Kashrus Kurrents Spring 2010<\/p>\n\n\n
Q: Can a child who is under bar mitzvah<\/em> or bas mitzvah<\/em> check eggs for blood spots or check lettuce for insects?<\/b><\/p>\n A: The Terumas Hadeshen<\/em>1<\/sup><\/a> states that tevilas keilim<\/em> can be performed by a koton<\/em>, as long as a godol<\/em> is present to ascertain that the tevila<\/em> was performed correctly. However, a koton<\/em> who claims to have performed tevilah<\/em> is not relied upon without verification by a godol<\/em>. The Terumas Hadeshen<\/em> explains that the koton<\/em> is not to be relied upon because tevilas keilim<\/em> is a d’oraisa<\/em> obligation, and a koton<\/em> is not believed to have performed an action which is a chiyuv<\/em> d\u2019oraisa.<\/em> The Shulchan Aruch<\/em> and Rema pasken<\/em> in accordance with the Terumas Hadeshen<\/em>.2<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Reb Akiva Eiger<\/em>3<\/sup><\/a> quotes the Pri Chadash<\/em>4<\/sup><\/a> as stating that only the tevilah <\/em>of metal keilim<\/em> is a d\u2019oraisa<\/em> obligation, but the tevilah<\/em> of glass keilim<\/em> is a d’rabbonon obligation.<\/em> Reb Akiva Eiger,<\/em> therefore, argues that a koton<\/em> would be believed to have toveled <\/em>a glass utensil. The ruling of the Terumas Hadeshen<\/em> that a koton<\/em> is not believed is limited to statements that the koton <\/em>makes concerning d\u2019oraisa obligations, but a koton <\/em>would be believed regarding a d\u2019rabbonon <\/em>obligation.<\/p>\n However, Reb Akiva Eiger<\/em> adds that there is an opinion in Tosefos<\/em>5<\/sup><\/a> which states that, even regarding d\u2019rabbonon<\/em> obligations, a koton<\/em> is believed only on issues which affect the koton<\/em> himself. According to this viewpoint, if the koton<\/em> was designated as a shaliach<\/em> to perform an action on behalf of someone else, he is not believed to have carried it out, and a koton<\/em> could not be a shaliach<\/em> to perform tevilas keilim. <\/em><\/p>\n A similar issue to this is whether a koton<\/em> can be relied upon to perform bedikas chometz. <\/em>Before Pesach<\/em>, a person is obligated to verbally be mevatel<\/em> all chometz<\/em> that he owns. In addition to this, there is a d\u2019rabbonon<\/em> obligation of bedikas chometz<\/em> in order to verify that he has no chometz<\/em> in his possession. The Shulchan Aruch6<\/sup><\/a> paskens<\/em> that a koton<\/em> is believed to have performed bedikas chometz<\/em>. As stated above, a koton<\/em> is believed to have performed an action which is a d\u2019rabbonon <\/em>obligation and is, therefore, believed to have performed bedikas chometz<\/em>. The Shulchan Aruch<\/em> adds that the koton is believed only if he is old enough to understand what checking for chometz<\/em> involves and there is confidence that he will do a thorough job.<\/p>\n The Shaar HaTziyun<\/em>7<\/sup><\/a> cites the viewpoint of the Tosefos<\/em> mentioned above, that the koton<\/em> is believed only regarding chometz<\/em> in a house in which he lives, but cannot be a shaliach<\/em> for bedikas chometz<\/em> in someone else\u2019s house. However, the Shaar HaTziyun <\/em>concludes that the consensus of the Poskim<\/em> is that a koton<\/em> is believed even to be a shaliach<\/em> and to have performed bedikas chometz<\/em> on behalf of another person.<\/p>\n As previously mentioned, the Shulchan Aruch paskens<\/em> that a koton<\/em> is believed regarding bedikas chometz<\/em>. However, the Mishna Berura<\/em>8<\/sup><\/a> states that, lechatchilah<\/em>, one should not rely upon a koton<\/em>. He explains that checking for chometz<\/em> is a laborious activity, and there is the concern that a koton<\/em> may not carry it out diligently.<\/p>\n It is customary to check eggs for blood spots before consuming them.9<\/sup><\/a> However, this is not a d\u2019oraisa<\/em> obligation,10<\/sup><\/a> and is not a laborious activity. Therefore, a koton<\/em> may check eggs for bloodspots, as long as he is old enough to understand what is involved. There is also a requirement for a person to check vegetables for insects before consumption. If the majority of a particular type of vegetable has insects, there is a Torah<\/em> obligation to check the vegetable,11<\/sup><\/a> and a koton <\/em>would not be believed to have done so. If a significant minority of this type of vegetable has insects, there is a d\u2019rabbono<\/em>n obligation to check the vegetable, and a koton <\/em>would be believed to have done so as long as he is old enough to understand what is involved and there is confidence that he will do a thorough job. However, checking for insects would be classified as a laborious activity.12<\/sup><\/a> For this reason, lechatchilah<\/em>, one should not allow a koton<\/em> to check vegetables for insects.13<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Q: My father has a full-time nurse who lives with him and takes care of him. When I hired her, I told her that under no circumstances may she cook any food for my father. However, I went to visit this morning and saw that she had baked him a potato. What is the status of the utensils that she used? <\/b><\/p>\n A: In order to discourage intermarriage, Chazal<\/em> established the prohibition of bishul akum<\/em>.14<\/sup><\/a> Food which was cooked by an akum<\/em> without the involvement of a Jew may not be eaten, and the utensils which were used for the cooking must be kashered<\/em>.15<\/sup><\/a> However, this prohibition does not apply to all food cooked by an akum<\/em>. In fact, there are five potential reasons to be lenient:<\/p>\n\n
The Gr\u201da<\/em> accepts the third approach of the Shach,<\/em> and explains that in this situation there are two reasons to be lenient. Firstly, there are Rishonim<\/em> who state that the prohibition does not apply at all in the house of the Jew. Secondly, there is an opinion that the prohibition does not apply when the akum<\/em> is performing paid labor. Even though we do not accept either of these arguments, the Rema<\/em> feels that we can rely on both of these opinions to be lenient bedieved<\/em>.27<\/sup><\/a>
As mentioned above, the Shach<\/em> has three ways of explaining the Rema<\/em>. According to the first and second approaches, the leniency of the Rema<\/em> would not apply in present times. However, according to the third approach the leniency would still apply. Due to this uncertainty, the Chochmas Adam paskens<\/em> that one should rely on this only in a situation of substantial financial loss.28<\/sup><\/a>
The Rema <\/em>and Shach<\/em> are discussing a situation where the worker did what he was instructed to do. In the case of the nurse who baked a potato, she cooked the food after being instructed not to do so. It would seem that if we are not concerned that a Jew will befriend a worker who follows instructions, we similarly need not be concerned that he will befriend a worker who does not follow instructions. If so, we could apply the psak<\/em> of the Chochmas Odom<\/em> to the case of the nurse who baked a potato.
As mentioned above, the Chochmas Odom<\/em> is lenient only in a situation of substantial financial loss. Since the utensils used by the nurse can be kashered<\/em>, there is no financial loss involved. Utensils made from earthenware generally cannot be kashered<\/em>. However, utensils which need kashering<\/em> due to bishul akum<\/em> are an exception to that rule, and can be kashered <\/em>with hagala<\/em> (immersion in boiling water) three times.29<\/sup><\/a> Therefore, the leniency of the Rema <\/em>does not apply in this case.<\/li>\n