Q: Why is it permitted to eat fruit that were made from kil'ayim (mixed species - regarding fruit, by grafting)? Shouldn't we boycott them? A: The Rabbis derive the prohibition to create new fruit varieties by grafting branches of one type onto the tree of another from the comparison between kil'ayim of animals and of agriculture (Kiddushin 39a, based on Vayikra 19:19). While man is instructed to harness the world for his needs (Bereishit 1:28) the limitations on meddling with the natural order of creation are at the heart of the laws of kil'ayim (see Ramban to Vayikra 19:19). Halacha teaches us which actions are forbidden and which are permitted. It also teaches us the repercussions of forbidden actions, including grafting. We are not required to boycott when the Torah and the Rabbis did not take the prohibition that far. There are two main halachic reasons to distance oneself from aveirot (violations of prohibitions). In some cases, a food that was created or processed in a forbidden manner is forbidden to eat (e.g. food that was cooked on Shabbat, Ketubot 34a). Sometimes it is forbidden even to benefit from it (e.g. milk and meat that were cooked together and a vineyard that was involved in kil'ayim (Chulin 115a)). The gemara (ibid.) derives from p'sukim that neither is the case for kil'ayim not involving grapes. So the same Torah that forbids grafting permits one to eat or sell its fruit afterward. Another reason to stay away from aveirot is that it is forbidden to facilitate (lifnei iver - from the Torah) or even aid (m'sayei'a l'ovrei aveira - from the Rabbis) in aveirot. However, these laws apply primarily before or as an aveira occurs, as one's involvement has some- what direct impact. Fear of post facto justifying an aveira or allowing the sinner to gain is not included. The feeling of disgust at the existence of fruit that should not have been produced is discussed regarding the b'racha of Shehecheyanu, which may suggest our happiness that the fruit exists (see Yabia Omer V, OC 19.) The question of boycott is pertinent on a public scale in Israel, where the religious community makes up a sizable share of the market. Might a boycott affect how much grafting will occur in the future? While we cannot give a full answer to this question, let us point out that it is unclear how many farmers from whom we buy fruit are sinning. We will introduce some factors without ruling when a given farmer can actually rely on them. (You are asking us to address consumers, who do not really have a halachic problem.) Kil'ayim is not one of the seven Noachide laws. Yet, Rambam (Kilayim 1:6) says that one cannot let a non-Jew graft his trees. Commentaries (ad loc.) disagree as to whether this is because there is a lower level prohibition for a non-Jew to graft or because a Jew may not ask a non-Jew to do something that is forbidden for Jews. In any case, if a non-Jew does the original grafting, there is more room for leniency. Regarding more severe forms of kil'ayim, it is forbidden to maintain the kil'ayim. However, it is not unanimous that this applies to grafting. We rule stringently (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 295:7). Yet, the Chatam Sofer (VI, 25) says that once it is not recognizable that branches were grafted onto the tree, these halachot fall off. Rambam (ibid.:7) and Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) agree that one may cut a shoot off a grafted tree and plant it as a new tree. Furthermore, poskim point out that since grafting is forbidden only between two species, it is not always clear which of our modern applications involve halachically distinct species. One can see a summary of the practices that rabbis permitted to religious farmers in Eretz Yisrael in Eretz Hemdah II, 5:14. In summary, a consumer may eat grafted fruit. In fact, most farmers who grow the fruit have grounds for leniency due to a combination of factors. 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 Rabbi Charlap in his "Mei Marom" notes that this happens whenever the Jews return to the Holy Land, the nations say we are robbers (or in modern parlance they say that this is "occupied territory"), and that this is their land and not ours. It is only when we appreciate the fact that this
land is our land, received from Hashem, that the claims of the nations are
silenced. Only when the Jew realizes and knows that, He "has declared to his
people the power of his works, that He may give them the inheritance of the
Nations." Indeed the verse from Psalms does not read "He has declared to the
nations" as we might expect; rather, "He has declared to His people (amo)"!
If we do not behave as if this land is ours, how can we expect others to
respect our claim? Alshikh notes that the structure of this verse is problematic. At first glance, neither the information that Terach had left from Ur nor that his destination was the Land of Canaan seems relevant. The verse should simply have stated that "they reached Charan and dwelled there". To Alshikh's comment we can add our own fascination with the fact that Avram's father chose as his destination the land to which God would later guide Avram. Alshikh explains that our verse comes to stress the difference between Terach's journey and that of his son. Terach's motivation was to escape Ur, rather than to reach Canaan. The verse teaches us that in order to merit reaching and staying in Israel, one must journey to it for its own sake. Because Terach had an external motive, he did not reach Canaan; rather, he ended up staying in Charan. Avram, on the other hand, set out for the Land of Canaan "through love of the land" [Alshikh's words], and therefore merited reaching the Land, as the verse in next week's sedra states: "And they departed to go into the Land of Canaan and they came into the Land of Canaan" (B'reishit 12:5). A Jew must be able to appreciate the Land of
Israel for its intrinsic value, not for any tangible reason. Flippers are large compared with body size and are
curved back... does not have a dorsal fin, though a bumpy raised ridge on
the back... It has a prominent, long, thin beak with 25-35 pairs of teeth in
both the upper and lower jaws... front teeth are peg like, whereas the rear
teeth are flatter with cusps... different functions: seizing prey and
crushing... generally feed from the bottom of the river... diet consists of
crabs, small fish, small turtles... not often seen in groups larger than
2... able to move their head in any direction, which is due to the unfused
vertebrae in the neck... Though their eyes are small they can see quite
well, except for their bulging cheeks hampering downward view. This,
however, is overcome by swimming upside-down... readily associates with man
and is playful, sometimes retrieving thrown objects and even soliciting
physical contact. When swimming, dolphins may nip divers, play tag or take
the diver’s hand under its flipper and tow him or embrace him. Wild botos
grasp fishermen’s paddles, rub against canoes, and may become quite tame.
Botos have never been directly hunted. However fishermen are known to have
occasionally killed them to protect their catch and fishing gear, and some
are drowned accidentally in gill nets or are killed by mercury poisoning of
their environment... Therefore Hashem makes a covenant, with Noach promising that He will never destroy the world again with a flood. He chose a rainbow as a sign for this covenant. Rav Hirsh says that there is a good hint to G-d's promise in the choice of the rainbow as the sign. The rainbow is white sun light broken into many different shades of light. This symbolizes the variances between people in their closeness to Hashem. Some people are so spiritual that G-d's presence shines out through them. Other people are farther away from Hashem and are much darker. Both these type of people as well as others are all included in the rainbow - all protected by Hashem's covenant. Whenever we see the rainbow it should remind us
that if not for the covenant G-d would destroy us because of our sins. It
should act to awaken us to repent. Place the purple jell at the bottom and let set (
about an hour). This brings us to the question of by what standards should we judge people, if at all? We are reminded of the line in "Julius Caesar" that, "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones." Should we recall people's failings so that we can learn from them or do we better invoke the good deeds so that we can emulate them? Our rabbis cautioned us in the matter of judging others. In Pirkei Avot (2:5), the wise Hillel taught: "Do not judge another until you find yourself in his place." Since we are unlikely to ever be in exactly the same circumstance as another, we might best conclude that we should not judge others at all. Perhaps we should start by judging ourselves. Then we might want to ponder the daily prayer found in Birkat Hamazon in which we declare: "May we find grace and good standing in the sight of G-d and Man." For surely if, through our righteous actions, we find favor with others, we will surely be on the right path to finding favor with G-d. Shabbat Shalom, Menachem Persoff [The Parshat No'ach Homepage]
|
