Zeh Vzeh Gorem: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
no edit summary
(Created page with "Food produced by materials that are forbidden are themselves forbidden since it is like one is benefitting from the original prohibition. When there are two contributing facto...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Food produced by materials that are forbidden are themselves forbidden since it is like one is benefitting from the original prohibition. When there are two contributing factors to the product, one that is forbidden and one that is permitted, it is called ''zeh v'zeh gorem'' (Heb. זה וזה גורם; lit. this and that cause it). | Food produced by materials that are forbidden are themselves forbidden since it is like one is benefitting from the original prohibition. When there are two contributing factors to the product, one that is forbidden and one that is permitted, it is called ''zeh v'zeh gorem'' (Heb. זה וזה גורם; lit. this and that cause it). | ||
==''Zeh Vzeh Gorem''== | ==''Zeh Vzeh Gorem''== | ||
# Where there are two contributors to a production one which is permitted and one which is forbidden that is called ''zeh v'zeh gorem'' (Heb. זה וזה גורם; lit. this and that cause it). Generally, when each factor could not have independently created the result but together can do so it is permitted.<ref>Pesachim 26b, Avoda Zara 49a, Rif Avoda Zara 21b, Rosh Avoda Zara 3:8, Ramban Avoda Zara 49b s.v. vkayma, Ritva Avoda Zara 49a s.v. Mishna Natal, Rambam Machalot Asurot 16:22, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 142:4</ref> One explanation of this halacha is that it is similar to nullification.<Ref>Ran Avoda Zara 21a-b clearly explains that zeh vzeh gorem is based on nullification. Meiri 26b s.v. kol implies this as well. Also, Kesef Mishna Nedarim 5:15 and Avnei Meluyim subscribe to this contention. Nachalat Baruch 10 shows that this approach isn't necessarily accepted by Tosfot and other rishonim. | # Where there are two contributors to a production one which is permitted and one which is forbidden that is called ''zeh v'zeh gorem'' (Heb. זה וזה גורם; lit. this and that cause it). Generally, when each factor could not have independently created the result but together can do so it is permitted.<ref>Pesachim 26b, Avoda Zara 49a, Rif Avoda Zara 21b, Rosh Avoda Zara 3:8, Ramban Avoda Zara 49b s.v. vkayma, Ritva Avoda Zara 49a s.v. Mishna Natal, Rambam Machalot Asurot 16:22, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 142:4</ref> One explanation of this halacha is that it is similar to nullification.<Ref>Ran Avoda Zara 21a-b clearly explains that zeh vzeh gorem is based on nullification. Meiri 26b s.v. kol implies this as well. Also, Kesef Mishna Nedarim 5:15 and Avnei Meluyim subscribe to this contention. Nachalat Baruch 10 shows that this approach isn't necessarily accepted by Tosfot and other rishonim. | ||
Shaarei Yosher 3:26:674-7 explains that the reason zeh vzeh gorem is permitted is because we view the prohibited factor as contributing nothing since it wasn't able to create the intended result on its own.</ref> | |||
# If the forbidden factor makes its impact first and then the permitted one does, it is forbidden and not considered ''zeh v'zeh gorem''. For example, if forbidden wood is used to used to fuel the beginning of the baking of bread but afterwards the forbidden wood is replaced with permitted wood, it is forbidden.<Ref>Rambam Machalot Asurot 16:24, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 142:7. Kesef Mishna's first explanation of the Rambam is that the food was cooked originally with forbidden fuel and then with permitted fuel and is forbidden. Meiri 26b s.v. lifi quoting some mefarshim, Michtam 26a s.v. ulinyan, Shach YD 142:13, Taz 142:9 all accept this explanation. The Kesef Mishna's second explanation is the pot was finished with forbidden fuel and then the food was cooked with permitted fuel and is forbidden. He himself prefers the first explanation. Radvaz Machalot Asurot 16:24 agrees with the second explanation.</ref> | # If the forbidden factor makes its impact first and then the permitted one does, it is forbidden and not considered ''zeh v'zeh gorem''. For example, if forbidden wood is used to used to fuel the beginning of the baking of bread but afterwards the forbidden wood is replaced with permitted wood, it is forbidden.<Ref>Rambam Machalot Asurot 16:24, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 142:7. Kesef Mishna's first explanation of the Rambam is that the food was cooked originally with forbidden fuel and then with permitted fuel and is forbidden. Meiri 26b s.v. lifi quoting some mefarshim, Michtam 26a s.v. ulinyan, Shach YD 142:13, Taz 142:9 all accept this explanation. The Kesef Mishna's second explanation is the pot was finished with forbidden fuel and then the food was cooked with permitted fuel and is forbidden. He himself prefers the first explanation. Radvaz Machalot Asurot 16:24 agrees with the second explanation.</ref> | ||
# Items produced solely by a forbidden source are forbidden and there is a dispute whether it is rabbinic or biblical.<ref>Maharam Chalavah Pesachim 27b s.v. lmaan clearly writes that the bread produced with forbidden fuel is biblically forbidden. However, the Tosfot Pesachim 75a citing Ri and Ran Avoda Zara 22b s.v. vgarsinan hold that that they're only rabbinic. Avnei Meluyim 6 cites this Ran and applies it to all things which were produced by a forbidden factor.</ref> | # Items produced solely by a forbidden source are forbidden and there is a dispute whether it is rabbinic or biblical.<ref>Maharam Chalavah Pesachim 27b s.v. lmaan clearly writes that the bread produced with forbidden fuel is biblically forbidden. However, the Tosfot Pesachim 75a citing Ri and Ran Avoda Zara 22b s.v. vgarsinan hold that that they're only rabbinic. Avnei Meluyim 6 cites this Ran and applies it to all things which were produced by a forbidden factor.</ref> | ||
#''Zeh vzeh gorem'' only applies to items that are forbidden from benefit and not things which are permitted in benefit and just forbidden for eating.<ref>Rashi Avoda Zara 66b s.v. shein, Tosfot Pesachim 26b s.v. chadash, Tosfot Chachmei Angliya 26b s.v. yesh, Rabbi Akiva Eiger on Nedarim 6:7</ref> | #''Zeh vzeh gorem'' only applies to items that are forbidden from benefit and not things which are permitted in benefit and just forbidden for eating.<ref>Rashi Avoda Zara 66b s.v. shein, Tosfot Pesachim 26b s.v. chadash, Tosfot Chachmei Angliya 26b s.v. yesh, Rabbi Akiva Eiger on Nedarim 6:7</ref> | ||
#''Zeh vzeh gorem'' for chametz is forbidden.<Ref>Magen Avraham 445:5, Avnei Meluyim 6</ref> | #''Zeh vzeh gorem'' for chametz is forbidden.<Ref>Magen Avraham 445:5, Avnei Meluyim 6</ref> Additionally, it could apply to something which contributes a significant improvement to the result and changes it thereby. For example, trumah sourdough with non-trumah sourdough added to a dough is considered zeh vzeh gorem even though it isn't forbidden from benefit.<ref>Rav Elchanan in Pesachim n. 119</ref> | ||
#''Zeh vzeh gorem'' for avoda zara according to most is permitted,<ref>Gemara Avoda Zara 48b, Ramban Avoda Zara 49b s.v. vkayma, Ritva Avoda Zara 49a s.v. Mishna Natal, Shach YD 142:10, Avnei Meluyim 6</ref> while according to others is forbidden.<ref>Taz 142:4, Magen Avraham 445:5. The Ramah cited by Tur 142:4 seems to forbid it as the Tur proves that the Rosh agrees as he quotes the Mishna that a new oven finished with avoda zara fuel must be broken. This is the understanding of the Bet Yosef, though he personally disagrees with the Ramah considering the proof from Avoda Zara 48b that zeh v'zeh gorem applis to avoda zara. However, the Shach 142:10 carefully answers all the implications of the Tur and explains that the Ramah was only saying that the bread cooked over avoda zara fuel is forbidden and the proof in the Tur was from the Mishna that the bread is forbidden and not the oven. Taz defends the Ramah as understood by the Bet Yosef and accepts that approach. He answers that the Gemara Avoda Zara 48b only permitted zeh v'zeh gorem for fertilizer where it is merely an improvement of the ground but not a factor that creates the production unlike the other explains of zeh v'zeh gorem. Magen Avraham 445:5 says that we're strict on zeh v'zeh gorem by avoda zara since it isn't nullified as the Shach and Taz hold. Avnei Meluyim corrects the Magen Avraham that he meant that he is following the Taz and not Shach.</ref> | #''Zeh vzeh gorem'' for avoda zara according to most is permitted,<ref>Gemara Avoda Zara 48b, Ramban Avoda Zara 49b s.v. vkayma, Ritva Avoda Zara 49a s.v. Mishna Natal, Shach YD 142:10, Avnei Meluyim 6</ref> while according to others is forbidden.<ref>Taz 142:4, Magen Avraham 445:5. The Ramah cited by Tur 142:4 seems to forbid it as the Tur proves that the Rosh agrees as he quotes the Mishna that a new oven finished with avoda zara fuel must be broken. This is the understanding of the Bet Yosef, though he personally disagrees with the Ramah considering the proof from Avoda Zara 48b that zeh v'zeh gorem applis to avoda zara. However, the Shach 142:10 carefully answers all the implications of the Tur and explains that the Ramah was only saying that the bread cooked over avoda zara fuel is forbidden and the proof in the Tur was from the Mishna that the bread is forbidden and not the oven. Taz defends the Ramah as understood by the Bet Yosef and accepts that approach. He answers that the Gemara Avoda Zara 48b only permitted zeh v'zeh gorem for fertilizer where it is merely an improvement of the ground but not a factor that creates the production unlike the other explains of zeh v'zeh gorem. Magen Avraham 445:5 says that we're strict on zeh v'zeh gorem by avoda zara since it isn't nullified as the Shach and Taz hold. Avnei Meluyim corrects the Magen Avraham that he meant that he is following the Taz and not Shach.</ref> | ||
#''Zeh vzeh gorem'' for hekdesh is according to some permitted,<ref>Maharsha Pesachim 27b s.v. lrabbanan rejects the interpretation of the Maharshal that the gemara means zeh v'zeh gorem is forbidden by hekdesh because it isn't nullified on the basis of the question that avoda zara isn't nullified and yet is permitted with zeh v'zeh gorem.</ref> while according to others is forbidden.<ref>Maharshal Pesachim 27b s.v. lrabbanan translates the gemara to be discussing zeh v'zeh gorem of hekdesh and it concludes that it is forbidden. Avnei Meluyim 6 concurs with this interpretation and shows that it lines up with the Shach 142:10 and Magen Avraham 445:5.</ref> | #''Zeh vzeh gorem'' for hekdesh is according to some permitted,<ref>Maharsha Pesachim 27b s.v. lrabbanan rejects the interpretation of the Maharshal that the gemara means zeh v'zeh gorem is forbidden by hekdesh because it isn't nullified on the basis of the question that avoda zara isn't nullified and yet is permitted with zeh v'zeh gorem.</ref> while according to others is forbidden.<ref>Maharshal Pesachim 27b s.v. lrabbanan translates the gemara to be discussing zeh v'zeh gorem of hekdesh and it concludes that it is forbidden. Avnei Meluyim 6 concurs with this interpretation and shows that it lines up with the Shach 142:10 and Magen Avraham 445:5.</ref> | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
# A forbidden from benefit seed or fruit planted in the ground is a dispute if that is an example of zeh v'zeh gorem since the ground contributes to the growth but works differently than the seed.<Ref>Rashi's first explanation posits that it is an example, while his second does not. Tosfot disputes Rashi's first explanation because the ground's contribution is fundamentally differently than that of the seed.</ref> | # A forbidden from benefit seed or fruit planted in the ground is a dispute if that is an example of zeh v'zeh gorem since the ground contributes to the growth but works differently than the seed.<Ref>Rashi's first explanation posits that it is an example, while his second does not. Tosfot disputes Rashi's first explanation because the ground's contribution is fundamentally differently than that of the seed.</ref> | ||
# Two pieces of sour dough, one which is forbidden and one which is permitted, used to ferment a dough is considered zeh v'zeh gorem if they are nullified in it of themselves.<ref>Pesachim 27a</ref> | # Two pieces of sour dough, one which is forbidden and one which is permitted, used to ferment a dough is considered zeh v'zeh gorem if they are nullified in it of themselves.<ref>Pesachim 27a</ref> | ||
===Zeh Yachol Vzeh Yachol=== | |||
# If each factor were independently capable of causing the intended product, the product is forbidden and not considered ''zeh v'zeh gorem''.<ref>Tosfot Avoda Zara 68b and Mordechai unlike Tosfot Pesachim 27a. Tosfot 27a s.v. ad notes that Rabbi Shimon permits zeh yachol and zeh yachol and that corresponds with the opinion that zeh vzeh gorem when it is zeh eino yachol vzeh eino yachol. However, the prohibited case is where there’s not enough of the permitted ingredient and enough of the prohibited one. His logic is that we never found a third opinion in this matter, so Rabbi Shimon must permit because of zeh vzeh gorem. However, the Tosfot A”Z 68b s.v. ela says that Rabbi Shimon is matir zeh yachol vzeh yachol, while the others who usually hold zeh vzeh gorem is only muter if it isn’t zeh yachol. It is more chamur when it is zeh yachol zeh yachol. Shach YD 87:36 says that this is the ruling of the Mordechai and Rama. Taz 87:13 and Pri Chadash 87:31 agree. Pri Chadash proves the Shach's point from the Rambam Machalot Asurot 16:16, who usually holds eh vzeh gorem muter regarding ovens and still says zeh yachol zeh yachol is forbidden. Peleti 87:21 thinks Tosfot a”z isn’t arguing on Tosfot pesachim since they’re only lenient since it is noten taam lifgam. Tosfot Rash and Tosfot Rosh imply otherwise. Imrei Binah Basar Bchalav 5 s.v. vheneh notes another way to dispute the Peleti is that it isn’t noten taam lifgam since it is reuy lchameya isa acheret.</ref> | |||
==Sources== | ==Sources== | ||
<References/> | <References/> | ||
[[Category:Kashrut]] | [[Category:Kashrut]] | ||
