Zeh Vzeh Gorem: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Zeh Vzeh Gorem as It Applies to Specific Areas of Halacha
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
===Zeh Vzeh Gorem as It Applies to Specific Areas of Halacha=== | ===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'' 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 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. Maharam Chalavah Pesachim 29a s.v. vlinyan also permits zeh vzeh gorem for chametz.</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> | ||
#''Zeh vzeh gorem'' of a dvar sheyesh lo matirin is forbidden according to most opinions since zeh vzeh gorem is based on nullification and there is no nullification for a dvar sheyesh lo matirin.<ref>Ran Avoda Zara 21a-b clearly explains that zeh vzeh gorem is based on nullification. Also, Kesef Mishna Nedarim 5:15 says that for dvar sheyesh lo matirin we would not apply zeh vzeh gorem muter. Avnei Meluyim 6 elaborates on the approach of the Kesef Mishna.</ref> Some dispute this point and permit it.<ref>[https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1725&st=&pgnum=1134 Chikrei Lev YD 2:2-4] proves this from Temurah 28b that the offspring of a invalid korban is invalid as a korban but it is only one parent that is invalid zeh vzeh gorem is relevant, even though animals are significant. He distinguishes this from the case of dvar sheyesh lo matirin that zeh vzeh gorem isn’t applicable.</ref> | #''Zeh vzeh gorem'' of a dvar sheyesh lo matirin is forbidden according to most opinions since zeh vzeh gorem is based on nullification and there is no nullification for a dvar sheyesh lo matirin.<ref>Ran Avoda Zara 21a-b clearly explains that zeh vzeh gorem is based on nullification. Also, Kesef Mishna Nedarim 5:15 says that for dvar sheyesh lo matirin we would not apply zeh vzeh gorem muter. Avnei Meluyim 6 elaborates on the approach of the Kesef Mishna.</ref> Some dispute this point and permit it.<ref>[https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1725&st=&pgnum=1134 Chikrei Lev YD 2:2-4] proves this from Temurah 28b that the offspring of a invalid korban is invalid as a korban but it is only one parent that is invalid zeh vzeh gorem is relevant, even though animals are significant. He distinguishes this from the case of dvar sheyesh lo matirin that zeh vzeh gorem isn’t applicable.</ref> | ||
===Creating Zeh V'zeh Gorem Initially=== | ===Creating Zeh V'zeh Gorem Initially=== | ||
# ''Zeh vzeh gorem'' is forbidden initially, however, if there would be a large loss to avoid it, it is permitted even initially. For example, an oven that was finished with forbidden fuel can now be used with permitted fuel since the baked products would be a result of forbidden and permitted fuel, which is ''zeh v'zeh gorem''. Even though it is only permitted after the fact, the alternative of destroying the oven is a large loss and not necessary.<ref>Tosfot Pesachim 26b s.v. ben, Baal Hameor Pesachim 6b s.v. vaf, Rosh Pesachim 2:2 s.v. vlo, Ran Pesachim 7a s.v. ha, Ritva Avoda Zara 49a s.v. Mishna Natal, and Tur 142:4. For other approaches see Raavad on Rif, Meiri 26b, and Michtam. Avnei Meluyim asks why a large loss permits zeh v'zeh gorem initially if the Ran compares ''zeh v'zeh gorem'' to nullification and it is forbidden to nullify something forbidden initially even to avoid a loss. He answers that according to the Rashba who says that ein mevatlin isur lechatchila does not apply when it isn't possible to come to violate the actual prohibition, such as by cooking in a pot with a minimal amount of absorbed tastes which are always nullified. However, the Ran disagrees with the Rashba's idea. Instead he suggests that perhaps there is no prohibition of ein mevatlin isur lechatchila here since it doesn't apply to rabbinic prohibitions and items produced by a forbidden factor are only rabbinic. See there where he isn't certain about this answer for the Ran. See further, the Ran both on the Rif Pesachim 7a and Chiddushin Pesachim 26b does assume that ''zeh v'zeh gorem'' is initially forbidden but permitted to avoid a loss.</ref> | # ''Zeh vzeh gorem'' is forbidden initially, however, if there would be a large loss to avoid it, it is permitted even initially. For example, an oven that was finished with forbidden fuel can now be used with permitted fuel since the baked products would be a result of forbidden and permitted fuel, which is ''zeh v'zeh gorem''. Even though it is only permitted after the fact, the alternative of destroying the oven is a large loss and not necessary.<ref>Tosfot Pesachim 26b s.v. ben, Baal Hameor Pesachim 6b s.v. vaf, Rosh Pesachim 2:2 s.v. vlo, Ran Pesachim 7a s.v. ha, Ritva Avoda Zara 49a s.v. Mishna Natal, and Tur 142:4. For other approaches see Raavad on Rif, Meiri 26b, and Michtam. Avnei Meluyim asks why a large loss permits zeh v'zeh gorem initially if the Ran compares ''zeh v'zeh gorem'' to nullification and it is forbidden to nullify something forbidden initially even to avoid a loss. He answers that according to the Rashba who says that ein mevatlin isur lechatchila does not apply when it isn't possible to come to violate the actual prohibition, such as by cooking in a pot with a minimal amount of absorbed tastes which are always nullified. However, the Ran disagrees with the Rashba's idea. Instead he suggests that perhaps there is no prohibition of ein mevatlin isur lechatchila here since it doesn't apply to rabbinic prohibitions and items produced by a forbidden factor are only rabbinic. See there where he isn't certain about this answer for the Ran. See further, the Ran both on the Rif Pesachim 7a and Chiddushin Pesachim 26b does assume that ''zeh v'zeh gorem'' is initially forbidden but permitted to avoid a loss.</ref> | ||
