Zeh Vzeh Gorem: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Zeh Vzeh Gorem
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
# 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 | ===Zeh Vzeh Gorem as It Applies to Specific Areas of Halacha=== | ||
#''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> 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>Pesachim 27a, Rav Elchanan in Pesachim n. 119</ref> | |||
#''Zeh vzeh gorem'' for chametz is permitted according to most poskim,<ref>Tosfot Avoda Zara 43b s.v. amru imply that zeh vzeh gorem is relevant to chametz and permitted according to those who usually permit zeh vzeh gorem. Avnei Meluyim 7 accepts this proof and explains that since chametz when used as a gorem is only rabbinic, rabbinic chametz can be nullified. Also, Gra OC 445:9 permits and rejects the Magen Avraham's proof from Pesachim 27b because hekdesh is uniquely strict and it isn't similar to other prohibitions which can't be nullified. Biur Halacha 445:2 s.v. asurim notes that the Magen Avraham's view on the matter is largely rejected.</ref> though some hold it is forbidden.<Ref>Magen Avraham 445:5, Avnei Meluyim 6, and Maharsham 1:131. Magen Avraham is based on the Ramah cited by Tur YD 142 that zeh vzeh gorem is forbidden for avoda zara since it isn't nullified and so too chametz. Avnei Meluyim agrees with the Magen Avraham with respect to chametz but disagrees with his proof from avoda zara and sides with the Shach who explains that even the Ramah permitted zeh vzeh gorem with respect to avoda zara since nullification is somewhat relevant to avoda zara.</ref> A practical ramification of this is whether the milk of a cow that ate chametz on pesach is a product of chametz and other factors and is considered zeh vzeh gorem. Most are lenient.<ref>[https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9259&st=&pgnum=422 Yeshuot Yakov 448:9] originally proposes that milk from a cow that was fed chametz on pesach should be forbidden. His reasonings in his conclusion are unclear. Encyclopedia Talmudit (Zeh Vzeh Gorem fnt. 110-111) cites Torat Chesed 21, Peleti 60, Bet Efraim 35, Nishmat Adam 9, and Chelkat Yoav 20 as ruling leniently on this question.</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> | ||
