some of the money, should be used as a donation, or even the purchase of the eventual sefer, rather than a loan</ref> Others permit this.<ref>Rabbi Meir Mazuz (Ohr Torah 22:2:4) allows this for the mitzva and cites several example of sefarim that were published with thank you’s to the lender at the beginning.</ref>
# Some say that you can praise your lender to others because it isn’t interest that goes from the borrower to the lender. <ref> The Laws of Ribbis 3:13 and Bris Yehuda 11: note 63 based on Shulchan Aruch Harav 9. see however Yabea Omer 4:9:4 </ref>
# If the lender initiates a greeting, the borrower can respond.<ref> The Laws of Ribbis 3:11 based on the language of Shulchan Aruch 160:11 </ref>
# It is forbidden for the lender to ask the borrower for any favor even something simple as alerting him when someone will come to a certain place.<ref>Mishna Bava Metsia 75b, Shulchan Aruch 160:12</ref>
# It is forbidden to ask the borrower to do something for you, even if he would have done so anyway.<ref>Taz 160:5 in explaining the Rambam, Chelkat Binyamin 160:111. Rav Meir Akoka in Bnetivot Hahorah 10:24 p. 150 proves from the S"A 172:4, S"A 160:23, and Mabit 1:6 unlike the Taz. He applies the Taz to many examples including: lending money on condition that he stops smoking, he puts conditions on how he can spend the money properly, for a certain apartment, how the loan is repaid with check or cash. </ref>
# The borrower can’t go to the simcha (celebration) of the lender unless he would have done so anyway.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 160:112</ref>


===Business Obligations Upon the Borrower===
#There is a concern for copepods in the New York City tap water. Some hold that the water needs to be filtered before drinking it.<ref>See [https://www.sefaria.org/Contemporary_Halakhic_Problems%2C_Vol_VI%2C_Chapter_7_New_York_City_Water Rabbi Bliech's article in Contemporary Halachic Problems v. 6 ch. 7]</ref> As to which filters suffice see Rabbi Dr. David Shabtai RJJ article (v. 49 pp. 38-80).
# It is forbidden to lend money on condition that the borrower does business with him or someone else<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 160::249</ref> specifically. There is a doubt if it is Biblical interest or only rabbinic interest.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 160:23. Taz 160:22 disagrees that it is certainly forbidden for a borrower to give trumah to a kohen lender since the lender is gaining but doing business with someone isn’t considered a gain since he is paying for a service. Nekudat Hakesef 160:23 writes that if the lender didn’t have a lot of business and this agreement gets him more business it is forbidden. Chelkat Binyamin 160:248 is strict for Shulchan Aruch certainly in a case of hiring a worker.</ref>
#If the lender has a job it is forbidden to stipulate that the borrower use the lender for his services whenever he needs that type of service.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 160:23</ref>
# If the borrower has a job it is forbidden to stipulate that the borrower do that job even for a fair price for the lender whenever the lender needs it.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 246 writes that the Gra 167:1 compares it to S"A YD 160:23. Chelkat Binyamin writes that according to the second answer of the Shach it is permitted but we shouldn't follow that answer alone.</ref>
# If there is no stipulation it is nonetheless forbidden for the borrower to do business with the lender to hire him specifically.<ref>Rama 160:23</ref> If the reason one is hiring him isn't because of the loan but because he has a better deal or the like it is permitted.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 160:253</ref>
# If the lender is poor it is forbidden for the borrower to give him charity aside from repaying the loan. If he would have given him charity anyway if not for the loan it is permitted.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 160:254</ref>
# Many poskim say that it is forbidden for a seller to allow people to buy on credit only if they spend a certain amount. The reason is that having a minimum to buy on credit is like making a loan to the buyers on condition that they do more business with you.<ref>Mishnat Ribbit 4:34 cites Brit Yehuda 10:36 and Kuntres Acharon Lkitzur Dinei Ribbit 7:1 citing Rav Elyashiv and Rav Bronsdorfer as holding it is forbidden because this condition forces the buyer to spend more and that is like lending money on condition that someone does business specifically with you (S"A 160:23). However, Rav Nissim Karelitz, Rav Halberstaum (Refidato Zahav), and Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul (Parshat Ribbit 10:20) permit it since it isn't clear that the buyer is buying extra because of the loan. Also the merchant can have such a limit not to in order to create such a condition but to benefit his bigger customers. Rav Karelitz held practically one shouldn't do this because it is common that a buyer will come to pay and then realize that he doesn't have enough and then go back in order to reach the limit, which would be obvious that he is doing so for the loan.</ref>
# It is forbidden for the borrower give a lender a loan during or after the original loan unless he regularly did so previously because doing so is considered a favor to the lender. This is only an issue if the second loan is larger or for a longer period of time, otherwise some poskim hold that it is permitted to give the lender such a loan.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 160:90 based on the Graz writes that for rabbinic questions of interest we follow the opinion that it is permitted to give a loan to one's lender.</ref>


===Following Instructions of the Lender===
===Strawberries===
#It is forbidden for the lender to tell the borrower that I will lend you on condition that you convince someone to give you a gift.<ref>Rabbenu Yerucham 1:8 cited by Bet Yosef 160:15 and codified by Shulchan Aruch 160:15.
* The Gra 160:31 explains that based on the principle of arev and eved kenani it is considered as though the money was given from that third party to the lender since it was given on his say so. Furthermore, since that gift was given by the agency of the borrower it is like he gave the gift to the lender.
* Taz 160:20 explains that it is forbidden since the lender has pleasure over the fact that people follow his instructions. Shach 160:8 seems to agree.</ref>
===Paying When Debt Is Unclear===
# If the lender and borrower can't agree on the amount of the debt the borrower can pay the higher of the amounts. Ideally he should specify that it is a gift and not for the loan.<ref>Laws of Ribbis p. 88 citing Avnei Nezer CM 26, Brit Yehuda 5:35, Minchat Yitzchak 6:161, 9:88</ref>
===Lender Benefiting from the Borrower's Property===
# It is forbidden for the lender to benefit from the borrower's property for the duration of the loan without the permission of the borrower. The reason is that it appears to the public<ref>Netivot Shalom 160:7:7 suggests that perhaps nowadays when many loans take place in private and it isn't public knowledge using the borrower's property without permission could be permitted. If the loan is only known to a few people and those people know that anyway there was a previous relationship between the lender and borrower the Netivot Shalom thinks that the Shach 166:1 would be lenient. </reF> as though the lender is only benefiting from the borrower's property because of the loan and as such the lender is taking interest.<ref>Tosfot b"m 64b s.v. aval, Rosh b"m 5:17, Rosh responsa 108:17, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 160:7</ref>
# Before or after the loan it is permitted for the lender to benefit from the borrower's property if it is the type of item that he would have done so even if not for the loan.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 160:57</ref>
# If the borrower before the loan regularly lent his property to the lender even without his permission then it is permitted to do so during the loan.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 159:58 citing Graz n. 11. Netivot Shalom 160:7:5 argues based on the Rosh 9:8.</ref>
# If everyone regularly borrows this type of item without the permission of the owner then it is permitted for the lender to borrow that item since it doesn't appear as though he is benefiting from the borrower because of the loan.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 160:58 based on Graz</ref>
# It is forbidden for the borrower to let the lender rent a house of his or that he rented for less than the fair rent.<ref>Ranach responsa 69 cited by Pitchei Teshuva 166:2</ref>
===If Lender Benefited from the Borrower's Property===
# If someone lent money he may not let the lender use his house for free. If he does that is considered rabbinic interest. If the house is up for rent then the lender needs to return the value of the rent. If the house isn't for rent and the owner wouldn't rent it, some say that it needs to be returned, while others holds there's no obligation to return it.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 166:1 writes that it doesn't need to be returned like the Ramban, but also cites the Rambam who says it is rabbinic interest and needs to be returned.</ref>
# If someone stipulates that his borrower can use his property for free, if the house is usually rented out, that is Biblical interest and must be returned. Even if it isn't usually rented out it is still rabbinic interest and must be returned.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 166:2 cites both the opinion of the Rosh and not the Rambam who says it is always Biblical interest even if it isn't usually rented out.</ref>
# If the stipulation to use the borrower's property happened after the original loan but it happened when they decided to extend the loan, it is a dispute if it is Biblical interest.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch 166:2 cites the dispute between the Rambam that it is rabbinic interest and the Rashi that it is rabbinic.</ref>


===Hiring the Lender for a Job===
#The Star-K writes that one should wash the strawberries in soap water and agitate them in the water. Afterwards they should be rinsed, the tops cut off, and no checking is required.<ref>https://www.star-k.org/checking. Rav Shlomo Amar in Shma Shlomo YD 7:4-5 5772 writes that the strict halacha is that any bug that's not visible to the naked eye is permitted and even if it is detectable by its movement it is permitted. Rav Amar explains from many poskim that anything which is so small that it isn't visible to the naked eye it is considered nothing in halacha and not forbidden. He explains that it isn't just because things which are so small are hard to discover and the Torah doesn't expect us to find them with microscopes. Rather they aren't considered anything of significance and are permitted. As such he thinks that strawberries don't need to be checked but it is proper to wash them in soap and water and remove the tops.
# It is forbidden to stipulate that you will lend me money and I'll hire you for a fair price because that is considered as though one is paying them for the loan. There is a dispute if this is Biblical or rabbinic interest.<ref>Maharam (kirmona edition, responsa 257), Rama Y.D. 166:3. Chelkat Binyamin 160:43 writes that the Maharam writes that it is Biblical interest, while the Rama 166:3 implies it is only rabbinic interest. He concludes that it is an unresolved dispute.</ref>
# It is forbidden to lend money to someone and in the same situation be hired by him for a fare price because that appears to be interest. However, it is permitted if it is done in two settings. Alternatively, it is permitted if the loan is given as a complete gift even though the borrower is likely to give the gift back.<ref>Rama 166:3, Chelkat Binyamin 166:45, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 177:13</ref>
===Right of First Refusal===
# If a person lent money to another Jew so that they could buy a piece of real estate and added a clause that granted the right of first refusal to the lender that would be forbidden as interest.<ref>Because the lender is stipulating that he has the right to buy back that piece of real estate if the seller chooses to sell it that is considered a benefit he is extracting from the borrower. According to the Nekudat Hakesef 160:23's first answer it is forbidden unless that original piece of real estate was a collateral for the loan. According to the second answer it could be permitted if it is a fair price for the real estate. Additionally, the Chavot Daat answers that it is forbidden to stipulate the right to buy a real estate unless it is sold retroactively from the time of the loan so that the loan reverts to a sale and the ownership was in the hands of the "lender" for the duration of the "loan". The only answer that would permit this deal is the second answer of the Shach. The poskim do not rely on the second answer of the Shach alone (Chelkat Binyamin 172:72, Brit Yehuda 11:25).</ref> This could be remedied by having the lender pay the borrower the standard brokerage fee for not having to pursue this deal.<ref>[https://businesshalacha.com/en/business-weekly/archive/78?selected=1 Business Halacha (Beshalach 5778)]</ref>


==Non-Financial Benefit==
*Rav Amar quotes that the Yavetz 2:124 writes that checking for bugs in rice with a magnifying glass or in the sun is a reason to be strict but one shouldn't rule that it is forbidden. Pitchei Teshuva 84:5 and Machzik Bracha 84:41 cite this. Aruch Hashulchan 84:36 holds that seeing something in the sun is considered normal sight unlike seeing through a microscope. Shevet Halevi YD 7:125:2 writes that one has to be concerned with bugs that are visible to someone with good eyes even though a regular person couldn't see it.
# It’s forbidden for the borrower to do a favor to the lender if he would not have done it otherwise (if not for the loan). Even if the borrower would have done a certain favor if not for the loan, the borrower may not do that favor in public unless they have a good relationship and the borrower has done public favors for the lender in the past.<Ref>The Weekly Halachah Discussion (vol 2, pg 346) </ref>
*Chayei Halevi YD 3:56:5 quotes that the Chazon Ish held that even bugs that aren't recognizable are forbidden and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach agreed. Rav Amar argues that the Chazon Ish couldn't have said that. From his text Chazon Ish YD 14:6 it could be explained otherwise, only if it is once recognizable and whole but just not recognizable because it is mixed up is it not nullified.
# While some poskim prohibit the borrower from thanking the lender for the loan under the prohibition of ribbit devarim <Ref> Iggerot Moshe YD 1:80 </ref>, other poskim are lenient and allow a simple thank you. <ref> Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in Minchat Shlomo 1:27 </ref>
*Rav Amar concludes that if one sees a dot on the strawberry but you can't identify what it is without a microscope or magnifying glass that is also permitted to eat. One doesn't even need to check if it is a bug. Furthermore, even if you see under microscope that it is a bug it is permitted.
# There’s no prohibition to do a non-financial favor after the loan was paid up. <Ref> Birkei Yosef Y”D 160:11, The Weekly Halachah Discussion (vol 2, pg 348), Malveh Hashem (vol 1, 8:30) </ref>
*Binat Adam 38:49, Aruch Hashulchan 84:36, Yachava Daat 6:47, Igrot Moshe EH 3:33, and Igrot Moshe YD 2:146 hold that bugs or bacteria that aren't recognizable to the naked eye are permitted to eat. Shemirat Shabbat Khilchata v. 1 ch. 3 fnt. 105 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman as being strict on bugs that aren't visible because of what he heard about the Chazon Ish's opinion on bugs. Rav Amar quotes this and questions it.</ref>
==Collateral Fields==
# It is forbidden for a lender to use the collateral that the borrower provided without certain conditions.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 164:4</ref> According to Ashkenazim it is permitted for a borrower to eat the fruit of the collateral field if either he pays for the fruit or there is a condition that the borrower can't kick him out of the field at any time. However, according to Sephardim it is always forbidden unless they use a system in which the fruit of the collateral serves as the pay of the loan and at a certain date the fruit are considered to have paid off the loan (''Mashkanta Dsura'').<ref>The opinion of Rashi (B"m 71a s.v. lo mesalkinan) is that it is permitted for a lender to eat the fruit except for where they kick out the lender at any time and he isn't pay for the fruit. Even then it is only rabbinic. Tosfot b"m 64b and Rosh b"m 5:34 agree. Rashba b"m 68a s.v. linyan holds that if he pays it is permitted while if he doesn't it is forbidden. The Rif b"m 38b and Rambam Malveh Vloveh 6:7 hold it is forbidden in all cases for the lender to eat the fruit. The only pay to permit a lender to benefit from the fruit is if they use the Mashkanta Dsura method. Under the Mashkanta Dsura the fruit of the collateral serve as the payment of the loan and after a certain amount of time the field is returned to the borrowed for nothing else in exchange. The Shulchan Aruch 172:1 seems to follow the opinion of the Rif, while the Rama follows the opinion of the Rabbenu Tam and also cites Rashba, however, he notes that each place should follow their minhag.
The Shach 172:1 clarifies that the Shulchan Aruch holds for the contingency of Mashkanta Dsura to be effective it needs to have the language of that the loan will be paid by a certain time and the field will be returned, which implies a sale as opposed to a loan. Additionally, it must be the case that the lender can't force the borrower to repay the loan at any time.</ref>
# Mashkanta Dsura is equally effective for a house as it is for a field.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 172:1, Shach 172:4</ref>
# If the lender eats the fruit of the field of the borrower that was a collateral some say that it is Biblical interest,<Ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 164:4</ref> while others hold it is only rabbinic interest.<ref>Rama 164:4</ref>


==Payments from a Third Party to Create a Loan==
===Lettuce===
# It is permitted to give someone money in order that they lend money to someone else.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 69b</ref> That is only permitted on condition that the giver isn’t reimbursed by the borrower. Furthermore, the borrower can’t tell the lender that the giver is giving on his behalf.<ref>Rosh b”m 5:47 holds that it is necessary to have 3 conditions in order for someone to give a gift to a lender. 1) the giver isn’t reimbursed by the borrower, 2) the borrower can’t tell the lender that he should lend him because of that gift, and 3) the borrower can’t initiate to have someone give a gift to the lender. The Ramban b”m 69b s.v. shari disagrees with condition 3 since ultimately the money isn’t given from the borrower it is permitted. Additionally, it is clear that the Ramban forbade asking an agent to give a gift for him. Ritva 69b s.v. amar accepts the Ramban that it is permitted to convince the giver to give the gift and he even allows the borrower to reimburse the giver since the giver gave it on his own. Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 160:13 accepts the Ramban but still insists that the first two conditions are necessary. Pitchei Teshuva 160:9 quotes the Mishna Lmelech Malveh 5:14 and Shaar Hamelech who think that according to the Ramban the second condition isn’t necessary. Chelkat Binyamin 160:128 quotes a dispute about this point and is lenient only in an extenuating circumstance as Shulchan Aruch implies that this second condition is absolutely necessary.</ref>
# Some poskim add that the borrower may not convince the giver to give a gift to the lender.<ref>The Rosh Bava Metsia 5:47 held it is forbidden for someone to ask someone to give a gift to someone in order that they lend for them since doing so makes the giver into an agent of the borrower. However, the Ramban 69b s.v. shari disagrees. Since the borrower isn’t paying for this gift and the money is coming from a third party it is considered as though the money wasn’t given from the borrower to the lender and is permitted. Rashba 69b s.v. ha writes that the Raavad held like the Rosh and the Ramban argued. Shulchan Aruch 160:13 follows the Ramban but cites the Rosh as an individual opinion.</ref> There is what to rely upon to be lenient.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 160:13 follows the Ramban as he does he writes in the Bet Yosef that since it is only rabbinic one can be lenient. Shach 160:18 cites this. Chelkat Binyamin 160:126 agrees. See however Pitchei Teshuva 160:9 who cites the Gedulei Trumah that this dispute is about a Biblical question. </ref>
# It is certainly forbidden to hire someone to get someone to lend you money and that hired agent pays the lender some of that money.<ref>Taz 160:7</ref>
===Gifts between the Borrower and a Guarantor===
# A borrower who accepts to pay his guarantor some amount of money each month or period of time it isn’t considered interest since it isn’t a payment from the borrower to the lender. This is permitted unless the lender set up the loan in order to get the borrower to pay the guarantor.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 160:10 citing the Chavot Yair 190</ref>


==Payments from a Borrower to a Third Party==
#One shouldn't eat lettuce without checking for bugs. Some say that since such a thorough check is necessary and it is hard to do one shouldn't eat any lettuce besides for Pesach and then just to eat the stalks after checking. However, one could buy greenhouse lettuce which doesn't have as many bugs, check it and rinse it off.<ref>Yalkut Yosef v. 2 p. 226 writes that one shouldn't eat lettuce without checking it for bugs. But since it is so hard to do a thorough check one shouldn't eat lettuce at all besides for maror on Pesach and just to eat the stalks. However, the greenhouse lettuce is permitted but should still be checked with a normal quick check and a little rinse. He cites many sources that are concerned for bugs on lettuce including: Sefer HaZichronot p. 23, Knesset Hagedola 84:52, Chatom Sofer OC 132, Yehuda Yaaleh 139, Rav Chaim Palagi in Chaim LRosh p. 72, Zivchei Tzedek 84:93, Ben Ish Chai (Shana Sheniya Parshat Naso n. 8; Tzav n. 27), Chazon Ovadia 1:2:657, Kaf Hachaim 84:100. With respect to lettuce with which the planters did something to prevent bugs, he cites Igrot Moshe YD 2:25 that they too should be washed since it is a rov created by an action (Bechorot 20a). Rav Ovadia in Halichot Olam v. 1 p. 294 he writes that it is good to check such lettuce.</ref>
#It is forbidden to ask a borrower to pay back anything in excess of the capital to someone else or a tzedaka. That is considered Biblical ribbit.<ref>Tosfot Bava Metsia 71b s.v. maso writes that it is obviously forbidden to have the borrower pay someone else for the loan since that is like he paid the original lender based on the principle of arev. An arev is a guarantor who is indebted because money was paid to someone else based on his word, similarly, the interest is being paid to the third party based on the agreement of the lender. This is true even if the third party isn’t Jewish. Bet Yosef 160:14 cites the Haghot Ashri 5:47, Rabbenu Yerucham 1:8 27b, Mordechai b”m 327-328, Ran responsa 29:7 who agree. Mordechai 327 specifically forbids asking the borrower to give money to tzedaka.</ref> If the third party already took the money the lender needs to return to the borrower the amount of that gift to the third party since he caused interest to be given.<ref>Mordechai b”m 327-328 clarifies that since giving the interest to a third party is Biblical interest it must be returned by the lender. This is cited by the Shach 160:19. Even though the Pitchei Teshuva 160:11 quotes that Rabbi Akiva Eiger wasn’t sure about this, Chelkat Binyamin p. 78 clarifies that it was only the questioner to Rabbi Eiger who wasn’t sure but Rabbi Eiger certainly would accept the Shach. </ref>
#Some say that it isn't necessary to check triple washed lettuce.<ref>[https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/954281/rabbi-chaim-jachter/standards-for-home-fruit-and-vegetable-inspection-for-insects/ Rabbi Jachter] citing Rabbi Mordechai Willig and Rabbi Asher Bush and he concurred.</ref>
#It doesn’t matter if the lender initiated this stipulation or the borrower initiated the stipulation and the lender agreed to lend on that condition.<Ref>Rama 160:14</ref>
===Payments to a Third Party to Create a Loan===
# It is permitted to pay a third party in order that he encourage someone to lend you money since the recipient of the payment isn’t the lender.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 69b, Shulchan Aruch 308:16</ref>
# This third party could be anyone besides a close family member such as a financially dependant child of the lender.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 308:16. Taz 160:10 adds that a child even if they’re not financially dependant on the father it is forbidden to pay them since it is like paying the lender themselves. Shach 160:21 agrees. Pitchei Teshuva 160:12 cites the Lechem Rav who says that paying a husband to encourage his wife to lend him is forbidden since they are financially connected.</ref>
# It is forbidden for this recipient to give the money to the lender.<ref>Rama 160:16 writes that it is forbidden for the recipient of the money to give it to the lender since it is like a scheme of how to pay interest.</ref>
===Gifts between the Guarantor and the Lender===
# If the guarantor or anyone else accepts to pay the lender some amount of money each month or some period of time as long as the borrower hasn’t paid that is considered interest.<ref>Taz 160:6</ref>
===Paying up a Loan of the Lender===
# It is rabbinically forbidden for the borrower to repay another loan of the lender if he does so besides returning the capital of the loan that he borrowed.<ref>Radvaz 3:1060, Chavot Daat 160:5. Radvaz points out that this is different that the laws of someone who one took a [[neder]] not to benefit since paying their loans isn't a benefit.</ref>


==Paying for the Fees and Other Losses of the Lender==
===Cabbage===
# It is forbidden for the borrower to pay for a loss than the lender incurred because the borrower didn't pay back on time. This includes a loss of profits<ref>Rashba 3:227 writes that it is forbidden to pay for the loss of profits of the lender, otherwise no ribbit would be forbidden.</ref> and a loss if he had to take out an interest loan from a non-Jew.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 161:8. See Shevet Halevi 9:172 who forbids paying for lost profits but permits paying for interest payments the lender made to a non-Jew since that is considered like a damage he incurred because of the borrower.</ref> For example, if one Jew borrows another Jew's credit card and doesn't pay back on time if the credit card owner ends up paying the interest to the credit card company the borrower may not repay that interest to the lender.<ref>Laws of Interest 4:5 p. 79</ref>
 
# It is permitted for the borrower to pay for the writing of the contract, even for a part investment which is also for the benefit of the lender, for the security of the loan, and for the fee of extracting the money from the bank if the lender wasn't also doing it for himself.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 161:8</ref>  
#Cabbage has an issue with bugs. If one checks it very carefully one can eat it.<ref>Yalkut Yosef Iser Vheter v. 2 p. 235</ref>
# For example, if the lender is penalized by the bank for taking out his money early from an investment (such as a CD) in order to lend that money the borrower can pay for that fee.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 161:8. Laws of Interest p. 82 fnt. 16 cites Rabbi J. David Bleich who argues.</ref> This applies specifically if he lost some of the capital or he already acquired interest and is now penalized, however, if he didn't yet acquire the interest the borrower may not pay for that loss.<ref>Laws of Interest 4:9 p. 81</ref>
 
# A gamach which charges a fee for a loan in order to ensure the upkeep of the gamach is a question but some permit it, yet it is better to do so without stipulating that it be paid. Either way the fee shouldn't be dependent on the amount of the loan.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 161:8</ref>  
===Grape Leaves===
# It is forbidden to pay the lender for his time and effort even if it meant he took off from work to arrange this.<ref>Laws of Interest 4:2, p. 79</ref>
 
#Grape leaves are an issue because of bugs and as such one shouldn't eat them unless they are produced with vinegar which removes the bugs. Someone very pious would avoid this altogether.<ref>Yalkut Yosef v. 2 p. 228 writes tat grape leaves are a big issue for bugs. He quotes numerous sources including: the Mabit 3:46, Machzik Bracha 84:24, Masat Moshe 5, Yad Dovid Di Bitton YD 84:29, Eretz Chaim 84:8, Admat Kodeseh YD 2:1, Bet Dino Shel Shlomo YD 19, Zivchei Tzedek 84:99, Ben Ish Chai Naso n. 8, Kaf Hachaim 84:94. In Admat Kodesh he quotes Maharach Abulafia that one can't compare the infestation of bugs from one place and time to another.</ref>
 
===Chickpeas and Falafel===
 
#If one made falafel without checking the chickpeas they are permitted.<ref>Yalkut Yosef v. 2 p. 240 writes that if one didn't check chickpeas for bugs and crushed them and made them into falafel they are permitted since one didn't intend to nullify the bugs. But he clarifies that initially the chickpeas needs to be checked even though one is going to make it into something in which it it would be nullified.</ref>
#Making falafel with unchecked chickpeas isn't bitul lechatchila since that isn't your intent to nullify the bugs but just to make the recipe.<ref>Maharam Rotenburg Prague 190 writes based on Pesachim 30a that using a pot to cook isn't bitul lechatchila if one's intent isn't to nullify the taste of the food. Tosfot Rabbenu Peretz Pesachim 30a says this as well. It is further supported by the Ran Avoda Zara 33b, Rivash 349, Shulchan Aruch 84:13 and Taz. Yalkut Yosef Isur Vheter v. 2 p. 240 holds like this but adds that one should check the chickpeas in advance since it is possible to fix. Halichot Olam Naso p. 271 agrees. He cites further support for this from the Rashba 463, Tzemach Tzedek 51, and others.</ref>
 
== Blended Produce ==
 
# Any produce whose chance of containing a bug is less than a miut hamatzuy may be  blended or pureed.<ref>See above section 1 that it is even permitted to eat such produce without cleaning or checking them first.</ref>
# Fruits with a chance of miut hamatzuy up until rov need to first be minimally cleaned/checked.<ref>Taz Y.D. 99:7 writes that the Heter to blend produce that have a chance of being infested was only said in a case where there was no other way of cleaning the produce. The Pri Megadim (M.Z. 99:7) writes that if it requires tremendous effort to clean it is considered to be not possible to clean. Bekiat Hamazon K'halacha (page 138 footnote 9) quotes from Rav Elyashiv, Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul, Rav Nissim Karelitz, and Rav Wosner who were all allowed to blend produce infested at a rate of miut hamatzuy after a minimal checking/cleaning. This is also the conclusion of Rav Eitam Henkin HY"D (Lachem Yihiyeh Lachlah end of chapter 6).
 
The OU (based on the OU policy cited in an OU article on Jams) generally (excluding if there other leniencies) is strict for this opinion. </ref> One caveat is that the fruits need to be purchased with the intent of making them into a smoothie. If this wasn't the case, consult your local Orthodox Rav<!-- Not sure where the star-k got this from- is it that if you buy the fruits without the intention of making a smoothie we view it as kavanaso l'vatel? --><ref>[https://www.star-k.org/articles/kashrus-kurrents/9259/going-down-smooth-a-kosher-primer-to-halachic-blending/ Star-k] and [https://consumer.crckosher.org/policies/pureeingpolicy/ cRc's] articles on the topic. The reasoning is that if they weren't purchased with the intent to blend them, then there may be problems of [[Nullification|bittul issur l'chatchilah]].</ref>
## There are those who are lenient in such case to allow blending without doing any cleaning/checking.<ref>The Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 84:14 cites from the Trumat Hadeshen that it is permissible to grind potentially infested wheat in a mill. The Trumas Hadeshen makes no note of the Taz's stringency to check/clean the wheat beforehand. This seems to be the opinion of the Shach (Y.D. 84:40). However some (see Rav Aviyam Levinson's article printed in RJJ Journal #74) point out that the Shach does say to try and minimize the infestation  by using a louder mill which will cause more bugs to run away. This would mean that the Shach's opinion is similar to that of the Taz. This leniency is also quoted by the Badei Hashulchan (99:31) in the name of the Bach (Y.D. 137).  
 
Sh"t Ha'elef Lecha Shlomo (Rav Shlomo Kluger) claims that even the Taz would agree in a case where the produce isn't muchzak that one wouldn't need to clean/check them before blending. He understands that the Taz only stated his chumra with regards to produce which is definitely infested (rov) not a safeik (miut hamatzuy). In fact, this seems to be the policy of the Star-k (article on blending produce) and the [https://consumer.crckosher.org/policies/pureeingpolicy/ CrC] (as stated in their policy on blending produce). </ref>
# Produce with a higher than rov infestation rate must be cleaned and checked beforehand.<ref>Shach (Y.D. 115:28, this is also the implication of the Shach in Y.D. 84:38-9, but see Rabbi Akiva Eiger (77) who writes that there's no absolute conclusion from the Shach in siman 84) and Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Kamma 77, 207) limit the leniency of ein kavanato l'vateil only to a case of safeik. Rav Eitam Henkin (Lachem Yihiyeh L'achlah page 99) and Bedikat Hamazon K'halacha (page 137) cite this as the formative halacha. This seems to be the policy of the OU (as cited in an article on jams), [https://consumer.crckosher.org/policies/pureeingpolicy/ cRc] (as cited in their policy) and the [https://www.star-k.org/articles/kashrus-kurrents/9259/going-down-smooth-a-kosher-primer-to-halachic-blending/ Star-k] (as cited in an article on blending produce).</ref>
## There are those who are lenient even in this case to allow for blending without checking first.<ref>Bach (Sh"t Hachadashot siman 23); Aruch Hashulchan (84:86) and Chochmat Adam (52:9).  </ref> Absent any other reason to be lenient, the general kashrut standard is to be stringent and not allow blending without checking first.<ref>OU (cited in article on jams), [https://consumer.crckosher.org/policies/pureeingpolicy/ cRc] (cited in their policy statement) and [https://www.star-k.org/articles/kashrus-kurrents/9259/going-down-smooth-a-kosher-primer-to-halachic-blending/ Star-k] (article on blending produce) policies. </ref>
 
==Links==
 
*[http://www.matziv.com/pictures/tubshevatguide.pdf Tu BiShevat Guide]
*[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/788162/rabbi-hershel-schachter/ibc-topics-bugs-in-kashrut/ Bugs in Kashrut] by Rabbi Hershel Schachter
*[http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/851706/rabbi-netanel-wiederblank/how-to-check-produce-for-bugs/ How to Check Produce for Bugs]
*[https://www.star-k.org/articles/kashrus-kurrents/9259/going-down-smooth-a-kosher-primer-to-halachic-blending/#_ftn7 Star-K (Article on Blending Produce)]
*[https://consumer.crckosher.org/policies/pureeingpolicy/ cRc (Policy on Blending Produce)]


==Sources==
==Sources==
<references/>
<references />
[[Category:Ribbit]]
[[Category:Kashrut]]
{{Kashrut}}

Latest revision as of 23:42, 9 July 2025

General Rules of Checking for Bugs

  1. There are four types of vegetables and fruits with respect to checking bugs.
    1. Vegetables that the chance of finding a bug in a serving is less than a miyut hamatzuy[1] of bugs is permitted and doesn't need to be checked at all.[2]
    2. Vegetables that the chance of finding a bug in a serving is more than a miyut hamatzuy of bugs but less than 50% needs to be checked. This obligation is rabbinic.[3] If a person washed the vegetables and afterwards there's less than a miyut hamatzuy there's no longer an obligation to check the vegetables.[4]
    3. Vegetables that the chance of finding a bug in a serving is 50% needs to be checked and the obligation to check is biblical. If it was cooked in a stew and stirred with a spoon in a way that might have crushed the bugs without being checked, after the fact the food is permitted since it could be that there weren't bugs and it could be that the bugs were crushed.[5]
    4. Vegetables that the chance of finding a bug in a serving is greater than 50% then they are forbidden until it is completely checked. If it was cooked without being checked it is forbidden.[6]
  2. With regard to fruits that are supposed to be checked, checking the majority of the fruits is not enough to ascertain that the rest are kosher.[7]
  3. If one notices a dot (that is not moving) on a fruit or vegetable, but even someone familiar with insects cannot identify it as a bug without a microscope, it would be permitted.[8]
  4. Most poskim hold that you do not need to use a magnifying glass to check for bugs.[9]
  5. Even though bugs are disgusting, nonetheless it would make a mixture forbidden since it is a living creature and isn't nullified.[10]
  6. If a hechsher is placed on a vegetable you can assume that it is permissible to eat without further checking unless stated explicitly. This doesn't necessarily mean that there are zero bugs in the bag. Either the hechsher might mean that the vegetable has a instance of infestation less than miyut hamatzuy (10%) and doesn't need checking, they rely upon checking three sample sizes in a larger batch, or they rely upon the washing and checking of the quality control supervisor of the company.[11]

Specific Foods

Bugs in Water

  1. There is a concern for copepods in the New York City tap water. Some hold that the water needs to be filtered before drinking it.[12] As to which filters suffice see Rabbi Dr. David Shabtai RJJ article (v. 49 pp. 38-80).

Strawberries

  1. The Star-K writes that one should wash the strawberries in soap water and agitate them in the water. Afterwards they should be rinsed, the tops cut off, and no checking is required.[13]

Lettuce

  1. One shouldn't eat lettuce without checking for bugs. Some say that since such a thorough check is necessary and it is hard to do one shouldn't eat any lettuce besides for Pesach and then just to eat the stalks after checking. However, one could buy greenhouse lettuce which doesn't have as many bugs, check it and rinse it off.[14]
  2. Some say that it isn't necessary to check triple washed lettuce.[15]

Cabbage

  1. Cabbage has an issue with bugs. If one checks it very carefully one can eat it.[16]

Grape Leaves

  1. Grape leaves are an issue because of bugs and as such one shouldn't eat them unless they are produced with vinegar which removes the bugs. Someone very pious would avoid this altogether.[17]

Chickpeas and Falafel

  1. If one made falafel without checking the chickpeas they are permitted.[18]
  2. Making falafel with unchecked chickpeas isn't bitul lechatchila since that isn't your intent to nullify the bugs but just to make the recipe.[19]

Blended Produce

  1. Any produce whose chance of containing a bug is less than a miut hamatzuy may be blended or pureed.[20]
  2. Fruits with a chance of miut hamatzuy up until rov need to first be minimally cleaned/checked.[21] One caveat is that the fruits need to be purchased with the intent of making them into a smoothie. If this wasn't the case, consult your local Orthodox Rav[22]
    1. There are those who are lenient in such case to allow blending without doing any cleaning/checking.[23]
  3. Produce with a higher than rov infestation rate must be cleaned and checked beforehand.[24]
    1. There are those who are lenient even in this case to allow for blending without checking first.[25] Absent any other reason to be lenient, the general kashrut standard is to be stringent and not allow blending without checking first.[26]

Links

Sources

  1. ↑ Yalkut Yosef v. 2 p. 212 quotes the Mishkenaot Yakov 17 but seems to conclude that the halacha is like the Rivash 191 that miyut hamatzuy is close to rov. He cites there Bedikat Hamazon p. 181 who quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman as holding like the Mishkenot Yakov, See Shevet Halevi 4:81 who is concerned for less than 10%.
  2. ↑ Badei Hashulchan 100:46 citing Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 84:8
  3. ↑ Badei Hashulchan 100:46 citing Shach 84:26
  4. ↑ Yalkut Yosef Iser Vheter p. 318 he clarifies that if after washing there was less than a miyut hamatzuy it would be sufficient to wash it without checking it.
  5. ↑ Badei Hashulchan 100:46 citing Shach 84:35
  6. ↑ Badei Hashulchan 100:46
  7. ↑ Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 46:36
  8. ↑ Halichos Shlomo Moadim (Pesach), pg. 176 and Shevet HaLevi 7:122
  9. ↑ Aruch HaShulchan YD 84:36, Iggerot Moshe YD II: 146, Halichos Shlomo, Moadim (Pesach) p. 176, and Yechave Daat 6:47.
  10. ↑ Pri Chadash 103:5 and Kaf Hachaim 103:5 unlike the Aruch Hashulchan 103:11. The Pri Chadash proves his point from the Rambam (Machalot Asurot 2:21). The Kaf Hachaim proves his point from the Shulchan Aruch 103:4 and Torat Chatat 85:24 (which was written by the Rama, but the version which is a proof is from an emendation and not the Rama). Some achronim including the Panim Meirot and Chavot Yair agree with the Aruch Hashulchan in explaining the Rama to mean that something isn't a briyah as long as it is now pagum since it is a bug. However, the Gra 103:2 and Pri Chadash 103:5 explain that the Rama is talking about a good tasting food that became spoiled.
  11. ↑ OU Hechsherim on Salads. The source for checking three out of a larger sample is from Tuv Taam Vdaat 1:123.
  12. ↑ See Rabbi Bliech's article in Contemporary Halachic Problems v. 6 ch. 7
  13. ↑ https://www.star-k.org/checking. Rav Shlomo Amar in Shma Shlomo YD 7:4-5 5772 writes that the strict halacha is that any bug that's not visible to the naked eye is permitted and even if it is detectable by its movement it is permitted. Rav Amar explains from many poskim that anything which is so small that it isn't visible to the naked eye it is considered nothing in halacha and not forbidden. He explains that it isn't just because things which are so small are hard to discover and the Torah doesn't expect us to find them with microscopes. Rather they aren't considered anything of significance and are permitted. As such he thinks that strawberries don't need to be checked but it is proper to wash them in soap and water and remove the tops.
    • Rav Amar quotes that the Yavetz 2:124 writes that checking for bugs in rice with a magnifying glass or in the sun is a reason to be strict but one shouldn't rule that it is forbidden. Pitchei Teshuva 84:5 and Machzik Bracha 84:41 cite this. Aruch Hashulchan 84:36 holds that seeing something in the sun is considered normal sight unlike seeing through a microscope. Shevet Halevi YD 7:125:2 writes that one has to be concerned with bugs that are visible to someone with good eyes even though a regular person couldn't see it.
    • Chayei Halevi YD 3:56:5 quotes that the Chazon Ish held that even bugs that aren't recognizable are forbidden and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach agreed. Rav Amar argues that the Chazon Ish couldn't have said that. From his text Chazon Ish YD 14:6 it could be explained otherwise, only if it is once recognizable and whole but just not recognizable because it is mixed up is it not nullified.
    • Rav Amar concludes that if one sees a dot on the strawberry but you can't identify what it is without a microscope or magnifying glass that is also permitted to eat. One doesn't even need to check if it is a bug. Furthermore, even if you see under microscope that it is a bug it is permitted.
    • Binat Adam 38:49, Aruch Hashulchan 84:36, Yachava Daat 6:47, Igrot Moshe EH 3:33, and Igrot Moshe YD 2:146 hold that bugs or bacteria that aren't recognizable to the naked eye are permitted to eat. Shemirat Shabbat Khilchata v. 1 ch. 3 fnt. 105 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman as being strict on bugs that aren't visible because of what he heard about the Chazon Ish's opinion on bugs. Rav Amar quotes this and questions it.
  14. ↑ Yalkut Yosef v. 2 p. 226 writes that one shouldn't eat lettuce without checking it for bugs. But since it is so hard to do a thorough check one shouldn't eat lettuce at all besides for maror on Pesach and just to eat the stalks. However, the greenhouse lettuce is permitted but should still be checked with a normal quick check and a little rinse. He cites many sources that are concerned for bugs on lettuce including: Sefer HaZichronot p. 23, Knesset Hagedola 84:52, Chatom Sofer OC 132, Yehuda Yaaleh 139, Rav Chaim Palagi in Chaim LRosh p. 72, Zivchei Tzedek 84:93, Ben Ish Chai (Shana Sheniya Parshat Naso n. 8; Tzav n. 27), Chazon Ovadia 1:2:657, Kaf Hachaim 84:100. With respect to lettuce with which the planters did something to prevent bugs, he cites Igrot Moshe YD 2:25 that they too should be washed since it is a rov created by an action (Bechorot 20a). Rav Ovadia in Halichot Olam v. 1 p. 294 he writes that it is good to check such lettuce.
  15. ↑ Rabbi Jachter citing Rabbi Mordechai Willig and Rabbi Asher Bush and he concurred.
  16. ↑ Yalkut Yosef Iser Vheter v. 2 p. 235
  17. ↑ Yalkut Yosef v. 2 p. 228 writes tat grape leaves are a big issue for bugs. He quotes numerous sources including: the Mabit 3:46, Machzik Bracha 84:24, Masat Moshe 5, Yad Dovid Di Bitton YD 84:29, Eretz Chaim 84:8, Admat Kodeseh YD 2:1, Bet Dino Shel Shlomo YD 19, Zivchei Tzedek 84:99, Ben Ish Chai Naso n. 8, Kaf Hachaim 84:94. In Admat Kodesh he quotes Maharach Abulafia that one can't compare the infestation of bugs from one place and time to another.
  18. ↑ Yalkut Yosef v. 2 p. 240 writes that if one didn't check chickpeas for bugs and crushed them and made them into falafel they are permitted since one didn't intend to nullify the bugs. But he clarifies that initially the chickpeas needs to be checked even though one is going to make it into something in which it it would be nullified.
  19. ↑ Maharam Rotenburg Prague 190 writes based on Pesachim 30a that using a pot to cook isn't bitul lechatchila if one's intent isn't to nullify the taste of the food. Tosfot Rabbenu Peretz Pesachim 30a says this as well. It is further supported by the Ran Avoda Zara 33b, Rivash 349, Shulchan Aruch 84:13 and Taz. Yalkut Yosef Isur Vheter v. 2 p. 240 holds like this but adds that one should check the chickpeas in advance since it is possible to fix. Halichot Olam Naso p. 271 agrees. He cites further support for this from the Rashba 463, Tzemach Tzedek 51, and others.
  20. ↑ See above section 1 that it is even permitted to eat such produce without cleaning or checking them first.
  21. ↑ Taz Y.D. 99:7 writes that the Heter to blend produce that have a chance of being infested was only said in a case where there was no other way of cleaning the produce. The Pri Megadim (M.Z. 99:7) writes that if it requires tremendous effort to clean it is considered to be not possible to clean. Bekiat Hamazon K'halacha (page 138 footnote 9) quotes from Rav Elyashiv, Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul, Rav Nissim Karelitz, and Rav Wosner who were all allowed to blend produce infested at a rate of miut hamatzuy after a minimal checking/cleaning. This is also the conclusion of Rav Eitam Henkin HY"D (Lachem Yihiyeh Lachlah end of chapter 6). The OU (based on the OU policy cited in an OU article on Jams) generally (excluding if there other leniencies) is strict for this opinion.
  22. ↑ Star-k and cRc's articles on the topic. The reasoning is that if they weren't purchased with the intent to blend them, then there may be problems of bittul issur l'chatchilah.
  23. ↑ The Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 84:14 cites from the Trumat Hadeshen that it is permissible to grind potentially infested wheat in a mill. The Trumas Hadeshen makes no note of the Taz's stringency to check/clean the wheat beforehand. This seems to be the opinion of the Shach (Y.D. 84:40). However some (see Rav Aviyam Levinson's article printed in RJJ Journal #74) point out that the Shach does say to try and minimize the infestation by using a louder mill which will cause more bugs to run away. This would mean that the Shach's opinion is similar to that of the Taz. This leniency is also quoted by the Badei Hashulchan (99:31) in the name of the Bach (Y.D. 137). Sh"t Ha'elef Lecha Shlomo (Rav Shlomo Kluger) claims that even the Taz would agree in a case where the produce isn't muchzak that one wouldn't need to clean/check them before blending. He understands that the Taz only stated his chumra with regards to produce which is definitely infested (rov) not a safeik (miut hamatzuy). In fact, this seems to be the policy of the Star-k (article on blending produce) and the CrC (as stated in their policy on blending produce).
  24. ↑ Shach (Y.D. 115:28, this is also the implication of the Shach in Y.D. 84:38-9, but see Rabbi Akiva Eiger (77) who writes that there's no absolute conclusion from the Shach in siman 84) and Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Kamma 77, 207) limit the leniency of ein kavanato l'vateil only to a case of safeik. Rav Eitam Henkin (Lachem Yihiyeh L'achlah page 99) and Bedikat Hamazon K'halacha (page 137) cite this as the formative halacha. This seems to be the policy of the OU (as cited in an article on jams), cRc (as cited in their policy) and the Star-k (as cited in an article on blending produce).
  25. ↑ Bach (Sh"t Hachadashot siman 23); Aruch Hashulchan (84:86) and Chochmat Adam (52:9).
  26. ↑ OU (cited in article on jams), cRc (cited in their policy statement) and Star-k (article on blending produce) policies.
Category Topics
Bishul Akum - Checking for Bugs - Gelatin - Kosher Food without Kosher Supervision - Kosher Food Packaging for Deliveries - Kosher Food Left with a Non-Jew - Koshering a Kitchen - Kashering for Pesach - Kosher in the Workplace - Medications - Pat Palter - Selling Non-Kosher Foods - Serving Guests - Sharp Foods - Shechitah (Kosher Slaughter) - Tevilat Keilim - Tzaar Baalei Chayim - Yashan
Meat and Milk
Dairy Bread - Eating Dairy and Meat at the Same Table - Kosher Cheese - Kosher Milk (Chalav Yisrael) - Milk and Meat in the Kitchen - Non-Dairy Milk - Waiting between Meat and Milk
Principles of Kashrut
Items That Cannot Be Nullified - Transferring Taste - Nullification - Zeh Vzeh Gorem - Trusting Others for Kashrut
Shechitah
Shechitah_(Kosher_Slaughter) - Who_Can_Be_a_Shochet - The_Shechitah_Knife - Modern_Day_Industrial_Shechitah - Glatt Kosher Meat - Kashering Meat
Retrieved from "http://localhost:80/index.php?title=When_Is_It_Permitted_to_Benefit_the_Lender&oldid=34197"