Close To Torah

Recently a tiny worm called the Anisakis has made the headlines in the Jewish world. Although this bug lives a relatively placid and boring life, his claim to fame is his infestation of salmon and other fish. Let us try to understand what this controversy is about, and how his presence affects the halachic status of the fish it appears in.

The Gemara in Chulin 67b writes that bugs found in the stomach of animals and fish are forbidden. If these insects are found in the flesh of an animal, they are considered to be a part of its meat. Since they have taken residence and grown inside the meat, they are considered to be an actual part of the flesh of the animal.

In such circumstances their status differs depending if they are found in meat or fish. Meat requires shechita to permit it, and this shechita does not help permit the bugs. Therefore one can not eat the meat without first removing the bugs.  However fish do not require shechita or any other process to render them permitted. Since these bugs are considered part of the actual flesh of the animal, they take on the same halachic status as the flesh of the fish. Therefore the Gemara, Rishonim and the Shulchan Aruch 84,16 rule that bugs found in the meat flesh of fish are mutar to eat.

Thus these fish worms present us with a fascinating halachic situation. While Jews generally cringe at the site of a bug or worm in our food, the insects found in the flesh of the fish are 100% glatt kosher. The Gemara says that Revina, the coauthor of Shas, would eat them but ask his mother to cover up the bugs in the fish so he would not have to look at these revolting creatures while eating his food.  Based on the above parameters, we seemingly have clear guidelines to deal with any shayla. If the bug is found in the stomach of the fish it cannot eaten, and if it is discovered in the flesh it is permitted. Wherein lies the difficulty?  In steps the Anisakis worm. According to the research and observations of scientists and others, this bug originates in the stomach of the fish and bores its way into the flesh of its carrier. Boring its way from one place to another creates complicated circumstances for the concerned Jewish fish consumer as whether he can eat this fish without first removing the worms.

Since the bug was originally found in the stomach, seemingly it should be categorized as a stomach bug and be forbidden. However after it bores its way from the innards to the flesh, perhaps we should judge its status as a flesh worm and permit it. Let us try and get some clarity regarding this question which is on the table of the greatest halachic authorities of our time.

Humble Beginnings

There are a number of practical and halachic grey areas regarding the Anisakis worm. Each one presents us with a new difficulty in classifying its halachic status. In order to understand these points, we will try and trace the life cycle of this bug.  The Torah categorizes insects as sheratzim, animals which crawl. Some crawl on the ground, others in the water, and others in the air. Any insects which did not exist in one of these domains can not be forbidden.  Thus we find the poskim discuss bugs which originate in cheese are permitted to eat. These insects originate and remain in the cheese for the duration of their existence. Since they never crawled out of the cheese they can be eaten together with the cheese.  Some Anisakis worms start as larva on the bottom of the marine floor, at times tens of thousands of feet under sea level. At this stage of their existence some of them are eaten by crill, small non kosher sea creatures, which are consequently eaten by salmon and other fish. If at this point in time they are microscopic they are a halachic non entity and permitted.  After these bugs are consumed by salmon and other larger fish, their status should depend on their size. If the worms remain microscopic, they would not become forbidden. However if the grow to a visible size, they should be included in the Gemara’s prohibition against eating bugs found in the stomach.

Researchers say that while in the stomach of the salmon the worms bore their way into the flesh of the carrier fish. This migration from the stomach to the flesh brings us to the main point of dispute. How will we now classify these worms?

Points of Doubt

In any halachic question, the points of doubt involved always make coming out with a clear conclusion difficult. While most questions involve some level of doubt, the amount of unclear points regarding this issue makes coming out with a clear psak a formidable task. We will try to list some of them in order that we can fathom the depth of the arguments of the Gedolim who are discussing these points.

Some larve of the worm originate on the ocean floor. If at that point they are visible entities they take on the status of sheretz hayam and are forbidden. On the other hand, if they are not visible to the naked eye then they are considered a halachic non-entity and are permitted.

This doubt continues after the larve are swallowed by the crill. If at that point the Anisakis worm would be visible if it was outside the fish then it may become a sheretz hayam and is forbidden. However it is not clear if a worm which became visible inside of a fish does indeed get a status of issur.

Even the worms found on the inside of the fish, are not definitely forbidden. The Pri Megadim (Sifsei Da’as 84,43) rules that this is only a safek if these worms originated from outside the fish. However like any Torah issue, even in a case of doubt we are forbidden to eat these worms.

Worm or Fish

The Gemara writes that worms found in the flesh of animals are forbidden since the animal meat requires shechita to permit it. At first glance the words of the Gemara are baffling. Why should we think that shechita make a worm permitted?

Rashi explains that once the bugs become part of the flesh of the animal, they take on the halachic status of the animal and the Shach (84,42) rules like this. Therefore in the case of worms found in the meat of a cow, these worms become meat, and technically require shechita to permit them. Since shechita does not help to permit worms, they remain with the issur of aver min hachai.

The Chazon Ish (Yoreh Deah 14,13) takes a different approach. He argues that even after these worms have lodged themselves into the meat, since the meat of an animal is not considered food, the worms retain their prohibited status. Fish on the other hand, do not require shechita, and the bugs found retain the food status and do not get an issur of sheretz hamayim.

According to the Chazon Ish who rules that these bugs retain their status of worm while embedded in the animal because it is not considered food, we may be able to apply this halacha to our case. If the worms become a recognizable entity inside the body of their carrier fish, since they are not considered to be food, they could get a worm status.

Even according to understanding that the bugs are forbidden because of aver min hachai, these worms may still be forbidden. The reason that they are considered aver min hachai is because they become part of the actual meat. Some poskim say that becoming part of a non kosher fish may give the worms the status of the non-kosher fish (Minchas Chinuch 163).

Interpreting Silence

One of the strongest arguments of those who wish to permit these worms is that the Gemara does not discuss the case of migrating worms. If the halacha is that these worms are forbidden then someone should mention this. Rav Belsky amd Rav Falk understand this is a clear proof that the bugs are permitted.

Rav Belsky argues that from the stimas of the Shulchan Aruh it must be that these bugs are permitted. It is unlikely that thee was such a major change in metzios, and therefore he concludes that the Aniskais worms that we have today are te same worms that existed in the times of Chazal, and that there is no reason to forbid them.

Rav Falk agrees with the general principle that the Shulchan Aruch would permit these bugs, and adds lundus to the heter. Rav Falk aargues that any bug which became visible only inside the fish never becomes assur, and cites scientists. The reason for this is just as the sides of the bucket is ribisei, so too inside the fish is certainly rebisei. Since the bug spends its whole existence as reviseh of a sheretz hamayim, there is no time when an issur is chal on it.

Rav Falk adds that there is  clear distinction between sheretz hayama and sheretz ha’aretz. Sheretz ha’artez is forbidden as soon as it becomes separated from the fruit. Therefore if the fruit is in a basket it becomes assur as soon as it comes out of the fruit. However if the bug comes out of the water, it remains permitted as long as it is still in the sides of the bucket or the well. The reason for this is the sheretz hayam only becomes forbidden after it has completely separated itself from the water, and as long as the bug is in the side of the bucket or the well it is rebisei and mutar.

Furthermore the Ravyah says that anything that a sheretz hamayim cannot become a sheretz ha’aretz afterwards. The Rema relies on this shita if the bug gets mixed up with food afterwards. In this case the Ravyah would argue there is never a shem issur on this bug.

If these bugs are mutar, why are the bugs found in the stomach assur. Rav Falk argues that this is a chumrah of Chazal, lest the fish swallow a bug that is forbidden. However these Anasakis worms which are definitely not swallowed seen and never get a halachah of shertez ha’aretz, are definitely permitted, ad there is no room for a safek.

Rav Wosner (Shevet HaLevi 4,83) in a teshuva written a number of years ago describes an almost identical situation regarding worms that were swallowed up by shrimp.

Rav Wosner writes that the scientists definitely can not be trusted to relay the facts correctly. If the metzious however is how they describe, then the fish should be forbidden.

In the teshuva Rav Wosner brings an opinion that since the worms were swallowed by a fish as larve, perhaps there is no issur. He latter disputes this point in the continuation of h teshuva.

More S’feikos

The Gemara makes an open ended statement that worms found in the fish’s stomach are forbidden and in the meat are permitted. It does not discuss the question of worms which started inside the stomach and traveled into the flesh of the fish. If these worms were at some point visible will we treat them as forbidden as stomach worms or as permitted as flesh worms?

The matirim that these should now be treated as worms found in the flesh. Even though the Ran and other Rishonim explain that these worms are permitted because they grew in the flesh, these worms also grew somewhat in the flesh of the fish. This would render them permitted.

There is a major question to be asked on this understanding. If in fact these worms were previously forbidden in the stomach of the fish, how can these worms now make a 180 turn and now become permitted? Once their halachic status is set, it cannot change.

We add to the difficulty of determining the status of these fish with the following three questions about the life cycle of the Anisakis bug: First, are they in fact swallowed microscopic by the crill, or perhaps they are already visible and prohibited as sheretz hamayim? This issue is extremely difficult to determine as they are consumed very deep on the sea floor.

Second, even if they were eaten microscopic, do they remain microscopic when they are eaten by the crill? Researchers say that they have found visible Anisakis worms inside the crill. If so they may become forbidden at that point.

Third, even if they are halachicaly invisible inside the crill, what is their status inside the stomach of the salmon? If at that point they are visible then they would have the status of a sheretz hamayim. When they bore into the flesh they would enter as forbidden entities.

A further problem is that the poskim write that the bugs found between the flesh and the skin of the fish are permitted. These Anisakis bugs are found inside the flesh of the fish itself, and sometimes near the stomach. This would point to the fact that the bugs found in this fish are not the same ones that are permitted by the Gemara and the poskim.

Some poskim write that if the worms are found in the brain or lungs that they are definitely forbidden (PriChadash 84,54, Darkei Teshuva 84, Chachmas Adam 38,28).

Bitul Issur Lechatchila

Even if these bugs are forbidden, perhaps they are batel since they cannot be openly seen in the fish. There are a number of issues to deal with.  Hukar isura tells us that if the issur is nikar then it has to be removed. Here the issur may not nikar to the naked eye, but under blue light or even fluorescent light the can be seen.  Taz 104,1 (end) says that by yavesh b’yavesh the issur changes to heter and becomes heter. However if the issur is yavesh b’lach and a person could remove it, the worms remain issur. What about if one cannot remove the worms? The Taz cites the Rambam that as long as the issur is not mixed in with the heter it is not batel, and therefore the whey of issur of cheese is not batel. According to this the worms would be a problem. The Rashba holds that even if it is nikar, if you can’t remove the issur it is batel. Since you can remove these bugs the fish should be a problem. Can a person cook the salmon thus making it impossible to find the salmon? The Shulchan Aruch 84,13 says a person can cook honey in order to liquefy the honey in order to remove the legs even though taam will go into the honey.  However the Taz only permits this if there is no other way to rectify the issur. Here on can remove the bugs beforehand so it wouldn’t be permitted to be mevatel them, and if it is impossible to remove them it would be mutar.

However all of this applies to v’dai issur. The Shach 114,21 writes that if there is only safek issur then one can prepare the food in a way which will be meatel the issur. The Pri Megadim in Sifei Daas 99,7 argues on the Shach but in Mishavetzos Zehav 99,7 he writes that if it is a tircha to remove the issur and there is no way to eat it b’heter, then it is mutar to be mevatel it. Furthermore this is a safek doraisa and maybe one can only be makil when there is a safek in the metziuous and not a safek in din.  Here in the case of the fish you have all of these sibos. The issur isn’t immediately nikar, plus it is safek, and plus it is a tircha to remove it. Seemingly this would be a reason to be matir the fish. However all of these Achronim are only matir if the situation already existed, e.g. his wheat was infested or his honey had ants in it. Also the bugs are a beriah and perhaps they are not batel.  Do the bugs survive the cooking? The author heard from a rav who used to be a professional cook that if the fish was cooked for a while them the worms would probably not remain intact. However if the fish was fried or baked (which is usually the case), the worms would probably survive frying or roasting.

Safek S’feikos

There is a famous principle in halacha, that a safek s’feika is permitted. The basic premise of this concept is that even when one has to be stringent regarding a case of doubt, when it comes to a doubt which itself is a doubt, the result is not prohibited. In a number of areas of halacha the concept of safek s’feika is utilized to provide  lenient ruling.

As we have noted, the issue of the Anisakis worms in fish contains some many doubts. Perhaps we can combine these doubts to produce a safek s’feika. On closer introspection, this is not a viable option for a number of resons.

There are numerous conditions required to have a safek s’feika, and the Shach in his treatise on safek s’feika concludes that this topic is so difficult that one should not utilize any safek s’feika unless it is explicitly mentioned by the Gemara or early poskim. Others argue on this ruling and do make use of safek s’feika. In general we follow the Shach, barring exceptional circumstances when we will use a safek s’feika to rule leniently.

One of the conditions for formulating a safek s’feika is that each of the doubts must differ from its counter doubt. In this case, although there are numerous doubts, they essentially boil down to a single question: Is this Anisakis worm a sheretz hayam which is forbidden or does it have some other status which is permitted? This would invaildate it from being considered a safek s’feika

Conclusion

Because of all of the technical and halachic questions involved in understanding the Anisakis worm, the poskim of Eretz Yisrael have currently ruled that until these issues are clarified, fish containing the Anazsis worm have the status of safek issur Torah. If these factors can be significantly clarified perhaps this ruling will change. But at the current time the issues is far from clear at this stage.

While the Anisakis leads a relatively boring life, this little worm has shaken up the entire Jewish world. He has presented us with a set of circumstances which forces us to dig deeper, and try to understand what Chazal meant. May Hashem give us the siyata dismaya to get a better understanding of these halachos.

 Print

Halacha

I would like to bring to the Close To Torah audience’s attention, a mitvah known as Shatnez - mixing wool and linen, that adherence to seems weak in certain areas, primarily due to the lack of freely available information. To that end, I am presenting an important article addressing these issues, written by my friend and associate, a renowned expert in this field, Rabbi Eliyahu Neiman.

The Basic Halachos of Shatnez

by Rabbi Eliyahu Neiman

The Basic Prohibition

Shatnez is a prohibition from the Torah. It is a Mitzvas Lo Saseh (negative commandment) meaning you fulfill this obligation by refraining from doing an action. (In this case it is refraining from wearing, or draping on oneself a garment or fabric containing a forbidden mixture of wool and linen).

There are two verses in the Torah that refer to shatnez. One in Vayikra 19:19, “Ubeged kilayim shatnez lo ya’aleh alecha.” A garment composed of a shatnez mixture should not cover you. And in Devarim 22:11 another expression of this same mitzvah, “Lo silbash shatnez tzemer uphishtim yachdav.” Do not wear shatnez, wool and linen together. The prohibition of shatnez is with wool and linen only. A garment made from any other combination of fibers is permitted to wear.

Shatnez is classified as a form of Kilayim (forbidden mixture of the Torah). There are 4 forms of Kilayim mentioned in the Torah Kilyam of animals, Kilyam of the vineyard, Kilyam of plants and Kilyam of clothes which is also called shatnez.
Our Sages teach us the word shatnez  (שעטנז) is actually an acronym of the words שוע טווי נוז to teach us that the combination is prohibited only if the wool and linen fibers have been combed, spun and woven or twined.

The wool referred to here is specifically wool, the hair, which comes from a sheep or lamb. Other forms of wool such as cashmere which comes from a goat may be combined with linen. Likewise the linen referred to in the Torah is specifically that which comes from the flax plant.  Cotton or ramie or any plant fiber that is similar to linen may be combined with wool. It is only when sheep’s wool is joined with linen is the resulting combination shatnez. This is implied by the word yachdav –together.

If even a single thread of linen and wool have been joined together, whether in a cloth or garment it is a forbidden shatnez combination.

Wool and linen are shatnez if they are attached together in any lasting manner not just through sewing but also by bonding, gluing or tying for example.

Wool and linen garments attached together via buttons, or Velcro are permitted even if left like that on a permanent basis.   This is not considered an attachment because the garments can be easily unfastened. It would therefore, be permitted to wear a raincoat containing linen, together with a buttoned in wool lining.

Regarding zippers, there is a difference of opinion.  Some authorities consider a zipper as a form of permanent attachment and would prohibit a zippered in lining. Others maintain that this too, is similar to buttons due to the ease of removal and is, therefore, permitted.

There is no minimum measurement of shatnez even the smallest thread of linen joined to a wool article or vise versa will make the entire garment shatnez.
Furthermore, the shatnez is not required to be an essential part of the garment. For example if a label in a wool suit or a hanger loop in a wool skirt was sewn in with a linen thread the entire garment is forbidden to wear.

That being said, it is possible to have shatnez nullified within the fibers of a thread containing other fiber(s) other then wool or linen. For example a thread containing a blend of cotton and linen; if the cotton is the majority it may be permitted to sew it together with wool. If the linen is 50% or more then it is forbidden as shatnez. Similarly  a thread spun of wool and cashmere; if the majority fiber is cashmere the thread would be permissible with linen. If 50% or more of the fiber in the thread is wool then it is forbidden with linen.
Wool and linen fiber can never be nullified one within the other.

Only a highly qualified shatnez tester is capable of determining the accurate percentages of textile fibers within a thread.

A shatnez garment is forbidden to wear even if the garment is not touching one’s body, even if separated by many layers of clothing.

A small area of shatnez forbids the entire garment. For example; a neutral material such as cotton or polyester will be entirely forbidden if a wool and linen combination are sewn on to even a small corner of the garment. Even if a person lets the part of the garment that contains the shatnez lie on the floor and only wraps himself in the neutral part this is also forbidden as shatnez.

A garment made from a neutral material has on one end sewn threads of wool and on the other far end threads of linen, even though the wool and linen are not touching one another according to the Rambam this is forbidden from the Torah as shatnez and according to the Rama’ it is permitted.

The prohibition of shatnez applies equally to men and woman. Shatnez is forbidden at all times.

The prohibition of shatnez applies irrespective of whether the garment is one’s own, borrowed or rented.

Shatnez is forbidden to be worn for even for a short time or on a temporary basis. Each moment a person is wearing shatnez he is transgressing the prohibition anew.

The prohibition of shatnez is a prohibition of wearing or covering oneself in a beneficial way similar to wearing. A tent or umbrella made from shatnez would be permitted to use even if you are being protected from the elements.
Just as it is forbidden to feed your child treif food to eat it is also forbidden to dress a child in shatnez. There is no distinction between your child and someone else’s child. Therefore children’s clothing which may contain shatnez must be tested.

The Torah’s prohibition of shatnez primarily refers to wearing of shatnez garments. Sitting, lying, or walking on shatnez would be permitted. There is, however, a Rabbinic decree prohibiting these activities due to the fact that the shatnez material may rise up and cover part of the body. Therefore carpets, rugs, mattresses, pillows, couches and chairs could possibly be a concern if they contain shatnez. Regarding mats of mattresses the Talmud says even if ten mattresses lay one on top of the other, and the bottom one is Shatnez, it is forbidden to sit on the top mattress.
This rabbinic prohibition largely depends on the softness of materials used in the construction of the article in question. Soft materials are forbidden and firm materials are permitted. Due to the complexity of these details, it is advisable to consult a Rabbinical authority or your local certified shatnez laboratory whenever a question arises regarding the possibility of shatnez in these items.

May one try on a shatnez garment for size?

When one goes to a clothing store to buy a new suit, pants or dress is it permitted to try it on before having the article tested for shatnez?

Usually when people shop for clothing the shatnez status of the garment purchased is unknown. In this case it is permitted to try on the clothing in the store or in the privacy of one’s home to see if it fits. Even if it is known that these garments sometimes contain shatnez, it is still permitted to try them on, unless one knows that the particular garment he is trying on is shatnez.

In the less common case when you know the garment you want to try on for size is shatnez the halachic opinions vary. If a garment is known to contain shatnez, it is prohibited for those who follow the opinion of the Beis Yosef,(such as many of those of Sephardic descent), to try on the garment in order to buy it. If, however, one wishes to model the garment for another person, some authorities would permit it. Some would even permit the buyer to try on a shatnez garment, provided that he will not buy the garment he is trying on. Rather, he should try on another garment that is identical in size and style to the one he will buy.

For those who follow the opinion of the Rama, it would be permitted to try on a shatnez garment in the dressing room of the store or in the privacy of one’s home. It would also be permitted to try on a jacket or a coat in the store itself, since he does not benefit from wearing such a garment in such circumstances. Trying on trousers, or any other garment one would be embarrassed to be seen without, would be prohibited in the store outside the privacy of the dressing room.

Some are of the opinion that even those of Ashkenazic descent should not try on a shatnez garment. It would then be permitted only in the manner described above according to the Beis Yosef. The custom, however, is to be lenient like the Rama.

When a tailor or a shatnez tester is working on a garment, it is common for them to drape the garment across their lap as they work. This is permitted, since there is no intent to benefit from the warmth of the garment.
This being said it is strictly forbidden to wear a garment that requires shatnez testing, even temporally without having it first tested by a certified shatnez laboratory.

Content labels:

Content Labels found in clothing are misleading for a number of reasons. The content label only lists the outer shell fabric of the garment. For example a jacket contains outer and internal linings, collar felt and collar stiffening, shoulder pads, reinforcement tapes etc. None of these as well as external patches, ornamentation and embroidery or sewing thread are listed on the label. That means many suits labeled 100% wool contain shatnez and you would never know it from the label. Suits labeled 100% polyester or cotton are also found sometimes to contain shatnez.

According to government law any fiber in the garment which makes up less than 5% of the garment is not required to be listed on the content label. As mentioned above even one small thread of wool in a linen garment, or one small thread of linen in a wool garment renders the entire garment shatnez.

The author has found many cases were the content label was partially or completely incorrect.

That being said, I still highly recommend that everyone should accustom themselves to reading content labels before buying clothing. Even though labels are not reliable you can still save yourself a lot of time and money. If you see it says wool and linen, mixed fibers or other fibers, do not take a chance. Put it back on the rack and keep looking!

Reprocessed Material is material made from a mixture of cloth remnants. Shoulder pads found in jackets and coats are often found to be made of reprocessed material. Because of the difficulty of accurately being able to examine reprocessed materials the opinions of the Poskim vary regarding the use of these garments which have already been purchased. However, most Rabbonim agree that it is preferable to avoid purchasing items containing reprocessed material in the first place. Testing of reprocessed material will occasionally reveal large quantities of wool and linen, which would make the garment unquestionably shatnez. The term “Other Fibers”, “Mixed Fibers”, O.F. or A.F. on a content label usually indicate the presence of reprocessed fibers.
Alterations and repairs done on a garment may also be a shatnez concern and one may need to have the repaired portion checked by a shatnez lab.

Sometimes it is important to know what a garment is made of even if there is no problem of shatnez in the garment itself.

The Rabbis forbade wearing two garments; one wool and one linen, one on top of the other in a manner were it is not possible to remove the bottom article without first removing the top garment.

For example; wearing wool sox’s with shoes stitched with linen thread. In such a case it is impossible to remove the sox without first removing the shoe. It appears as though they are bound together and forbidden as shatnez.

Were it is possible to remove the bottom garment without having to remove the top one even with some shifting around of the garments it is permitted. For example a tallis katon made of wool worn under a linen shirt; since it is possible to remove the tallis katon from under the shirt without removing the shirt, it is permitted. Likewise there is no problem of tucking a linen shirt into a pair of wool pants or skirt.

It is permitted to wear a wool garment on top of a linen one or vice versa if there is a third garment made of a neutral material separating them, even if it would not be possible to remove the bottom one without removing the top one.

Caveat Emptor:

Buyer Beware: Clothing and fabric storeowners are often unfamiliar with all of the components and fabrics incorporated in the garments they sell. Even the factories that manufacture clothing are often unaware of, and are not required to know, the content of internal reinforcements used in their products. Because of this lack of information, even a shomer shabbos retailer or manufacturer cannot be relied upon to claim that his merchandise is shatnez-free. This applies even though the clothing was manufactured especially for him, and even if he was present at the factory during production.

In addition, some storeowners are notorious for claiming that their garments are pre-tested or sample tested when in fact they are not. All garments pre-tested for stores by a certified shatnez laboratory will carry an official non-shatnez label in each item.

Unfortunately some stores in religious neighborhoods sew their own fake non-shatnez label on to suits and other garments.

Always look for a non-shatnez label which has the name of the certified shatnez laboratory on the label. If you do not see this you can assume that the garment has not been shatnez tested. If you wish to purchase the garment make sure to have it tested at a certified shatnez laboratory.

These are just a few of the halachos of a mitzvah medeoraysah that many people, sadly, are completly unaware of. For more information or if you have any questions regarding shatnez, feel free to contact the author, Rabbi Neiman, directly at   jerusalemshatneznews@live.com.

————————————————————————————————————-

Rabbi Eliyahu Neiman is certified as an expert in the field of shatnez in testing and halacha from the “Vaad Mishmeres Habeged” of Bnei Brak and the “International Association of Professional Shatnez Testers and Laboratories” of  Lakewood, NJ. He founded, managed, and has been senior tester at various  Shatnez Laboratories throughout Israel for many years. He strives to bring shatnez awareness to the forefront of the public’s conscious.

This article was copied with permission from Jerusalem Kosher News at http://www.jerusalemkoshernews.com.

 Print

Halacha, Halacha For the Layman Shatnez

The next time you are at a bris, as you are about to smear a nice dollop of cream cheese on your bagel and add the lox (obviously not at the fleishig brissos that are ubiquitous here in Eretz Yisrael, and rightly so¹), look around and see if others are doing the same. You might just find that certain people (probably Sefardic or Chassidish) will refrain from doing so. Aside from those who are allergic too or can’t stand fish (of which I am a charter member of the latter), there is a large portion of observant Jewry who will not eat a fish and milk combination.

“Hold your horses!” one might exclaim. “I’ve never seen any mention of this in my Chumash, or even Shulchan Aruch! Not only that, The Shulchan Aruch² says that the exact converse is true – that one may cook together milk and fish, for there is no issur involved, even d’rabbanan! Is this a new chumra of the week? And how exactly am I expected to go to a bris and not have bagels with lox and cream cheese? It just wouldn’t seem Jewish!”

Actually, although this is not a new chumra, he would be correct as there is no mention of such a halacha in the Shulchan Aruch at all. But, to better understand where such a shita comes from, first one must understand the halachos of mixing fish and meat.

The Shulchan Aruch³ writes that one must be careful not to eat meat and fish together for this mixture may cause tzara’as⁴. Although there are poskim who hold that the teva (roughly translated as environmental conditions) has since changed and therefore one does not have worry about this⁵, most halachic authorities do not agree with this chiddush and maintain that the halacha follows the Shulchan Aruch and that this mixture remains forbidden⁶. However, many authorities do take the lenient opinion into consideration to allow for some leniency in certain questionable situations⁷.

“That’s all fine and dandy”, our exclaimer might exclaim, “but what does that have to do with mixing fish and milk?”

The answer to this lies in the Beis Yosef, The Shulchan Aruch’s commentary on the Tur. For in Yorah De’ah 87, 3 (s.v. dagim), the Beis Yosef writes that “one should not eat fish and milk together because of the danger involved, as it is explained in O.C. 173″. A number of poskim follow this ruling, and likewise maintain that one should not eat a combination of milk and fish⁸.

However, many authorities point out that the location the Beis Yosef referenced for his halachic decision to be machmir is referring to eating fish with meat, not milk. They therefore maintain that this issue is a case of mistaken identity and that eating fish with milk is 100% permissible⁹. Some add that if the Beis Yosef truly intended to rule stringently in this matter, he would not have only mentioned it in his commentary, but rather would have written it as official psak halacha in the Shulchan Aruch¹⁰.

On the other hand, many authorities hold that there still is a sakana involved in eating fish and milk, but it’s not a halachic issue, rather a medical one. They maintain that since both fish and milk serve to cool down the human body, when they are ingested together it can create bodily harm¹¹. This, they hold, is the reason the Beis Yosef intended by saying not to eat them together, and not because of tzara’as.

While these poskim do cite this logic and say one should therefore refrain, many decisors, most notably the Chasam Sofer¹², argue that this can not possibly be true, for we see many people eating them together and not becoming (noticeably) sick¹³. (Anchovies on pizza, anyone? Actually, the thought of that makes me sick.) Also, the greatest (and best known) Jewish doctor, the Rambam, makes absolutely no mention of this danger.

Still, others maintain that this depends on the time and place¹⁴. Just because someone won’t get sick from it in New York, there is no assurance that the same would be true in Kabul. (Although I am assuming that if one is in Kabul he has other sakanos to worry about…)

The bottom line is that different minhagim developed over time among different segments of Jewry. An oversimplified generalization is that Sefardim (since they follow the psakim of the Beis Yosef) should be machmir and Ashkenazim can be maykil¹⁵. But there are Sefardi poskim who rule that a Sefardi can be lenient (some hold only b’dieved ¹⁶and others hold even l’chatchila¹⁷), and there are Ashkenazi poskim who hold that even an Ashkenazi should be machmir¹⁸. An interesting side point is that most of the authorities who are machmir when it comes to mixing fish with milk and/or cheese are nevertheless lenient when it comes to mixing fish with butter¹⁹. Of course, there is also the majority opinion that the whole issue is a non-starter and there is no problem whatsoever, even with a tuna melt²⁰.

So, back at that bris, even if you decide not to take a bite of your Bagels and Lox Deluxe, at least you now have some food for thought²¹.

1 Which is a topic for a discussion in its own right.

2 Y”D 87, 2.

3 Y”D 116, 2 based on Gemara Pesachim 76b.

4 Very loosely translated as leprosy. This prohibition also includes chicken:

שו”ת שבות יעקב (חלק ב’ ס’ ק”ד) פתחי תשובה (יו”ד ס’ קט”ז ס”ק ב’) חיד”א (שיורי ברכה יו”ד ס’ קט”ז ס”ק ח’) עצי העולה (דברים האסורים משום סכנה חקי חיים ס”ק ב’) בן איש חי (ש”ש פר’ פנחס ס”ק ח’) ערוך השלחן (שם ס”ק י’) כף החיים (או”ח ס’ קע”ג ס”ק ה’), ולא כדעת הבית יהודה (שו”ת יו”ד ס’ כ”ד) והעיקרי הד”ט (ס’ י”ד ס”ק ג’) שהעלו דאין למחות ביד המקילים וכבר נהגו העולם להקל בזה.

This is also the reason why in between a meat and fish course (for example on Shabbos, after the gefilte fish) we rinse our mouths (or drink a l’chaim) and eat something – kinuach v’hadacha. Sefardic custom is to also wash hands in between. See Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 173, 2) and Shulchan Aruch and Rema (Y”D 116, 3).

וע”ע בפרי תואר (ס’ קט”ז ס”ק ד’) ובשיורי ברכה (יו”ד ס’ קט”ז ס”ק ח’) ובבן איש חי (ש”ש פר’ פנחס ס”ק ח’) ובשו”ת שאילת שלום (תנינא ס’ קס”ה) ובדרכי תשובה (ס’ קט”ז ס”ק ל’ ול”ב) ובישועות חכמה (ס’ ל”ג סע’ ב’) ובבית לחם יהודה (ס’ קט”ז ס”ק ד’) ובשלחן חי (ס’ א’ סע’ ט”ו) ובחכמת אדם (כלל ס”ח ס”ק א’) ובלחם הפנים (ס’ קט”ז ס”ק ג’) ובשו”ת דבר שמואל (ס’ שס”ז) ובמשנה ברורה (ס’ קע”ג ס”ק ד’ ובשער הציון ס”ק ב’) ובדברי יואל (פר’ וישלח דף קע”ז ע”ב) בענין נטילה ביניהם.

5 מגן אברהם (או”ח ס’ קע”ג ס”ק א’) ב”ח (שם) מהרשד”ם (שו”ת חלק ד’ ס’ קכ”ד בשם הספר הקנה) ערוך השלחן (שם ס”ק י’) משנה ברורה (שם ס”ק ג’). וגם יש שסוברים דהסכנה אינו כולל כל דג, אלא שתלוי בסוג הדג – עיין בשו”ת באר שבע (ס’ ל”ה) ובשו”ת עזרת ישראל (ס’ פ”ה בהגה”ה) ובשו”ת חתם סופר (יו”ד ס’ ק”א, משכתב בשיטת הרמב”ם) ובשו”ת טוב טעם ודעת (מהדורא תליתאי חלק ב’ ס’ י’) ובשו”ת בית שמואל (ס’ קע”ג) והרש”ש (חולין דף צ”ז ע”א) ובשו”ת חלקת יעקב (חלק א’ ס’ ק”ט) ובספר אוצר יד החיים (ס”ק רי”ז) ובספר שמירת הגוף והנפש (פרק א’ הערה א’ וב’).

6 נוהג כצאן יוסף (דף כ”ח סע’ ד’) יפה לב (או”ח ס’ קע”ג ס”ק ב’) מלבושי יו”ט (ס’ נ”ד) שבות יעקב (חלק ג’ ס’ ע’) שדי חמד (כללים מערכת ט’ כלל ה’) מהר”ם שיק (יו”ד ס’ רמ”ד) חכמת אדם (כלל ס”ח ס”ק א’) שלחן ערוך הרב (שמירת גוף ונפש ס”ק ט’) יד אפרים (יו”ד קט”ז סע’ ג’) קיצור שלחן ערוך (ס’ ל”ג ס”ק א’) כף החיים (או”ח ס’ קע”ג ס”ק ט’).

7 שו”ת חתם סופר (הנ”ל) שו”ת דברי מלכיאל (חלק ב’ ס’ נ”ג) שו”ת תפארת צבי (ס’ צ”א) ושו”ת שבט הלוי (חלק ו’ ס’ קי”א), עיי”ש. לדוגמא, יש כמה פוסקים [כולל הפתחי תשובה (ס' קט"ז ס"ק ג') והחמודי דניאל (תערובות א' ס' ט"ז) ושו"ת אבני נזר (יו"ד ס' פ"ד ס"ק א') ושו"ת הרמ"ץ (יו"ד ס' כ"ב) ושו"ת ציון לנפש חיה (ס' ק"י) ושו"ת ארץ צבי (ס' ל"ג) ושו"ת עין יצחק (או"ח ס' כ"ד) ושו"ת מהר"ש ענגל (חלק א' ס' פ"ג) ושו"ת יד מאיר (ס' י"ט) ושו"ת דברי יעקב (ס' נ"ד) ושו"ת דברי שלום ואמת (או"ח ס' י"ג) ושו"ת דעת כהן (ס' נ"ה) ושו"ת יביע אומר (חלק א' יו"ד ס' ח') ושו"ת יעלת חן (יו"ד ס' ב' סוף ס"ק ו')] שסברו בענין זה דאם נתערב בשר עם דגים דיכול לבטל לכתחילה, אף שביטול לכתחילה אסור בשאר איסורים. וכן הוא משמעות הספר יהושע (שו”ת פסקים וכתבים ס’ קס”ז) וההר צבי (שו”ת יו”ד ס’ ע”ד) והתשובות והנהגות (שו”ת חלק ג’ ס’ רנ”ו). ואף שיש שמחמירים בדין זה, [כולל המקור מים חיים (ס' קט"ז סע' ב') ושו"ת שואל ומשיב (מהדורא רביעא חלק א' ס' כ"ח) ושו"ת טוב טעם ודעת (חלק ג' ס' י') ושו"ת אבני צדק (יו"ד ס' מ"ט) והמהרש"ם (מובא במשמרת שלום סוף ס' ק"ח קצת חידושי דינים ס"ק ד')], וגם יש שמסיקים בצ”ע להקל למעשה [שו"ת דובב מישרים (חלק ג' סוף ס' ל"ט ד"ה אולם) ושו"ת יד יוסף (יו"ד ס' נ"ח)], מ”מ ראינן שדעת כמה פוסקים בנ”ד הוא דיש מקום יותר להקל משאר איסורים. ועוד בענין הגדרת דיני תערובות דגים ובשר עיין בספר ילקוט יוסף (או”ה חלק ג’ ס’ פ”ז עמ’ ש”ח – שכ”ד) ובספר שמירת הגוף והנפש (ס’ א’) ובספר דיוני הלכה (חלק ד’ עמ’ קכ”ד – קכ”ט).

8 לבוש (עטרת זהב ס’ פ”ז) זבחי צדק (ס’ פ”ז ס”ק י”ח) שו”ת בית דוד (יו”ד ס’ ל”ג) פחד יצחק (מערכת ב’ דף ס”ט ע”ב ערך בשר דגים) עיקרי הד“ט (יו“ד ס‘ י“ד ס“ק ה‘) שו”ת יחוה דעת (חלק ו’ ס’ מ”ח).

9 רמ”א (דרכי משה ס’ פ”ז ס”ק ד’) ש”ך (שם ס”ק ה’) ט”ז (ס”ק ג’) פר”ח (שם סוף ס”ק ו’) מגן אברהם (ריש ס’ קע”ג) חיד”א (מחזיק ברכה שם ס”ק ד’) פרישה (שם ס”ק ה’) חגורת שמואל (שם ס”ק ז’) אליה רבא (או“ח ס‘ קע“ג ס“ק ט‘) שלחן גבוה (שם ס”ק י”א) באר היטב (ס’ פ”ז ס”ק ה’) שו”ת באר שבע (ס’ ל”ה ד”ה נשאלתי) שו”ת בארות המים (יו”ד ס’ א’) יעב”ץ (מור וקציעה ס’ קע”ג) אמרי בינה (ס’ פ”ז ס”ק ו’) דרכי תשובה (ס’ קט”ז ס”ק י”ד) ערוך השלחן (ס’ פ”ז ס”ק ט”ו).

10 ערוך השלחן (הנ”ל). אבל לכאורה לפי הכללי הוראה של הרה”ג עובדיה יוסף שליט”א (נדפס בשו”ת יחוה דעת חלק ו’ בדפוס הישן) זה אינו קשה כל כך לשיטתו. דשם כתב דאפ’ משכתב רק בבית יוסף, ואין אפ’ זכר של הדין בשו”ע, עדיין זה פסקו מוחלט. והעלה שרק לא אמרינן כן כשכתב להיפך בשו”ע ממשכתב בית יוסף. וכאן י”ל דכוונת הב”י הוא לומר דאף שמעיקר הדין מותר לאכול דגים בחלב, מ”מ עדיין צריך להיזהר מטעם החשש של צרעת, וק”ל.

11 רבינו בחיי (פרשת משפטים פרק כ”ג פסוק י”ט ד”ה לא תבשל – אבל כתב הסכנה הוא משני הטעמים. והערוך השלחן הנ”ל כתב דר’ בחיי רק מחמיר בתערובות דג עם גבינה, ולא בחלב, ודלא כהבין הפתחי תשובה בדעתו שכתב בס’ פ”ז ס”ק ט’ דלפי ר’ בחיי דהוא הדין דדג עם חלב אסורה) כנסת הגדולה (ס’ פ”ז הגה’ ב”י ס”ק י”ט בשם השארית יהודה) בית לחם יהודה (שם ס”ק ד’) גליון מהרש”א (ס’ קט”ז סע’ ב’, בשם המהר”ם מקראקא) שו”ת חינוך בית יהודה (ס’ ס”א, שהעלה דזה כוונה הלבוש שהחמיר) שו”ת אדני פז (ס’ מ”ב) פמ”ג (ס’ פ”ט מ”ז ס”ק ג’, דיש ליזהר) בן איש חי (ש”ש פר’ בהעלותך ס”ק ט”ו) שו”ת רב פעלים (חלק א’ יו”ד ס’ י’).

12 שו”ת יו”ד ס’ ק”א.

13 פתחי תשובה (ס’ פ”ז ס”ק ט’) יד אפרים (שם) ערוך השלחן (הנ”ל) בדי השלחן (ס’ פ”ז ס”ק ל”ג).

14 יד יהודה (ס’ פ”ז פיה”ק ס”ק ו’) עצי העולה (דברים האסורים משום סכנה חקי חיים ס”ק ו’) כף החיים (ס’ פ”ז ס”ק כ”ד, או”ח ס’ קע”ג ס”ק ג’).

15 שו”ת יחוה דעת (חלק ו’ ס’ מ”ח, בסיכום).

16 שו”ת זבחי צדק (חלק ג’ ס’ קמ”ג) שו”ת יחוה דעת (חלק ו’ ס’ מ”ח, בהגה”ה) ילקוט יוסף (או”ה ג’ ס’ פ”ז סע’ פ”ג, ועמ’ שי”א ד”ה ולפע”ד).

17 פר”ח (ס’ פ”ז סוף ס”ק ו’) חיד”א (מחזיק ברכה ס”ק ד’) שלחן גבוה (שם ס”ק י”א) שו”ת שמש ומגן (חלק ד’ יו”ד ס’ י”ב) שו”ת ברכת יהודה (חלק ב’ יו”ד ס’ ה’) שו”ת יעלת חן (יו”ד ס’ ב’).

18 לבוש (עטרת זהב ס’ פ”ז) פמ”ג (ס’ פ”ט מ”ז ס”ק ג’) עצי העולה (יו“ד ס‘ קט“ז ס“ק ח‘) שלחן הטהור (ס‘ קע“ג סע‘ ה‘). ועיין בספר הליכות שלמה (מועדים חלק ב’ פסח פרק י”ב הע’ מ”ח) שהגרש”ז אויערבך זצ”ל היה מחמיר על עצמו בהענין. וע”ע בספר הערות במסכת חולין (דף ק”ד ע”א ד”ה חוץ) שהגרי”ש אלישיב שליט”א החמיר שלא לבשל דגים וחלב ביחד אבל מיקל לגבי האכילה.

19 שו”ת חינוך בית יהודה (הנ”ל בשם מהר”ם מקראקא) בית לחם יהודה (הנ”ל) שו”ת אדני פז (הנ”ל) יד יהודה (הנ”ל) פמ”ג (הנ”ל) יד דוד (ס’ פ”ז ס”ק י”ד) זבחי צדק (ס’ פ”ז ס”ק י”ח) גליון מהרש“א (ס‘ קט“ז סע‘ ב‘) עצי העולה (ס‘ קט“ז ס“ק ח‘) שלחן הטהור (ס‘ קע“ג סע‘ ה‘) כף החיים (הנ”ל) שו”ת יחוה דעת (הנ”ל) ילקוט יוסף (הנ”ל), ולא כדעת הבן איש חי (הנ”ל) שמחמיר בזה גם בחמאה.

20 עיין לעיל ס”ק 9, 12, 13, 17.

21 This article was written לע”נour grandparents הרב יעקב אליעזר בן ר’ אברהם יצחק and.ר’ משה בן ר’ יעקב צבי .

 Print

Halacha For the Layman

I hope everyone had a meaningful and enjoyable Chanukah. Here is an Halachic post dealing with the topic of “Shnei Keilim” – two pots that touched while cooking. As you may recall, I previously posted a mini-book I authored on the issue. This is a summary.

What exactly is “shnei keilim shenagu”? How does it affect my life? Does it affect my life? Isn’t shenagu a type of massage?

Upon receiving many inquiries as to the nature of this topic that I have spent much time and effort researching, and especially after the interest generated by the prize awarded by the Jerusalem Municipality for my booklet on this topic (Kuntress B’Inyan Shnei Keilim Shenagu Zeh B’Zeh V’Hagdrosav), I decided to address the issue and share my conclusions on it with the English-speaking public.

Theoretical Question: Rabbi, what should I do? I was cooking macaroni and cheese in one pot on the stove, while in another pot my cholent was simmering. I accidentally knocked one pot into the other, and they were touching for at least ten seconds before I realized and moved them apart. Did I just make my pots non-kosher? Can I still eat the food? Help!!

My wife actually asked a few of my children this above question. What did they think the Halacha was?

Child #1: They both become pareve. Child #2: They both got dead. Child #3: It depends on which pot was bigger. The bigger pot would change the kashrus status of the smaller pot to match it.

Although they all receive an A+ for effort (Give them credit, my budding talmidei chachamim are only 6, 4, and 6), unfortunately they are all mistaken as to the proper Halacha.

The Rema¹ writes that the din of “shnei keilim shenagu”, or two pots of opposite types (meaning one dairy and one meat) that touch each other, even while both are boiling hot and on the fire, is that they are permitted b’dieved. In other words “no harm, no foul”. Therefore, in the above-mentioned case, everything is still kosher and all the food may be eaten (of course not together – that would be bassar b’chalav).

The only “issue” with this ruling of the Rema is that it’s a bit vague and does not address other factors in the equation, nor does it set parameters. For example, does this still apply if there is moisture in between the pots? What about with Chometz pots hitting Pesach pots, or non-kosher pots hitting kosher ones. Does this mean that the handle of a pot is considered a separate pot? What exactly are the boundaries of this Halacha?

That is the basis and backbone of the research that I’ve done, and I will share some of my conclusions and findings on this topic.

1. Two dry, hot pots that touch each other, whether one is dairy and one meat², or whether one is kosher and one non-kosher³, or whether one was chometz and one kosher for Pesach⁴, and even while steaming upward⁵, the Halacha is that no harm was done and the food and the pots were unaffected and the kosher ones remain kosher. This applies even if the pots are ceramic⁶ and even if the pots contain greasy absorbed taste⁷. However, it is commendable to refrain whenever possible, not to cook these kinds of pots together on a stove, to avoid any kashrus concerns⁸.

1. Help! My pot runneth over! Does that change the status? If there is moisture between the hot pots touching, many authorities contend that the liquid will allow transfer between the pots and will render the pots and the food non-kosher⁹. Other authorities maintain that if there is only a minute amount of liquid (with the pots being 60 times its amount), then it can still be considered dry and everything will still be kosher¹⁰. Others maintain that in the above-mentioned case, only the food remains kosher, but the pots will need to be kashered¹¹. Ask your LOR for guidance.

1. A cheesey hetter: By cheese everyone agrees¹²! If there was hot cheese between the pots at the point of contact, and there is 60 times its amount in the pots, then the food remains kosher, but the pots need kashering.

1. For all intents and purpose clothes would have the same Halacha applicable to them as pots do¹³. Therefore, if hot coffee spills and gets absorbed into a shirt and then touches a hot meat pot, everything is still fine. (Except that now you need to clean your shirt. Oh well, at least coffee stains come out in the wash.)

1. Get a handle on it: If non-kosher hot liquid falls on the handle of a pot, some authorities maintain that the food in the pot is unaffected, for the handle (since it’s only attached by screws) would be considered a different vessel¹⁴. Others maintain that practically it is all considered one vessel, and it therefore will affect the food¹⁵. However, if the handle was welded on, then it would be considered one vessel and will affect the kashrus status of the food¹⁶. Contact your LOR for guidance.

1. If one of the pots is pareve and the other is either dairy or meat, it’s permissible for them to come into contact with each other, even l’chatchila¹⁷ (as long as they are clean at the point of contact).

1. Counter Attack!: If someone is cooking in a dairy pot, and wishes to take it off the fire, and there is nowhere to place it except on the counter that is usually reserved for meat items, one may place it there¹⁸. Nevertheless, since the issue is not as clear cut as it’s being presented, it is preferable not to do so¹⁹, but rather one should place another layer of separation down first²⁰ (for example, a board, towel or aluminum foil) in order to satisfy all opinions.

These are just a few basic guidelines and overview of the Halacha of “shnei kelim shenagu”. This is by no means a complete comprehensive authoritative guide, but rather a brief summary to raise awareness of the issue, and of kashrus in general. One should not compare similar cases in order to pasken one’s own sheilos, but should refer his questions to a competent Halachic authority.

1 Shulchan Aruch, Yorah De’ah Ch. 92, end of 8; and end of Ch. 93.

2 המרדכי (חולין דף ז’ בדפיו ס’ תר”צ) בשם הספר התרומה והמהר”ם שמדייק מלשון של תוס’ בחולין (פרק כל הבשר דף ק”ח ע”א ד”ה טיפת חלב), וכן בהגהות אשיר”י (על הרא”ש שם ס’ כ”ב) וכן כתב בהגהות מיימוניות (הלכות מאכלות מאכלות אסורות פרק ט’ ס”ק ג’) בשם רבינו שמשון (הר”ש משאנץ, מובא בתורת החטאת כלל נ”ה סע’ ה’).

3 האיסור והיתר (כלל ל”ח דין ט”ז) הכנסת הגדולה (ס’ צ”ב הגהות על בית יוסף ס”ק ע”א) הרש”ל (ים של שלמה חולין פרק כל הבשר ס’ מ”ה) הש”ך (ס’ ק”ה ס”ק כ”ב).

4 המהר”ם מלובלין (שו”ת ס’ ק”ו) המגן אברהם (ס’ תנ”א ס”ק מ”ד) הט”ז (שם ס”ק כ”ח) הגר”א (ביאור הגר”א שם סע’ כ”ב ד”ה ואסור) החק יעקב (שם ס”ק ס”ג) הפרי חדש (שם ד”ה ומ”ש אסור) האליה רבא (שם ס”ק מ”ה) הבאר היטב (שם ס”ק מ”ט) החק יוסף (שם ס”ק נ”ד) הפמ”ג (שם מ”ז ס”ק כ”ח) המחצית השקל (שם ס”ק מ”ד ד”ה מדופן) העטרת זקנים (שם על סע’ כ”ב) המאמר מרדכי (ס’ תמ”ז סע’ י’ ס”ק כ”ב ד”ה אמנם) החיי אדם (כלל קכ”ה ס”ק ב’) השו”ע הרב (שם סע’ מ”א וסע’ ס”ז) הערוך השלחן (שם ס”ק מ”ד) המשנה ברורה (שם ס”ק קל”ו) והכף החיים (שם ס”ק רס”ז ורב”ע) – דעתם להקל דיש את אותו דין שלגבי דיני איסור והיתר. ולא כמשמעות היד שאול (ס’ צ”ב, וכן מרמז בשו”ת שואל ומשיב מהדורא תליתאה חלק א’ ס’ קע”ד) שמשמע כדעת הב”ח (או”ח ס’ תמ”ז בשם מה”ר הירש שור), וכן העתק בשיורי כנסת הגדולה (או”ח ס’ תמ”ז הג”ה על הב”י ס”ק כ”ג) שמחמירים לגבי פסח.

5 הפמ”ג (ס’ צ”ב מ”ז ס”ק כ”ט), שמדייק כך מדברי התורת החטאת (כלל נ”ו סוף דין ח’) הזכרון אברהם (סוף ס’ צ”ב) המהרש”ם (שו”ת חלק ג’ ס’ רל”ו) הזבחי צדק (ס’ צ”ב ס”ק ע”ח) הכף החיים (ס’ צ”ב ס”ק ק”ב).

6 וכמו משכתב הבית יוסף (ס’ קכ”ב סוף סע’ ח’ ד”ה כתב) להדיא דסתם קדירות הם של חרס, ובפרט שהט”ז (יו”ד ס’ צ”ז ס”ק ג’ ובאו”ח ס’ תנ”א ס”ק כ”ח) והמגן אברהם (ס’ תנ”א ס”ק מ”ד) והיד אפרים (ריש ס’ צ”ז בשם היעב”ץ – שו”ת שאילת יעב”ץ חלק א’ ס’ ק”ג [צ"ג]) מבואר להדיא דדין זה מיירי בכלי חרס; שו”ת ברכות משה (ס’ ח’ וס’ ט’) חידושי הגר”ד שפרבר (סוף ס’ צ”ב) השדי חמד (חלק ו’, מערכת בשר בחלב ס’ ט”ז) הפרי השדה (שו”ת חלק ב’ ס’ ק’) הנטע שורק (שו”ת יו”ד ס’ ל”ה [א'] ד”ה אבקש) הדרכי תשובה (ס’ צ”ב ס”ק ק”פ וקפ”א) שהסכימו לדברי הברכות משה דודאי אין לחלק בין כלי מתכת לחרס, ואע”ג דמדייתו, אינו מגוף התבשיל או המאכל ולא הוי אפ’ כזיעת המאכל. ולא כדעת המהרש”ם (שו”ת חלק ג’ ס’ רל”ו, דעת תורה סוף ס’ צ”ב, תכלת מרדכי חלק ב’ פרשת החודש) שמחלק בין כלי חרס ישן לחדש, ורק מיקל בכלי חרס ישנים דאם בישלו בכלי חרס חדשים, שוב גם ב’ קדרות הנוגעות זו בזו אסורים זו את זו.

7 הפרי חדש (ס’ ק”ה ס”ק כ”ח) הפמ”ג (ס’ ק”ה ש”ד ס”ק כ”ב) החוות דעת (ס’ ק”ה ביאורים ס”ק ט”ו) האמרי ברוך (ס’ צ”ב) הכתב סופר (שו”ת יו”ד ס’ נ”ד) הברכות משה (שו”ת ס’ ט’ בשם האב”ד של פיעטריקוב) היד יהודה (ס’ צ”ב פיה”א ס”ק נ”ו) התהילה לדוד (ס’ ל’) המשמרת שלום (ס’ צ”ד מ”ז ס”ק ז’ אות ג’) הערוך השלחן (ס’ צ”ב ס”ק נ”ד) והכף החיים (ס’ ק”ה ס”ק פ”ב), וכן מוכרח מדברי האור שמח (הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק ט’ הלכה י”ט ד”ה הנה) ולא כדעת התורת יקותיאל (ס’ ק”ה ס”ק ח’) והדברי יוסף (ס’ תרכ”א ס”ק ד’ ד”ה ונ”ל, מובא בדרכי תשובה ס’ צ”ב ס”ק ק”פ) ומשמעות הכנפי יונה (ס’ צ”ב, מובא בהגהות יד שאול בס’ צ”ב). והדרכי תשובה עצמו סיים לדינא דאפ’ אם הקדירה בלועה משומן אין להחמיר וחלילה לנו לחדש פסק המוחלט מרבינו הרמ”א, ואחריו כל האבות ההוראה הט”ז והש”ך וכל הגאונים בעלי ההוראה.

8 היד יהודה (ס’ צ”ב פיה”ק ס”ק ע”ג) והכתב סופר (שו”ת יו”ד ס’ נ”ד).

9 הט”ז (ס’ צ”ב ס”ק כ”ט לפי כמה פוסקים) היד יהודה (ס’ צ”ב פיה”א ס”ק נ”ו) הדברי יוסף (ס’ תרכ”א ס”ק ו’) והזכרון אברהם (סוף ס’ צ”ב ד”ה ומ”ש בשני) משמעות רעק”א (ס’ צ”ג ס”ק ב’) החכמת אדם (כלל מ”ו ס”ק ה’) החמד משה (או”ח ס’ תנ”א ס”ק ח’).

10 החוות דעת (ס’ צ”ב ביאורים ס”ק כ’) וכן מוכח בדברי היד אפרים (ס’ ע”ו סוף סעיף א’) הבית יצחק (חלק שני עקרת הבית הל’ בב”ח ס’ צ”ב חלק ד’ סע’ ח’ עמודי זהב ס”ק ל”ט ומ’) העצי העולה (בב”ח כלל ה’ סע’ כ”ה) השו”ת יד יוסף (יו”ד ס’ מ”ז) בספר חוקתי תשמרו (ס’ י”ז סע’ י”ג ס”ק י”ח, שמביא ראיות לזה מדברי הראשונים) ובספר זר השלחן (ס’ צ”ב ס”ק ק”י, דאין בלוע יוצא מכלי לכלי בלא רוטב ממש). וכן העלה בספר נכח השלחן (ס’ צ”ב ציונים ס”ק קפ”א) ובשו”ת יבקש תורה (חלק ג’ ס’ י”א ענף א’), אבל מטעמים שינויים.

11 המהרש”ם (שו”ת חלק א’ ס’ רט”ז וחלק ג’ ס’ רל”ו) והמעדני השלחן (מטעמי השלחן ס’ צ”ב ס”ק נ”ג).

12 שו”ת מעדני מלכים (ס’ ק”ח וס’ ק”ט) ובספר הליכות שלמה (חלק ג’ מועדים ב’ פרק י”ב סע’ י”א הערה י”ג), נבע מדברי השו”ע ס’ צ”ד סע’ ח’, ובש”ך שם (ס”ק ל”ד), ופמ”ג שם (מ”ז ס”ק ט”ז), ובערוך השלחן שם (ס”ק ל”ג) שהגבינה כחוש בטבעה ובעצם נוטה ליבשות וקשיות ולא נכנסת הרבה ורק יכול לאסור כדי קליפה.

13 שו”ת אלף לך שלמה (יו”ד ס’ ק”נ, ובהגהות חכמת שלמה) שו”ת פתחא זוטא (יו”ד ס’ כ”ז) והמהרש”ם (שו”ת חלק ג’ ס’ ר”ה), אבל המהרש”ם גם מצריך ששים נגד הבעין בתוך הנקבים של הבגד.

14 רעק”א (או”ח ס’ תנ”א סעיף י”ב ס”ק י’) האמרי ברוך (הגהות הגר”ב פרענקיל על המג”א או”ח ס’ תנ”א ס”ק כ”ה) הזר זהב (על האו”ה כלל ל”ט דין ח’ ס”ק ג’) העצי העולה (הלכות בב”ח כלל ז’ ס”ק ו’, ובחקי חיים שם ס”ק ז’) היעב”ץ (מור וקציעה או”ח סוף סימן תנ”א) המהר”ש ענג”ל (שו”ת חלק ז’ ס’ ב’) היד יהודה (ס’ צ”ב פיה”א ס”ק ל”ו) והערוך השלחן (ס’ צ”ב סוף ס”ק נ”ב) דכה”ג כשני כלים דמי ולא בלעו מהדדי. וכן פסק וע”ע בשו”ת מעשה חושב (חלק ז’ ס’ ח’ ס”ק י”א) שמביא שיטה זו לסניף להקל.

15 הרדב”ז (שו”ת חלק ו’ ס”ב אלפים ש”ח) החתם סופר (שו”ת או”ח ס’ ק”ל, דרק אמרינן ההיתר של שני כלים כשיש אויר בין הכלים) החוות דעת (ס’ צ”ב חידושים ס”ק י”ז) הערוגות הבושם (שו”ת או”ח ס’ צ”ח) המהרש”ם (שו”ת ח”ג ס’ קי”ב) המהרש”ק (שו”ת טוב טעם ודעת תליתאי ס’ רמ”ז) והדרכי תשובה (ס’ צ”ב ס”ק קכ”ב). וע”ע בשו”ת מנחת יצחק (חלק ה’ ס’ פ”א ס”ק י”א, וחלק ז’ סוף ס’ נ”ו ד”ה וכל) משכתב בהענין בדברי המהר”ש.

16 הזר זהב (הנ”ל) העצי העולה (הנ”ל) החק יעקב (או”ח ס’ תנ”א ס”ק מ”א) וכן הוא משמעות הט”ז (שם ס”ק י”ח) המשנה ברורה (שם ס”ק ע”ו לגבי הגעלת כלים לפסח) והבדי השלחן (ס’ צ”ב ביאורים עמ’ קע”ח).

17 בספר חוקתי תשמרו (ס’ י”ז סע’ י”ח ס”ק כ”ד) ובספר דרכי הלכה (על כשרות הבית פרק כ’ בתשובה), ופשוט.

18 הכתב סופר (שו”ת יו”ד ס’ נ”ד, בסברתו אבל לא למעשה) היעב”ץ (שו”ת שאילת יעב”ץ חלק א’ ס’ ק”ג [צ''ג]) היד אברהם (ריש סימן פ”ח) העצי העולה (בב”ח כלל א’ חקי חיים ס”ק מ”ו) הדברי יוסף (ס’ תרכ”א ס”ק ג’ ד”ה אמנם) האגרות משה (שו”ת יו”ד ח”ג ס’ י’) והשאלי ציון (שו”ת על שבת עירוב ופסח ס’ כ’ סוף ס”ק ג’). וכן הוא משמעות הרדב”ז (שו”ת חלק ב’ ס’ תשכ”א) הצמח צדק (שו”ת או”ח ס’ מ”ג) והסולת למנחה (כלל ע”ו דין ז’ ס”ק י”ז). וזה גם משמעות כמה פוסקים (כולל המהר”ם מלובלין, המגן אברהם, הפמ”ג, היד יהודה, והזבחי צדק) שסברו דרק אמרינן להחמיר לכתחילה כשיש חשש בעין בין הכלים.

19 הט”ז (ס’ צ”ב ס”ק כ”ט, ובס’ צ”ז ס”ק ג’) הכתב סופר (הנ”ל במסקנתו) הערוך השלחן (ס’ פ”ח ס”ק י’) הילקוט מעם לועז (שמות חלק ב’ פר’ משפטים עמ’ תת”צ ד”ה והדבר הראשון) התורת יקותיאל (ס’ ק”ה ס”ק ח’) והדרכי תשובה (ס’ צ”ה ס”ק צ”א בשם המהרש”ל) וכן הוא דעת הגרי”ש אלישיב שליט”א (מובא בקונטרסי ענף י”ב ד”ה הראיתי) דכיון דכל הדין הוי מותר מכל מקום ורק חולקים על הלכתחילה, טוב יותר לא להשים.

20 ספר נועם הלכה (פסקי הלכות בב”ח ס’ י”ז סע’ כ”א), ופשוט.

Have a great Shabbos!

 Print

Halacha For the Layman

Aah! The cool refreshing taste of the “Real Thing”! Is there anything (besides maybe baseball and apple pie) that is considered more American? Everyone also knows that around the world (pretty much) there is almost nothing more kosher than good, old-fashioned Coke. Why, you can even ask Grandma, that back in the day (before mp3s, microwaves, dishwashers, and even World War II), Coca-Cola was THE drink of choice for all, even the strict kosher consumer.

But, it wasn’t always that way. We all have a certain person to thank for that, Rabbi Tuvia (Tobias) Geffen, Chief Rabbi of Atlanta, Georgia for many decades. He was one of the select few who actually knew the closely guarded secret ingredient in Coke. Back in the 1920’s and 30’s, Coke was looking to (and I’m sure still is) expand their market share, when it came to their attention that if they received a hashgacha, then many more Jews (and others who look specifically for kosher products) would drink freely of the “pause that refreshens”.

So, the directors approached the most-likely candidate to grant Rabbinic supervision, Rabbi Geffen. Coke was, after all, invented and headquartered in Atlanta. He was more than willing to check it out, as many of his congregants were asking him about the kashrus status of Coke.

His findings were mixed, for although technically the drink was kosher and was permitted to be drunk, it was questionable if he was allowed to give it his seal of approval to allow observant Jews to purchase it. The reasons were that it turned out that there was a non-kosher ingredient in the makeup of Coke, but it was only present in minute quantities. Therefore, it would be permitted to drink, for the non-kosher ingredient was battel b’shishim ¹, and therefore considered nullified.

However, for him to grant Coke hashgacha, posed a different problem in a different category, that of “Ain Mevattelin Issur L’chatchila ²”. This means that although if the non-kosher substance would accidentally fall into kosher food (as long as there was the prerequisite 60 times the amount of non-kosher that fell in) it would be permitted to drink, nonetheless, if one would add it on purpose with the express intention of nullifying it, the entire mixture becomes forbidden for the person who transgressed and for whomever’s benefit he did it.

The issue at stake here was that the Coca-Cola Company was obviously putting this non-kosher ingredient in the batch purposefully, as it was part and parcel of the Coke everyone knew and loved.

On the other hand, it was not just a simple open and shut question, for the Coca-Cola Company was not owned or run by Jews, and quite obviously was not marketing Coke exclusively for Jews.

Therefore, Rabbi Geffen was in a bit of a dilemma: did this situation fall under the category of “Ain Mevattelin Issur L’chatchila” and therefore be unacceptable for purchase by the kosher consumer? And, even if it did not, and was permissible for purchase, was he allowed to give his hashgacha on a product that contained a non-kosher ingredient?

Before we get to the punch line, let us “go through the inyan”.

The Radbaz, in his responsa³, makes a distinction between a scenario where a non-Jew nullifies non-kosher, where he holds that a Jew is allowed to eat of the mixture, as opposed to where a non-Jew is selling non-kosher, where he holds that it is forbidden for a Jew to purchase. He maintains that when a Jew is purchasing the item, it is as if he himself nullified it, and therefore it becomes assur for him to eat.

Many Halachic decisors agreed to his reasoning and likewise forbade a Jew from purchasing items that had non-kosher nullified inside of it⁴. However, the majority of poskim disagreed with his reasoning and concluded that it is improbable to make such a distinction⁵, as the Rambam⁶ himself held that it is acceptable to procure such items, as long as it was done by a non-Jew, and therefore is suitable for purchase.

However, this matter is even more complicated, for the Tashbatz⁷ made a further qualification to this permissible ruling. He maintained that although one may rely upon a non-Jew’s nullification for purchase in infrequent circumstances, conversely, if the non-Jew is doing it for his job, or on a frequent basis, then certainly it is considered as if the Jew himself nullified it. Several poskim agreed to this decision as well⁸. Following this ruling would seem to imply that Coke would have to be prohibited to the kosher consumer, as it is definitely mass produced.

So, now us being the wiser, having a rudimentary understanding of the issues involved, what did Rabbi Geffen decide to do? Feeling uncomfortable by having to make such a decision (sort of like between a rock and a hard place), where Gedolim through the ages have taken stands on both sides of the matter, he did the only thing he felt he could do – try to make shalom! He went to Coca-Cola and asked them to change their formula! Surprisingly, out of respect to him, the executives listened and the company took out the problematic ingredients, and substituted them with kosher alternatives, making the soft drink kosher l’chatchila for everyone.

Rabbi Geffen later published the whole account, as well as the Halachic reasoning behind his actions, in his responsa⁹. Later Halachic authorities as well, ruled similarly to Rabbi Geffen’s sound logic and reasoning, and hold that although there is what to rely upon when it comes to buying, nevertheless, when it comes to granting hashgacha, a Rabbinic authority should not give a seal of approval to an item that has nullified issur inside.¹⁰

So the next time you partake in a nice, cool, refreshing glass of Coke, you should think of Rabbi Geffen, as well as all the “behind the scenes kashrus issues” that went into making sure that “Coke is it”, even for the kosher consumer. ^{11 12}

————–

 Print

Halacha For the Layman Bitul B'Shishim, Coca Cola, Kashrus

בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה אֲדֹנָי אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶֽךְ הָעוֹלָם עוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִית. (ע’ ברכות (נט:) ושו”ע או”ח רכט:ב)

Blessed are You, Hashem our God, King of the universe, who makes the work of creation.

Mark your calendar! This upcoming Wednesday morning, the 14th of Nissan 5769 (Erev Pesach), April 8, 2009, you can take part in history! This opportunity comes only a few times in a lifetime! It is only the 207th time ever in the history of the world that this berachah can be made!

First, I would like to present a brief explanation as what Birchas HaChamah is all about, including general laws. Second, I would like to share one interesting thought on the topic.

Part 1: Laws

The Gemara (Berachos 59b) teaches that once every twenty-eight years the solar cycle begins again and the vernal (spring) equinox falls precisely in Saturn (the technical details of this formula are beyond the scope of this article, but suffice it to say that every one of the zodiac constellations rotate, and Saturn was the “ruling” force on the first hour of Wednesday when the sun was established.), on the evening of Tuesday (6 P.M.) leading into Wednesday. The sun is then located in the exact spot as it was when Hashem first created it on the fourth day of creation in relation to all of the stars, planets, time and day. Since the sun is not visible in all places during that hour of the evening, Chazal decreed that we should pronounce the blessing early the next morning. This is what we call Birchas HaChamah, the recognition of Hashem’s creation of the sun.

These brief laws are collected from many sources. Please consult your local Halachic authority for exact application of these laws.

1- Some announce this upcoming berachah the day before in Shul. One should remind his friends and family about this great and unique Mitzvah.

2- The blessing should be recited while standing, after glancing at the sun and does not have to be made while outside as long as one can see the sun from inside.

3- The blessing is made anytime from sunrise on Wednesday morning until the third hour of the day. It is best to do it immediately following davening.

4- If it is too cloudy to see the sun, one has until midday to pronounce the blessing. After that time however, it should be recited but without Shem u’Malchus: ברוך אתה עושה מעשה בראשית

(for example NYC sunrise is at 6:28 A.M. ; 3rd hour is at 9:43 A.M. ; Midday is at 12:58 P.M.).

5- Many chose to daven Vasikun in order to make the blessing as early as possible and go out with the entire congregation while still wearing their Tallis and Tefillin to pronounce the blessing together. A minyan is not necessary but is commendable if possible.

6- The blessing of Shechiyanu is not pronounced for various reasons.

7- Woman too recite this berachah with Shem u’Malchus.

8- Children at the age of Chinuch recite this berachah with Shem u’Malchus.

9- There are many other prayers that people say before and after reciting this berachah (Click here for the text), though the most important words are the actual blessing!

May we all merit to make this blessing many more times together with all of our loved ones and may we merit to see the coming of Mashiach speedily!

Part 2: A Torah Perspective on Birchas HaChamah

Bringing Hashem Into The Picture

There are two questions that come to mind regarding Birchas HaChamah:

1- What is the significance of the fact that the solar cycle lasts for 28 years? It cannot simply be a coincidental number?

2- Why did Hashem create the sun specifically in the time when Shabsai, Saturn, was ruling, would it not have been more appropriate to create the sun and let the sun rule the sky immediately?! More so, astronomically, according to Chazal’s list of the seven bodies in the sky, Saturn is the furthest away from the sun! (Uranus and Neptune (and Pluto) are not discussed by Chazal because they cannot be seen by the naked eye and thus exert no influence upon us and are thereby irrelevant to Chazal’s discussions of the celestial bodies.)

Here is what I think we can learn from all of this:

The number twenty-eight immediately reminds us of Koheles (Chapter 3). Shlomo HaMelech enumerates twenty-eight varied human actions and emotions that fill the average lifetime. A time for… birth, death, laughter, crying, building, dismantling, love, hate, war and peace, etc. The complete gamut of life stages. But what is it all worth?! Shlomo himself states that it is all futile! His conclusion is that only a life imbued with spirituality and connection to Hashem has any value. Otherwise, all of these fleeting moments and experiences have no intrinsic value what-so-ever!

Chazal (Shabbos 156a) tell us that one born under the mazel, zodiac influence, of the sun will have material wealth. The sun represents material comfort and pleasure. Our challenge is to not get distracted by it, but rather to utilize it for the service of Hashem. This is the ultimate goal.

The world is a monotonous cycle that continues; our job is to sanctify our experiences. Indeed, “there is nothing new under the sun” (Koheles 1:9)! The Jews count their days according to the moon. The moon represents humility, subjugation and constant refreshing. Our lives revolve around subservience to Hashem and are thus meaningful and fulfilled. Now we understand why the cycle is twenty-eight years. It represents the collective physical world. And now we can move on to understand the significance of pronouncing a berachah upon it.

When we pronounce a blessing upon something, we uplift it. When one eats a delicious meal, it may appear that he is doing so solely for his own pleasure. The pleasure is then ephemeral and fleeting. However, when one recites a berachah, he thus brings Hashem into the picture. He is thanking Hashem and elevating the experience. The food has now been transformed into a Mitzvah and thus eternity! The mundane has become valuable!

In this vein, we go outside and look at the sun. We realize that it represents the earthly world and physicality. We then proclaim a berachah upon it, signifying that we commit ourselves to sanctify Hashem and desire ever so passionately to imbue our lives with holiness and growth. This is our power as Jews. We can make a berachah (bring holiness) on the sun (the mundane world)!

Why was the sun established while Saturn ruled the sky? The Gemara (Shabbos 156a) teaches us that one born during the rule of Saturn will have many earthly evil thoughts! This explains why the sun was created under its rule. It represents Olam HaZeh, the present temporal world. This is the most appropriate time for its creation. Our job is to elevate and uplift ourselves by going against our earthly desires.

This is the significance of the Kaddish prayer as well. We honor the dead by pronouncing Kaddish for them. When ten men answer the mourner’s prayer, the soul of the deceased is uplifted. The entire theme of Kaddish is to elevate the physical world to recognize Hashem’s rule. It comes as no surprise then that the climax of Kaddish (from the words “Yehey Shmay Rabba Mivarach, may His Great Name be Blessed” until “B’almah.”) is comprised of precisely twenty-eight words! This is to show that we wish to elevate the world by bringing Hashem into every facet of our daily existence. Also, Kabbalistically, the four letter name  of Hashem when spelled out, extrapolating every letter, contains exactly twenty-eight letters! This is the theme of Kaddish, bringing out Hashem’s name.

([י=] יו”ד וא”ו דל”ת, [ה=] ה”א אל”ף, [ו=] וא”ו אל”ף וא”ו, [ה=] ה”א אל”ף)

Indeed, we see just how precious life is. We constantly have opportunities to elevate the physical world to great spiritual heights. This is what our blessing upon the sun is stating. We wish to imbue our life with spirituality!

May the lesson of Birchas HaChamah touch our hearts and inspire us to live our lives connected to Hashem, bringing us true happiness!

Click here for the complete text of Birchas HaChamah

(Left click to view; right click and “Save Target As / Save Link As” to download)

 Print

Halacha, Hashkafah, Machshuvah Avodas Hashem, Berachah, Birchas HaChamah, Kaddish, Kavod Shamayim, Solar Blessing

On Wednesday, April 8, 2009 (14 Nissan, 5769, Erev Pesach), the blessing and these additional prayers are recited anytime from sunrise until the third hour of the day. If it is too cloudy to see the sun, one has until midday to pronounce the blessing. After that time however, it should be recited, but only without Shem u’Malchus. See my article (Click here) for brief laws and an explanation of this special blessing.

Click here for the complete text for Birchas HaChamah

 Print

Halacha, Hashkafah, Machshuvah, Moadim / Tekufos Birchas HaChamah, Solar Blessing