16,374
edits
Nullification: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Intentional Bitul
| Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
#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. Ashkanzim are stringent not to do so.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 99:6 permits adding to a mixture with a rabbinically forbidden item in order to permit it with nullification. This is 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. Kaf HaChaim 99:68 writes that the Sephardi minhag is to follow Shulchan Aruch and allow nullification on derabbanan prohibitions by adding to the mixture.</ref> | #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. Ashkanzim are stringent not to do so.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 99:6 permits adding to a mixture with a rabbinically forbidden item in order to permit it with nullification. This is 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. Kaf HaChaim 99:68 writes that the Sephardi minhag is to follow Shulchan Aruch and allow nullification on derabbanan prohibitions by adding to the mixture.</ref> | ||
##Therefore, a person should be careful never to try to use nullification without asking a qualified rabbi.<ref>The Laws of Kashrut (p. 75). See Pitchei Teshuva 99:5 regarding a person who asked an unqualified rabbi and he ruled incorrectly that it is considered intentional. See, however, Kaf HaChaim 99:39.</ref> | ##Therefore, a person should be careful never to try to use nullification without asking a qualified rabbi.<ref>The Laws of Kashrut (p. 75). See Pitchei Teshuva 99:5 regarding a person who asked an unqualified rabbi and he ruled incorrectly that it is considered intentional. See, however, Kaf HaChaim 99:39.</ref> | ||
#A person may not ask a non-Jew to perform nullification for him.<ref>Radvaz 3:547 says that it is forbidden to ask a non-Jew to do nullification and if one did so, the food is prohibited. He adds that if the non-Jew did nullification without the Jew asking even if he recognizes the jew it is permitted unlike a non-Jew who does melacha for a Jew on Shabbat. The Kaf HaChaim 99:50-51 quotes the Radvaz.</ref> | #A person may not ask a non-Jew to perform nullification for him. After the fact some hold it is forbidden and some disagree.<ref>Rashba Torat Habayit Haaruch 4:4 38b writes that it is forbidden to ask a non-Jew to cook in his teref pot that wasn’t used within 24 hours since it is considered bitul isur lechatchila. Rashba writes that it is forbidden even after the fact. Shulchan Aruch YD 103:5 and 122:6 quotes the Rashba but not the part that it makes it forbidden after the fact. Even though the Levushei Sarad and Chamudei Doniel say it is forbidden even after the fact like the Rashba, Igrot Moshe YD 2:41 argues that after the fact we are lenient.</ref> | ||
#Some say that it is forbidden to buy a product which was made with nullification if one can alternatively buy a product which doesn't use nullification. Others say that this is permitted. <ref>Kaf HaChaim 99:52 cites the Radvaz who is strict against the Erech HaShulchan who is lenient. The Badei HaShulchan 99:38 is lenient. </ref> | |||
Radvaz 3:547 says that it is forbidden to ask a non-Jew to do nullification and if one did so, the food is prohibited. He adds that if the non-Jew did nullification without the Jew asking even if he recognizes the jew it is permitted unlike a non-Jew who does melacha for a Jew on Shabbat. The Kaf HaChaim 99:50-51 quotes the Radvaz.</ref> | |||
#Some say that it is forbidden to buy a product which was made with nullification if one can alternatively buy a product which doesn't use nullification. Others say that this is permitted. <ref>Kaf HaChaim 99:52 cites the Radvaz who is strict against the Erech HaShulchan who is lenient. The Badei HaShulchan 99:38 and Yabia Omer YD 7:7 are lenient. | |||
* Radvaz 3:547 writes that it is forbidden to buy a product from a non-Jew if there’s something in it that was forbidden but was nullified. He admits though that it is permitted if it was just cooked in a pot that wasn’t used within 24 hours. He explains that it isn’t likely one is going to ask a non-Jew to cook in such a pot since it doesn't impart a good flavor. Yet it is a problem to buy the food which had non-Kosher mixed in since one may ask a non-Jew to do so. [Radvaz 1:580 is lenient to buy from a non-Jew safek orlah grapes mixed up and are nullified. Maybe this shows that the Radvaz would be lenient if there’s no option (haarot). Alternatively, there’s no issue of bitul isur lechatchila for something that is only a safek (siman 92).] Brachot 36b implies that it is permitted to buy food from a non-Jew that was cooked in a pot that wasn’t used within 24 hours. That is evident from Rashi s.v. sharya. | |||
* Isur Vheter 47:9 writes that it is initially forbidden to buy from a non-Jew an animal that nursed from a non-kosher animal but after the fact it is permitted. Torat Chatat 65:10 cites this. Shach YD 60:5 writes that the reason it is permitted after the fact is zeh vzeh gorem. The Erech Hashulchan 99:8 infers from here that it is forbidden to buy a food that the non-Jew did a nullification in its processing in line with the Radvaz 3:547. | |||
* Rambam Maachalot Asurot 3:13 and 3:15 writes that the cheese of non-Jews is forbidden since they might have used rennet from a nevelah animal which isn’t nullified. Erech Hashulchan infers that had it been nullified it would have been permitted to buy unlike the Radvaz. | |||
Rama YD 114:4 permits buying alcoholic drinks that there's a concern that goyim mixed in wine if it comes directly from the barrel. Even though the barrel is coated with pig fat it is nullified and adds a negative taste. Erech Hashulchan infers from here that buying something from a non-Jew that has nullification is permitted unlike the Radvaz. | |||
* Hagahot Shaarei Dura 1:1:7 asks how it is permitted to buy spices from non-Jews initially since it involves nullification. He suggests that perhaps it is permitted since it was done by a non-Jew.</ref> | |||
#If a pot absorbed a tiny amount of forbidden taste and it will always be used for sixty times that amount, it is permitted to use that pot after 24 hours have passed without having it go through a Koshering process. However, if the pot is sometimes used for a small amount of food and the absorbed taste wouldn't be nullified in sixty, it is forbidden to use that pot without Koshering even if one uses with an amount that would actually nullify the absorbed taste. <ref>The Gemara Avoda Zara 33a states that a container a non-Jew used for wine can be used for a Jew to drink water. The [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9381&st=&pgnum=266 Rashba (Torat HaBayit 36b)] explains that since only a tiny bit of the wine taste was absorbed into the containers and it will be nullified when later used to drink water it is permitted. The Rivash (no. 349) and Raavad (cited by Ran Avoda Zara 12b) agree. | #If a pot absorbed a tiny amount of forbidden taste and it will always be used for sixty times that amount, it is permitted to use that pot after 24 hours have passed without having it go through a Koshering process. However, if the pot is sometimes used for a small amount of food and the absorbed taste wouldn't be nullified in sixty, it is forbidden to use that pot without Koshering even if one uses with an amount that would actually nullify the absorbed taste. <ref>The Gemara Avoda Zara 33a states that a container a non-Jew used for wine can be used for a Jew to drink water. The [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9381&st=&pgnum=266 Rashba (Torat HaBayit 36b)] explains that since only a tiny bit of the wine taste was absorbed into the containers and it will be nullified when later used to drink water it is permitted. The Rivash (no. 349) and Raavad (cited by Ran Avoda Zara 12b) agree. | ||
*The [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9381&st=&pgnum=266 Raah (Bedek HaBayit 36b)] vehemently argues with the Rashba because it should be considered a violation of intentionally nullifying the forbidden absorption in the pots. Rather he explains that the absorption of wine in the containers that the Gemara was discussing is minimal since it is all cold. Also, the wine taste is ruined when it mixes into the water and that isn't considered intentional nullification. The [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=47326&st=&pgnum=190 Maadanei Asher (Isur V'heter Siman 81)] explains that the Rashba would respond that it isn't forbidden because of intentional nullification unless it is possible that there wouldn't be nullification but if there certainly is nullification, it is permitted. | *The [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9381&st=&pgnum=266 Raah (Bedek HaBayit 36b)] vehemently argues with the Rashba because it should be considered a violation of intentionally nullifying the forbidden absorption in the pots. Rather he explains that the absorption of wine in the containers that the Gemara was discussing is minimal since it is all cold. Also, the wine taste is ruined when it mixes into the water and that isn't considered intentional nullification. The [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=47326&st=&pgnum=190 Maadanei Asher (Isur V'heter Siman 81)] explains that the Rashba would respond that it isn't forbidden because of intentional nullification unless it is possible that there wouldn't be nullification but if there certainly is nullification, it is permitted. | ||
*The Tur (YD 122) also disagrees with the Rashba but for another reason. He says if the rabbis enacted a decree against using a pot with forbidden taste if 24 hours passed and now the absorptions are permitted, how much more so would they enact a decree against using a pot with absorptions within 24 hours just because it'll be nullified lest one use it for less than the amount that would cause nullification. The Bet Yosef YD 122:5 answers that there's no decree on something uncommon and it is uncommon to use a pot of such a size for a quantity of food less than sixty times the forbidden absorption. | *The Tur (YD 122) also disagrees with the Rashba but for another reason. He says if the rabbis enacted a decree against using a pot with forbidden taste if 24 hours passed and now the absorptions are permitted, how much more so would they enact a decree against using a pot with absorptions within 24 hours just because it'll be nullified lest one use it for less than the amount that would cause nullification. The Bet Yosef YD 122:5 answers that there's no decree on something uncommon and it is uncommon to use a pot of such a size for a quantity of food less than sixty times the forbidden absorption. | ||
