Is one prohibited to eat his wife's leftover even if she won't finish it and will be throw away?
Please bring authentic halachic sources to support your answer.
-
3@RabbiKaii Questioner isn't discussing blame, just concerned that the food will go to waste– NahumCommented Apr 7 at 17:40
-
4He can just move it to a different plate, or she can leave the room, and then he can eat it.– HeshyCommented Apr 7 at 17:40
-
I don't understand the question. To quote from Rabbi S. Wagschal's Taharas Am Yisroel page 62: Any food left over by the wife may not be eaten by the husband whilst she is present, unless it is transferred to another plate or cup. So, if you're worried about Bal Tashchis, simply move the leftover to another utensil, first.– Danny SchoemannCommented Apr 7 at 17:45
-
4Besides, Bal Tashchis means to waste, and when keeping a Halocho, you're not wasting the food, you're keeping a Halocho. Same way that burning Chametz is not wasting it.– Danny SchoemannCommented Apr 7 at 17:47
-
3Is one prohibited to eat on Yom Kippur if the food will spoil?– shmoselCommented Apr 7 at 19:01
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
After some research it I found that it a machlokes haposkim:
It is clear that the heter of transferring the contents to a different vessel is mentioned only with regard to drinks (Rama, YD 195;4) however it is clear that this heter is allowed even lechatchilla (Darkei Moshe ibid;4).
The Minchas Yitzchak (7,70) writes that the heter for transferring drinks to a different container is specific to liquids for they necessitate a vessel to consume them, therefor transferring drinks specifically into a separate vessel is allowed for there is a clear shinui by them being in different vessels. However food which doesn't require a vessel wouldn't benefit from this heter and therefor it doesn't lend itself to the same heter.
However Rav Elyashiv (brought by the Ohel Yaakov in the name of Rav Dovid Morgenstern) is quoted to have applied this heter to food as well. The Chayei Halevi (YD ibid; 42) questions the Minchas Yitzchak's premise and writes that his very logic is all the more so to apply the heter to food, for it is an even bigger shinui when it's not eaten in a kli at all. Furthermore the reasoning of the Minchas Yitzchak wouldn't apply to liquid based foods such as soup, stew, ice cream, etc. yet we don't find such a chiluk for specific foods of these kind.
-
2Does this answer have anything to do with bal tashchis, or could it be applied to any case of a husband wanting to eat the leftovers of his wife? If the former, could you demonstrate that in the answer? If the latter, wouldn't it be best to reword the question? Commented Apr 7 at 19:43