Nullification: Difference between revisions

From Halachipedia
Line 13: Line 13:
==Bitul BeShishim==
==Bitul BeShishim==
# If the mixture comprised of either 1) foods of dissimilar taste, 2) liquids, or 3) solids that were hot or cooked together, the nullification required is 1 to 60 called Bitul BeSheshim. <Ref> S”A and Rama 109:1-2, The Laws of Kashrus (Rabbi Binyamin Forst; pg 58-61)  
# If the mixture comprised of either 1) foods of dissimilar taste, 2) liquids, or 3) solids that were hot or cooked together, the nullification required is 1 to 60 called Bitul BeSheshim. <Ref> S”A and Rama 109:1-2, The Laws of Kashrus (Rabbi Binyamin Forst; pg 58-61)  
* According to Rabbi Yehuda (Menachot 22a) a mixture of items of a similar type aren't nullified, however, according to the Rabbis it is. Rashi (Chullin 109a s.v. VeTu) holds like Rabbi Yehuda. Tosfot (Chullin 97a s.v. amar rava), however, argues with Rashi and rules that we hold like the Rabbis. Ran (Chullin 34b), Rosh (Avoda Zara 5:29), and Rambam (Maachalot Asurot 15:6) agree with Tosfot. Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 98:1 hold like the Rabbis that a mixture of similar items is nullified.  
* According to Rabbi Yehuda (Menachot 22a) a mixture of items of a similar type aren't nullified, however, according to the Rabbis it is. Rashi (Chullin 109a s.v. VeTu) holds like Rabbi Yehuda. Tosfot (Chullin 97a s.v. amar rava), however, argues with Rashi and rules that we hold like the Rabbis. Ran (Chullin 34b), Rosh (Avoda Zara 5:29), and Rambam (Maachalot Asurot 15:6) agree with Tosfot. Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 98:2 hold like the Rabbis that a mixture of similar items is nullified.  
* Rava in gemara Chullin 97a states that one can rely on the testimony of a non-Jewish chef that a mixture of meat and a bit of milk doesn't have any dairy taste in it to permit it to a Jew. Concludes the gemara, if there no chef around or it is a mixture of similar items and it is impossible to taste the forbidden item specifically, one needs nullification of 60. Rashi (Chullin 98a s.v. beshishim) implies that even if there's no taste of the forbidden ingredient still the mixture is forbidden unless there is nullification of 60. However, the Rosh (Chullin 7:29) argues that even if the non-Jew doesn't taste the forbidden ingredient it is permitted even if there isn't nullification of 60. The Bet Yosef YD 98:1 understands that the Rambam (Machalot Asurot 15) thinks if there's an option to ask a non-Jewish chef one should and if he says that there's a forbidden taste, it is forbidden even if there's nullification of 60 and if he says that there's no forbidden taste it is permitted even if there's not nullification of 60. Shulchan Aruch YD 98:1 holds like the Rambam. However, the Rama 98:1 based on the Agur writes that the minhag Ashkenazim is not to rely on a non-Jew to taste for a forbidden taste and just always use nullification of 60. The Kaf HaChaim 98:2 records that the Sephardic minhag was also to always use nullification of 60.  
* Rava in gemara Chullin 97a states that one can rely on the testimony of a non-Jewish chef that a mixture of meat and a bit of milk doesn't have any dairy taste in it to permit it to a Jew. Concludes the gemara, if there no chef around or it is a mixture of similar items and it is impossible to taste the forbidden item specifically, one needs nullification of 60. Rashi (Chullin 98a s.v. beshishim) implies that even if there's no taste of the forbidden ingredient still the mixture is forbidden unless there is nullification of 60. However, the Rosh (Chullin 7:29) argues that even if the non-Jew doesn't taste the forbidden ingredient it is permitted even if there isn't nullification of 60. The Bet Yosef YD 98:1 understands that the Rambam (Machalot Asurot 15) thinks if there's an option to ask a non-Jewish chef one should and if he says that there's a forbidden taste, it is forbidden even if there's nullification of 60 and if he says that there's no forbidden taste it is permitted even if there's not nullification of 60. Shulchan Aruch YD 98:1 holds like the Rambam. However, the Rama 98:1 based on the Agur writes that the minhag Ashkenazim is not to rely on a non-Jew to taste for a forbidden taste and just always use nullification of 60. The Kaf HaChaim 98:2 records that the Sephardic minhag was also to always use nullification of 60.  
* While the Shach 109:5 writes that we can rely on the taste of a Jew when it is permitted for the Jew to taste it, the Kaf HaChaim 109:12 quotes the Chavot Daat 109:2 who disagrees.
* While the Shach 109:5 writes that we can rely on the taste of a Jew when it is permitted for the Jew to taste it, the Kaf HaChaim 109:12 quotes the Chavot Daat 109:2 who disagrees.
Line 19: Line 19:
# Nullification of 60 means that the volume of permitted ingredients is 60 times the volume of the forbidden ingredients.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 109:2 writes that when evaluating nullification volume is measured and not weight. Kaf HaChaim 109:5 agrees. </ref>
# Nullification of 60 means that the volume of permitted ingredients is 60 times the volume of the forbidden ingredients.<ref>Pitchei Teshuva 109:2 writes that when evaluating nullification volume is measured and not weight. Kaf HaChaim 109:5 agrees. </ref>
# If solid foods which were cold and of similar taste are subsequently cooked together the nullification required is Bitul BeShishim.<Ref> Shulchan Aruch YD 109:2 based on the [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9381&st=&pgnum=227 Rashba (Torat HaBayit 17a)]</ref> According to Ashkenazim in cases of loss it’s permissible to use the nullification of Bitul BeRov if one knew at first that there was a mixture of non-Kosher and Kosher prior to the mixture being cooked. <Ref>Rama 109:2 based on the Rosh, however, Kaf HaChaim 109:40 writes that Sephardim don’t hold of this leniency.  </ref>
# If solid foods which were cold and of similar taste are subsequently cooked together the nullification required is Bitul BeShishim.<Ref> Shulchan Aruch YD 109:2 based on the [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9381&st=&pgnum=227 Rashba (Torat HaBayit 17a)]</ref> According to Ashkenazim in cases of loss it’s permissible to use the nullification of Bitul BeRov if one knew at first that there was a mixture of non-Kosher and Kosher prior to the mixture being cooked. <Ref>Rama 109:2 based on the Rosh, however, Kaf HaChaim 109:40 writes that Sephardim don’t hold of this leniency.  </ref>
==Unsure if there is 60==
==Unsure if there is 60==
# If the food is before us, one must measure it to figure out whether the forbidden item was nullified.<ref>Orchot Chaim (Machalot Asurot n. 14 s.v. hareviyi) quoting the Rabbenu Peretz, Bet Yosef 98:2, Shulchan Aruch 98:3</ref>
# If the food is before us, one must measure it to figure out whether the forbidden item was nullified.<ref>Orchot Chaim (Machalot Asurot n. 14 s.v. hareviyi) quoting the Rabbenu Peretz, Bet Yosef 98:2, Shulchan Aruch 98:3</ref>

Revision as of 21:05, 9 September 2015

The Torah introduces a halachic mechanism in which the minority is nullified in the majority called Bitul. [1]

Bitul BeRov

  1. If non-Kosher solid food is mixed up in a simple majority (51%) of Kosher food, and the non-Kosher food is similar in taste to the non-Kosher piece, is unrecognizable in the mixture, and the mixture is not hot or cooked together, then mixture as a whole is permissible.[2] Nonetheless, one person may only eat the pieces one at a time.[3] Some say that one person shouldn’t eat all of them but rather two or more people should split it up.[4] A stringency would be to take one of the pieces and throw it out or throw it to the dogs.[5]
  2. If the pieces have different tastes[6] in order to have nullification there needs to be sixty times the amount of forbidden food added to the mixture.[7] This applies equally if it is rabbinic prohibition mixed into the mixture of different types.[8]
  3. If the dry mixture which had nullification was later cooked together it becomes forbidden.[9]
  4. When a mixture is permissible because of nullification one person may eat the entire mixture at different intervals and not all at once. It is preferable for one Jew not to eat the entire mixture but rather leave one piece and let another person eat it. It is even more meritorious to be strict to discard one piece or to give it to a non-Jew. [10]
  5. Certain prohibited foods require a higher ratio for nullification. For example, Trumah, Challah, and Bikkurim require a 1 (forbidden) to 100 (permitted) ratio and Orlah and Kelayim require a 1 to 200 ratio. [11]
  6. Some have the practice to boil 3 eggs at a time so that if one is found with a blood spot, it will be nullified and not make the pot non-kosher. Some note that this practice is not necessary nowadays when the eggs are not fertilized.[12]

Bitul BeShishim

  1. If the mixture comprised of either 1) foods of dissimilar taste, 2) liquids, or 3) solids that were hot or cooked together, the nullification required is 1 to 60 called Bitul BeSheshim. [13]
  2. Nullification of 60 means that the volume of permitted ingredients is 60 times the volume of the forbidden ingredients.[14]
  3. If solid foods which were cold and of similar taste are subsequently cooked together the nullification required is Bitul BeShishim.[15] According to Ashkenazim in cases of loss it’s permissible to use the nullification of Bitul BeRov if one knew at first that there was a mixture of non-Kosher and Kosher prior to the mixture being cooked. [16]

Unsure if there is 60

  1. If the food is before us, one must measure it to figure out whether the forbidden item was nullified.[17]
  2. If some of the mixture under question was lost or spilled and it is no longer possible to measure whether there was 60 times the prohibited ingredient or not but certainly the majority is permitted, if the mixture is one of similar types it is permitted, however, if it is of dissimilar types it is forbidden. [18]
    1. If there is a mixture of chicken and milk and there's certainly majority of chicken and a minority of milk but it is unclear if there is 60 times the amount of chicken in comparison to the milk or vice versa, and it is currently impossible to measure the mixture because some of it fell or was lost, some poskim are lenient and some are strict. [19]

Foods for which nullification doesn’t work

  1. If the prohibited food will be permitted after a certain time, nullification doesn’t work unless it is mixed with a different type of food (different in name) in which case Bitul BeShishim is effective.[20] Therefore, Chadash grain can not be nullified. [21]
  2. Tevel (produce of Israel wfrom which Trumot and Masserot have not been removed), wine poured to Avoda Zara, and produce of Isreal from the Shemitta (Sabbatical year) can’t be nullified unless it is mixed with a different type of food (different in name) in which case Bitul BeShishim is effective. [22]
  3. Chametz on Pesach and foods use to serve Avoda Zara can not be nullified in any amount. [23]
  4. A complete creature or limb, a piece of meat which is suitable to serve guests, items which are always sold by unit (eggs which are sold by the dozen), and a prominent item (that Chazal specified) can not be nullified. [24] According to Ashkenazim a piece of meat which would be suitable to serve guests after being cooked is not able to be nullified and according to Sephardim only a piece of meat which is suitable to serve guests as of now (meaning, that it is cooked) is not able to be nullified. [25]

Intentional Bitul

  1. It's forbidden to intentionally mix forbidden food into permissible food so that it should become nullified. [26]
  2. If a forbidden ingredient falls into kosher food one may not increase the ratio of kosher food to non-kosher in order to nullify the non-kosher. [27]
  3. There is a prohibition of benefit to the one who intentionally causes a nullification unless there is an express permit (as certain cases do). Others however may benefit from the mixture if it wasn't done specifically for their sake. [28]
  4. A mixture which was permitted because of nullification of majority and one wishes to cook it together which would make it forbidden, one may intentionally add more permitted ingredients so that there would be 60 times the forbidden ingredient before one cooks it and the cooked mixture would be permitted. [29]
  5. Some say that if a rabbinically forbidden item fell into a mixture it is permitted to add more permitted ingredients in order to create nullification. Ashekanzim are stringent not to do so.[30]

Sources

  1. ↑ This principle is based on the pasuk "אחרי רבים להטת" (Shemot 23:2) meaning that one should follow the majority.
  2. ↑ The Gemara Chullin 98b assumes that it is possible to nullify a forbidden item in a mixture of permitted ones. Rashi s.v. de’mdeoritta explains that this is based on the pasuk Shemot 23:2 which says that we follow majority. Shach YD 109:6 agrees. See Gemara Chullin 11a which employs that pasuk for the rule of following majority for items that leave a mixture. See also the Shaarei Yosher 3:4 regarding the difference between these concepts. The concept of nullification with a majority is codified by the Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 109:1.
    • Rambam (Maachalot Asurot 15:4) and Raavad (cited by Ran Chullin 36a s.v. garsinan) hold that even for a dry mixture nullification doesn’t happen with a majority but rather only if there is sixty times the amount of the forbidden item is the mixture permitted. However, the Tosfot (Zevachim 72a), Sefer HaTrumah (Siman 50 s.v. hilkach), Smag (Lavin 140-1), and Rashba (Torat HaBayit 17a) hold that it is permitted even on a rabbinic level with a simple majority. This dispute is discussed in the Bet Yosef YD 109:1. Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 109:1 hold like the Tosfot.
    • The Pitchei Yeshuva YD 109:1 cites a dispute between the Pri Chadash and Minchat Yakov whether one needs a simple majority of 51% or one needs a ratio of 1:2, or 66.7% of permitted food in the mixture in order to have nullification. He advises being stringent. Kaf Hachaim 109:9 agrees.
  3. ↑ The Rosh (Chullin 7:37) writes that bitul makes the asur item turn into heter and one person can eat all 3 pieces of the mixture at once. However, the Rashba in Torat HaBayit (BeDini HaTaarovot p. 17) argues that you can’t eat them at once. When you eat each piece there’s another logic to allow that piece since it could be that the forbidden item was left in the rest of the mixture. Even upon eating the last piece it could be argued that that piece is permitted and the forbidden piece was already eaten. Shulchan Aruch YD 109:1 agrees with the Rashba. The Pri Megadim M”Z 109:1 writes that the Rashba agrees with the Rosh on a biblical level.
    • Interestingly, Shach 109:7 adds that it is permitted to eat two pieces at once and then the last one or vice versa as long as one doesn't eat all three at once. However, the Kaf HaChaim 109:20 and Aruch Hashulchan 109:20 argue that it is forbidden because taking two at once is effectively eating the majority with the forbidden item in it. Additionally, the Shach 109:12 writes that it is equally permitted to cook them in two pots.
  4. ↑ Tosfot Rid (b”b 31b s.v. shtei) in fact says it can’t be eaten by one person and doing so would be biblically forbidden. Smag (lavin 141 s.v. shaninu) and Tosfot Chullin 100a s.v. biryah says that two people should eat it.
  5. ↑ Rashi Avoda Zara (74a s.v. tarti) holds that in order to allow the mixture one of the pieces needs to be thrown out or thrown to the dogs. However, the Rosh (Avoda Zara 5:30) argues that the only reason that the Mishna Orlah 2:1 one would remove the amount of trumah added to a mixture which nullified the trumah is in order not to steal from the kohanim. Hagahot Sharei Dura (39:6) agrees. The Rama YD 109:1 writes that there is a stringency to be concerned for Rashi and throw out one of the pieces.
  6. ↑ Shach YD 109:7 and Pri Chadash 98 s.v. veleinyan assume that differences in taste is critical to consider two foods to be two types unlike the Bach who considers foods to be different if they have a different identification or classification. Shach YD 98:6 argues again at length with the Rama that the critical factor is taste and not identification.
  7. ↑ The Tur YD 109:1 postulates that there’s no difference whether the pieces in the mixture are of the same types of different types. However, he also cites the Sefer HaTrumah who says that if there’s different types there is a need of sixty times the forbidden amount in order to have nullification. The Bet Yosef YD 109:1 cites the Ran (Chullin 36b, end of Perek Gid HaNasheh) who says that it is forbidden unless there is sixty times the amount of forbidden food in the mixture. His reasoning is that since if the mixture were to be cooked together the need for having sixty for nullification would be biblical, there is a rabbinic need for sixty for nullification even though it is a dry mixture. The Hagahot Shaarei Dura 39 holds that this is biblically forbidden, while the Iser Veheter 26:11 holds it is only rabbinically forbidden. The Shach 109:10 cites the Maharshal, Torat Chatat 39:4, Ran (Chullin 36b), and Rashba (Chullin 97b s.v. ubekedeirah) who side with the Iser Veheter. Shulchan Aruch YD 109:1 (according to the Shach 109:2) and Rama ad loc. hold like the Sefer HaTrumah and require sixty for nullification of a dry mixture when there’s two different types in the mixture.
  8. ↑ The Shach 109:9 concludes based on the Ran that if there’s a dry mixture of different types with only a rabbinic prohibition mixed in it is nullified with a majority. The Rama 109:1 seems to equate the cases whether it was a rabbinically prohibited or biblically prohibited item that it should require sixty times for nullification of different types. The Gra 109:8 agrees.
  9. ↑ The Rashba (Torat HaBayit 17a, responsa 1:272) holds that once the mixture is cooked together it is forbidden even though it is a mixture of one type since once it is cooked together the entire mixture shares the taste of the forbidden food. This is also the opinion of the Ran (Chullin 36a s.v. garsinan). The Rosh (Chullin 7:37) and Smak (Siman 214) argue that it is permitted even if it was cooked together. Shulchan Aruch YD 109:2 rules like the Rashba, while the Rama adds that in a case of a major loss one may rely on the Rosh.
  10. ↑ S”A YD 109:1, The Laws of Kashrus (Rabbi Binyamin Forst; pg 54-6)
  11. ↑ Rambam Machalot Assurot 15:13-4
  12. ↑ Halachically Speaking vol 4 issue 18
  13. ↑ S”A and Rama 109:1-2, The Laws of Kashrus (Rabbi Binyamin Forst; pg 58-61)
    • According to Rabbi Yehuda (Menachot 22a) a mixture of items of a similar type aren't nullified, however, according to the Rabbis it is. Rashi (Chullin 109a s.v. VeTu) holds like Rabbi Yehuda. Tosfot (Chullin 97a s.v. amar rava), however, argues with Rashi and rules that we hold like the Rabbis. Ran (Chullin 34b), Rosh (Avoda Zara 5:29), and Rambam (Maachalot Asurot 15:6) agree with Tosfot. Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 98:2 hold like the Rabbis that a mixture of similar items is nullified.
    • Rava in gemara Chullin 97a states that one can rely on the testimony of a non-Jewish chef that a mixture of meat and a bit of milk doesn't have any dairy taste in it to permit it to a Jew. Concludes the gemara, if there no chef around or it is a mixture of similar items and it is impossible to taste the forbidden item specifically, one needs nullification of 60. Rashi (Chullin 98a s.v. beshishim) implies that even if there's no taste of the forbidden ingredient still the mixture is forbidden unless there is nullification of 60. However, the Rosh (Chullin 7:29) argues that even if the non-Jew doesn't taste the forbidden ingredient it is permitted even if there isn't nullification of 60. The Bet Yosef YD 98:1 understands that the Rambam (Machalot Asurot 15) thinks if there's an option to ask a non-Jewish chef one should and if he says that there's a forbidden taste, it is forbidden even if there's nullification of 60 and if he says that there's no forbidden taste it is permitted even if there's not nullification of 60. Shulchan Aruch YD 98:1 holds like the Rambam. However, the Rama 98:1 based on the Agur writes that the minhag Ashkenazim is not to rely on a non-Jew to taste for a forbidden taste and just always use nullification of 60. The Kaf HaChaim 98:2 records that the Sephardic minhag was also to always use nullification of 60.
    • While the Shach 109:5 writes that we can rely on the taste of a Jew when it is permitted for the Jew to taste it, the Kaf HaChaim 109:12 quotes the Chavot Daat 109:2 who disagrees.
  14. ↑ Pitchei Teshuva 109:2 writes that when evaluating nullification volume is measured and not weight. Kaf HaChaim 109:5 agrees.
  15. ↑ Shulchan Aruch YD 109:2 based on the Rashba (Torat HaBayit 17a)
  16. ↑ Rama 109:2 based on the Rosh, however, Kaf HaChaim 109:40 writes that Sephardim don’t hold of this leniency.
  17. ↑ Orchot Chaim (Machalot Asurot n. 14 s.v. hareviyi) quoting the Rabbenu Peretz, Bet Yosef 98:2, Shulchan Aruch 98:3
  18. ↑ Rashba (Torat HaBayit 11b), Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 98:2. The logic of the Rashba is that he follows Rabbenu Tam (Tosfot Chullin 98b s.v. rava) who says that in a liquid mixture of different types the need for nullification is biblical and since there is a doubt about a biblical prohibition one should be strict. The general principle is that when dealing with doubts about a biblical prohibition one should be strict. However, he states a mixture of like types biblically is nullified with majority and only rabbinically needs nullification of 60 and so if one is in doubt one can be lenient. This is also the opinion of the Rosh (as cited by the Tur 98:3). It is noteworthy to mention that the opinion of Rashi (Chullin 98b s.v. letaam) and the Rambam (Machalot Asurot 15:2-3, as understood by the Bet Yosef YD 98:2; responsa of the Rambam Pear Hadur 65) is that even a liquid mixture of different types is biblically nullified with majority only needs nullification of 60 rabbinically. Shulchan Aruch YD 98:2 follows the Rashba.
  19. ↑ According to the Shach 98:7 it is permitted based on the logic of the Rashba that we should say since there is only a rabbinic prohibition and there's certainly nullification on a biblical level we can be lenient. However, the Taz 98:5 argue that it is forbidden since we treat chicken and milk like meat and milk for all intents and purposes even though it is rabbinic.
  20. ↑ Gemara Beitzah 3b, Rambam (Hilchot Maachalot Asurot 15:10), S”A YD 102:1
  21. ↑ The Laws of Kashrus (Rabbi Binaymin Forst; pg 62)
  22. ↑ Rambam Machalot Assurot 15:6, 8
  23. ↑ S”A OC 447, S”A YD 140
  24. ↑ S”A YD 100, 101, S’A and Rama 110:1
  25. ↑ S”A and Rama 101:3, Taz 101:5
  26. ↑ Gemara Beitzah 4a. Some rishonim consider this prohibition Deoritta while others Derabbanan, see Bet Yosef Y"D 99, Shach 99:7, and Chachmat Adam 52:6
  27. ↑ Shulchan Aruch Y"D 99:5
  28. ↑ Shulchan Aruch YD 99:5
  29. ↑ Shulchan Aruch YD 109:2 based on the Raah. The Taz 109:3 and Shach 109:13 explain that the logic for this is that since the mixture is currently permitted it is permitted to add as much as one wishes even though it is preventing an forbidden item from prohibiting the mixture later upon cooking it.
  30. ↑ Shulchan Aruch YD 99:6 permits adding to a mixture with a rabbinically forbidden item in order to permit it with nullification. This is partially based on the Gemara Beitzah 4b. The Rama, however, argues that it is forbidden to do so. See Shulchan Aruch OC 677:4 who seems to forbid as well.
Retrieved from "http://localhost:80/index.php?title=Nullification&oldid=17732"