1. A single food as in the case of eating a significant amount of non kosher steak or a pork chop by themselves. Clearly the person has enjoyed a non kosher food and has violated the prohibition of eating a maachal assur.
2. Eating a food as a part of a dish. According to halacha it is not necessary to eat a food in isolation to have a non kosher experience. As long as it constitutes a significant proportion of a dish, Halacha views each ingredient as a distinct eating experience in its own right. The concentration an ingredient needs to have to be considered substantial is a “kezayit bichdei achilat peras” enough to have consumed an olive’s worth of the ingredient within a few minutes worth of eating the overall dish.
If one eats ham and eggs and there is enough ham to have eaten a “kezayit bichdei achilat peras” one is considered as actually eating two distinct foods simultaneously. One is considered to have had eaten ham as well as having eaten an egg. This kind of simulataneous activity is considered a full fledged prohibition of eating a maachal assur.
ג כיצד הוא ממשו, כגון שהיה מן החלב כזית בכל שלוש ביצים מן התערובת. אם אכל מן הגריסין האלו כשלוש ביצים--הואיל ויש בהן כזית מן החלב, לוקה: שהרי טעם טעם האיסור, וממשו.
If one eats less than a “kezayit bichdei achilat peras” one is considered to have eaten a dish which contains a non kosher flavoring. This is not considered a distinct eating experience of a non kosher food and is not prohibited from the Torah.
In the case of Chametz, we find an exception to this rule. The uniqueness of Chametz expresses itself in two distinct if somewhat related ways.
ו אין חייבין כרת, אלא על אכילת עצמו של חמץ. אבל עירוב חמץ כגון כותח הבבלי ושיכר המדי, וכל הדומה להן מדברים שהחמץ מעורב בהן--אם אכלן בפסח, לוקה ואין בו כרת: שנאמר "כל מחמצת, לא תאכלו
1. In order to violate issur chametz one must eat chametz itself, in isolation without any other food in a dish. Clearly this is unlike any other maachal assur. In other maachalot assurot, eating a dish containing a non kosher ingredient is considered mamashut, a food experience of actual non kosher food, so long as it is of the size of “kezayit bichdei achilat peras”.
2. There is a separate issur of eating chametz in a dish form. There is no counterpart to this in maachalot assurot, one has either eaten a prohibited food, or one has not.
What is more, this prohibition of eating chametz in a dish form requires a measure of “kezayit bichdei achilat peras” the exact measure usually considered to be mamashut, a distinct eating experience of non kosher food in its own right.
How are we to understand this unique formulation of Issur Chametz?
16 comments:
I dont have a clue...no intuition in this area whatsoever
an anecdote:
during the time of inquisition, i read about cases where pork was served whether in a dish or separately. and i think it was preferable to eat pork while in a dish as opposed to separate. the conversos were being watched as to whether they eat or not pork, or whether they would take the pork out of a dish that had pork in it.
and when you think about it, if there's a dish with pork in it it's not as evident as pork served separatedly. so technically pork while in a dish offers a certain level of privacy in public....like someone would not be directly violating the prohibition of eating pork. so then it makes sense to separate the experiences. even if one eats nonkosher, doing it in private is different than doing it publically.
I discussed some of these points in three posts on one of my blogs:
http://rambamtorah.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&updated-max=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=4
Dan, I hope to help out.
Thank you Moonlight.
Thank you RJM, I read and enjoyed your piece. I agree in large part and hope to write more about this on Pesach.
Isn't the most salient predicate of injunctions insofar as we actually live them their intensity and severity? Doesn't דעת initially emerge from seeking to reconcile this experienced intensity and severity with our אמונה that we are encountering חוקים ומשפטים צדיקים? Why, then, frame the issue of this post by referring to ham sandwiches, rather than, say, the prohibitions on eating blood and fat?
Hagyan
In what way would the aspect of the law I am dealing with be effected if I illustrated with blood and fat?
R.JS: "In what way would the aspect of the law I am dealing with be effected if I illustrated with blood and fat?"
Just yesterday I took up your invitation to your readers to consider a question afresh: "How are we to understand this unique formulation of Issur Chametz?" That being the case, I can't yet attempt any answer to your question about effects. The question I asked about blood and fat arose in my "setting up" of the problem, when I was taken aback by your comparison of cases that are apparently so different. Typically (but not always) I'd expect it to be more fruitful to contrast the dynamics of some particular galaxy with the dynamics of another galaxy, rather than with the dynamics of a butterfly flapping its wings.
Why do you think that the general rules of maachalot assurot should not apply to the particular maachal assur that is chametz? The rules apply to all other maachalot assurot, ranging from basar bchalav to chazir, from chadash to yayin nesech. Why would I expect chametz to be different?
Rabbi Sacks,
I think your question of Apr. 22 has too many inexplicit premises for me to answer it as it stands.
Your question aside, מקרא has always left me thinking that מצה is about something which is existentially prior to a nation-scale pursuit of קדושה.
Hagyan
I agree, I will address the prior notion, as I see it, in the following post.
Perhaps you could pinpoint the inexplicit premises I made in a few questions? The point I made about maachalot assurot is one which I think many, perhaps even most Halachic thinkers would find compelling. It would be interesting to formulate the objections of a Hagyan on this matter.
R.JS: "Perhaps you could pinpoint the inexplicit premises I made in a few questions? ..."
I don't see how a הגיין could pinpoint your premises in הלכה. I'd suggest, instead, debating with another 'Halachic thinker' (your term), preferably one with whom you differ significantly.
Please don't forget about my previous question--I don't think I got an answer for it?
Moonlight
What is the question?
Blogger Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said...
Moonlight
I hope to deal with your question in upcoming posts. Remind me if I forget.
March 23, 2011 4:03 PM
R.JS: "I agree, I will address the prior notion, as I see it, in the following post."
Me, earlier: "... מקרא has always left me thinking that מצה is about something which is existentially prior to a nation-scale pursuit of קדושה."
A question, perhaps for your next post: Do you see מצה -- as מקרא and as מצוה -- as a nation-scale parallel to עקדת יצחק, which supplies so much of the explanation of "לך-לך"?
Post a Comment