Parshas Bo – 5785 – Intriguing Questions & Answers

A Dish Containing Sugar, Where Later Three Ants Were Found in the Bag of Sugar that was Used

Q: I was asked numerous times by women who had prepared a dish, added seasoning to the food, and only later discovered a few ants in the spices or sugar they had used. They are uncertain because they learned in school that if food contains at least three insects, it is presumed (muchzak) to be infested and thus forbidden to eat, as established in Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 100:4). Presumably, this should apply to sugar as well. However, perhaps one could argue that since these are ants that did not originate within the sugar, but rather from elsewhere, this situation might differ from food which is muchzak to be infested. For it is possible that the bugs in the sugar came from the outside after the sugar was added to the dish, making it permissible as long as no ants are visible in the dish itself. What is the halachah in such a case?

A: As mentioned above, the Shulchan Aruch states that if cooked vegetables are found to have three worms, the vegetables are forbidden. If the worms are found in the sauce or on meat, one should strain or rinse the food and inspect it, and it is then permitted. The reasoning is that finding three creates a chazakah that there are more that are not visible. The Bach, however, rules stringently even for two, since according to R’ Yehuda, a chazakah is created after only two occurrences. However, the Taz argues on this, maintaining that we are only concerned for the opinion of R’ Yehuda in matters of life and death, while in other contexts, a chazakah is only created after three instances.

The Chochmas Adam (38:22) similarly writes that although the Bach rules that a chazakah is created after two, all Poskimagree that it applies only after three, as explicitly stated in Toras HaBayis, where the Rashba writes: “If one or two are found in the pot, they are discarded, and the rest may be eaten.”

Based on this, it would seem that in this case, since three ants were found, it should be treated like other vegetables presumed to be infested, and all the sugar is forbidden. Accordingly, since it was used in a dish, the entire dish would be prohibited, as the presence of even a single whole insect is a beryah, which is not batel (nullified), even in a ratio of one to a thousand.

However, perhaps there is a distinction between vegetables infested with worms, which originate and grow within the vegetables themselves, and sugar that ants entered from the outside. This may weaken the chazakah, as the ants came from elsewhere and did not originate in the vegetable or sugar itself.

Indeed, the Taz (84:17 and 57:23) cites the Maharshal, who rules that ants and the like are presumed to have come from the outside and not from within the vegetable. Therefore, even if three or more are found, this does not create a chazakah. This position is supported by the Magen Avraham, Pri Megadim, and others, including Chochmas Adam and Aruch HaShulchan (§76).

Other Poskim, however, argue and bring a proof from the Beis Yosef in Orach Chaim (§467), who quotes the Kol Bo, that when three barley kernels are found in a dish during Pesach, the entire dish is presumed to be chometz and forbidden, even if the kernels did not split.

Accordingly, if someone mixes sugar into a dish and mixed it well, and later finds ants in the sugar container, and is now unsure whether ants might have fallen into the dish as well, which would not be batel since they are a beryah: According to the aforementioned Taz, there would be room to be lenient, since they may have come from the outside.

However, Yedidi Hagaon Rav Moshe Brandsdorfer Shlit”a (Heichal Hora’ah, Vol. 4), ruled stringently in such cases to forbid the entire dish, applying the Shulchan Aruch’s ruling that three worms in cooked vegetables render them forbidden, based on the principle that three creates a chazakah that there are even more worms undetected.

He adds: As for the Taz in Yoreh Deah, 57, who writes (as explained by the Yad Yehuda there) that with regards to worms, since it is the nature of vegetables to breed worms, we say that if three worms are found, there is a chazakah that the dish is infested, but in cases where it is possible that the worms fell in from outside even if three are found, no chazakah of infestation is created.

Thus, we see from all the above that many Gedolei Horaah relied on this Taz, and therefore in cases of significant loss or a special food that was prepared for Shabbos, one may rely on the Taz and assume the ants came from outside, thereby negating the chazakah of infestation.

Which Sefarim, Books, and Newspapers Could Be Brought into the Restroom?

Q: Often, I get asked which Sefarim, books, and newspapers could be brought into the restroom, since they might contain parts that discuss Torah topics and other devarim shebekedushah?

A: The general halacha that is accepted with these questions is as follows: One should not walk into the restroom with a small Mincha and Maariv siddur in his pocket if it is not covered with at least one covering.

However, some Poskim maintain that it is best that the Sefer should have two coverings before walking into the restroom with it.

Newspapers that contain divrei Torah should preferably not be brought into the restroom, unless one knows where the divrei Torah with Hashem’s name is located and will not open to that page.

Books that one might derive inspiration from, like a biography of a gadol, should not be brought into a restroom, especially if they contain pesukim. However, books that just contain pictures of gedolim can be brought inside the restroom.

Removing a Fruit Tree that Harms a Neighbor

Q: A neighbor complained to his friend that he is highly allergic to the fruits on his fruit tree and asked him to cut it down. However, he has learned that it is dangerous to uproot a fruit-bearing tree and therefore sought my advice on how to go about this issue.

A: The Gemara in Bava Kamma (91a) states that it is forbidden to cut down a fruit-bearing tree. However, the generally accepted ruling, as brought in many Acharonim, including R’ Yaakov Emden, is to have a non-Jew remove the tree. Others add that it is preferable to sell the tree to the non-Jew before uprooting it.

Therefore, in a case where the tree causes significant harm to a neighbor, such as allergies that result in rashes and difficulty breathing, he should remove the tree, and it is preferable to do so through a non-Jew.