This is question 13.2 in "Measures, Integrals and Martingales" by R.L. Schilling. The answer can be found here. I don't understand why they use an exhausting sequence rather than apply the definition of the product measure directly.
Let $(X,\mathcal{A},\mu)$, $(Y,\mathcal{B},\nu)$ be two $\sigma$-finite measure spaces. Show that $A \times N$, where $A \in \mathcal{A}$ and $N \in \mathcal{B}$, $\nu(N) = 0$, is a $\mu \times \nu$ - null set.
Now in the answer, they take two exhausting sequences and by taking the intersection of $A$ and $N$ with these sequences the proposition is proven. I would understand this if the product measure was defined only on those sequences, but it is defined as (theorem 13.5):
$\rho: \mathcal{A} \times \mathcal{B} \to [0,\infty]$, $\rho(A \times B) := \mu(A)\nu(B)$.
Why can't we just say $\rho(A \times N) = \mu(A)\nu(N) = \mu(A) 0 = 0$ ?