Q: In the case of tequila with a worm in the bottle, is the worm batel b'shishim (nullified by the presence of 60 times more permitted material than forbidden)? Does the fact that a worm is repulsive to eat make a difference, as appears in Yoreh Deah 104:3? A: We assume your question is based on halachic curiosity. An article on the OU website, "Hard Truths About Hard Liquor," explains that tequila requires a hechsher (rabbinic supervision) irrespective of the worm that some brands put in. If there is a hechsher, there will not be a worm. Your question raises interesting issues in the rules of ta'arovet (mixture between permitted and forbidden materials), some of which we will discuss. We will distinguish between two situations. Let us first deal with a case that the worm was removed, and the question is about taste that might have been absorbed in the drink. There is a rule of kavush k'mevushal, that when a solid soaks in liquid for 24 hours (in some cases, less) they exchange taste (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 105:1). However, in this case, this is not a problem, because the volume of the tequila is certainly 60 times the volume of the worm. There is a concept of berya, that a whole organism, dead or alive, is not batel b'shishim (ibid. 100:1). However, that applies only to the organism, which has a special importance because it is a whole unit, not to the taste that it emits (ibid.:2). We now move to another issue. One may not set up a situation where bitul is needed to render the food kosher, and if he does so purposely, no one may eat the food (ibid. 99:5). Here the worm should not have been put in. However, assuming non-Jews, who are not obligated in the laws of kashrut, set up the situation without Jewish encouragement, this is not a problem (Rama, YD 122:6). Therefore, if the worm was removed, the fact that it had been there would not deem the tequila non-kosher. We now move to the case that the worm remains. If it is a full worm, there is the issue of berya, which we mentioned. We cannot accept your suggestion that bitul should occur because of a worm's repulsiveness for three fundamental reasons. The Shulchan Aruch you refer to goes as follows; "Unseemly things that a person is repulsed by, such as ants, flies, and mosquitoes, which everyone stays away from because they are unseemly, even if they are mixed into a stew and their body dissolves into it, if the permitted food is more than the forbidden food, it is permitted. However, if one can check and pass through a strainer, he should check and pass through a strainer." Firstly, this halacha applies only when the object does not remain as a berya (see Beit Yosef ad loc., Shulchan Aruch 101:4 and Shach 101:7). Secondly, a food's status as repulsive depends on the context and the medium in which the forbidden food is mixed. Although we find a worm repulsive in an alcoholic beverage, there are apparently people who do not mind it. (There are halachic discussions about the status of a worm, the medium of alcoholic drinks, and the issue of something that is repulsive to some and not others, but we will skip them.) The most fundamental point is that in when one can discern the forbidden object within its medium, there is no ta'arovet at all. After all, why do the laws of bitul apply? It is because the Torah did not require us to discard a lot of permitted food because a little forbidden food "infested" it. However, in a case that one can remove the forbidden food, the rationale for bitul is missing. This concept is almost certainly Torah law and is at least a rabbinic requirement for ta'arovet (see Taz, Orach Chayim 632:3 & Sdei Chemed, vol. I, pg. 443). That is why the Shulchan Aruch (104:3) required straining the food to remove flies. This is even clearer when one can easily identify and remove the worm. So no matter how repulsive a worm might be, just as one cannot eat it by itself, one cannot drink the bottle of tequila if the worm may also be ingested. Ed. note: Surfing the web, we discovered that tequila is not the drink that traditionally has the worm, but another Mexican, related drink called mezcal. Legend has it that the worm (really a caterpillar) has hallucinogenic, magical, and/or aphr disiac properties. Those in the know claim it is a relatively recent marketing ploy. The worm, by the way, is intended to be eaten. Ask the Rabbi Q&A is part of Hemdat Yamim, the
weekly parsha sheet published by Eretz Hemdah. You can read this section
or the entire Hemdat Yamim at www.ou.org
or
www.eretzhemdah.org. And/or you can receive Hemdat Yamim by email
weekly, by sending an email to
info@eretzhemdah.org with the message: Subscribe/English (for the
English version) or Subscribe/Hebrew (for the hebrew version). Please
leave the subject blank. Ask the Vebbe Rebbe is partially funded by the
Jewish Agency for Israel The scouts sent by Moshe to tour the Promised Land returned with a terrifying report. The inhabitants of the land are formidably huge - giants - similar in proportion to the fruits of the land. "There is but one conclusion", they said. "One must be a giant in order to live in the Holy Land. There is no place for us, little grasshoppers, in a land that demands stature and nobility. Better that we live a quiet, secure life as grass- hoppers in the wilderness than to aspire to great moral and spiritual heights." Interestingly, Targum Onkelos translates chagavim, "grasshoppers," as kamtzin. The Talmud (Gittin 55a) attributes the destruction of the Second Temple to petty, little people who looked upon others with disdain and contempt. Such is the tragic story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. To be a giant or to be a grasshopper? That is
the question! TORAH THOUGHTS as contributed by Aloh Naaleh
members for publication in the Orthodox Union's 'Torah Insights', a weekly
Torah publication on Parshat Ha'Shavuah 2) The Gemara (Sota 34 quoted by Rashi 13:26) says that just as the spies returned to the people with evil plans, so too, they originally left the people with evil plans. How can this be understood in light of Rashi's earlier comment (13:3) that when they left to perform the mission they were righteous? 3) Why didn't Yehoshua join Kalev in trying to
calm the fears of the nation in 13:30? (1) Rashi explains (8:2) that the command for Aharon to maintain the Menora specifically follows the dedication offerings of the leaders of each tribe since Aharon was saddened that he and his tribe were not involved in the dedication ceremony. Why was Aharon the one who was upset and not the Nasi of Levi, Elitzfon ben Uziel (according to the Midrash)? Wasn't he the one who was actually deprived of participating in the dedication ceremony? Rav Elimelech Fischman (my great-grandfather) answers that the tribal leaders chose to use wagons (AGALOT) during the Mishkan's dedication in order to atone for the sin of the golden calf (similar word - EIGEL). The tribe of Levi did not sin with the golden calf, and therefore, did not need to participate in the dedication ceremony. Aharon, however, was at a loss since he was the one member of the tribe of Levi who had been involved with the sin of the golden calf. He had no leader representing him to atone for his sin. Thus he, and not the leader of Levi, was agitated. G-d, therefore, charged Aharon with taking care of the candles which could serve as his atonement for his own involvement with the sin of the golden calf. (2) Rashi comments that the section dealing with Pesach Sheni (9:6-12) should in reality have been initiated by Moshe. However, these men who came forward to ask to fulfill the Pesach offering merited to have it taught through them instead since they were the impetus for this mitzva. Why doesn't the Torah actually mention their names to truly give them the merit of having it taught "through their hands" in Rashi's words? Rav Moshe Feinstein teaches that the Torah does not write their names because they were great people outside of this particular action and we should not think that the mitzva was done through them because of this general greatness. Now that their names are not mentioned, we know that the mitzva was given through them only because of their love and desire for the mitzva, teaching us the high levels one can reach from complete love for a mitzva alone. (3) The Torah describes a conversation between Moshe and Yisro regarding whether Yisro would join the Jewish people on their journey to Israel. (10:29-32) Why doesn't the Torah actually relate whether Yisro chose to join the Jewish people or not at the end of this conversation? Rav Moshe Eisenmann explains that since the Torah does not mention the end result of the conversation, the message for all generations must be just that the conversation took place regardless of its conclusion. What is that message? Rav Eisenmann points to the fact that no matter what Moshe, himself, promised him, Yisro managed to come up with reasons why he should return to Midian. Others can try to do incredible things to help us change and grow but if we do not want the change, we will find excuses and reasons for it not to happen. Parsha Points to Ponder is prepared by Rabbi Dov
Lipman of Beit Shemesh
ppp@israelcenter.co.il • Answers will appear in the next issue of TT Moshe had asked for a report first of the quality of the people and then of the Land, while the cunning messengers responded in the reverse order. The "spies" first declared that the Land flows with milk and honey but then added that the inhabitants are strong, their cities fortified and that, "we saw the giants". This distortion had disastrous effects. Like the media moguls of our times, these self-serving reporters replaced their former true and positive description of Eretz Yisrael with a false and devastating negative impression: Having lulled the people, they now presented the enemy as undefeatable and injected fear and trepidation into the hearts of the people (Rashbam). The scouts then declared of the inhabitants of
Eretz Yisrael that, "We were as locusts in their eyes!" Like some
observers in our times who identify with the aggressor, their perceptions
were flawed. And as then, we today sorely need the rallying cry of the two
dissenting "spies" Yehoshua and Kalev: "If Hashem… brought us to this
land… then don't fear the local populace… for we can overcome them… for
G-d is with us" (ibid, 14:6-9). [The Parshat Sh'lach Homepage]
|
