Q&A: Regarding an Item That Will Become Permitted: Even in a Thousand It Is Not Nullified
Regarding an Item That Will Become Permitted: Even in a Thousand It Is Not Nullified
Question
Hello, honorable Rabbi,
I would like to ask, if possible, for your help in understanding several rabbinic principles as follows:
A. Anything that comes from a fixed place is treated as half-and-half
B. Any item that will become permitted, even in a thousand, is not nullified
I would be happy if you could explain and elaborate on the logic and reasoning
that underlie these statements,
Thank you very much,
Answer
A. I don’t have an explanation. I once saw an article by Uman proposing an explanation, but it didn’t sound plausible to me.
B. This is simple. In the view of most medieval authorities (Rishonim), this is a rabbinic decree: instead of eating it in a prohibited state (relying on nullification by majority), eat it in a permitted state (when the time passes and it becomes permitted, so nullification will not be needed). The well-known position of the Ran is different (he explains that this is a case of one type mixed with its own type, which is not nullified, implying that this is Torah-level. But this is a lone view, and it is also difficult in light of the Talmud itself, since in the Talmud an item that will become permitted also leads to stringency in cases of doubt, and there the Ran’s reasoning does not apply).
It is true that this assumes that eating something that was nullified by majority is considered eating a prohibition. From here it follows that being stringent not to eat a prohibition that was nullified by majority is a stringency with a basis (contrary to what some later authorities wrote). Perhaps one could explain that this is an educational rule and not an essential one.