Download.yutorah.org



|[pic] |

|Pesach Products: |

|Do I Need to Use Kosher L'Pesach Shampoo? |

By Rabbi Joshua Flug

| |

For technical information regarding use of this document, press ctrl and click here.

I. Intro- Every year, numerous organizations publish lists of which products contain chametz and which don't. Depending on the organization, there are various standards of what is required to be chametz free. In this shiur outline, we will attempt to show the basis for the various positions.

II. Which Prohibitions are we dealing with?

a. In addition to the prohibition against eating chametz, the Torah prohibits owning chametz. {1}

i. The Gemara shows why there is a need for two separate prohibitions: {‏2}

1. Bal Yei'ra'eh teaches that you can't see chametz that belongs to you but you can see chametz of other people. I.e., there is no prohibition of seeing chametz, only owning chametz.

2. Bal yimatzeh adds that owning it, or holding it as collateral is also prohibited.

b. There is also a prohibition against benefitting from chametz. {‏3}

III. Talmudic sources mention a number of cases of chametz that are not in their original form:

a. Chametz Shecharacho- Burnt bread- The Gemara states that one is permitted to benefit from bread that was burnt before Pesach. {‏4}

b. Pas She'ifsha-The Gemara states that if bread is spoiled to the point that people won't eat it, but it is still fit for a dog, it must be burned with the chametz because it can still be used as yeast. {‏5}

c. The Mishna lists a number of items that are not food items and yet one violates the issur of chametz (we will see which one) with these items. {‏6}

d. The Rishonim have similar approaches to explain the three different situations:

i. Rabbeinu Asher (c.1250-1328) discusses the case of chametz shecharacho. He notes that the difference between chametz shecharacho and pas she'ifsha is that pas shecharacho is not fit for a dog and pas she'ifsha is. He implies that the cases listed in the Mishna are referring to the prohibition of eating chametz and not the prohibition of owning it. He explains that even if the chametz becomes unfit for a dog, it is still prohibited to eat it because by eating it you demonstrate that it is edible (this is the principle of ach'shevei). {‏7}

ii. Rambam (1135-1204) seems to subscribe to similar principles:

1. Rambam rules that if you burn chametz before Pesach, you can benefit from the ashes on Pesach. {‏8}

2. Rambam rules that spoiled bread that is not fit for a dog may be owned over Pesach. He implies that one may not eat it. He adds that anything that doesn't maintain "tzuras chametz" one is not required to dispose of it before Pesach. {‏9}

3. Rambam rules that if there is a mixture of chametz and other items and the mixture is not intended for human consumption, one may own it on Pesach but one may not eat it (even if there is only a mashehu of chametz). {‏10}

iii. R. Yisrael Isserlin (1390-1460) combines the opinions of Rabbeinu Asher and Rambam in explaining why it is permissible to use ink that has chametz ingredients: {‏11}

1. According to Rabbeinu Asher, anything that is not fit for a dog is permissible to use on Pesach as long as it became unfit before Pesach.

2. According to Rambam, a mixture that contains chametz that is not meant for human consumption is permissible for use on Pesach.

3. This ruling is codified in Shulchan Aruch. {‏12}

IV. If anything not fit for a dog is permissible, what are all of these stringencies based on?

a. There are cases where the mixture is not currently edible, but by adding in ingredients, one can "repair" it. R. Ya'akov of Lisa (1760-1832) writes that one can only classify something as nifsal if it became inherently ruined. However, if the mixture as a whole is not edible due to the other ingredients that are in the mixture, it is not considered nifsal me'achila, and although eating it would be considered shelo k'derech hana'aso, the prohibited item retains its status. {‏13}

i. This implies that if the chametz ingredient is not inherently nifsal, there is a violation of bal yeira'eh because it is still considered chametz.

ii. R. Moshe Feinstein assumes this approach regarding ethyl alcohol (ethanol). He claims that since liquid alcohol can be converted to a drink that at least some people will drink, it is considered chametz. {‏14}

iii. Nowadays, almost alcohol that is in cosmetic products is denatured alcohol. This means that chemicals are added that either poison the alcohol or render it undrinkable due to its bitterness. [The reason why the alcohol is denatured is that alcohol that is convertible to drinking alcohol is subject to certain taxes. By denaturing the alcohol and rendering it unfit for human consumption, one can avoid the taxes.] Should this make it fit for Pesach?

1. According to R. Ya'akov of Lisa, if the denaturant is a chemical that makes the mixture bitter, that wouldn't render the alcohol nifsal because it is not inherently spoiled, it just has another chemical in it that makes the entire mixture undrinkable.

2. If the denaturant is poisonous, there is a dispute among the poskim:

a. R. Chaim Chezkiah Medini (1833-1904) quotes a discussion from the Even Ya'akov regarding rat poison that contains chametz. He concludes that placing poison in a mixture is the greatest form of bitul chametz and one would not violate bal yeira'eh for it. {‏15}

b. R. Meir Simcha of D'vinsk (1843-1926) rules that it is not considered nifsal because it is still fixable and because other animals may be able to drink it (it is a chiddush to say that even if other animals will drink it, it is not considered nifsal) {‏16}

b. Are the standards for nifsal different when the item was never meant to be eaten?

i. R. Moshe Schick (1807-1879) has a novel idea regarding the standards of nifsal. He suggests that if you take chametz and make a perfume with it, even though it is no longer edible, it is not considered nifsal. Nifsal means that the chametz is not usable. However, if you decide to use the chametz for something other than eating, the chametz retains its status. The only reason why ink containing chametz is permissible is that the chametz in the ink is not significant within the ink mixture. {‏17}

ii. R. Yosef Shaul Nathanson (1808-1875) takes a similar approach regarding a certain ethyl alcohol mixture used for lamps. He asserts that if the purpose of the alcohol is to light a lamp, it doesn't matter that it is not edible and it retains its chametz status. {‏18}

iii. R. Medini quotes from the sefer Minchas Moshe who disagrees with R. Nathanson and compares the mixture to burnt chametz and to ink. {‏19}

c. If the product is considered nifsal, does it make a difference if the product goes into one's mouth (e.g. toothpaste)?

i. As we noted earlier, Rabbeinu Asher writes that even if chametz is nifsal, it is nevertheless prohibited to eat it. Does that include placing it in one's mouth and spitting out most of it?

ii. R. Dovid HaLevi Segal (1586-1667) discusses whether it is permissible to taste something non-kosher without swallowing it. He concludes that it is permissible to taste it. {‏20}

iii. R. Avraham Tzvi Hersh Eisenstadt (1813-1868) quotes a number of authorities who disagree and maintain that it is prohibited to taste something non-kosher. {‏21}

iv. R. Menachem Mendel Kruchmal (c. 1600-1661) notes that even if one doesn't accept Taz's ruling, if the item is nifsal, there is no prohibition to taste it because the only reason why one can't eat it is because of ach'shevei and ach'shevei doesn't apply if one merely tastes it. {‏22}

1. R. Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz (1878-1953) presents the same idea regarding pills that contain chametz. The pill is nifsal and the only prohibition is to eat because of ach'shevei. However, if one's intent is not eating it, but rather to swallow it, ach'shevei doesn't apply. {‏23}

d. Is applying an oil or cream to one's body similar to eating it?

i. The Gemara states that there is a concept of sicha keshtiyah- anointing oil is like drinking it. The Gemara mentions this concept regarding Terumah. {‏24}

ii. Tosafos note that this concept only applies to Terumah. Furthermore, it only applies to oil and not to other creams and lotions. {‏25}

iii. Nevertheless, the Vilna Gaon (1720-1797) disagrees and shows that other Rishonim are of the opinion that this concept applies to all areas of Halacha and not only to oil, but to anything that gets applied to the body. Therefore, the Vilna Gaon rules that one may not use non-kosher soap. {‏26}

iv. R. Ya'akov Chaim Sofer (1870-1939) notes that even if one accepts the stringency of the Vilna Gaon, it would only apply to soap that is fit for human consumption. If it is not edible, there is concern about placing it on one's body. {‏27}

e. Is something that is inedible because of its sharp taste considered nifsal?

i. R. Malkiel Tannenbaum (19th century) rules that something is only considered nifsal if it is spoiled. If the taste is too sharp or too strong, it is not considered nifsal. {‏28}

ii. Mishna Berurah seems to assume the same position. {‏29}

iii. It is possible that mouthwash and toothpaste fit into this category. However, these products also have poisonous chemicals in them, so according to those poskim who consider poisonous (but good tasting) food as nifsal, it would not be problematic.

V. The positions of the Kashrus Organizations- Recently, kashrus organizations have taken a stance on these issues. They generally assume that creams, lotions and other non-liquids are nifsal me'achilas hakelev and are permissible to use. Liquids are more problematic. See:

a.

b.

c.

1. שמות יב:יט, יג:ז

[pic]

[pic]

2. פסחים ה:

[pic]

פסחים כא:

[pic]

פסחים כא:

[pic]

פסחים מה:

[pic]

[pic]

משנה פסחים מב.

[pic]

רא"ש ב:א

[pic]

רמב"ם הל' חמץ ומצה ג:יא

[pic]

רמב"ם הל' חמץ ומצה ד:יא

[pic]

רמב"ם הל' חמץ ומצה ד:יב

דבר שנתערב בו חמץ ואינו מאכל לאדם כלל או שאינו מאכל כל אדם כגון התריא"ק וכיוצא בו אע"פ שמותר לקיימו אסור לאכלו עד אחר הפסח ואע"פ שאין בו מן החמץ אלא כל שהוא הרי זה אסור לאכלו.

תרומת הדשן א:קכט

[pic]

שלחן ערוך או"ח תמב:י

[pic]

חוות דעת קג:א

[pic]

אגרות משה או"ח ג:סב

[pic]

שדי חמד מערכת חמץ ומצה ה:נג

[pic]

שו"ת אור שמח ס' נה

נשאלתי על השפירעט שהלדליק שמערבין בו סם ורעל מהממשלה, אם מותר להדליק בפסח.

והשבתי לאסור, דכיון דהוא נפסל מאכילת כלב רק משום הרעל המעורב בתוכו, אימור ע"י תערובות דברים אחרים ראויים לתקנן, וכמו דאשכחן לענין טומאת אוכלין בפרק א' מהל' טו"א ברמב"ם הלכה כ"א שאין המשקה יוצא לכלב לעולם כו' ואם כן הא איתא ע"י תערובות רעל, וצ"ל דזה אינו, והגמ' משוה דין טו"א לנפסל מאכילת כלב וחרכו קודם זמנו דוקא שנפסל מאכילת כלב, ועוד דאימור חזי לחתול וכיו"ב, וכמו דפירש רש"י בדף קכ"ח פרק מפנין דמים מגולים אין הארס נחש מזיק לחתול ששותה שאוכל נחשים עצמן, אם כן אולי יש מין שאין מזיק לו הרעל, ומפני זה אסרתי, ודו"ק.

שו"ת מהר"ם שיק או"ח ס' רמב

[pic]

שואל ומשיב קמא א:קמא

[pic]

שדי חמד חמץ ומצה א:יא

[pic]

ט"ז יו"ד צח:ב

[pic]

פתחי תשובה יו"ד צח:א

[pic]

צמח צדק ס' מז

[pic]

חזון איש או"ח קטז:ח

[pic]

נדה לב.

[pic]

תוס' יומא עז. ד"ה דתנן

[pic]

ביאור הגר"א או"ח שכו:י

משמע מדבריו דבחול מותר וכ"כ תוס' בספ"ד דנדה בשם ר"ת דמותר. ודבריו דחוקין דא"כ ביה"כ אין אסור אלא שמן דוקא אבל במרדכי פ"ה דשבת ובסה"ת וש"פ אוסרין להדיא כמו ביה"כ דאידי ואידי כרת וכן בתרומה ול"ת דמשום עינוי הוא ביה"כ דמדקאמר בפ"ט דשבת מנין לסיכה שהיא כשתיה ביה"כ שנאמר כו' אלמא משום דדמי לשתיה וכן ברפ"ד דנדה אלא שתוס' ומרדכי וסה"ת וש"פ כתבו שאסמכת' הוא ואינו אלא מדרבנן עשו אותו כשתיה ולפיכך במקום צערא התירו כמש"ש בפ' בתרא דיומא מי שי"ל חטטין בראשו סך כדרכו ביה"כ כו' אבל שלא במקום צערא אסור ועתוס' שם ביומא וכן בחדש וכל איסורין

כף החיים שכו:מה

[pic]

דברי מלכיאל ד:כד:מג

[pic]

ביאור הלכה תמב:ט ד"ה חמץ

[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download