‫תערובת‬

‫ביטול ברוב‬
1 ‫שיעור‬- Packet 1 – YD 109

‫ רב שכטר‬always says that a ‫ תערובת‬is when you have:

1) ‫רוב היתר‬
2) ‫מיעוט איסור‬
3) The ‫ איסור‬can’t be ‫ ניכר‬to be ‫מותר‬
The mixture though is in your mind and it doesn’t necessarily matter where they are (they
don’t need to be in front of you).

There are two types of ‫תערובת‬-

a) ‫( לח בלח‬physically mixed together)
b) ‫( יבש ביבש‬physically separate). It doesn’t matter where the pieces of meat are, as long
as they create a ‫( ספק‬even in my three different homes- under the umbrella of my ‫)ספק‬.

‫אחרי רבים להטות‬

‫ מקור‬for ‫ב "אחרי רבים להטות‬:‫שמות כג‬- :‫"ביטול ברוב‬
The ‫ פשוט פשט‬is that you shouldn’t follow the majority to do wrong, but the ‫ראשונים‬
understand the ‫ פסוק‬to mean that you DO follow the ‫ רבים‬in other contexts.

‫חולין יא‬. (p4)- uses the ‫ פסוק‬for the idea of “‫”אזלינן בתר רובא‬- I find meat in the street where
there are 9 kosher butchers and one tref butcher and the ‫ דין‬is that it’s ‫מותר‬.
(This is different from ‫ ביטול ברוב‬which is a mixture.)

):‫רש"י (חולין צח‬- (p3)- says that we use ‫ אחרי רבים להטות‬to teach that we follow the
majority even with ‫ רש"י‬.‫ ביטול ברוב‬is a ‫ חידוש‬to use this ‫ פסוק‬to deal with ‫ביטול ברוב‬.

‫רובא דאיתא קמן‬- the 9 butcher shops and 1 tref, )all the shops are in tangible existence( so
I can say the piece is seen as ‫ רוב‬and is ‫מותר‬.
‫רובא דליתא קמן‬- someone kills another person and the B”D asks whether the person killed
was a ‫ טריפה‬in the place where he was killed. This is judged based upon the statistical ‫רוב‬
of most people b/c most people don’t have ‫טריפות‬.

‫( *רב חיים‬P8) and ‫ר’ שמעון שקאפ‬- explain how ‫רש"י‬can use this ‫פסוק‬.
B”D is the source of both ‫ דינים‬and there are two steps in the B”D process-
1) 2:1 -‫מברר ומכריע את הספק‬,
2) but still, we need a B”D of 3 and we only have 2 (assuming they didn’t unanimously
decide), so now it must be that we use ‫ רוב‬to say that it’s as if all 3 agree to this ruling.
These two processes are automatically interconnected in the process of B”D- the judges
vote which is 1) ‫ אזלינן בתר רובא‬and then 2) they use ‫ רוב‬and the 3 arguing judges are
considered 3 concurring judges b/c the majority of judges (the 2) swallow up the minority
(the 1) to make it like it is unanimous. [Tos. in B”K.]

1
-- This ‫ רש"י‬is an explanation for the many '‫גמרא‬s that assume that ‫ ביטול רוב‬applies
by ‫תערובת‬.

One person eating the ‫ביטול ברוב‬

I) ‫( בחולין (דף ק) רא”ש‬p5) – you can eat all 3 pieces of the ‫ תערובת‬together b/c the 3rd
piece of meat is “changed to ]"‫ ["נתהפך להיות היתר‬-”‫מותר‬.

‫שטמ”ק בבא מציעא ו‬:(p7)- by ‫ תקפה כהן‬by ‫( מעשר בהמה‬after the animal was counted then
the animal jumped back in and now they are all ‫)פטור‬. ‘‫ תוס‬asks- why doesn’t ‫בטל ברוב‬
apply (the ‫’רא”ש‬s definition of ‫ )בטל ברוב‬and there should still be a ‫ חיוב‬to count the rest?
The ‫ שטמ”ק‬quotes the ‫רא”ש‬- it is unclear what the ‫ רא”ש‬would say here.
‫דבר אברהם‬-is a possible answer for the ‫רא”ש‬: the D”A made a famous comment regarding
‫ ספירה‬that the reason why we don’t count each day of ‫ ספירה‬as a ‫ ספק יום‬is b/c a count
must be ‫בוודאות‬. By ‫ תקפה כהן‬as well, each animal will not be ‫ ודאי‬the 10th one.

‫ר’ שמעון שקאפ‬- Shaare Yosher (p10-11)- based upon the ‫ רא”ש‬the ‫ איסור‬was ‫נהפך להיות‬
‫היתר‬. RS”S felt that ‫ נהפך להיות היתר‬only applies by a case of ‫ ביטול ברוב‬but not by ‫אזלינן‬
‫ בתר רובא‬where he says that an ‫ עבירה בשוגג‬was done! The fact that you used ‫ רוב‬doesn’t
undermine the fact that you did an ‫ עבירה‬and you need ‫כפרה‬.
[But doesn’t the Torah say that it is ‫ ?מותר‬- The food can be ‫אסור‬, but ‫ מותר‬to eat]

II) ‫( רשב”א‬p12) argues with the ‫רא”ש‬- you can eat each piece by itself, but not all of
them together. You can always say that the other piece was kosher. He is under the
impression that there is still an ‫ איסור מדרבנן‬to eat them all together. Therefore, one would
need ‫ ששים‬just like in the case of ‫ לח בלח‬in order to eat all of the pieces together. This is
also an incredible ‫ קולא‬because as long as the pieces are eaten separately, they are all
considered to be kosher.

The ‫ ש"ע סימן קט‬paskins like this ‫רשב"א‬.

‫ רא”ה‬in the ‫( בדק הבית‬p12)- argues with the ‫’רשב”א‬s ‫ סברה‬b/c ‫“ למסקנא‬he ate the piece of
tref,” so what type of game is this! He is not happy with the notion that a person can say
that “this is not the tref piece” and then eat all three of the pieces.

IIIA) ‫( ריד‘תוס‬p16)- has a third opinion. He says that one person can’t eat all three
pieces, but at least two people must eat them, so we don’t say that any person ate the
)‫איסור בוודאות (עיין ברא”ה‬. He therefore disagrees with the ‫רשב”א‬. He says that if one
person eats it then he is ‫ חייב‬to bring a ‫קרבן‬.

Proofs for ‫תוס’ ריד‬

A) 2-:‫ בבא בתרא לא‬groups of witnesses testify about a certain situation and each set
directly contradicts the facts stated by the other group (‫)עדים מכחישים‬. We know in this
case that one group is lying, but B”D doesn’t know which group is lying.
Q) What does B”D do in future ‫ דין תורה‬b/c both groups are ‫ספק פסולים‬, does this
undermine their ‫?חזקת כשרות‬
A) 1) ‫רב הונא‬- that you can let a person from group A or group B testify, but not together.

2
 2) ‫רב חסדא‬- you cannot let either testify to remove money that someone has a ‫ חזקה‬on.

B) ‫פסחים י‬. (p15)- 2 streets- one is ‫ טהור‬and one is ‫ טמא‬and both are in ‫רשות הרבים‬. If one
person goes down one of the streets and another person goes down the other street (one
obviously being ‫ )טמא‬if both come to ask the Rabbi if they are ‫ טהור‬at the same time then
he can’t say they are both ‫טהור‬, but if they come one after the next then he can tell them
both that they aren’t ‫ טמא‬from a ‫ספק‬.

‫ תוס' ריד‬says that if a person ate all three pieces these ‫’גמרא‬s prove that this person is ‫ודאי‬
eating the ‫ איסור‬and therefore the Torah can’t be permitting this scenario. He therefore
argues with the ‫רשב”א‬- and feels this is ‫מדאורייתא‬.

IIIB) )‫ (ד"ה בריה‬.‫תוס' חולין ק‬-says that different people should eat the 3 pieces and seems
that this is only ‫מדרבנן‬.
‫סמ"ג‬- seems to say that it is a ‫ חומרא‬and the ‫ חיוב‬for two people to eat the pieces is only
‫מדרבנן‬.

‫הרמה‬- taking out one piece for the kohen

‫משנה ערלה‬- (p19-21) says you need to take one of them away as the “‫ אסור‬piece” to give
to the kohen in the event that you weren’t sure which piece was put aside.
‫( ירושלמי‬p22)- the reason to remove one of the fruits of the ‫ מותר תערובת‬is not because
‫ ביטול‬requires the “attribution to something else.” By‫ תרומה‬, the food belongs to the kohen
and they deserve their money and you can’t do ‫ ביטול‬on the money of someone else, so
you must repay the kohen. But, by a ‫ תערובת‬of ‫ איסור‬there would not need ‫הרמה‬. The
‫ נפק"מ‬of ‫ ביטול‬in this case is the kohen losing some of his ‫ ;תרומה‬therefore, we take one
piece out of the mixture and give it to the kohen.

IV) ‫רש"י ע"ז עד‬. - says that one can do ‫ הרמה‬by things other than ‫ תרומה‬and he requires
this by ‫ביטול‬.
‫מהר”ם מרוטנברג‬- would throw one of the pieces away, but that was because he was a
tzaddik. Really he didn’t have to do that, but he had extra ‫פרישות‬.

‫( רא”ש‬p24/5)- says he doesn’t know where ‫ הרמה‬would apply beyond a case of gezel
hashevet (from the kohen).

--‫שערי דורא‬-(p26) you don’t need to be ‫ מחמיר‬and throw one piece away, like ‫ סמ”ג‬/'‫תוס‬,
but not the ‫רש"י‬.
--‫( ש”ע סימן קט‬p27-29)- quotes ‫סמ”ג‬/'‫ תוס‬,‫רשב”א‬.
--‫ רמ"א‬says do like ‫ 'תוס‬and quotes the )‫מהר”ם (לחומרא‬.

Is this ]‫רשב”א‬/‫ מחלוקת [רא”ש‬on a ‫ דאורייתא‬or ‫ דרבנן‬level?

1) ‫(פמ”ג‬p13)- ‫ רשב”א‬agrees with the ‫ רא”ש מדאורייתא‬and this is only a ‫מחלוקת מדרבנן‬. This
is the ‫ פשוט פשט‬in the ‫מחלוקת‬.
2) ‫תוס’ ריד‬/[‫( רא”ה‬perhaps)]- felt that the ‫ רשב”א‬made his statement on a ‫ דאורייתא‬level.

If you don’t eat the treif piece because you “don’t want to eat treif”

3
Today, everyone uses the ‫ קולות‬of ‫ רוב‬by milk: that most cows aren’t treif. [According to
‫ רב שמעון שקאפ‬you didn’t do an ‫עבירה‬/ using the ‫רא”ש‬.]

‫של”ה‬- (p30)- quotes a ‫ 'גמ‬in ‫ מסכת ברכות‬that a person who says “I just won’t eat it” is
lesser than a person who goes through the area and finds a reliable ‫ היתר‬and then eats it.
He says you aren’t a ‫ מורה הוראה‬to be a ‫מחמיר‬. You shouldn’t just stam be ‫מחמיר‬.
‫בני יששכר‬-(p31) extends the ‫ של”ה‬to ‫ ביטול‬and says that a person can eat the ‫ תערובת‬and it
helps in ‫( עולם הבאה‬to fix the ‫)קליפות‬. You shouldn’t be ‫מחמיר‬.
Q) What about the ‫ גמרא‬in ‫ חולין‬which says not to eat an animal that the Rabbis had to
paskin on?
A) He says that this ‫ גמרא‬is talking about when a ‫ סברא‬was used, but not one that there
was a ‫ היתר‬on them.

‫ איסור והיתר‬-‫רבינו יונה‬- don’t add to the ‫ טריפות‬of ‫ חז”ל‬if you don’t have to, but if you want
to be ‫ מחמיר‬and add to the ‫חכמים‬, then you have that right. You should stay away from
something that is “shady.” You can be ‫מחמיר‬.

)‫ פתחי תשובה (סולת למנחה בלולה בשמן‬quotes ‫איסור והיתר‬, but then quotes others that say that
it is ‘minus.’ You shouldn’t be ‫מחמיר‬.

)‫שו"ת מהר"ם מרוטנברג ס' תרטו (הובא בתורת חטאת‬- (p34)- when he was younger he used to
make fun of the people who waited between milk and meat. He then found a piece of
cheese in his mouth and then he decided to wait. You can be ‫מחמיר‬.

‫מהרש”ל‬- says it is ‫ מינות‬to be ‫מחמיר‬, but if it happened to you then you can add onto
yourself (and he agrees with the youthful ‫)מהר”ם‬. You shouldn’t be ‫מחמיר‬

‫מהרש”ם‬- if something is going to be ‫ מותר‬tomorrow then you can’t eat it today, but if it
won’t be ‫מותר‬, then you can eat it (-‫דבר שיש לו מתירים‬:‫דשל"מ‬:‫)להלן‬.???
Q) The ‫ מהרש”ם‬doesn’t understand- if ‫ ביטול‬is a good ‫היתר‬, why do you need to wait and
“eat it ‫”?בהיתר‬
A) He thinks from ‫ דשל”מ‬that you could think that there is a problem (like the ‫איסור‬
‫ )והיתר‬and could be ‫מחמיר‬. You can be ‫מחמיר‬.

‫רב שכטר‬- sardines: some are packaged by machine and some are packaged by hand. The
ones that are packaged by machine chop off the stomach and the ones packaged by hand
sometimes contain stomachs with non-kosher fish.
PSAK: the sardine cans that are already in the public are ‫בטל חד בתרי‬. In the future they
will ensure that all the sardines have their stomachs cut off. He assumes that you can’t
advertise that something is kosher if a person is using kulot.

‫ידיעת התערובת‬
2 ‫שיעור‬/ Sept 12- (M) Packet 2

4
‫ביטול ברוב‬- you need to have ‫ ידיעת התערובת‬in order for something to be ‫ בטל‬or else there
is no ‫דין ביטול‬. Otherwise if you ate and didn’t know, then you did an ‫עבירה בשוגג‬. There is
a discussion in the ‫ ירושלמי‬whether or not the ‫ ידיעה‬is dependant on the one eating the
meat or it could also be on someone else.

‫ תרומה‬-)‫ח‬:‫ משנה תרומות (ה‬falls into 100 ‫ חולין‬and you were not able to take one random
piece out of the mixture to give to the Kohen (gezel hashevet) when another piece of
‫ תרומה‬fell into the mixture, so now you have 2:100.
Q) Is there a ‫ דין ביטול‬and what happens to the ‫( איסור תרומה‬i.e. does it turn into ‫?)היתר‬
A) ‫ת”ק‬- The first isn’t ‫ בטל‬and surely not the second piece.
A2) ‫ ר' שמעון‬permits the two pieces.

What is the ‫ מחלוקת‬b/t ‫ ת"ק‬and ‫?ר' שמעון‬

‫( רב מברטנורא‬p1)- says that ‫’ר’ שמעון‬s ‫ היתר‬is only when there is ‫( ידיעת התערובת‬YT), but if
there is no YT then there is surely no ‫ביטול‬. And, if there is ‫ידיעה‬, but the Jew didn’t have
the opportunity to get a piece out before the next one fell in then the ‫ מחלוקת‬is whether
the ‫ ביטול‬is completed if you didn’t do ‫( הרמה‬taking out a piece for the kohen). R”S says
that the attempt to remove one piece is enough.
Tosefta Terumot (6,6) (p3) (the source of this ‫)ברטנורא‬- quotes this ‫ מחלוקת‬and adds the
language of ‫ידיעה‬.
Mishna Rishona (p1-2)- based upon the Tosefta- would say this svara is only by ‫תרומה‬
and not by other ‫איסורים‬.

‫רמב"ם‬- Hil. Terumot (13,6)- also uses this logic of ‫( ידיעה‬paskins like R”S).
‫ראב”ד‬- says that the ‫ רמב"ם‬is following a shitah yechidah (R”S) and he thinks that ‫רמב"ם‬
should follow ‫ת”ק‬.

‫ירושלמי‬- Orlah- (11a-11b) (5-6) Halacha 1- this ‫ דין‬of ‫ ידיעה‬is discussed.

This means that the same metzios can be treif w/o ‫ ידיעה‬and kosher w/ ‫ידיעה‬. Perhaps this
is a special ‫ דין‬by ‫ תרומה‬b/c you need ‫ הרמה‬and the only way to get to ‫ הרמה‬is to have
‫ידיעה‬, but in the other areas of ‫ איסור‬where there is no ‫ דין‬of ‫הרמה‬, then there would be an
automatic ‫ביטול‬.

Extension of ‫ ידיעה‬beyond ‫תרומה‬

‫רא”ש‬- (p7) is the first to extend ‫ ידיעה‬beyond ‫ תרומה‬to the rest of the ‫איסורים‬.
What is the svara of the ‫?רא”ש‬

‫ ר’ שמעון‬Schkup (Sha’arei Yosher) (p9)- ‫ ביטול‬is a clash but the clash is only if it is
relevant to the person. A ‫ תערובת‬needs to be 1) mixed together (‫)מעורב‬, 2) ladas ha-‫ספק‬
and 3) miut ‫איסור‬. Perhaps until you know that the ‫ איסור‬is there, then there is no ‫תערובת‬
yet b/c a ‫ תערובת‬is formed by the ‫ ספק‬of the individual, so before he has a ‫ ידיעה‬there is
no ‫ תערובת‬and therefore it can’t become ‫בטל‬. This would only be by ‫יבש ביבש‬.

5
By ‫ לח בלח‬this would NOT be true, b/c you don’t need a ‫ ידיעה‬to create this ‫תערובת‬. Here,
the physical ‫ תערובת‬exists before the ‫ידיעה‬.

Rav Solovechick- the ‫ ידיעה‬creates the ‫ ספק( לידת הספק‬about what to do now, and after it
is done then there is no ‫)ספק‬. The Jew has to know about it to create a ‫לידת הספק‬for the
‫ ביטול‬to take affect.

‫רא”ה‬- permits adding to 60 once the mixture was ‫בטל יבש ביבש‬.

What if there is a ‫ביטול יבש ביבש‬and then the ‫ תערובת‬is cooked?

Shulchan Aruch (109,2) (p13) says that if you want to cook the ‫ תערובת‬after the ‫ איסור‬is
‫ בטל‬then you need 60, even if you’ll eat them separately, because now it’s a case of
nesinas ‫טעם‬. You’re allowed to add to it before you cook them to make sure there that it’s
BS (‫)רא”ה‬.
Rema quotes the ‫’רא”ש‬s opinion that if you have knowledge and are mevatel the ‫תערובת‬
then you can eat it all after you cook it even if there isn’t 60. The Remah will only allow
this b’makom hefsed.

Cooking in 2 pots According to the ‫ רשב”א‬before ‫ידיעה‬

)109,12( -‫ ש”ך‬says that once you have ‫ידיעה‬, the ‫ תערובת‬is ‫ מותר מדאורייתא‬and after the
‫ ידיעה‬you can cook the ‫ תערובת‬in 2 pots. If the ‫ תערובת‬was cooked before ‫ ידיעה‬then there
is a ‫ ספק דאורייתא‬and we are ‫ מחמיר‬even According to the ‫רשב”א‬.
Bach- (p12) [d”h p’sak] permits a person to cook the ‫ תערובת‬in 2 pots even before there
was ‫ידיעה‬. You need ‫ידיעה‬, but you don’t need the ‫ ידיעה‬to come before the bishul. [‫ידיעה‬
can’t be a ‫ חיוב דאורייתא‬or else the cooking would undermine any subsequent ‫ביטול‬.]
‫ מהר”ם‬Shick- says that perhaps the Bach holds that ‫ ידיעה‬is only a ‫[ דין דרבנן‬or that ‫ידיעה‬
isn’t needed by ‫תערובת‬.]
R’ Simon- doesn’t know if this ‫ מהר”ם‬Shick is correct.

Is ‫ ידיעה‬a ‫ דין דאורייתא‬or ‫?דרבנן‬

‫ ש”ך‬says this ‫ דין‬is ‫( דאורייתא‬or a ‫ חומרא דרבנן‬in the ‫רשב”א‬-?)
Bach says it is ‫דרבנן‬.
Minchat Yaakov/Shulchan Aruch Harav (p15) explicitly says that ‫ ידיעה‬is a ‫דין דרבנן‬
[b/c if it was a ‫ דאורייתא‬then the requirement of ‫ ידיעה‬would be a necessity before ‫ביטול‬.]

‫ דרכי תשובה‬quotes R’ Shlomo Kluger (Shut) from Tuv Tam L’Daas- (p18-19)- Shochtim
get hungry and they cut off a part of meat for themselves and they figure that there will
probably be a few ‫ טריפות‬with what they are shechting and then they throw away a few
for tarfut. If they later find a trefah, then they have already been mevatel some and they
did ha’a‫רמ”א‬.
Q) If they already cooked it in their pots and they didn’t have ‫ ידיעה‬beforehand, what they
ate was b’shogeg, but should the vessels be kashered b/c there was no ‫?ידיעה‬
A) R’ Shlomo says that he will be melamed zechus on the shochtim who take food before
‫ידיעה‬. If you have no clue, then there is a lack of ‫ידיעה‬, but here the shochtim did a maaseh
of throwing away some pieces in case there should be some trefah, then it is as if there

6
was ‫ידיעה‬. Lack of knowledge means you have no clue. Here, they suspect it’ll happen
and they do a maaseh because of it and therefore they have knowledge. Therefore, the
pots aren’t tref.

Mekor Chaim- (sefer Nesevot on Pesach)- ‫ חמץ‬is an ‫( איסור מהשהו‬any part) ON

PESACH, but if it was mixed before Pesach then it is considered ‫בטל‬. The ‫תערובת‬
happened before Pesach, but the actual ‫ ידיעה‬didn’t happen until Pesach itself. What
happens in this case?
He has a ‫ ספק‬about this. He says for this maybe we don’t need ‫ידיעה‬.

‫ניכר האיסור‬
3 ‫שיעור‬/ Sept 14- (W) Packet 3

‫ניכר האיסור‬- If you have a vat of meat and you can recognize the tref meat, there is no
‫ ביטול‬ha-‫איסור‬. This is a ‫ דין דאורייתא‬According to R’ Simon.

What if you have the means to extract the ‫איסור‬- are you obligated to make it ‫ ניכר‬or
is it ‫?מותר‬

)98,4( ‫( רמ”א‬p5)- if )‫ חלב (איסור כרת‬fell into a dish of 60: The ‫ רמ”א‬says you must add
cold water to chill the dish and get the ‫ חלב‬out when it congeals and “it is as if you see
it.” [If it isn’t 1:60 then the ability to take it out doesn’t help b/c the meat is already tref
and the ‫ טעם‬extends throughout.]

Is the requirement a ‫ דרבנן‬,‫ חיוב דאורייתא‬or ‫?חומרא בעלמא‬

‫ רמ”א‬quotes the ‫ מרדכי‬in the name of the Rokeach- (p1)- if ‫ חלב‬fell into a pot then one
should pour in cold water and then remove the ‫חלב‬.
(If you can’t find the Rokeach, go to the Sefer HaAssufot, the talmid of the Rokeach).
Sefer HaAssufot- there are “‫ ”אנשי מעשה‬who will pour in cold water and get it out. This
is definitely not a ‫ !חיוב‬It’s ‫משמע מזה שזה רק חומרא לנהג ככה‬.
‫איסור והיתר‬-(p3) quotes the ‫ ראב"ן‬and says that it is a “mitzvah” to pour in cold water, but
not a ‫חיוב‬.
[This effects the bugs in the NYC water which can be removed with a filter.]

Liquids and removing ‫איסור‬

)98,4( -‫( ב"ח‬p4)- says that this can help the mixture even when there is NOT 1:60.
)98,16( -‫ ש”ך‬asks how the removal of the ‫ חלב‬can help the ratio get to 1:60 and he
disagrees with the .‫ב"ח‬

Rav Moshe says that by ‫לח‬, the ‫ טעם‬and ‫ ממשות‬are the same. Whatever liquid (ie ‫ )חלב‬you
take out of the pot, we assume you have taken out that amount of ‫ טעם‬as well.
Imrei Baruch/ A”Hashulchan- (p7)- generally we are ‫מחמיר‬, but by liquids: the ‫טעם‬
and the ‫ ממשות‬are the same thing and therefore should you be able to get out the actual
liquid then you are also getting the ‫ טעם‬as well and then the ‫ שיעור‬of 1:60 is less.
Therefore he holds that even less than 60 is enough for ‫ביטול‬.

7
R’ Zimmerman quotes Tosfot ‫חדש‬im who uses a Mishna in Orlah to prove that if you
can extract an ‫( איסור‬even if you can’t see it) then it’s ‫בטל‬.

‫ דאורייתא‬or ‫דרבנן‬
I) ‫פלתי‬-(p11) Hefsed- if the water will ruin the food then we don’t apply this halacha. If
you can get rid of it then you should (like a ‫)דשל”מ‬.
‫בדי השלחן‬- if it is a ‫ דין דאורייתא‬then you must pour in the water, but if it will be ruined
then you don’t have to. This seems to be a ‫דין דרבנן‬.

II) Gileon Maharsha- (p5)- ‫ ניכר‬is a ‫דין דאורייתא‬.

Ran- (p9) proof to GM from Sukkah: if you are buil‫דין‬g the sukkah under a tree then you
can bend the tree onto the sukkah top and mix the tree branches with other branches and
be me‫ בטל‬the tree branches.
Q) It is ‫ ניכר‬ha-‫ איסור‬and this is a ‫ דין דאורייתא‬that it is not ‫!!בטל‬
Ran says that this isn’t a real ‫ביטול‬, but it is a special ‫ דין‬by schach b/c you only need a
ratio of 50% kasher schach to bad schach. This has nothing to do with the general ‫ ביטול‬of
the rest of the Torah [where there is a ‫ דין‬of ‫ ]ניכר‬b/c here is nikar ha-‫איסור‬. The Ran’s
question is by a ‫ דין דאורייתא‬and he feels that ‫ ניכר‬would be a problem.

‫ ט”ז‬is angry at the ‫ לבוש‬-‫ לבוש‬asked a question about the ‫ דין ביטול‬in sukkah and he said
that nikar is only ‫אסור מדרבנן‬. The ‫ ט”ז‬said that this is not worthy of being written and it is
definately ‫דאורייתא‬.
Avichai: The ‫ מחלוקת‬can be what the level of “‫ ”ניכר‬is needed to create a ‫ חיוב‬to remove
the ‫ איסור‬on a ‫ דאורייתא‬level.

‫ דבר שיש לו מתירים‬by utensils

EX: If the cleaning lady took a tref spoon and put it back into the regular spoons

I) Hefsed removes kelim from ‫ דשל”מ‬status

‫רשב”א‬- Bais HaKatzar (p12-3) this is ‫ יבש ביבש‬and‫ חד בתרי‬, so it’s ‫בטל ברוב‬.
BUT, this is a ‫ דשל”מ‬b/c you can kasher the spoons!
He says that whenever you have to pay money for or have a hefsed, it isn’t a ‫דשל”מ‬, b/c
a ‫ דשל"מ‬is something that you don’t pay anything to finish and perhaps you don’t need to
do the ‫ הגעלה‬either b/c of the ‫ איסור‬nikar (‫ פלתי‬above).
)102,3( -‫ש”ע‬- paskins like the ‫רשב”א‬.

‫רא”ה‬- Bedek Habais- (p13)- [argues with ‫]רשב”א‬. If a tref spoon gets mixed in to other
spoons (even if it’s not a ‫ )דשל”מ‬it is considered “‫ ניכר‬ha’‫ ”איסור‬b/c ‫ הגעלה‬can remove the
‫ איסור‬and therefore this is a ‫ דאורייתא‬question b/c “you can take the ‫ איסור‬out by kashering
every one of the spoons.”

Boaz- quotes the mishna in Meilah (6,6) that if you have a piggybank and one quarter
that had kedusha fell into the other quarters and then someone spent the first quarter,
R”Akivah says that you are ‫מעל‬.

8
Q) After the first coin was spent, there should be a ‫ ביטול‬chad b’trei and the coins should
be ‫ !בטל דאורייתא‬B/C:
1) Hekdesh is a ‫( דשל”מ‬being podeh)- but here it is a ‫ דאורייתא דין‬and ‫ דשל”מ‬isn’t an ‫איסור‬
‫דאורייתא‬
2) The coin can be davar chashuv- that is also not a ‫דאורייתא‬
A1) Boaz says the lack of ‫ ביטול‬must be only ‫ מדרבנן‬or else he can’t understand it.
A2) ‫תוס’ חדש‬im (p. 19)- it’s possible that this mishna is like R”Y about ‫ מין במינו‬and
therefore he holds that ‫מין במינו אינו בטל‬.
Problem: the ‫ רמב"ם‬quotes this Mishna and he doesn’t hold like R”Y.
A3) Over here you can be podeh and can extract it even though it’s not visible! This
pshat in the mishna is like the ‫ רא”ה‬that removing an ‫ איסור ניכר‬is a ‫!דאורייתא דין‬
Problem: we hold like the ‫רשב”א‬.

Darkei Teshuva (p17) [more ‫ ]מחמיר‬even if there’s Tircha Gedolah than you still need to
take out the ‫איסור‬.

II) Hefsed muat is ‫דשל”מ‬

‫( שו"ת מהרי"ל‬in ‫ )ש”ך‬argues with ‫ רשב”א‬and says a hefsed muat is still a ‫דשל”מ‬.
He also says that this case IS a ‫דשל”מ מדאורייתא‬, b/c waiting 24 hours also creates ‫ביטול‬
automatically, and you then come to a question only ‫מדרבנן‬.
R’ Soleveitchik- wanted to say that today where there is little effort to get water perhaps
kashering is a ‫דשל”מ‬. [R’ Simon felt that the Rav was mistaken about his facts concerning
that time period and the level of effort.]

III) The ‫ היתר‬must come ‫ממילא‬

)102,8( -‫ ש”ך‬quotes the ‫מהרש”ל‬- says that this case is NOT a ‫ דשל”מ‬case anyway b/c
‫ דשל”מ‬must come ‫ ממילא‬and by ‫ הגעלה‬you need to do an action. In this case where the
hefsed is small a person must do ‫ הגעלה‬b/c of ‫ניכר‬.

IV) Throw out a kli

‫ב"ח‬- throws out one kli (like ‫)מהר”ם‬, but we don’t say you have to throw out a kli.

)1(‫טעם כעיקר‬
4 ‫שיעור‬/ Sept 19- (M) Packet 4

1 -‫ )טעם כעיקר‬meat cooked with vegetables and then removed OR 2) when the meatball is
not ‫ בעין‬and isn’t ‫בטל ברוב‬, but still needs 60 b/c of ‫טעם כעיקר‬.

I: ‫משרת‬
Bamidbar (6, 1-3) (p1-2)- a Nazir can’t have grape products or “mishras anavim.”
‫רש”י‬- “Mishras” means- anything that grapes are soaked in for a certain amount of time
b/c of the grape taste in the water.

9
Pesachim 43b-44a (p3) Mishras- is one of the sources of ‫ טעם כעיקר‬b/c you aren’t
consuming the actual grape, only the ‫ טעם‬of the grape. This is considered as if you are
eating the actual ‫איסור‬. The ‫ גמרא‬says that this ‫ דין‬is not only by nazir, but is applied to all
‫ איסורים‬from a kal v’chomer with ‫ ערלה‬and‫( כלאים‬b/c you could’ve said that mishras is
only applied to nazir where mishras is ‫ אסור‬b/c of grapes and that it’s a special ‫ דין‬only by
nazir).

43b- some say mishras is NOT used to learn the ‫ דין‬of ‫טעם כעיקר‬, but ‫ היתר מצטרף‬l’‫איסור‬
(you only get ‫ מכות‬if you eat a ‫ כזית‬of ‫איסור‬, but if you eat half ‫ כזית איסור‬plus half ‫ כזית‬of
kosher food, the ‫ היתר‬food connects with the ‫ איסור‬to make the eater obligated to lashes…
and we don’t hold this way.) This is learned from mishras where the bread is dipped into
thick wine and b/t the wine and the bread you had a ‫כזית‬.

II: ‫בשר בחלב‬

44b- (p5) Those opinions (like R”Ak) that learn ‫ היתר‬ha‫ מצטרף‬from mishras, have to learn
‫ טעם כעיקר‬from a different place, perhaps this is from ‫בשר בחלב‬. The milk goes inside the
meat and is not b’ein so it assumed ‫ טעם כעיקר‬or else there would be no ‫ דין‬of B”B.

Question: Why didn’t the ‫ חכמים‬learn out ‫טעם כעיקר‬from mishras and not b”b?
Answer: B/c B”B is a ‫ חידוש‬that two kosher ingredients cause tref and perhaps you can’t
learn to the rest of the Torah.
Question: By Kelaim we have the same ‫ חידוש‬and we teach from it. [‘‫ תוס‬A”Z]
Answer: B”B- you need milk in the meat only when there is derech bishul. This is NOT
just a ‫ דין‬in ‫טעם‬, but only ‫ טעם‬by bishul.
B”B is then a ‫ חידוש‬and ‫טעם כעיקר‬can’t be prohibited from this.
Question: Therefore, R”Ak can’t learn from mishras or B”B, so how does he learn that
‫טעם כעיקר‬is ‫?אסור מדאורייתא‬
III: Giuli Midian
Reply: R”Ak will learn from the “giuli midian”- ‫ הכשר‬kalim shows that the ‫ טעם‬in the
pot will be m’‫ אסור‬kalim/food.
So why don’t others learn from giuli midian?
Answer: ‫ טעם‬must add a positive taste to the food and not a ‫ טעם פגום‬and after 24 hours
the ‫ טעם‬is not good. Even w/in 24 hours there is some ‫ פגום‬and still the Torah was m’‫אסור‬,
so perhaps we can’t extend this ‫ איסור‬to other ‫דינים‬.
R”A- says it isn’t ‫פגום‬

IV: Chatas
Vayikra (6,11)– “kol asher yigah bahem yikdash”- this only applies when there is a heat
element. The ‫ טעם‬of the ‫ קרבן‬goes into the other food and you must do to the other food
item whatever the ‫ דין‬of the ‫ קרבן‬is.
Zevachim 97b- (p8)- quotes this ‫פסוק‬. The ‫ טעם‬gives it status.

V: Z’roah B’shela
Bamidbar (6,13-20) (p9-10) zroah b’shela: the kohen gets the z’roah and the nazir gets
the rest.

10
98 ‫חולין‬a- the z’roah goes to the kohen, but first you cook it with the rest of the ram and
then the ‫ טעם‬will go into the food of the nazir. The ‫ גמרא‬learns that the ‫ טעם‬is not tref b/c
the ‫ טעם‬is ‫ בטל‬in the volume of the rest of the ram, there is a ‫ מחלוקת‬whether or not it is
‫ בטל‬in 1:60 or 1:100.

Example: if ‫( ערלה‬orange juice) falls into water- we have a ‫רוב‬, but ‫טעם כעיקר‬says that we
still will taste the ‫ ערלה‬in the mixture. We say that until there is 60 times the ‫איסור‬, we
assume that you will taste the ‫ טעם‬even with the ‫ביטול רוב‬.

98 ‫חולין‬b- both 60 ‫ ביטול‬and 100 are from zroah b’shaela.

‘‫תוס‬- says that z’roah b’shela and the ‫ דין‬of 60 is a kabalah and Z”B is only an
ashmachta. The ‫ חכמים‬had a mesorah that most foods lose there taste in 60.

Is ‫ טעם כעיקר‬a ‫ דרבנן‬or a d’eoritta?

‫דרבנן‬
‫ טעם כעיקר‬-‫רש”י‬is a ‫דרבנן‬: by ‫ קדשים (רבא) טעם‬is ‫ אסור‬even 1000:1 ‫מדאורייתא‬, but by ‫חולין‬
and z’roah it is 60:1 ‫ מדרבנן‬because it’s all an asmachta. ‫ רש”י‬says that all the sources of
‫טעם כעיקר‬are only an asmachta. You are only liable for the ‫ דאורייתא‬if you eat the real
thing and not the ‫טעם‬.
60 is also me‫דרבנן‬- b/c the ‫ טעם‬is only ‫ דרבנן‬by even min b’sheano mino. The ‫דאורייתא‬s are
by nazir and kudshim. (It is possible that 60 is ‫דאורייתא‬.)
Shitah Mekubetzes- says that ‫ רש”י‬doesn’t hold that the 60 ‫ שיעור‬is ‫דאורייתא‬.
Rabbi Maybruch- wanted to say that ‫ רש”י‬could say that 60 is a ‫ דאורייתא‬According to
‫ רש”י‬b/c ‫ רש”י‬doesn’t use 60 as a ‫ שיעור‬of ‫טעם‬, but of a separate ‫ שיעור‬of ‫ביטול‬, so ‫טעם‬
‫ כעיקר‬can be a ‫ דרבנן‬and 60 can be a ‫דאורייתא‬.

‫ דאורייתא‬shitahs that are m’chalek:

‫( רא”ש‬p13-4) quotes many ‫ שיטות‬who say ‫טעם כעיקר‬is ‫ דאורייתא‬like R”T.

Nafka Mina b/t ‫ רש”י‬and R”T and his colleagues- in ‫( רשב”א תורת הבית‬p15)- if I am going
to measure a pot and I go to measure it and it spills. The question is whether 60 is a
‫ דאורייתא‬or a ‫דרבנן‬. If there is a 60 ‫ספק‬, this ‫ מחלוקת‬is crucial.

Darchei Moshe- quotes:

Sefer‫תרומה‬- We are noheg like R”T.
Ra’aviah- says that we hold like ‫רש”י‬.
And we hold like R”T.
)98,2( ‫ש”ע‬- says that ‫טעם כעיקר‬is a ‫ דין דאורייתא‬and then 60 is ‫ דאורייתא‬and 60 ‫ ספק‬is
‫ דאורייתא‬le‫חומרא‬.

Chicken and Milk Nishapech

‫ רמ”א‬Toras Chatas (quoting from ‫ רא”ה‬-‫)איסור והיתר‬- chicken and milk mixed and
nishpach: we have a ‫ ספק‬about 60. It would seem to be a ‫ דרבנן‬and should be l’kulah, but
the ‫ רא”ה‬says should be treated as a ‫דאורייתא‬.

11
‫ ש”ך‬- says that the whole ‫ איסור‬is only a ‫ דרבנן‬so how can we say that we should be ‫מחמיר‬
and treat it like a ‫ דאורייתא? ש”ך‬says that in the ‫ איסור והיתר‬he says that chicken is really a
‫ דאורייתא‬and therefore chicken is a ‫( ספק דאורייתא‬and that is what the ‫ רא”ה‬must hold).
)98,6( -‫( ט”ז‬p22)- quotes the ‫ רמ”א‬and says that he won’t throw away this shittah. He says
that the ‫ חכמים‬were giving chizuk to their words, where in many areas the ‫ חכמים‬gave
many extra chumros to chicken as if it was a ‫דאורייתא‬.
Badei HaShulchan- holds like the ‫ש”ך‬, but if you want to be ‫ מחמיר‬like the ‫ ט”ז‬then you
can (tuvoh alav bracha).

Daas Shotim
)98,3( ‫ש”ע‬- what if the mixture spills and you don’t know how to measure, that is not
permitted to be a 60 ‫ ספק‬and we are ‫מחמיר‬.
)98,6( ‫ ט”ז‬calls this a “daas shotim” from the ‫מרדכי‬.

‫ רש”י‬v. R”T l’ma’aseh

Afikei Yam- (p23) quotes the ‫( רא”ש‬Yomah)- a choleh sb”sakanah on Shabbas who
needs to eat meat and either 1) shecht the animal outside or 2) ask the gentile next door
for tref meat. At first glance it seems we would let him eat treif. However, most ‫ראשונים‬
say that you shecht for him b/c 1) ‫ איסורים‬are hutar on shabbas for the choleh (the koach
of the ‫ היתר‬for eating treif is only ‫ דחויה‬while for performing ‫ מלאכה‬is actually ‫ ;הותרה‬so
we slaughter because it’s better to go with the ‫ הותרה‬than the ‫ )דחויה‬and 2) the ‫ ר"ן‬explains
that shechita is only one ‫ לאו‬but eating nevelah is many ‫איסורים‬.

What about Shabbas vs. tref or kosher Chicken soup? Here the question is only ‫טעם‬
which is a ‫ דרבנן‬According to ‫רש”י‬, so he relied upon ‫רש”י‬.
Q) But don’t we hold that ‫טעם כעיקר‬is a ‫ ?דאורייתא‬so he went to R’ Simcha Zelig. R’
Chayim Solovechik said that it was ‫ מותר‬to shecht, but R’ Simcha Zelig remembered the
teshuvah of the Givos O’lom that we don’t hold like R”T l’‫קולא‬. If ‫ רש”י‬is the more
‫ מחמיר‬opinion then we should hold like ‫רש”י‬.

This p’sak is not a ‫ ודאי‬like R”T, but merely l’ ‫חומרא‬, so on Shabbas where R”T
would be a kulah we have to be somech on ‫רש”י‬.

‫(פמ”ג‬p24)- says that we paskin like R”T in vadaos, we will even use it l’kulah.
‫(פמ”ג‬p26) in Shaar Ta’aruvos- asks the question about whether it is le‫ חומרא‬and perhaps
this is what the ‫ רשב”א‬is saying.
Darkei Moshe- the minhag is like R”T (l’‫)חומרא‬.
We generally hold like R”T even l’‫קולא‬.

)2(‫טעם כעיקר‬
5 ‫שיעור‬/ Sept 22- (W) Packet 5

‫( ע”ז‬67a)- ‫כזית בכדי אכילת פרס‬- (like matzoh on pesach)

Pras- is a prusa, a half of a loaf of bread. A loaf can be 6 or 8 eggs, so a pras is 3
(Rambam) or 4 eggs [2 1=‫ כזית‬egg]. This means on Pesach to be yotzeh the mitzvah of

12
matzoh, one would need to eat one ‫( כזית‬1/2 an egg) in the amount of time that a person
can eat 3 eggs worth.

The ‫ גמרא‬will say in addition to 1:2 (‫ )רוב‬and 1:60 (‫)ששים‬, there is also a middle category/
‫ שיעור‬of 1:1-6 is KBAP and 1:7-59 is NOT KBAP. In every 3/4 eggs worth you’ll get a
‫ כזית‬of ‫חלב‬.
‫ע”ז‬h (67a-b) says if it is KBAP and you eat the ‫ תערובת‬it is called “‫ טעם‬umamasho” and
you get malkut. Greater than that, it is ‫ אסור‬but you do NOT get malkut. What does this
mean?
[Avichai: Where is the ‫ דאורייתא‬source for kbap? Does everyone hold of it?
KBAP is a HLM (halacha l’moshe) that teaches that anything eaten w/in the time
required to eat a pras is considered as having been eaten as one act of eating. Everyone
holds of it.]

Three ‫ שיעורים‬of ‫ ביטול‬of ‫תערובת‬:

1) 1:2- ‫רוב‬
2) 2-6 is also a ‫ שיעור‬of ‫ביטול‬, KBAP.
3) 60
There is a different halacha depen‫דין‬g on the category that you are in.

1) ‫רמב"ם‬- Maachalos Asuros (15, 1-6) (p7)-

a) 1:2- ‫ ביטול רוב‬by all cases except ‫מין בשאינו מינו ולח בלח‬.
b) 1:6- by ‫ מין בשאינו מינו ולח בלח‬the “‫ ”רוב‬is 6 or else the mixture is not )‫בטל (מדאורייתא‬
and if a person eats a whole pras then he gets ‫מלקות‬. (This can be an ‫ איסור‬b’ain or ‫טעם‬
‫)כעיקר‬.
c) 1:60- up to 60 from 6 is an ‫ איסור דרבנן‬and you can’t get ‫מלקות‬.
The ‫ גמרא‬in ‫ע”ז‬h means that if you eat the ‫ שיעור‬than you get malkut but in the second
case you do not eat the ‫ שיעור‬so you don’t get malkut.
He holds that in order to get malkus you need to eat the whole pras. If you only eat a ‫כזית‬
of the ‫ תערובת‬you aren’t eating a pure ‫ כזית‬of ‫איסור‬. According to the ‫ רמב"ם‬there is never
‫היתר נהפך לאיסור‬.

2) R’ Chaim Kohen in ‫( רא”ש חולין‬Perek 7) (p11)-

There are 3 categories, but all are ‫ דאורייתא‬until 60 and any ‫ ספק‬is a ‫ספק דאורייתא‬.
a) 1:2- ‫ מין במינו‬chad b’trei works, but not by ‫מין בשאינו מינו ולח בלח‬.
b) 1:6- if the ‫’איסור‬s density is up to 1:6 all you need to eat is one ‫ כזית‬to get ‫ מלקות‬by ‫מין‬
‫ בשאינו מינו ולח בלח‬b/c it is so densely ‫ אסור‬and therefore the ‫ היתר‬is “nishapech l’‫”איסור‬
(vs. ‫ רמב"ם‬who says that you must eat the whole pras).
c) 1:60- is a ‫דאורייתא‬, but the ‫ היתר‬isn’t nishapech therefore there is no ‫( מלקות‬vs. ‫רמב"ם‬-
only ‫)דרבנן‬.

In the first case in A”Z you ate a kezayit of Taa‫רוב‬et which was KBAP but in the second
case it was NOT KBAP. In that case it is ‫ אסור‬but you don’t get malkut.

3) R’ ‫ טעם‬in ‫( רא”ש‬p11)- ‫ טעם כעיקר‬is ‫ דאורייתא‬and all cases are ‫היתר נתהפך להיות איסור‬.
a) 1:2- ‫ מין במינו‬chad b’trei works.

13
b) 1:6- see 1:60
c) 1:60- ‫מין בשאינו מינו ולח בלח‬: even at this stage ‫ היתר נתהפך להיות איסור‬and not only “not
‫ ”!בטל‬Therefore, if one eats one ‫ כזית‬they get ‫ מלקות‬at any point and it is always a ‫ספק‬
‫דאורייתא‬. (R’ Chaim said that you must eat a ‫ כזית‬at less than 1:6.)

A”Z is discussing ‫מין במינו‬b’ain (so there is no ‫ )ביטול‬and you must eat a ‫ כזית‬to get ‫מלקות‬
or else you didn’t eat enough ‫ איסור‬to get ‫מלקות‬. This ‫ גמרא‬has nothing to do with ‫טעם‬
‫ כעיקר‬b/c it is a case of ‫מין במינו‬.
R”T says that A”Z is talking about ‫ מין במינו‬in a case where tref meat mixes with the other
meat, but you see the tref meat and there is no ‫דין ביטול‬.
R’ Yochanan is saying that you must eat a ‫ כזית‬to get ‫מלקות‬. If you eat the mixture by
scooping out and eating the ‫ תערובת‬you won’t get a lot of the ‫( איסור‬jellybeans) and
therefore you won’t be able to eat a ‫ כזית‬of the ‫ איסור‬in k’dai achilas pras. This ‫ גמרא‬has
nothing to do with ‫טעם כעיקר‬and it is ‫מין במינו‬.
[Avichai: Why only a ‫ כזית‬and not the whole pras? B/c the ‫ היתר‬is nishapech.]

4) ‫רש”י‬- you only need a ‫ רוב מדאורייתא‬and the rest is an asmachta (‫ טעם כעיקר‬is a ‫)דרבנן‬
and therefore he’ll learn A”Z as a case of b’ain. The question is whether you can eat the
requisite amount of ‫ איסור‬in the time required to create a ‫חיוב מלקות‬.
The ‫’רמב"ם‬s ‫ דרבנן‬is 6-60 and ‫’רש”י‬s is from 2-60. He will learn the ‫גמרא ע”ז‬h similar to
R’ Tam.

5) ‘‫( תוס‬p3)- quotes R’ Yosef M’Orlians- ‫ טעם כעיקר‬is ‫ מן התורה‬but still don’t get ‫מלקות‬
for eating a ‫כזית‬. Sometimes the Torah makes a prohibition but expresses it a positive way
(for example, the mitzvah of ‫תשביתו‬- the real ‫ איסור‬is to have ‫)חמץ‬. If you hold that the
‫ עיקר‬commandment of ‫ טעם כעיקר‬is from ‫ געולי מדין‬then there is no ‫ לאו‬there and there
wouldn’t be any ‫מלקות‬. Therefore, even on a ‫ כזית‬there won’t be any ‫מלקות‬.
Really 2:1 ‫ דאורייתא‬is ‫ טעם כעיקר‬.‫ בטל‬is ‫ אסור‬from giluy midyan (“taaveru bu’aish”), so if
you eat the ‫ תערובת‬then you are o’ver on an assay and you will NEVER get ‫ מלקות‬b/c it
is an ‫ איסור‬assey.
R”T- argues with the R’ Yosef b/c: the assay is saying, if you delete ‘‫ ’רוב‬based upon ‫טעם‬
then you have an ‫ איסור‬of nevelah.
Like pisulei mikdashim- see ‘‫תוס חולין‬. This is a case of a 1) rule (nivelah), 2) then there
is an exception (‫)רוב‬, 3) and then there is an exception to the exception (giuli midian), so
do we go back to the original rule or do we just have the assay of the 3) exception to the
exception.
[The animal was supposed to be brought as a ‫ קרבן‬and it has the ‫ דינים‬of a ‫קרבן‬, the animal
got a mum and couldn’t be used for a ‫ קרבן‬anymore, then the ‫ פסוק‬says that you can “eat
it.” In this case the original ‫ איסור‬of gizah and avodah still apply even though “tizbach”
doesn’t apply anymore. This is a case of a lav with a ‫ היתר‬and then the original lav still
stays and you can get ‫ מלקות‬for that.]

Baal HaMaor (p28)- the ‫ גמרא‬in Pesachim (44b) says that we learn ‫ טעם כעיקר דאורייתא‬to
kol haTorah from a kal v’chomer from nazir, if nazir that has an ‫ איסור‬that is not an ‫איסור‬
olam or an ‫ איסור הנאה‬that it has ‫טעם כעיקר‬, then all the rest of the ‫ איסורים‬which are l’olam
would also have the ‫ דין‬of ‫טעם כעיקר‬.

14
BUT, you can’t get ‫ מלקות‬from a kal v’chomer, “ein onshim,” therefore you can’t get
‫ מלקות‬for ‫טעם כעיקר‬.
‫רשב”א‬- has a different way to understand this.

‫ רש”י‬is Rambam

Beis Yosef (98) (p4)- claims that ‫ רש"י‬and the ‫ רמב"ם‬are the same. This means that ‫רש"י‬
would also say ‫ לח בלח מין בשאינו מינו‬is an ‫ איסור דאורייתא‬up to ‫כזית בכדי אכילת פרס‬.
Minchas Kohen (p5)- quotes B”Y and argued like we originally said. ‫ רש"י‬would hold
that even ‫ לח בלח מין בשאינו מינו‬by b’ain it is ‫ בטל‬b‫רוב‬.

Rabbenu Tam is R’ Chaim Kohen

Tur (98) (p12)- quotes the shittah of R’ Chaim Kohen and says that Rabbenu ‫ טעם‬said
this shittah, that if you have 1:6 then you get ‫מלקות‬.
B”Y- asks why he quotes R’ Chaim Kohen, and says that they really agree that R”T
would only say nishapech up to KBAP and not like the ‫ רא”ש‬says.
Minchas Kohen (p14-15)- challenges this B”Y b/c R”T says nishapech even with
greater that 1:6.
Vilna Goan- (p17) calls the Tur a taus sofer.

Chatzi Zais
‫ היתר מצטרף‬l’‫איסור‬: if a person eats a half ‫ כזית‬he is not given ‫מלקות‬. If this fell into a
‫ תערובת‬w/o 60 times its status, does the half ‫ כזית‬make the rest of the ‫ כזית אסור‬acc. to
R”T?
According to R”T who holds that ‫ היתר‬is nishapech l’‫ איסור‬even up to 60:1, is there a
svara to say that the ‫ היתר‬is only nishapech if there is 1 ‫ כזית‬of ‫איסור‬, or will it even be
nishapech by ½ zais?

R”T would say that the half ‫ כזית‬can generate an ‫ איסור‬in the rest of the mixture b/c
what is the difference b/t eating one ‫ כזית‬stam or based upon ‫ היתר‬nishapech.

‫( חולין‬98a) (p18)- a ½ zais of fat fell into a ‫ תערובת‬of meat, ‫מר בר רב אשי‬said you will
only need 30 half zaisim to be ‫ מבטל‬it. His father answered him and said: 1) that is zilzul
‫ שיעורים דרבנן‬and 2) chatzi ‫ שיעורים‬are ‫דאורייתא‬.

Chazon Ish (p19) - how can the ‫ גמרא‬call the ‫ איסור‬a chatzi ‫ שיעור‬if R”T would say it is
nishapech b/c then there would be a ‫ שיעור‬shalem!! The fact that the ‫ גמרא‬calls the ½ zais
a chatzi ‫ שיעור‬even though it was in a ‫תערובת‬, means that it does NOT create a ‫ שיעור‬zais
from nishapech [therefore there is no ‫ היתר מצטרף‬l’‫]איסור‬.
Therefore, the C”I says that no Rishon holds of nesapech of a ½ zais up to 60, therefore
R”T can’t say this from the ‫ גמרא‬of ‫חולין‬.
{He says that R”T doesn’t hold of nishapech l’‫ היתר‬up to 60 and R”T is really R’
Chaim K. like B”Y said.}

15
Pesachim (44b) (p20)- brings a ‫ מחלוקת‬b/t the ‫ חכמים‬and R”A in a case where kosher
bread is dipped in thick wine where some of the chatzi ‫ שיעור‬of wine remains b’ain on top
of the bread. R”A says that ‫ היתר‬is ‫ מצטרף‬l’‫ איסור‬even in this case.
‫רש”י‬- says that if the wine would’ve seeped into the bread then all would agree that the
‫ דין‬of ‫ היתר מצטרף‬would apply, b/c ‫ טעם כעיקר‬is a ‫ דאורייתא‬by nazir.
R’ Akiva Eiger (p21)- asks the same question that the C”I asked on ‫רש”י‬, that it seems
from the ‫ גמרא חולין‬that you can NOT say ‫ היתר נתהפך להיות איסור‬by a ½ ‫שיעור‬.

Answer for R”T

‫ חלב‬and Chuluv (milk) and meat- ‫מין במינו‬or ‫?מין בשאינו מינו‬
Vilna Goan says that the ‫ חלב‬and the meat are called ‫מין במינו‬.
Ran (p23)- says that ‫ חלב‬is ‫מין במינו‬with basar.
R”T is talking about min b’sheano mino!!, therefore 1) R”T says that ‫ היתר‬is nishapech
in a case of mb‫שטמ”ק‬and chatzi ‫ שיעור‬and 2) the ‫ גמרא‬in ‫ חולין‬is discussing a case of ‫מין‬
‫במינו‬because it is about ½ zais of ‫ חלב‬falling into basar.

Q2 on R”T) )108( ‫חולין‬- ½ milk and ½ meat is called chatzi ‫שיעור‬, therefore there can’t
be a ‫ שיעור‬of nishapech (b/c a “chatzi ‫ ”שיעור‬is not nishapech).
This case too would be a stirah to R”T who holds chatzi ‫ שיעור‬is nishapech.

Nachalas Yehoshua- (p22) (98) and quotes the Ran who’ll say milk/meat is called ‫מין‬
‫במינו‬. Therefore, b/c R’ Tam is talking about MB”SM and the ‫ גמרא‬in ‫ חולין‬is talking
about ‫מין במינו‬and we can save R’ Tam (quotes ‫)ש”ע‬.

Like C”I
R’ Willig- wanted to give a svara that ‫ טעם כעיקר‬would only be said by a ‫ שיעור כזית‬so
every piece eaten is a carbon copy of that original piece. Chatzi ‫ שיעור‬can’t exceed its
‫שיעור‬. Therefore, anything that you would eat from this mixture would be a copy of
chatzi ‫שיעור‬. This idea is also found in the Pleisi.
‫( ר”ש‬T’vul Yom)- chatzei ‫ שיעור‬only works to be nishapech if it is 1) b’ain and
2) ‫( אחשביה‬you feel that the piece is chashuv to you), therefore, perhaps in a ‫ תערובת‬it
would not be nishapech.
‫( פלתי‬p26)- says that the initial ‫( איסור‬the ½ zais quantity) can never be exceeded.

Like R”T
R’ Soloveitchik- said that the chidush of the Torah is that you have to eat a kezayit with
‫ טעם איסור‬in it even if it began as less than a zais. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what we
started out with originally. This is against the C”I!!

R’ Simon- the ‫ גמרא‬is trying to understand how much ‫ היתר‬is necessary to be ‫ מבטל‬a ½
zais, 60x. This doesn’t mean that the half zais can’t be ‫ מצטרף‬l’‫ !!היתר‬The discussion of
“chatzi ‫ ”שיעור אסור‬is just an additional statement of the ‫ גמרא‬about chatzi ‫ שיעור‬and
doesn’t undermine the potency of chatzi ‫ שיעור‬making ‫ שיעור‬shalem.
Therefore, the ‫ גמרא‬does not impose a difficulty on R’ Tam.

16
‫(פמ”ג‬p27)- says that chatzei ‫ שיעור‬can cause a “nishapech l’‫ ”היתר‬and make it a ‫שיעור‬
shalem.
R’ Simon- You get ‫ מלקות‬for the ‫ טעם‬of tref and not the tref itself, so why should it
matter what causes it.

)3( ‫טעם כעיקר‬

6 ‫שיעור‬/ Sept 26- (M) Packet 6

Pesachim (Mishna-35a) (p20)- there are 5 things that you can make matzoh out of and
these are the 5 things that can become ‫חמץ‬. (There is a question whether ‫ שיבולת שועל‬is
oats.) Rav Shlomo Zalman said that ‫ שיבולת שועל‬probably is considered to be one of the
‫חמשת מיני דגן‬.
[‫רב שכטר‬explains that on a ‫ דאורייתא‬both bread and cake/cookies are the same. Therefore,
if you are ‫ קובע סעודה‬on cake you should make ‫ חז"ל‬.‫ המוציא‬came and changed this for
‫ ברכות נהנין‬but that was only in terms of defining ‫ סעודה‬for ‫ברכות‬.]
Rice is not one of the 5 species and you don’t fulfill your obligation except for R’
Yochanan ben Nuri who says rice can become ‫חמץ‬. (You can’t fulfill your ‫ חיוב‬matzoh
except with a grain that CAN become ‫חמץ‬.) We don’t assume like this ‫דעה‬.
Grerah- the principle that wheat can make the rice able to become ‫ חמץ‬itself.

Mishna )3,7( ‫( חלה‬p1-2)- if you have a dough with wheat and rice flour and you bake the
matzoh. If most is rice dough, but there is still a ‫ נתינת טעם‬of the wheat to the rice, you can
still be yotzeh the mitzvah of matzoh.

Q) What is this based upon?

I. ‫טעם‬
Zevachim (78a)- ‫ טעם כעיקר‬must be ‫ דאורייתא‬from matzoh and therefore any food that has
the ‫ טעם‬of the ‫( עיקר‬wheat) is sufficient to make a ‫ דין‬matzoh as well.
Q) On any shitos that say ‫ טעם כעיקר‬is ‫רש”י( דרבנן‬/Rambam)?
A) The mishna must be saying that you achieve the level necessary to be yotzeh matzoh
w/only ‫ טעם‬of wheat, even though ‫ טעם‬isn’t k’ikkar. It must be that not only the actual
wheat, but even ‫ טעם‬of wheat would be enough for matzoh.(--?--)

II. Grerah
‫ירושלמי חלה‬- Perek Rishon (p7)- rice can’t become ‫ חמץ‬for matzoh, but the rice, when it is
are baked together w/ wheat (which can become ‫ )חמץ‬causes the rice to be able to
become ‫ חמץ‬as well and the ‫ תערובת‬is therefore ‫ראוי לחימוץ‬. What is happening chemically
is that the wheat is transferring the rice into wheat. However, if the wheat is so small that
it’s not NT (‫ )נותן טעם‬then it can’t convert the rice into wheat.
If this is true then you don’t have to come to ‫טעם כעיקר דאורייתא‬.

Q) What is the relationship of the Bavli and ‫ ?ירושלמי‬AND Is it only wheat or any of
the 5 minei dagan?
‫ירושלמי‬- learns from grerah, therefore only limited combinations (using wheat
exclusively) would be able to chemically change the rice to a ‫ חמץ‬producing entity

17
 vs.
Bavli which surely applies with any of the 5 minim b/c it is all about ‫טעם‬.

‫ חמץ( רמב"ם‬U’Matzoh 6,5)- quotes the mishna that if there is ‫ טעם‬dagan in the ‫תערובת‬
(less than 60:1) you are yotzeh. The ‫ רמב"ם‬holds like the ‫( ירושלמי‬grerah) and requires
nesinas ‫טעם‬. The ‫ רמב"ם‬has to hold like the ‫ ירושלמי‬b/c he doesn’t hold of ‫טעם כעיקר‬.

Raavad- argues and says that you are only yotzeh if there is ‫ כזית בכדי אכילת פרס‬of
wheat:orez, but a smaller ratio (1:6+) would not be able to fulfill your obligation. The
Raavad holds of )‫טעם כעיקר (דאורייתא‬, but he doesn’t hold of ‫ היתר‬nis’hapech except by
KBAP therefore that ‫ שיעור‬is needed.

R’ Chaim (Hilchos ‫ חמץ‬B’Matzoh)- Bavli and ‫ ירושלמי‬are complementing each other. ‫טעם‬
‫ כעיקר‬gives the ‫ טעם‬of wheat in the rice, but it’s still not “lechem” until you have grerah. 2
‫) טעם‬1 -‫ דינים‬plus a 2) ‫ דין‬lechem based upon grerah.
Can you make a bracha of ‘al achilas matzoh’ on an apple cooked with matzoh, therefore
you need a ‫ דין‬of grerah as well!
Q) R’ Simon- there is no ‫ כזית‬of matzoh in the apple, we assume l’‫ חומרא‬that the whole
apple was full of the matzoh, but we don’t assume that l’‫!קולא‬

)3,5( ‫( ירושלמי חלה‬p5)- If you have a rice and wheat ‫תערובת‬, does the ‫ חלה‬need to have 43
eggs worth of wheat ‘exclusively’ to be ‫ חייב‬in ‫ חלה‬or do you only need 43 eggs after
grerah with the rice (ie 42 wheat + 2 rice eggs)?

‫( רמב"ן‬Hilchos ‫( )חלה‬p10-13)- discusses the Mishna in ‫ חלה‬and says that you need both
together.
1) ‫ טעם כעיקר‬says that the wheat is not ‫ בטל‬but you don’t have matzoh with it.
2) Once the wheat is not ‫( בטל‬whatever that ‫ שיעור‬is 1:6 or 1:60) THEN you have the ‫דין‬
of gerara.
In gerara, the rice can not exceed the original amount of wheat in the ‫תערובת‬. You
therefore need a ‫ שיעור‬of 43 eggs of wheat to be michayev the rice.

‫ ר’ שמעון‬on the Ramban- You can’t exceed the ‫ שיעור‬of the wheat (ie if the ‫ שיעור‬can’t be
michayev then the ‫ תערובת‬with the wheat can’t be yotzeh in matzoh). W/o a ‫ שיעור‬of ‫חיוב‬
‫ חלה‬it won’t help to michayev the rice.

Specific or abstract ‫ חמץ‬quality

There are 5 types of dagan: is their ability to become ‫ חמץ‬b/c they can potentially become
‫ חמץ‬or are they only able to become ‫ חמץ‬if the ‫ תערובת‬includes the 5 types of dagan plus
water? Does this particular dough need to be able to be ‫ חמץ‬or only that the dough in
abstract can become ‫ חמץ‬should we have HAD water in THIS SPECIFIC MIXTURE?

What is the ‫ דין‬about using mei peros for matzoh?

Some say that it becomes ‫ חמץ‬too fast and you won’t be able to stop it from becoming
‫חמץ‬.

18
Pesachim (36a) (p21)- asks what if you have fruit juice AND water? It says not to use
matzoh made with honey on the first night of pesach.
Rif (p22-3)- it is mistaber like R”A that you can put mei peros with water.
Baal HaMoar- says that the Rif is wrong, there is no proof from duvsha b/c who says
that there was water in that ‫?תערובת‬
Ramban- says there had to be water there. If there is no water then it won’t be ‫ראוי‬
l’chimutz.
Divrei Yechezkel- the ‫ מחלוקת‬b/t the B”HaM and Ramban is whether this type of ‫תערובת‬
(of wheat) must be rayui leday chimutz (B”HaM and therefore as long as it’s possible for
it to become ‫ חמץ‬that is okay) or this particular dough must be able to become ‫ חמץ‬and
you would need grerah (Ramban). He quotes the ‫רא”ש‬.

‫רא”ש‬- (p19)- explains the shitah of the Ramban using the Bavli and the ‫ירושלמי‬:
‫ טעם כעיקר‬says 1:50 isn’t ‫ בטל‬b/c there is a ‫ טעם‬of wheat, but it is like wheat w/o water.
The ‫ דין‬of grerah is needed b/c it is not enough that it has the ‫ טעם‬of wheat, b/c Ramban
holds that this specific dough needs to have water and be able to become ‫חמץ‬. It is not
enough to just have one of the minei dagan w/o water. This is why the Ramban requires
the ‫ דין‬of grerah. (The ‫ רא"ש‬explains that ‫ טעם כעיקר‬is necessary for ‫)גרירה‬

If there is a ‫ מחלוקת‬b/t the Bavli and the ‫ ירושלמי‬there is an important N”M:

Bavli- it can be things other than wheat (and rice), and even oats and rice, but the ‫ירושלמי‬
would only allow wheat (and rice).

)4( ‫טעם כעיקר‬

7 ‫שיעור‬/ Sept 28- (W) Packet 7

Can you eat tref meat that fell into a pot of kosher meat if it is nishapech (it’s a ‫ ספק‬and it
is ‫ ספק דרבנן לקולא‬by ‫?)מין במינו‬

R’ Shechter quotes in Ikvei HaTzon(p2)- the question was that tref meat was put into
the pot of kosher meat for a wed‫דין‬g, it was dished out to the people and we don’t know
whether there is 60. This looks like a simple question of ‫מין במינו‬by nishapach.
R’ Chaim said that you have to go ‫ לחומרא‬in this case b/c the non-kosher meat was not
salted, so not only is it tref, but it also has an ‫ איסור‬of blood (an ‫ איסור‬kares). The blood is
min b’sheano mino which is ‫ טעם כעיקר דאורייתא‬and you have to go ‫לחומרא‬. (Yotzeh min
ha’‫( אסור‬YMI) is ‫אסור מדאורייתא‬.)
-- But, the halacha is that blood which was cooked is only ‫ מדרבנן‬and therefore it should
be a ‫ מדרבנן‬60 ‫ספק‬.
-- R’ Chaim responded that this blood is from a tref animal and the halacha is that
anything that comes from a non kosher animal is also tref. R’ Chaim said that the blood is
only ‫ דרבנן‬by the bishul, but it is also an ‫ איסור‬of trefah on it and therefore an ‫ איסור‬of
trefuss remains on the blood and therefore it remains an ‫איסור דאורייתא‬. The blood from a
trefah is no different from milk from a trefah.

19
‘‫( תוס‬Pesachim 22a) (p3)- says that an animal that dies w/o shechita- there is only an
‫ איסור‬of nivelah on the meat and there is no ‫ איסור‬of ‫ נבלה‬on the dam.

R’ Chaim’s ‫ חידוש‬is that ‫ ’תוס‬case is limited to nevala because nevala happens after death.
Our case is a tref case which happens when the animal is alive, therefore the blood also
has an ‫ איסור‬of YMI. After death there is no ‫ איסור‬of YMI.

Pesachim (22a)- Chizkiah and R’ Abahu- R’ Abahu says every time it says “‫ ”לא תאכל‬it
is also an ‫ איסור‬of ‫הנאה‬. What about nivelah?
‫גיד הנשה‬- says “lo tochal,” but it is ‫ מותר‬for ‫ הנאה‬b/c it is from a nivelah and nivelah is
‫ מותר‬b’‫הנאה‬.
Blood- it uses “es ha’aretz tishpechnu kamayim”- which is a passuk that says that blood
is like water. Just as water is ‫ מותר‬b’‫ הנאה‬so too blood should be ‫מותר‬.

‘‫תוס‬- why don’t we learn blood from nivelah if niveilah also is ‫ מותר‬b’‫( הנאה‬i.e. why from
water)?
A) From here it seems that blood is not a part of the nivelah.

Sources for ‫ איסור‬Yotzeh

1) Vayikra (11,4) and Devarim (14,7-8) say that the camel (gamal) is ‫אסור‬.
Bechoros (6b)- why do you need 2 times: A) one is camel from camel and one is camel
from a cow. A2) ‫חכמים‬: one is to say the camel itself is ‫ אסור‬and the second is for the milk
of the camel.

2) Vayikra (11,15)- “‫ ”בת היענה‬the daughter of the ostrich-why?

‫( חולין‬64b)- the “‫ ”בת‬is the egg of the ostrich even when it is edible and it didn’t become
an animal and just like the ostrich is ‫אסור‬, also the egg is ‫אסור‬.

3) Vayikra (11,31)- “‫”אלה הטמאים לכם‬-

‫( חולין‬112b) (p14)- this comes to add the “‫ קיפה‬,‫ רוטב‬,‫ ”ציר‬of the treff animal (ie. the stuff
that oozes out of the animal).
These three ‫ פסוקים‬show us that ‫ איסור יוצא‬is ‫דאורייתא‬, but all the ‫ פסוקים‬are from ‫איסורי‬
‫ עשה‬.

Is it like the original ‫ איסור‬or a separate ‫איסור‬- is there ‫ מלקות‬or an ‫ איסור‬asseh for
these ‫דאורייתא‬s?
‫( חולין‬64a)- if the egg forms (‫ )רקמה‬an embryo then you get‫ מלקות‬, if not then you don’t
get ‫מלקות‬.

‘‫תוס‬- Q) Yozeh min ‫אסור‬- why does it need to be an embryo, it is still yozeh min ha’‫אסור‬
even if it doesn’t become an embryo? [From ‘‫ ’תוס‬question it seems that the ‫ איסור‬yozeh
seems to be the same as the animal itself and there would be ‫ מלקות‬generally by
anything that is yozeh…]
A) The halacha is that a ‫ שרץ‬can’t be eaten and it is also m’‫טמא‬. By tumah of ‫ שרץ‬it needs
‫ ;רקמה‬therefore the ‫ גמרא‬is saying here, that this is why ‫ שרץ‬requires ‫ רקמה‬to get ‫ מלקות‬in
this case.

20
‫רמב"ם‬- says that there is NO ‫ מלקות‬on yozeh min ha’‫אסור‬. He says that ‫ רקמה‬makes it
into a ‫ שרץ‬on its own right so therefore it gets ‫מלקות‬, but generally you don’t get ‫מלקות‬
from ‘yotzeh.’ (You only get ‫ מלקות‬on the meat itself ad not on the ‫)חלב‬

)‫חוות דעת (הנתיבות‬-

Q1) Why do you need a special limud of “‫ ”הטמאים‬to show that a “‫ ”יוצא מן האסור‬is ‫אסור‬
‫דאורייתא‬, why don’t we use ‫?טעם כעיקר‬
2) What do those who say ‫ טעם כעיקר דרבנן‬do with these pesukim? Do we consider them
‫?אסמכתות‬
A) ‫ טעם כעיקר‬and ‫ יוצאי מן האסור‬are different (perhaps some YMI can be w/o taste) and
therefore ‫ טעם כעיקר‬can’t be used to teach me YMI.
A2) YMI seems to be worse that ‫טעם כעיקר‬, so the ‫ פסוק‬by YMI wouldn’t automatically
include ‫טעם כעיקר‬.

Bechoros (6b)- how do we know that we can drink milk generally? A) Milk seems to be
formed from the blood and B) it is “aver min ha’chai” by yozeh?
-- Perhaps b/c ‫ בשר בחלב‬is ‫ אסור‬implies that chalav is ‫מותר‬.
-- No, perhaps ‫ בשר בחלב‬adds on the ‫איסור הנאה‬.

Human milk
‫רמב"ם‬- human flesh: eating the meat of a person doesn’t get ‫ מלקות‬from “‫לא תאכל‬,” but we
know it from “‫ ”זאת החיה אשר תאכלו‬that it is an‫ איסור עשה‬. This ‫ פסוק‬implies that you can
only eat these animals and not other animals (or humans).
‫( מגיד משנה‬p17)- perhaps this is why you can have milk from a woman, b/c it is not an
‫איסור לאו‬, but only an ‫ איסור עשה‬. The ‫ איסור עשה‬is only on the flesh and not on‫ יוצא‬. (‫אב‬:
That would be why you wouldn’t need a separate‫ פסוק‬to say that human milk is‫ מותר‬.)

Not everyone agrees with R’ Chaim

R’ Chaim-by a treif animal the blood is an ‫איסור יוצא‬, but NOT a nevala.

‫( פמ”ג‬p20)- says that bishul will take off the ‫ איסור‬of blood, but not the other ‫ איסור‬that is
on the blood (like R’ Chaim).

‫( רמב"ם‬p18)- if you cook meat with chalav of a dead animal, you don’t get ‫ מלקות‬b/c you
are only o’ver if it is milked when it was alive. Milk that was in the animal when
shechted is only a ‫דרבנן‬.

‫(פמ”ג‬p21) (intro to Melicha) - even though the ‫ רמב"ם‬paskins that it is not an ‫איסור‬
‫ דאורייתא‬of ‫בשר בחלב‬, he says that it is nivelah and it is against the R’ Chaim. The ‫ רמב"ם‬is
only saying that you are patur on the ‫ איסור‬of ‫בשר בחלב‬, but you are still o’ver on eating
nivelah. (vs. R’ Chaim) He would say that even a nivelah is ‫אסור‬, while the R’ Chaim
would say that it is ‫מותר‬.
Bach (p19)- says that you don’t get ‫ מלקות‬from ‫בשר בחלב‬, but from nivelah. (v. R’
Chaim).

21
Neos Yaakov- quotes the ‫פמ”ג‬and says that the tref animal created the milk and that is
why it is tref, but once the animal is dead (‫ )נבלה‬it can’t create an ‫איסור‬- supports R’
Chaim.
‘‫[ תוס‬6 ‫ביצה‬b] (p24)- if there are eggs in the rooster which is a trefah, the reason that the
eggs are ‫ אסור‬is b/c the chicken is a trefah and not b/c of ‫( נבלה‬R’ Chaim bases himself
on this).
R’ Chaim Ozer- is against R’ Chaim

Shnapps on Pesach
Nodeh B’Yehuda (- had a question about importing shnapps on Pesach (kosher l’pesach)
w/o ‫חמץ‬. They would ship it in from Amsterdam and ‫ גויים‬would sell it to the Jews. The
‫ גויים‬only wanted to put on one seal on it instead of two. Is a ‫ ספק‬of ‫?דאורייתא‬
-- The ‫ חמץ‬shnapps and the non-‫ חמץ‬shnapps tasted differently, so it would never be ‫רוב‬
‫חמץ‬, but perhaps they would put in some ‫ חמץ‬and not ‫רוב‬. Therefore, if the ‫ איסור‬was only
‫ דרבנן‬then we can rely b’‫ ספק‬on one seal.
[Avichai: Why isn’t this a case of MB‫שטמ”ק‬b/c the shnapps tasted differently?]

By tref milk the poskim write that one seal is good enough b/c the tref milk is
discernible so the ‫ גויים‬won’t mix a lot of it into the mixture. If the issue is ‫ דרבנן‬then one
seal would be fine.
[Avichai: How can we tell the difference b/t the milk (trefah and regular)?]

Who says it’s a ‫ ?דרבנן‬Maybe it’s MB‫שטמ”ק‬and it’s a ‫?דאורייתא‬

A) Possibility I: N”B says that milk is YMI. The only chashash of the milk is that they
put in some tref milk. One seal is ok because the only problem with tref milk is YMI
which is a ‫דין דאורייתא‬. {Perhaps by shnapps as well it would be fine to only have one
seal…?}

B) Possibility II: Rambam- says there is no ‫ מלקות‬by milk. ‫ טעם כעיקר דאורייתא‬is only said
by maachalot asurot if there is an ‫ איסור‬lav. But, by milk perhaps you don’t say ‫טעם כעיקר‬
‫ דאורייתא‬b/c milk is not a lav, but an ‫ איסור‬yozeh. (This would be b/c all the sources of ‫טעם‬
‫כעיקר‬are by laavim.) This is why you can only have one seal (by an ‫ איסור‬yozeh).
Conclusion of Rambam: That is by milk, however, by ‫ חמץ‬we say ‫ טעם כעיקר‬is ‫דאורייתא‬
and therefore by the shnapps it is no good! Therefore, you can’t bring a proof to ‫חמץ‬
from milk b/c it is an ‫ איסור‬lav and not yozeh and therefore one seal is not enough.

Chasam Sofer (p29)- perhaps there is an ‫ איסור‬for ‫ גויים‬to eat eggs or milk b/c of aver
min hachai. Who says the ‫ היתר‬of “‫ ’ארץ זובת חלב ודבש‬is for ‫ גויים‬and perhaps it should be
‫ אסור‬for them? (This is the ‫ היתר‬for Jews) This would then be a “lifne e’ver.”
A) Even though the ben noach doesn’t have the ‫היתר‬, they also don’t have the ‫ איסור‬of
‫ יוצא‬for ‫אבר מן החי‬.
-- The Chasam Sofer says that “‫ ”הטמאים‬was only said by Jews and not by ‫גויים‬, so it
should be ‫מותר‬.

‫ מנחת חינוך‬says that dairy products are ‫ מותר‬for ‫ גויים‬because there was never an ‫איסור‬.

22
‫( פלתי‬p32)- says that “‫ ”הטמאים‬was only written for Jews and not ‫גויים‬.
Q) What about Avraham giving “milk and meat” to the angels and he gave them ‫אבר מן‬
‫?החי‬
A) Therefore it must be that it is not ‫ אבר מן החי‬and they don’t have the ‫ איסור‬of yozeh.

‫ביטול יבש ביבש‬

8 ‫שיעור‬/ Oct 10- (M) Packet 8

Oneg ‫( יו”ט‬p1)-
Q) If you have tzitzis with ‫ רוב‬being l’shma and some are not l’shma (or 3 matzos in front
of you and one isn’t baked l’shma), is one of them a ‫ ספק דאורייתא‬and ‫ אסור‬or is it ‫?בטל‬
This seems to be a case of ‫יבש ביבש חד בתרי בטל‬.
A) ‫ ביטול‬is only to take off an ‫איסור‬, but ‫ ביטול‬can’t be used to give an object a positive
attribute (like l’shma) when that positive attribute is needed.

Raayot used by Oneg ‫ יו”ט‬to prove this:

I. ‫רוב מיתות בי"ד‬

‫( חולין‬11a) (p4)- ‘‫( תוס‬R”T) asked a question- there are 4 misos b”d (and we are assuming
that ‫ שריפה‬is the harshest in this case) and we have in front of us 3 ‫ שריפה‬and 2 ‫סקילה‬
people and we don’t know who is supposed to get which punishment. (To give everyone
‫ שריפה‬it’s not fair to the ‫ סקילה‬people and vice versa)
Q) Why don’t you follow the ‫ רוב‬and give everyone ‫ שריפה‬even though it is the more‫חמור‬
opinion?
A) When we follow ‫ רוב‬in ‫ דיני נפשות‬it is only to be ‫ מחייב‬people in the death penalty. We
use‫ רוב‬to say that the person he killed wasn’t a trefah, but here we know already he’s ‫חייב‬
‫ מיתה‬therefore ‫ רוב‬can’t say WHICH ‫ מיתה‬he’s‫( חייב‬a more positive attribute).

This is a strange chiluk? Oneg Y”T says that to give someone ‫ שריפה‬they must need a
positive ‫ גמר דין‬that he’s‫ ביטול ברוב‬. ‫ חייב שריפה‬can’t give him that maaleh which he never
had. Therefore this is a proof for Oneg Y”T.

‫( עץ ארז‬p5-6)- ANSWER FOR R”T- we have a concept of ‫ רוב‬and ‫ עדים‬in the Torah. You
need ‫ עדים‬on the ‫ מעשה‬that happened (the details); the ‫ רוב‬will only tell me that the person
who was shot was a real bar kayamah. By ‫ סקילה‬and ‫שריפה‬- we are using the ‫ רוב‬to define
the‫ מעשה‬that was done (i.e. did this person do ‫ חילול שבת‬or‫ ) בת כהן שזנתה‬and that requires
‫ רוב‬.‫ עדים‬can only be used to define the facts that are clear.

Oneg ‫יו”ט‬- this individual needs a gmar ‫ דין‬for ‫ שריפה‬to get ‫שריפה‬, and ‫ רוב‬doesn’t give
him the “‫ ”גמר דין‬for the ‘worse punishment’ so the ‫ בי"ד‬can only give the lesser
punishment.

II. ‫קרבן פסח‬

Pesachim (88b) (p7)- 5 animals were brought as a ‫ קרבן‬pesach and the skin is separated
from the meat and the skins are put in one place and the animal meat in another place.

23
They then find a mum on one of the skins and makes it a trefah and we don’t know which
is the trefah.
What happens to the 5 animals? You have to burn them all b/c of ‫ ספק‬trefah and still all
the people are patur from pesach sheni (if the pasul came after the ‫ זריקת הדם‬b/c at that
point it was ‫ מותר‬to eat the animal).

Q) Why isn’t this ‫?חד בתרי בטל‬

Oneg ‫יו”ט‬- says that this is also proof to his shittah. Here the ‫ ביטול‬can’t make something
a kosher ‫ קרבן‬and shechted l’shem ‫קרבן‬.
(Chavas Da’as (p8) is also sensitive to this question).

This may be a ‫ מחלוקת‬b/t ‫’תוס‬/‫ רש”י‬in Zevachim

Zevachim (78a) (p9)- If a person chews piggul, ‫ טמא‬and noser together then he isn’t
chayev b/c while you are chewing it becomes ‘aino ‫ ’ניכר‬and we don’t know which ‫איסור‬
is ‫ בטל‬in the other ‫איסור‬. The problem will be that we can’t give a ‫ התראה‬b/c the smaller
part (i.e. piggul) will take on the ‘name’ of the larger ‫( איסור‬ie noser) and will be called
noser (and you ate a 3/4[ ‫ כזית‬noser and ¼ piggul[), but b/c we don’t know which item
was ‫בטל‬, we can’t be m’chayev at all.

‫ רש”י‬explains this is because when you are chewing the meat, at any given time you
won’t be chewing equal pieces and one will be ‫בטל‬. You are definetly eating a ‫ כזית‬of one
the ‫ איסורים‬and would be chayev, but you don’t know which one you are ‫חייב‬.
‫ ’תוס‬says how are you ‫ חייב‬at all? Each piece will lose its ‫ שם איסור‬and it is NOT
miztareph to the other ‫איסור‬.
‫ רש”י‬and ‫ ’תוס‬are arguing whether ‫ ביטול‬simply takes off the ‫ איסור‬or can it actually do
something positive and make it into another ‫איסור‬.

YB”Y ‫ דאורייתא‬and Derbanan

‫( חולין‬96b) (p10)- ‫ גידים‬are cooked together with other ‫( גידים‬if you recognize it you must
take it out or else it is ‫)אסור‬.
‫( חולין‬99b-100a) (p11)- what about ‫ רוב? בריה‬is different. The ‫ ראשונים‬say from here that
all you need is ‫רוב‬.
‘‫ תוס‬says that ‫ רוב‬is all you need even ‫( מדרבנן‬yb”y ‫)מין במינו‬.
‫( ר"ן‬p12)- ‫מין במינו‬YB”Y only requires ‫ רוב‬even ‫ מדרבנן‬and the ‫ ראב"ד‬is wrong as the‫גמרא‬
in ‫ חולין‬implies (see B”Y 109,1)
‫ראב"ד‬- says that you need 60 ‫ מדרבנן‬even for ‫מין במינו‬. When the ‫ גמרא‬says “‫ ”בטל ברוב‬it
means “60,” even though this is not the ‫פשוט פשט‬. The ‫ גמרא‬wasn’t discussing the actual
‫ שיעור‬in this case.

YB”Y ‫מין בשאינו מינו‬

Normally it will be ‫ניכר האיסור‬, but this is a case where it is not clear.
)109,8( ‫( ש”ך‬p19)- Defines possible cases of yb”y ‫מין בשאינו מינו‬-
1) ‫ שוחט‬shechted three animals and one of the three knifes that were used was ‫ פגום‬and the
‫ שוחט‬doesn’t know which animal he used the ‫ פגום‬knife on.
2) Ground up and we can’t see it
3) Looks the same and has a different taste

24
‫ראב”ד‬- says even ‫מין במינו‬requires 60, surely by this case.
Sefer Ha‫תרומה‬- says that we require 60 b/c you may come to cook the mixture and then
you’ll have an ‫איסור לח בלח‬.
‫איסור והיתר‬- is not happy with the reasoning of the Sefer Ha‫תרומה‬. You can taste each one
and taste the difference and STILL not know which is ‫אסור‬, so it is like ‫ ניכר‬ha’‫איסור‬. But,
when there is 60 it would be too hard to find so it’s ‫מותר‬.
‫( ש”ע‬p19)- brings down the Baal ‫ תרומה‬saying that it requires 60.

YB”Y by an ‫איסור דרבנן‬

‫( שערי דורא‬p16)- Stirah in the ‫ שערי דורא‬based on his 2 comments:
1) By an ‫ איסור דרבנן‬all you need is 1:1 to be able to eat it, but it should be given to two
people.
2) ‫חד בתרי‬- give to two people, a Jew and a ‫גוי‬.
The )109,9( ‫ ש”ך‬brings down the stirah in the 1:1 )1 :‫ שערי דורא‬vs. 1:2 and 2) 2 Jews vs.
Jew and ‫גוי‬.
1) is discussing ‫מין במינו‬yb”y
2) is discussing ‫ מין בשאינו מינו‬and we don’t want the Jews to know that there was a
different taste and perhaps the ‫ גוי‬will eat the tref.

Additional on the ‫ רא”ה‬/‫מחלוקת רשב”א‬

‫פרי חדש‬: What is the ‫ דין‬of a tref kli that was placed back into the drawer before ‫?הגעלה‬
‫ בטל‬-‫רשב”א‬
‫רא”ה‬- not ‫ בטל‬and nikar ha’‫איסור‬

What about by a case of ‫ בשר בחלב‬where the meat kli mixed into milk utensils?
‫ פרי חדש‬says that there is a chiluk b/t a treff knife and with a milk knife that fell into the
meat knives. The ‫ רשב”א‬wouldn’t say that the knife was ‫ בטל‬when it comes to B”B. In
this case it is ‫ ניכר‬ha’‫ איסור‬b/c you are going to serve string beans and they are going to
taste like milk so it is ‫ ניכר האיסור‬and therefore it is a problem.
You can only be makil when it comes to ‫מין במינו‬and not if they have different tastes in
the cutlery.

‫טעימת קפילא‬
9 ‫שיעור‬/ Oct 31- (M) Packet 9
R’ Rosensweig- Pilpul is defined as assuming that everyone is assuming everyone else’s
assumptions.

‫( טעימת קפילא‬TK)- the cases where we rely upon a ‫גוי‬ish chef in a case of ‫ מין בשאינו מינו‬to
determine the taste of the food.

1) What is the dichotomy b/t TK and the ‫ שיעור‬of 60 which we have assumed as
the standard of ‫ביטול‬, how do they work together?

)‫( פמ”ג (שפתי דעת‬P20)- says that there are 4 shitos that explain the dichotomy:

25
 A) ‫( רש"י‬97 ‫חולין‬a) (P2)- ‫ קפילא‬is a ‘‫ ’חומרא‬that is required beyond the standard of 60.
‫ רש"י‬required that the ‫ איסור‬be ‫ מבוטל בששים‬and then also requires a ‫ קפילא‬to taste
the mixture in any case where it is possible. ( ‫קפילא‬is an added component)
B) ‘‫( תוס‬98 ‫חולין‬a)- says that ‫ קפילא‬can be used as an additional avenue to 60, the Jew
can either use 60 or ‫קפילא‬.
C) ‫( רמב"ן‬P7)- says that 60 is generally required, but ‫ קפילא‬is utilized in a case where
the piece of tref was removed from the pot and we have a ‫ ספק‬how much of the
‫ איסור‬actually was spread into the kosher mixture which is NOT 60 times the
actual ‫איסור‬. In this case, the ‫ רמב"ן‬allows a ‫ קפילא‬to clarify whether in this case
the ‫ טעם‬that was emitted was ‫בטל‬.
D) ‫( רמב"ם‬p5) as explained by the B”Y (p6)- a ‫ קפילא‬is always used (l’‫ חומרא‬and
l’kulah), and only when a ‫ קפילא‬CAN’T be used is 60 used. This is why the ‫רמב"ם‬
uses only the language of “‫נותן טעם‬,” and not 60.
‫פמ”ג‬says that the ‫ מחבר‬holds like the ‫רמב"ם‬.
‫רמ”א‬- says that we do not ask ‫ גויים‬to taste the food today in cases of ‫תערובת‬.

2) Do you need a chef (davka) or is any ‫ גוי‬able to taste the food and help in the
psak?

There are 2 possible reasons to specifically require a ‫ גוי‬chef and not a regular ‫גוי‬:
1) The chef is less likely to lie and has more at stake if he would lie
2) The chef’s palate is what we require and therefore only a chef will do.
A) )‫( רא”ה (בדק הבית‬p8)- only a ‫ קפילא‬can be used even w/o )‫ מסל"ת‬:‫מסיח לפי תומו (להלן‬.
(‫ תוס‘ )ד"ה סמכינן‬- the chef can be believed b/c he will fear his job if he lies in food
matters, “d’lo merah chezkaso.” [He does not discuss a regular ‫גוי‬.]
B) ‫[ תורת הבית( רשב”א‬4,1,16a]) (p8-9)- SHITTAH I: says that a regular ‫ גוי‬can be used
by ml”t, but a ‫ קפילא‬can be told why he’s being asked. [‫ גוי‬doesn’t need culinary
school.]
C) ‫רשב”א‬- SHITTAH II: ‫( רא”ש‬p3)- requires a ‫ קפילא‬and ml”t.
D) ‫ רמב"ם‬According to ‫ב"י‬- doesn’t require ‫ קפילא‬OR ‫(מסל"ת‬opposite of ‫)רא”ש‬. Any
‫ גוי‬can be used and he can be told why he is being asked. [‫ קפילא‬means “doing a
maaseh ‫קפילא‬.”]
‫ש”ע‬- is like ‫ רשב”א‬I

R’ Perlman (Torah V’Daas Journal)- regarding the water issue: he says that ‫טעם‬/vision
only require the acuity of normal people and not an expert. The question is whether ‫ טעם‬is
the same as sight using the ‫’רשב”א‬s first opinion here.

‫רבינו גרשום‬in ‫( ש”ך‬p17)- if a ‫ קפילא‬is being used b/c of “d’lo merah,” then the Jew
should not be allowed to use ‫מסל"ת‬, b/c the chef will have more of an excuse for having
been mistaken about the existence of the ‫ טעם איסור‬when he is being asked ‫ מסל"ת‬and not
as “the chef.” [IE ‫ רשב”א‬I]
Therefore, anyone who requires ‫ מסל"ת‬and ‫ קפילא‬must hold that the reason we require the
chef is for his “taste expertise” and we are afraid that he is going to lie.

26
‫רע”א‬- tries to give an explanation of the ‫ רמ”א‬using ‫’רבינו גרשום‬s pshat:
We generally try to be follow all ‫שיטות‬, but in these cases of ‫תערובת‬, using ‫ קפילא‬and
‫ מסל"ת‬is a ‫ קולא‬According to ‫רבינו גרשום‬b/c then we can’t hold of “d’lo merah.”
Therefore, the ‫ רמ”א‬does not hold of ‫ קפילא‬at all.
[Perhaps there can be “d’lo merah” even by ml”t by a ‫קפילא‬. This is also a ‫ חומרא‬and a
‫ קולא‬According to the ‫ רמב"ם‬who says to use the kefeilah bein l’‫ קולא‬bein l’‫חומרא‬.]

3) Why do we give a ‫“ גוי‬ne’emanus” in a case of testimony in the area of ‫איסור‬

‫[ ?והיתר‬Bechoros- says that a person who is “chashud” in a certain area can’t
testify in that area, so how can a ‫ גוי‬be used for kashrus?]

‫מנחות מג‬. (p23) is a source of ‫חזקתו אומנתו‬. The ‫ גמרא‬says if you buy a ‫ טלית‬from a Jew
then its fine. If you buy it from a Non-Jew who is a ‫תגר‬/merchant then it’s also fine, but if
he’s a ‫ הדיוט‬then it is ‫אסור‬.
‫ רש"י‬explains the ‫ תגר‬is ‫חזקתו אומנתו‬. Our ‫ ראשונים‬take this idea to explain ‫קפילא‬.
‫רבינו גרשום‬explains this ‫ גמרא‬NOT based on ‫ חזקתו אומנתו‬but rather that a ‫ תגר‬is OK
because the likelihood is that he bought it from a Jew, while a regular ‫ גוי‬could’ve made
the ‫ טלית‬himself.

[R’ Moshe- the ‫ אומן‬might NOT be believed b/c of “lo merah” b/c R’ Moshe says that
some ‫ ראשונים‬don’t hold of the idea of ‫ חזקתו אומנתו‬or the concept of “lo merah”
(According to ‫ !)רבינו גרשום‬Therefore, perhaps the ‫ רמב"ם‬might not hold of “lo merah” (
‫ )חזקתו אומנתו‬and there can be a problem by stores that print their ingredients and we have
no right to trust them.
‫( ט”ז‬Siman 20-Hilchos Tzitzis)/ ‫רמ”א‬-

R’ Chaim Ozer- dealt with an agunah whose husband went to Europe and the French
defense agency printed that he was dead in the government records. R’ Chaim says that
this is a ‫ חזקה‬g’murah from ‫ מנחות‬and ‘‫ תוס חולין‬on a ‫ דאורייתא‬level.
R’ Yitzchak Elchanan- also used government records are ne’emanus for agunos. (This
is like the ‫ רא”ה‬and not ‫ רשב”א‬I)??]

BB”K (p15)- if there was a question about who owns bees, R’ Yochanan ben Brokah
says that a woman or a child can say that the bees came from one field even though they
aren’t really ‫ נאמן‬about ‫דין‬ei mamanos?
Q) Are women and children “‫”?בני עדות‬
A) The ‫ עדות‬that we are talking about is when the women/children were talking (‫)מסל"ת‬
and they said where the bees came from. ‫ מסל"ת‬is used by people who aren’t usually . ‫נאמן‬
‫ מסל"ת‬only works for eidut isha for aguna. What about the bees case? It’s different
because it’s only a kinian ‫דרבנן‬. So, ‫ מסל"ת‬only works by ‫ דרבנן‬and ‫עדות אשה‬.

How can ‫ מסל"ת‬work by a regular ‫ גוי‬where it’s a ‫ דאורייתא‬According to the ‫!?רשב”א‬

I) ‫( תרומת הדשן‬p16)-
Q) According to the ‫ ראשונים‬that say that 1) any ‫ גוי‬can be used + 2) ‫ – מסל"ת‬here the
question is a ‫ דאורייתא‬issue so how can they be believed in this case?

27
A) An egg that was born on ‫ט‬:‫ יו‬can’t be eaten 1) b/c it is 3 ,‫) נולד‬2 ,‫ )מוקצה‬is an ‫איסור‬
‫דרבנן‬. If the egg was born on ‫ יו"ט‬Sunday the egg is ‫ אסור מדאורייתא‬b/c it was finished on
Shabbas and the ‫ הכנה‬is from Shabbas for ‫יו"ט‬.
--) Eggs that are purchased from ‫ גויים‬on Sunday ‫ יו”ט‬have this problem as well. The ‫ גוי‬is
believed to say that the egg was not born on ‫יו”ט‬. This is also ‫ מסל"ת‬about a ‫!דאורייתא דין‬
Q) We should also trust ‫ גויים‬in the ‫ גמרא‬BB”K (bees)?
A) ‫ קפילא‬is different b/c he is an ‫אומן‬, so he can be used even on a ‫ דאורייתא‬level.
Q) What about the ‫ רשב”א‬who says that even a regular ‫ גוי‬can be used?
A) TH”D says that the ‫ רשב”א‬must hold that ‫טעם כעיקר‬is a ‫ דרבנן‬and therefore the regular
‫ גוי‬can be used.
Q) But we know that the ‫ רשב”א‬does not hold that ‫טעם כעיקר‬is a ‫?דרבנן‬

II) ‫( ש”ך‬p17/19)- quotes TH”D- the ‫ גמרא‬in BB”K says that we can only use ‫ גויים‬by
‫ איסורי דרבנן‬and by ‫( עגונות‬on a ‫ דאורייתא‬level) (for a special reason-?), but the ‫ מחבר‬and
‫ רשב”א‬definitely hold that ‫טעם כעיקר‬is a ‫ דאורייתא‬like R”T, so how can we allow a stam ‫גוי‬
to do ‫?עדות‬
A) A ‫ גוי‬can be believed when it is a “milsa d’avidah l’igluei” (a circumstance where the
Jew will be able to determine whether the ‫ גוי‬was lying when he tastes the mixture after
the ‫ גוי‬tells him whether he tasted the ‫איסור‬.) This is different from other cases where the
‫ גוי‬can’t be caught lying right away.
-- Agunos issues are also a “milsa d’avidah l’igluei.”

III) ‫( ט”ז‬p17)- the area of ‫ תערובת‬doesn’t require ‫ עדות גמורה‬therefore ‫ מסל"ת‬will help.

IV) ‫חוות דעת‬-This case is ‫ עדיף‬over ‫ עדות אשה‬because it’s ‫מתברר מיד‬.

‫טעימה באיסורין‬
10 ‫שיעור‬/ Nov 2- (W) Packet 10

‫טעימה‬- means that you put something in your mouth and you spit it out, why does a ‫גוי‬
need to do it, perhaps a Jew should be able to do it. Is it ‫ הנאה‬when the food is it your
mouth? It could be that to just taste a little bit won’t do anything or it could be that even
to taste a little bit is ‫ אסור‬even though it would be a useful test.
There are 2 types of ‫טעימה‬:
1) ‫טעימה בלשון‬-you just put it on your tongue for a quick taste
2) ‫טעימה בפה‬-you do more than this even (chewing is involved)
Which ‫ טעימה‬would be ‫ ?אסור‬Also, why is ‫?טעימה אסור‬
1) ‫גזירה שמא יאכל יותר ממה שמותר‬
2) ‫חצי שעור אסור מן התורה‬-usually this is a ‫ דין‬in ‫כמות‬. However, there is also an idea of ‫חצי‬
‫ שעור אסור‬in )‫איכות (קרבה בחיבוק ונישוק לאשה שאסורה וגם חמץ נוקשה בפסח‬.

‫חולין קיא‬: (p1)- if you have a pot where meat was salted, the problem is that the blood that
came out of the meat is now on the bottom of the pot. (The blood is cold, but it is salty
which can be like ‫[ רותח‬heat/roasting]; liquid ‫[ איסור‬blood] where ‫ היתר‬is soaked in it,

28
becomes ‫אסור‬- Shmuel). Now you can’t use the pot b/c it had salty blood in it. Therefore,
you have to break a pot of ‫ חרס‬that can’t be kashered.
a) Salting- is like heat
b) Soaking- ‫ היתר‬in an ‫ איסור‬liquid makes it ‫ אסור‬like cooking.
c) ‫דבר חריף‬- a food with a sharp taste (radish) cut with a knife of ‫ איסור‬can become ‫אסור‬
even if it is cold b/c the sharpness is like heat.
If the radish was cut by a meat knife then the Jew should taste the radish to see if it tastes
like meat and if it doesn’t then you can put it into milk. The Jew can taste the food when
the food is kosher for the Jew.
In a case where the knife was of ‫ איסור‬you can give the radish to a ‫ קפילא‬to taste the
radish and determine whether it had the taste of the ‫( איסור‬i.e. blood), but the Jew is
not allowed to taste the food b/c it is a ‫ ספק‬davar ‫אסור‬.

)96,1( -)‫( ב"ח (ד"ה אסיקנא‬p2)- quotes the ‫מהרש”ל‬: there are many times that you get meat
from the butcher and you don’t know if he salted it; you are not allowed to taste it with
your tongue b/c if it is not salted then the Jew will be tasting blood!
)98,1( ‫דרישה‬- quotes the ‫ גמרא‬in ‫ חולין‬and says that this ‫ גמרא‬also applies to the taste of
the ‫ ספק‬bloody meat and a Jew can’t taste the ‫ איסור‬or ‫( ספק איסור‬like the ‫)ב"ח‬.

The ‫ מ"א‬brings the )‫של"ה (ברכות‬- who discusses the case of a person who says ‫המוציא‬,
didn’t swallow yet )he started chewing(, and then talked. He says that as long as you taste
a little bit you have been yotzeh with the bracha. (‫)חיי אדם‬

Gallbladder (‫)מרה‬
‫( טור‬Y”D 42,2) (p4-5)- if the gallbladder was removed while the animal was alive or if it
was not there, the animal is a ‫טרפה‬.

(42,3) The ‫ בה"ג‬says that the gallbladder might have melted into the liver and not that the
gallbladder was not there. To determine whether the gallbladder melted a person should
taste the liver and if it has a bitter taste then you will know that it was there.
‫ ראב"ן‬says that if you can’t taste the bitterness when the animal was raw, roast the liver
and then see if you can taste the gallbladder.
‫( ש"ע‬Y”D 42,3)- says that the Jew can taste the liver for the bitter taste and he quotes
the ‫ טור‬verbatim.
‫רמ”א‬- says that even though today when we are not big tasting people, you can taste the
liver today.

I) ‫ש”ך‬- Q) Didn’t we just say that a Jew can’t taste for ‫?איסור‬
A) In this case it is very likely that the food will be fine and b/c the odds are so
high that everything will be fine, we allow a Jew to taste the food.
II) )98,2( ‫( ט”ז‬p8)- in the case of ‫ מרה‬all you have to do is stick out your tongue and you
don’t have to put the food into your mouth. By a ‫ תערובת‬the Jew would have to put the
food in his mouth and taste, and that a Jew can’t do.
The ‫ ט”ז‬would permit a Jew to taste meat to determine whether it is salted or not.
‫ מדאורייתא‬the ‫ איסור‬is in the throat and ‫ מדרבנן‬the ‫ איסור‬is in the mouth, but According to
him for ‫ ספק מאכלות אסורות‬it is fine to use your tongue. We seem to be talking about

29
different levels of ‫איסור דרבנןים‬: sticking out your tongue is a lesser ‫ איסור‬than putting
something in your mouth.
]The ‫ ש"ך‬looks at the chances of there actually being ‫ איסור‬while the ‫ ט"ז‬looks at the
quality of the tasting.[

)‫( פמ”ג(משצות זהב‬p9)-

1) Says that sticking food in your mouth is an “‫ ”איסור דאורייתא‬and there is a ‫ דין‬of
‘chatzi ‫ שיעור‬b’aechus’ with putting the food in your mouth and is a lesser ‫שיעור‬
of ‘eating.’
2) Licking is only a ‫דרבנן‬.
‫ ספק דרבנן לקולא‬so you can lick the food, but ‫ ספק דאורייתא חומרא‬so you can’t taste the food
in your mouth.

‫רמ"א‬- Today, we don’t use ‫ גוים‬for ‫טעימה‬.

‫ רע"א‬explains the reasoning behind the ‫רמ"א‬-we won’t to fulfill all of the ‫( שיטות‬some
say you need an ‫ אומן‬while some say that you need ‫ )מסל"ת‬and this will never be possible.
With a ‫ דרבנן‬we only need ‫מסל"ת‬.
)98,5( ‫( ש”ך‬p10/12)- the ‫ ש”ך‬says that the ‫ רמ”א‬means that we don’t use a ‫ גוי‬b/c of
“ne’emanus,” but a Jew can be used to determine whether the food is meat or dairy. (We
would be allowed to use a Jew as a ‫)קפילא‬.
‫(עטרת זהב‬the ‫ )לבוש‬in the ‫ש”ך‬- says that we don’t rely on a ‫ גוי‬or on a Jew According to
the ‫רמ”א‬.
‫חוות דעת‬- (p13)- quotes the ‫עטרת זהב‬.

‫שו"ת ריב"ש‬- asks whether a Jew can taste non-kosher food? If tasting is ‫מותר‬, why does
the ‫ גמרא‬say to get a Non-Jew?
1) ‫ ריב”ש‬suggests a revolutionary p’shat and then rejects it: perhaps ‫ טעימה‬is ‫מותר‬, and the
reason why the ‫ גמרא‬requires a ‫ קפילא‬is b/c the ‫ גוי‬chews it and swallows it and not only
tastes it. This means that the ‫ גוי‬must swallow it before we rely on him. However, just
tasting it (without swallowing) is fully OK and would be ‫ מותר‬for even a Jew.
2) ‫ ריב"ש‬then says that actual ‫ טעימה‬is ‫ טעימה‬.‫ אסור מדרבנן‬is only ‫ מותר‬by a ‫תענית‬.
Some people only quote the first part of the ‫ ריב”ש‬and not the rejection of the answer.

‫ משבצות זהב‬quotes Tzemach Tzedek that tasting is ‫ אסור‬because you might come to eat
it. This only applies to a ‫ דאורייתא‬and NOT a ‫דרבנן‬.
[[You can’t eat before you do a mitzvah, but ‫ טעימה‬is fine (not a meal/ less than).
‫ תרומת הדשן‬says that even ‫ טעימה‬is a problem before doing mitzvos.]]
‫(פרי מגדים‬p16)- quotes the ‫ ריב”ש‬on (p9) using the first opinion in the teshuva.

‫ מחבר‬-)108,5( ‫ ש”ע‬brings down the ‫ריב”ש‬- you can inhale the

‫ש”ך‬- says that the ‫ ריב”ש‬doesn’t allow tasting.

R’ Tzvi Pesach Frank (p24-5)- discusses whether you need a ‫ הכשר‬on your toothpaste.
R’ Belski said he heard from R’ Moshe- that even though R’ Moshe said that you can
take medicine w/o a ‫ הכשר‬b/c “lo ‫אחשביה‬,” but vitamins need a hechser b/c it is “like
eating.”

30
‫( כרתי‬R’ Yonasan Eibeshitz [more action in ‫( )]פלתי‬p19)- TH”D asked on the ‫ רשב”א‬about
how to use a ‫ גוי‬on a ‫ דאורייתא‬by ml”t and ‫ ש”ך‬and ‫ ט”ז‬give their answers [see 9 ‫]שיעור‬.
You are reling on a ‫ גוי‬for an ‫איסור דאורייתא‬, and ‫ מסל"ת‬is only ‫ מותר‬on a ‫!דרבנן‬
You had a ‫ ספק‬and the ‫ גוי‬said it was fine. That will allow you to rely on him and taste the
food. He says that when you are chewing this food you should check out the food and
that would only be a ‫ דרבנן‬and when you are swallowing it, you are really relying upon
your own “‫נאמנות‬.”

‫( כתב סופר‬p18)- What is the idea of nee‫דין‬g a ‫ קפילא? קפילא‬has an expertise. The expert
will be relied upon w/o swallowing where others will have to swallow it. A regular ‫גוי‬
would therefore need to actually swallow the food (not only “‫)”טועם ופולט‬. When you put
something in your mouth you get a “‫ טעם‬kalush” (weaker taste) and the ‫ קפילא‬can tell
whether that ‫ טעם‬will become a real ‫ טעם‬when it is swallowed.
[A Jewish ‫ קפילא‬won’t know about ‫טעם איסור‬.]

If someone eats the food by mistake

‫( שו"ת מהרש”ם‬p20)- ‫ איסור‬falls into ‫היתר‬: what happens if someone ate it by mistake and
now everyone wants to know whether it was ‫מותר‬, is that ‫?מותר‬
Perhaps not, b/c “‫ לאו אדעתיה‬,‫מילתא דלא רמיא אנשי‬,” when people do not have things on
their mind when they eat the food, they don’t know about it.
‫( שו"ת מהרש"ג‬p21)- says that ‫ טעם כעיקר‬can only be ‫ אסור‬if it can be tasted even w/o
being prepped. (If the people can’t taste the food w/o being prepped it is not ‫)אסור‬.
This is like the famous line in the ‫( רשב”א‬p23)- since the ‫ טעם‬is ‫ ניכר‬that is the ,‫הכרה‬
‫” ניכר‬.‫ “טעימתו זו היא הכרתו‬means “right away.” This is against the ‫מהרש”ם‬.
R’ Abade- says that chewing gum is like a piece of wood and that it is ‫מותר‬.

‫בתר שמא בתר טעמא‬

11 ‫שיעור‬/ Nov 7- (M) P11 YD 98

What is ‫ מין במינו‬and ‫ ?מין בשאינו מינו‬We thought that the ‫ נפק"מ‬b/t the 2 cases was that ‫מין‬
‫ במינו‬had the same “‫ ”טעם‬and ‫ מין בשאינו מינו‬had a different “‫טעם‬.”

‫ איסור מהשהו‬-.‫ עבודה זרה סו‬like by ‫ יין נסך‬and ‫ חמץ בפסח‬is generally by ‫ משהו‬.‫ מין במינו‬is
clearly a ‫ איסור דרבנן‬b/c ‫ רוב‬or ‫ ששים‬should really work.
How do you know whether something is ‫ מינו‬or ‫?אינו מינו‬
‫ שמא‬-‫רבא‬
‫ טעמא‬-‫אביי‬
We should paskin like ‫ רבא‬based upon the ‫ יע"ל קג"מ‬principle.

‫( רמ”א‬p3)- paskins like ‫ רבא‬as do the ‫ מרדכי‬and the ‫אור זרוע‬

‫ש”ך‬- attacks the ‫ רמ”א‬b/c the reason for 60 would be ‫טעם כעיקר‬, so ‫מין במינו‬should be b/c
of ‫ טעם‬not ‫שם‬. How can something that has a different ‫ שם‬be ‫אסור מן התורה‬.
--) What about the ‫’רמ”א‬s ‫ ?גמרא‬The ‫ ש”ך‬says that it is not relevant b/c that ‫ גמרא‬is
talking about an ‫ איסור מהשהו‬after we already have 60. If we already have 60 then ‫טעם‬

31
will be a non-factor, and the question is whether that is enough. But, in a case where you
don’t have 60, surely the ‫ טעם‬and not the ‫ שם‬should be followed.
‫( מרדכי‬p4)- chicken and meat, he says have similar tastes and different names and we go
‫ בתר שמא‬so they are ‫מין בשאינו מינו‬.

Answering for ‫רמ”א‬

‫( חוות דעת‬p6)- attempts to answer for the ‫רמ”א‬. The ‫ שיעור‬of 60 is a ‫הלכה למשה מסיני‬.
When it is ‫מין בשאינו מינו‬, the Torah requires a stronger ‫ ביטול‬and the ‫ שיעור‬of 60 is not
for ‫טעם‬. (This is against ‫)טעם כעיקר‬.
R’ Soloveichik (p27)- normally a different shem is a different ‫טעם‬, so the HL’Misinai
was after the name and not specifically the ‫טעם‬. We don’t care whether the ‫ טעם‬is there or
not you still need 60 ‫ טעם כעיקר‬.‫ מדאורייתא‬makes it stronger that the ‫ היתר‬is nishapech to
‫איסור‬. The ‫ שיעור‬of 60 is a ‫ שיעור‬of ‫ ביטול‬by mb‫שטמ”ק‬by shem alone. This is a ‫שיעור ביטול‬
irrespective of ‫טעם‬.

Imrei Baruch (p6)- the ‫ ש”ע‬quotes the Rambam’s shittah that ‫ ת”ק‬will always help (even
w/o 60). The ‫ ש”ע‬and the ‫ רמ”א‬seem to agree to this Rambam. If you need 60
irrespective of ‫טעם‬, then how can ‫ קפילא‬help? He doesn’t like the R’ Soloveichik b/c ‫טעם‬
is important.

‫(ערוך שלחן‬p8)- wine and grapes have different name and same ‫טעם‬. The AH”S says the
‫ רמ"א‬wants to add a ‫ חומרא‬that if you have something with a different name then if they
taste the same then maybe they have a little different taste and treat it as ‫מין בשאינו‬
‫מינו‬. Of course, if the taste was different w/ the same ‫ שם‬then the ‫ רמ"א‬would agree you
need 60. [The ‫ רמ”א‬holds of both ‫ שם‬and ‫טעם‬.]
‫מעדני השלחן‬- like the AH”S- says that the ‫ רמ”א‬in principle is like basar ‫טעם‬, and shem is
a giluei on the ‫( טעם‬red flag).

‫פלתי‬- the ‫ מחבר‬says that if something is ‫ נשפך‬you have to go l’‫חומרא‬. The ‫ פלתי‬asks why
you don’t get a ‫קפילא‬. (Perhaps you do get a ‫ קפילא‬and the question is no question.)
If you have 59 ‫ כזית‬of rice, 1 kosher meat and 1 tref meat from the perspective of the tref
meat there is 60:1. On the other hand there is a ‫ נתינת טעם‬of ‫ בשר‬in the mixture, so perhaps
you need to undermine the ‫ טעם‬of ‫ בשר‬so you might need 120 against the kosher and tref
piece of meat to undermine ‫ בשר‬taste. ‫רשב”א‬- perhaps a ‫ בשר‬taste is like ‫הוכר האיסור‬. He
says this is fine.
In this case the ‫ קפילא‬won’t be able to do anything for you, b/c he will tell you that there
is a meat taste. In a case of ‫ נשפך‬it won’t help for the ‫ גוי‬to eat it b/c the ‫ טעם‬that he tastes
can be ‫היתר‬.

‫פמ"ג‬- quotes this ‫ פלתי‬and says that he had a ‫ ספק‬in this case in his Introduction. If you
have 60 against the tref and not against the kosher meat.

‫טז‬:‫משנה ערלה ב‬-in a case where there is ‫ תרומה‬and ‫ כלאי הכרם‬of ‫( תבלין‬spices) and the
kohen can eat the ‫ תרומה‬and not the ‫ כלאי הכרם‬and the ‫ כלאי הכרם‬should be ‫אסור‬. By a
sefek ‫ דאורייתא‬can I rely on the meat being kosher. The ‫פרי מגדים‬learns from this mishna

32
that you are tasting ‫ תבלין‬in this case and the ‫ תבלין‬of ‫ איסור‬is ‫בטל‬. The ‫ פרי מגדים‬says he is
b’‫ ספק‬whether you should have no ‫ טעם‬basar.

‫יח‬:‫ויקרא טז‬-by Yom Kippur the ‫ פר‬and the ‫ שעיר‬are shechted and the bloods are put
together. In this case the blood of the ‫ שעיר‬should be ‫ בטל‬in the blood of the ‫פר‬.
‫חולין כב‬.- the issue is whether A) there is a special ‫ דין‬by things brought on the ‫מזבח‬, B)
R”Y says that ‫ מין במינו‬is not ‫בטל‬.

‫חולין כג‬. (p24)- if you have ‫מין במינו‬- tref and kosher milk- it won’t work, but if there is
also an ‫ אינו מינו‬there is rice, can we say that the tref milk links up with the corn and then
there will be ‫ ביטול‬or will the ‫ מין במינו‬not be ‫בטל‬.
R”Y- says in ‫( חולין‬100b) we say “‫ ”סלק את מינו כאילו אינו‬and the mb‫שטמ”ק‬link first to help
the ‫ מינו‬and be ‫ מבטל טעם‬and fix the problem of ‫!!מין במינו אינו בטל‬

‫רשב”א בתורת הבית‬- (p26)- can you say ‫ סלק את אינו מינו‬and then the ‫ מין במינו‬connects are
creates a ‫ ביטול רוב‬and then it would only be a ‫ספק דרבנן‬. This is the other side of R”Y’s
case. ‫ ט”ז‬quotes the ‫ רשב”א‬and this is how the ‫ מחבר‬paskins.
‫ ש”ך‬challenges the ‫( רשב”א‬p3)- he doesn’t think that the extension of the ‫ גמרא‬which is in
the ‫ שיעור ביטול‬can be extended to a mitzeus question about whether there is ‫ טעם‬and we
should go l’‫חומרא‬.

R’ Solevechik- (p28)- connects the ‫ ש”ך‬on the ‫ רמ”א‬and on the ‫רשב”א‬- it is all about ‫טעם‬
and not about ‫ שיעור‬and therefore you can’t say salek. {Perhaps ‫ טעם‬is ‫ דין‬in metzius
(Imrei Baruch).}

‫כיצד משערים‬
12 ‫שיעור‬/ Nov 9- (W) P12 YD 98

What does it mean to have ‫ ?ששים‬How do you calculate the 60? Do we assume that the
“whole ‫ ”איסור‬went into the ‫ היתר‬even when the ‫ איסור‬is still ‫?בעין‬
If the whole ‫ כזית‬of the treif meatball went into the rice then the meatball would be
dissolved, but if you remove the whole or a majority of the meatball, how much ‫טעם‬
really got into the rest of the ‫?תערובת‬

There are 2 possibilities: A) “‫( ”בדידיה משערינן‬you need 60 times the ‫ איסור‬that fell into
the ‫)היתר‬, B) the other svara is “‫( ”מאי דנפק מיניה משערינן‬you evaluate how much of the
‫ איסור‬you think you went into the ‫איסור‬.)
The ‫ מסקנא‬is “‫בדידיה משערינן‬,” even though this is not probable.

“‫”בדידיה משערינן‬
‫חולין צז‬: (p1)- in a regular ‫ תערובת‬you need 60:1, by the utter you need 59:1 and the k’chal
is included in the ‫ היתר‬to be ‫ מבטל‬the ‫איסור‬.
1) The milk of a shechted animal is only ‫אסור מדרבנן‬.
2) If you cooked the ‫ כחל‬with its milk, the meat of the ‫ כחל‬can’t be eaten b/c we
assume that the milk becomes embedded in the ‫ כחל‬and can’t be removed and the
‫ כחל‬can’t be o’ser other mixtures.

33
 3) The volume of the ‫ כחל‬can be used with the rest of the ‫ תערובת‬to be ‫ מבטל‬the milk
volume.
4) How much milk is in the ‫ ?כחל‬We assume that the whole volume of the ‫ כחל‬is full
with milk (so we are using the volume of the ‫ כחל‬twice, once for ‫ היתר‬and once for
‫)איסור‬.
We assume that there is milk in the pocket of the ‫ כחל‬and we use the ‫ כחל‬towards 60.

)‫חתיכת נעשית נבילה (חנ"ן‬

If you have 10 ‫ כזית‬sized potato that was cooked with a piece of ‫ חלב‬the size of a ‫כזית‬.
Obviously the potato is ‫ נאסר‬because there is no ‫ששים‬. If I take the potato and put it in a
big pot of rice and cook it is that pot ‫ ?אסור‬It depends if there is ‫ששים‬. In order to ‫משער‬
this do I need ‫ ששים‬against the ‫ כזית‬of ‫ חלב‬or do I need ‫ ששים‬against all of the potato as
well. If you say ‫ חנ"ן‬then you would need ‫ ששים‬against the 11 ‫כזיתים‬.
Everyone agrees on ‫ חנ"ן‬by ‫ בשר בחלב‬but there is a ‫ 'מח‬between the )‫ ר"ת (מחמיר‬and ‫רבינו‬
)‫ אפרים (מקיל‬on ‫שאר איסורים‬.

‫מחלוקת מחבר רמ"א על חנ"ן‬

‫מחבר‬- says that ‫ שאר איסורים‬does not have the concept of ‫חנ"ן‬, only by ‫בשר בחלב (כמו הרבינו‬
)‫אפרים‬. Therefore ‫ חנ"ן‬doesn’t apply by blood.
‫רמ”א‬- says that ‫ חנ"ן‬also applies by ‫שאר איסורים‬.

This question is really relevant to every single situation. Why does the ‫גמרא‬
only ask it by a case of ‫?כחל‬
‫רשב”א‬- says that we learn from ‫ כחל‬to ALL cases and we are ‫ משער‬against the whole item
(‫)בדידיה‬. Even though our case is only a ‫דרבנן‬, yet we learn to all cases, even by ‫שאר‬
‫איסורים‬.
‫ראב”ד‬- it depends on an ‫ איסור‬that you can’t kasher. ‫ כחל‬will always be ‫ אסור‬and therefore
we will always be ‫משער בדידיה‬. But, if you have a milk spoon and you then stir meat, that
spoon eventually can be kashered. If you don’t know how to be m’sha’ar then you can
use “‫מאי דנפיק‬.” The only time that we use “‫ ”בדידיה‬is when that object can’t become
kosher later. Anything that can eventually become ‫ מותר‬can use “‫מאי דנפיק‬.”
Others disagree and say that we are always “‫( ”משער דידיה‬unless you know that there was
no ‫ איסור‬ie ‫)כף חדשה‬.

If you know how much left the spoon

‫רשב”א‬- says it if you know how much ‫ איסור‬is left the spoon, for example, if you took a
new spoon and only stirred one ‫ כזית‬of milk but the spoon is 4 ‫כזית‬. Do you need against
one or against 4?
A) You can measure against what you know (ie 1 in this case).

If the spoon was full with 4 ‫ כזית‬vegetable and 1 ‫ כזית‬milk and then you put it into meat,
how much ‫ איסור‬do you have?
Some say 1 ‫ כזית‬and there is a shittah that says 5 ‫ כזית‬of ‫איסור‬.

Do you says ‫ חנ"ן‬by “‫”בליעה‬

34
If a spoon gets ‫ איסור‬in it, do you measure against the amount of ‫ איסור‬that went in or
against EVERYTHING that is in the spoon?
‫רשב”א‬- says you measure against the whole spoon.
‫רמב"ן‬- says that you do NOT, says ‫ חנ"ן‬by ‫ בלועה‬but you only measure the ‫איסור‬.

What about if you didn’t stick the whole spoon in the ‫תערובת‬, do you have to be
‫ משער‬only that part of the spoon that went in or the whole spoon based upon the
heat?
‫פסחים צד‬:- discussing ‫קרבן פסח‬: the pesach was roasted on a wooden spit b/c the ‫ קרבן‬must
be cooked by the fire itself (“‫ )”צלי אש‬and NOT by a metal spit (which is “ ‫צלי מחמת דבר‬
‫)”אחר‬. The part of the ‫ קרבן‬which is far away from the fire will be roasted by the hot
metal and NOT by the fire. This is known as ‫חם מקצתו חם כולו‬.

‫( הגהות הסמ"ק‬p15)- (the ‫ רבינו פרץ‬on the bottom of the ‫)סמ"ק‬- says that we learn from
‫ פסחים משנה‬that metal is ‫ חם מקצתו חם כולו‬so too here, since the heat goes through the
whole spoon, even the part that is not touching the food, you still need 60 against the
whole spoon.

)98,4( ‫ש”ע‬- says you need 60 against the whole thing (‫)בדידיה‬. It doesn’t matter if you can
kasher it (‫ )הגעלה‬or not (like the ‫ש”ך‬/‫)רשבא‬. Some say that if it’s metal than you need
against the whole thing even if only part goes in (‫)ר פרץ‬. (This is against the Raavad who
says you don’t need ‫ בדידיה‬by metal.)

There are 2 issues: 1) ‫ בדידיה‬and 2) whether we say ‫ חנ"ן‬by kalim or not.

‫רמב"ן‬- says that we don’t say ‫ חנ"ן‬by ‫בלועה‬.

If you know how much the ‫ איסור‬went into the utensil than you only do against that
amount (‫)רשב”א‬.
‫ רמ"א‬says we hold like the ‫רשב”א‬, there is ‫ חנ"ן‬by utensils.
‫ רמ"א‬says some hold ONLY ‫( כלי חרס‬which you can’t kasher) you have ‫ן‬:‫ חנ‬but other
utensils you don’t.
Some say this Rema is the shita of the ‫ראב"ד‬.
‫ רמ"א‬it’s good to be ‫ מחמיר‬for the ‫( חומרא‬Rabbenu Peretz).

‫ חנ"ן‬by kalim
‫מרדכי‬- if you have a cheres pot that is 10 ‫ ש”ך( כזית‬thinks people mix this up with the
‫ ראב"ד‬and this is the opinion in the Rema). Do you view the whole cheres as the ‫ איסור‬or
is it only if it had a b’lea? He is ‫ מחלק‬b/t cheres and other kalim and he says that you are
‫ משער‬against the whole ‫ כלי חרס‬b/c you can’t kasher it, but all other kalim that can be
koshered we are ‫ משער‬against the amount that is in the kli.
R’ Feivel Kohen- the ‫ כלי חרס‬becomes a davar h’‫ אסור‬and you are ‫ משער‬the whole thing.
)21( ‫ש”ך‬- in the old ‫ ש”ע‬they said it was the Raavad, but the Raavad is not about CNN
and you can’t have ‫ בדידיה‬w/o ‫הגעלה‬, but this shittah is the ‫ מרדכי‬that you say CNN by a
‫כלי חרס‬.

Solid vs. Liquid by bediday

35
R’ Moshe/ Neziv- says that ‫ בדידיה‬is used only by a solid because by a liquid the ‫ טעם‬and
‫ ממשות‬are the same thing. If there is ‫ ממשות‬left, then the ‫ טעם‬did not go in. However, by a
solid the ‫ טעם‬has power beyond the food itself. Even if afterwards you see how much the
solid was, it doesn’t matter b/c the ‫ טעם‬might have gone into the spoon.
R’ Moshe says that even if we could measure how much was in the solid ‫איסור‬, we still
wouldn’t know how far the ‫ טעם‬spread out.
The ‫ גמרא‬asked by ‫ כחל‬because that is a davar ‫מותר‬. By ‫איסורים‬, even if we could measure
how much left the meatball, we would still measure the whole meatball. ‫ טעם‬can spread
up to 60 times its amount.

)'‫שיעורי ביטול באיסורין שונים (בנוסף לרוב וס‬

13 ‫שיעור‬/ Nov 14- (M) P13 YD 98

‫א‬:‫( ערלה ב‬p1-3)- for a ‫ זר‬to eat a ‫ תערובת‬of ‫ תרומה‬and ‫ חולין‬you need a 1:100 ratio for ‫ביטול‬
(this includes ‫ דמאי‬,‫ תרומת מעשר‬and ‫)ביכורים‬. ‫ ערלה‬and ‫כלאי הכרם‬need 200:1. These ‫איסורים‬
are ‫ מצטרף‬to require 100:1 against all the ‫איסורים‬.

It is only by mbm that you have these ‫שיעורים‬. By mbsm sometimes you’ll need more
sometimes less, but the 100:1 or 200:1 ‫ שיעורים‬aren’t needed---[Av: is this true?]

‫ברטנורא‬- says that ‫ ערלה‬and ‫ כלאי הכרם‬are ‫ איסור אכילה‬and ‫( הנאה‬above the ‫ איסור‬of ‫אכילה‬
for ‫ תרומה‬etc.), so the ‫ חכמים‬took the Torah’s lead and they extended the ‫ שיעור‬from 100 to
200.
‫( רמב"ם‬15,13ff) (p6-8)- brings down these ‫ שיעורים‬l’halacha. These ‫ שיעורים‬even apply to
a ‫דבר יבש‬.
‫ש”ך‬- this even applies to ‫ ערלה‬of ‫חו”ל‬.

‫( כחל‬the utter)
Once the animal is ‫ נשחט‬there is usually still going to be milk left inside of it-this milk is
‫ מדרבנן‬so if you took this milk and cooked it with meat it would only be ‫בשר וחלב מדרבנן‬.
What is the ‫ שיעור‬of ‫ ביטול‬we need to be ‫ מבטל‬this ‫ דרבנן‬milk?

)15,18( ‫ רמב"ם‬has a ‫ חידוש‬about ‫כחל‬. We said that you need 59+the ‫ כחל‬against the milk.
The ‫ רמב"ם‬also says that you need 59 against the milk. Because the ‫ כחל‬is only a ‫דרבנן‬, so
we are makil with their ‫שיעורים‬.
Some learn: this ‫ רמב"ם‬to mean that ANY CASES OF ‫ דרבנן‬require only 59, but most
‫ ראשונים‬disagree with this.
‫( תורת הבית‬p9)- the reason why ‫ כחל‬only requires 59 is b/c the meat of the ‫ כחל‬is NOT
‫) אסור‬and not that we are giving a principle that can apply to all ‫)איסורי דרבנן‬. Therefore,
even though we need 60, the pouch that contains the milk is already considered one unit
of meat. He is unlike the ‫רמב"ם‬.

‫טור‬-In order to ‫ מבטל‬you need 59. Here the ‫ טור‬continues to list other things which don’t
need 60 and one of them is ‫ערלה‬. [In ‫ חו"ל‬it is a ‫ ספק‬what to do with ‫ ערלה‬and therefore it
isn’t a problem.]

36
 Milsa D’aveda L’‫טעם‬ah (‫)תבלין‬
This is something that is put into the mixture to give the food a better taste. The question
is what the ‫ שיעור‬is for these foods if they are ‫( אסור‬salt/ pepper).
‫ רבינו יונה‬in ‫( איסור והיתר‬p10-11)- we can assume that 60 is “stam” going to be ‫ מבטל‬the
‫ טעם‬by foods, but these food items can’t rely on this kulah of assuming 60. He says that
the fear of Aveda L’‫טעם‬ah is only a ‫( דרבנן‬ie to assume that there is ‫ טעם‬even after 60.)
‫( ר"ן‬p13)- says that if something gives off ‫טעם‬, even up to 1000, is an ‫איסור דאורייתא‬.
‫יד יהודה‬-There are 2 types of ‫ נתינת טעם‬beyond 60. One is when you put an additive in
(could be ‫ )דאורייתא‬and this is what the ‫ ר"ן‬was talking about. However, when you put
‫ תבלין‬that is not the ‫ טעם‬itself but additional to enhance the food (‫)דרבנן‬.
‫(פרי מגדים‬p12) [In the ‫]פתיחה‬- wants to say that there is a ‫ מחלוקת‬b/t the ‫ איסור והיתר‬and
the ‫ ר"ן‬in this issue.
‫ש”ך‬- quotes the ‫ איסור והיתר‬and says it is a ‫ מחלוקת‬b/t I”V and Ran. N”M- is ‫ ספק דרבנן‬l’
‫קולא‬.
‫(בדי השלחן‬R’ Feivel Kohen)- says that he is not sure whether there is a ‫ מחלוקת‬b/t the Ran
and the ‫איסור והיתר‬. He says that he Ran is not talking about ‫ תבלין‬at all, but about other
food items. He says that the taste is a ‫ דאורייתא‬when you can taste the “food item itself.”
By ‫תבלין‬, where you aren’t tasting the “food itself” but only its effect on the food item.
This is a ‫ טעם‬kalush Therefore, in the case of ‫תבלין‬, the ‫ איסור‬may really be ‫דרבנן‬. He does
not think that the ‫ ש”ך‬holds of this distinction.

‫ תבלין‬that has a ‫ בליעה‬of another ‫איסור‬, not that it itself is ‫אסור‬

‘108 ‫תוס חולין‬b (p16)- What happens if the salt has a ‫ בליעה‬of blood in it? Is it considered
avidah l’tamah or does it get the regular ‫ דין‬of 60 ‫?ביטול‬
A) B/c the whole gorem is something that is ‫ מבטל‬in 60, the salt won’t be more ‫ מחמיר‬than
the ‫ איסור‬itself.
Sefer Ha‫( תרומה‬p17)- agrees to the answer of ‘‫תוס‬, that the ‫ איסור‬on salt can’t exceed the
‫ איסור‬it came from.

‫( ש”ע‬p20)- ‫ כחל‬is ‫ בטל‬in 59 (against the ‫ רמב"ם‬that all ‫ איסורי דרבנן‬are in 59). He says that
all ‫ איסורים‬today are ‫ בטל‬in 60, besides ‫חמץ‬.
He says that the ‫ איסור‬by ‫ תבלין‬to make it ‫ אסור‬in more than 60, must be ‫ אסור‬machmas
atzmo and NOT b/c of the ‫בליעה‬.
Also, he says that

‫רמ”א‬- says that all things that are noheg today are 60:1. (He quotes the ‫ רשב”א‬and the ‫טור‬
and not like the ‫ רמב"ם‬who says that all ‫ דרבנן‬is 59:1).
‫ש”ך‬- what about ‫ ערלה? ערלה‬applies today and it is not 60:1, so how can the ‫ ש”ע‬say that
everything else is 60:1?
A) In Krakow the ‫ רמ”א‬didn’t have to worry about ‫תרומה‬, but ‫ ערלה‬is 200:1 and it does
apply by 1 ?‫ )חו”ל‬Perhaps it has a lesser ‫ שיעור‬in 2 ..‫ )חו”ל‬or perhaps the ‫ רמ”א‬is not
giving an exhaustive list and really the ‫ שיעור‬is 200:1 by ‫מין במינו‬.

Is a milsa avedah l’‫טעם‬ah anything that was put in for ‫ טעם‬or specifically these
d’varim charifim?

37
)98,11( ‫( ט”ז‬p20)- he thought that perhaps even shuman is a milsa d’avidah, but he then
quoted the ‫ איסור והיתר‬who says that a milsa avidah is like salt, only a ‫דבר חריף‬.
‫ רמב"ם‬in Perush Mishnaos ‫ערלה‬- disagrees with the ‫איסור והיתר‬. He says that a person
should be zahir and not only think that ‫ תבלין‬are sharp things, but really anything that you
put into food to give a taste.
Some say based on this ‫ רמב"ם‬that we should be ‫מחמיר‬.

Egg with chick inside

‫( חולין‬p18)- if you have an egg that has a chick inside:
‫ מדרבנן‬we treat it like a ‫ שרץ‬in the egg. The ‫ גמרא‬has a ‫ חומרא‬by ‫ אפרוח‬that the ‫שיעור ביטול‬
is 61.
‫טור‬- says that you need 61 b/c there are different sizes of eggs. You might think that you
have 60, but perhaps you don’t, so you add one to offset the differences in sizes.
[Av: What about by jellybeans or other meat pieces? By meat, we are m’sha’ar against
the meat. What about if there are bigger eggs and smaller eggs, we can’t measure by
piece, but we must use volume.]

‫עצמות‬
14 ‫שיעור‬/ Nov 16- (W) P14 YD 99

1) Do you have to be ‫ מבטל‬the bones in a tref animal?

2) How are you ‫ מבטל‬them?
3) Can you eat the bones if there is no ‫?ביטול‬

‫( חולין‬98b) (p2)- 1st opinion: there is a ‫ גמרא‬of z’roah bishaela where the kohen’s zroah is
being cooked with the rest of the animal that there is a ‫ ביטול‬of the zroah.
The opinion that says 60 says that the ‫ ביטול‬includes the bones and the meat and the
opinion that says that you include only the meat means that the ‫ שיעור‬is 1:100.
According to the opinion that says 60:1, it would seem to be that kosher bones
attach to the kosher meat in the ‫ תערובת‬and tref bones require 60x to be ‫ מבטל‬them
like the tref meat.
[‫ שיעור‬of 60 comes from here. Tos. says it’s only an asmachta b/c zroah is a ‫מין במינו‬case.]

Ran (32b) (p3)- why don’t you count the bones when it comes to the ‫ שיעור‬of 100?
A) B/c bones don’t give out ‫טעם‬, so why do you need to be ‫ מבטל‬the bones.

Therefore, there are 2 ‫ מחלוקת‬b/t 60 and 100:

1) Do we count the soft tref bones for the ‫ איסור‬element of the ‫ ?תערובת‬The opinion of 60
says that the tref bones in the animal are soft and therefore they are counted as part of the
‫ איסור‬element of the 100 .‫ תערובת‬says they aren’t counted to the ‫ איסור‬or the ‫היתר‬.
2) Do the kosher bone “mater” (help towards the ‫ ?)ביטול‬The opinion of 60 says that the
hard kosher bones help to be counted against the ‫ איסור‬b/c the ‫ איסור‬will be nispashet
(spread out; into the non-tasting area inside the bones).
)99,1( ‫ש”ך‬- brings the distinction b/t lach and yavesh bones (like the Ran).

38
‫( ירושלמי ערלה‬p4)- 2nd opinion: maybe the ‫ איסור‬bones can be counted against the ‫איסור‬
if they are hard. The ‫ ירושלמי‬is discussing the peel/shell of ‫ תרומה‬and the ‫ ירושלמי‬says that
the shells aren’t tref and the help AGAINST the ‫איסור‬.

‫ ר”ש‬Trumot (5,9) (perush on the Mishna) (p5)- asks how the ‫ ירושלמי‬works with the ‫גמרא‬
in ‫?חולין‬
1) Perhaps the ‫ ירושלמי‬is discussing klepos (shells) and they are different from bones
which may be more wet (b/c klepos have no ‫ טעם‬while ‫ עצמות‬do).
2) He says that the ‫ גמרא‬of ‫ חולין‬is an ashmachta and you can’t learn anything about bones
from that ‫ גמרא‬and really ‫ עצמות‬of ‫ איסור‬can be counted for ‫היתר‬.

Or Zaruah (p8)- 3rd opinion: the ‫ עצמות‬of ‫ איסור‬won’t count for ‫איסור‬, but they also
won’t help for ‫ היתר‬either. The bones of ‫ היתר‬are ‫ מצטרף‬to the ‫ היתר‬element of the mixture.
Shaare Durah- quotes the Or Zaruah.

‫( ש”ע‬p12)- says like the ‫ ירושלמי‬that even the ‫ עצמות‬of the ‫ איסור‬can be used for the kosher
element of the ‫תערובת‬.
‫( רמ”א‬p14)- quotes the Or Zaruah l’‫חומרא‬, but he says that the ‫ ירושלמי‬is the ikkar shittah.
‫ש”ע‬- If there is MOACH (marrow) in the tref bones, then the moach helps the ‫ איסור‬side.
‫ ש”ך‬distinguishes between bones which are lach and Yavesh (like the Ran).
Beit Yosef quotes the Bedek Habayit quotes R’ Yerucham that by bones you only use
‫ היתר‬ones if it’s MM or MAM when there is not ‫טעם‬.

What about the O”Z- if the bones don’t count for ‫ איסור‬why don’t they count for
‫?היתר‬
1) Some say that he did it as a ‫ גזירה‬or as a chashash not to include the bones of ‫איסור‬.
2) ‫( חוות דעת‬p21)- says that there is wetness (lachluchis) in the ‫ איסור‬bones which are ‫אסור‬.
It should count for ‫איסור‬, and if not it should count for ‫?היתר‬
A) There is lachluchis that comes from ‫ איסור‬bones, but they don’t have the ability to
give effect to other things in the ‫תערובת‬, even though there is ‫ טעם‬basar. This is why the
bones aren’t ‫ מבטל‬the rest of the ‫( תערובת‬either for the ‫ איסור‬or the ‫ היתר‬b/c there is ‫טעם‬
‫ איסור‬already in the bones). Over here the ‫ טעם איסור‬will not become neutralized in the
bones b/c the bones have the same ‫ טעם איסור‬where the bones can only be michazek the
‫ טעם‬and not be ‫ מבטל‬the ‫טעם‬. The ‫ איסור‬bones won’t spread ‫ טעם איסור‬but also can’t
neutralize ‫ טעם איסור‬either.

R’ Koenigsberg on the Rav- maybe the whole idea of being m’sha’ar the ‫ עצמות‬may be
like CNN (where you have to be ‫ מבטל‬the whole piece even if the ‫ איסור‬is only in one
part). Maybe ‫ עצמות‬are really ‫מותר‬, but the ‫( איסור‬the ‫ )נבלה‬makes them ‫( אסור‬even if it is
only one part), so you have to be ‫ מבטל‬the bones of the ‫( איסור‬like the ‫ גמרא‬in ‫)חולין‬. This
is a bit of a jump b/c this sugya might only be about ‫שיעור‬ay ‫ביטול‬.

What about the kedairah (pot) itself to be ‫ מבטל‬the ‫ איסור‬and m’sha’ar to the ‫?היתר‬
97 ‫חולין‬b (p1)- the pot can be seen in one of two ways: 1) you use the “whole” ‫ קדירא‬or 2)
the amount of ‫ היתר‬bleios that were in the pot walls w/in 24 hours.

39
98 ‫חולין‬a (p1)- the ‫ גמרא‬there says that the walls of the pot can’t be used b/c the walls of
the pot swallowed up ‫ היתר‬food AND ‫ איסור‬food, so how can you accept only the ‫היתר‬
part to be added to the ‫ היתר‬in the pot.

How do you learn these 2 gemaros?

1) ‫( רש”י‬97b) holds that the whole shittah of “kedairah” was negated by 98a and we only
look at the food inside of the pot. The ‫ גמרא‬on 98a undermined the svara of 97b and
therefore we don’t use the pot walls at all.
2) Rambam- holds that we DO include the amount of the ‫ איסור‬that was swallowed up
from the beleos of the kedairah.

)‫( רשב”א (תורת הבית‬p6) says that we are not m’sha’ar “kedairah atzmah” b/c this is a
‫ דאורייתא‬question. We should only be m’sha’ar “what comes in front of us- l’funaenu”
(what is inside the pot). He is afraid of beleos b/c of the ‫ איסור‬that is also in the wall.
Therefore, if you see that the ‫ איסור‬didn’t shrink and the ‫ היתר‬did, then you can be
‫ מצטרף‬the pot walls and therefore ‫ רש”י‬and the Rambam can be saying the same thing,
perhaps.

Tur (p11)- says that the guf hakedairah DOESN’T COUNT.

Why wouldn’t it count?
1) R’ Koenigsberg from the Rav- says that the pot is not called part of the ‫תערובת‬, but
R’ Simon doesn’t agree.
2) Perisha (p11)- the kedairah already has a lot of food in the pot wall, so that will
prevent things from entering into the pot walls.
What about kedairah ‫חדש‬a? Even this case is “lo plug.”
[By a tref pot w/in 24 the pot walls would be used. The walls are always used l’‫חומרא‬.]

‫( רשב”א‬p7)- makes a distinction b/t ‫מין במינו‬and ‫מין בשאינו מינו‬, he says that in cases of ‫מין‬
‫במינו‬the pot walls can be used, but in mb‫שטמ”ק‬the pot walls can’t be used b/c it is a
question of a ‫דאורייתא‬.
‫( ש”ע‬p15/6)- quotes the ‫רשב”א‬.

[Bedek HaBais- [B”Y wrote a Bedek HaBais on his own B”Y]- by ‫ עצמות‬to be ‫ מצטרף‬he
says only ‫מין במינו‬or by mb‫שטמ”ק‬where there is a kfeliah, but not be mb‫שטמ”ק‬w/o a
‫קפילא‬.]

What about eating the ‫ עצמות איסור‬themselves?

Unless the pshat is like the ‫חוות דעת‬or there is moch, we should be able to eat the bones
of ‫ איסור‬themselves.

Rambam (p17)- if you eat a ‫נבלה‬, for the basar you get ‫מלקות‬, but for the bones and the
horn etc. you are patur b/c “they are not ‫ ראוי‬l’‫אכילה‬,” but the bones ect. are really ‫אסור‬
(even though they aren’t ‫ מצטרף‬to ‫ !)איסור‬They are still a davar ‫!אסור‬

Would this Rambam be against the ‫ מחבר‬who said like ‫ירושלמי ערלה‬- that the ‫איסור‬
bones are seen as ‫ מצטרף‬l’‫?היתר‬

40
 Gelatin is dried out (psul) and then reconstituted (does that undermine the psul)?

R’ Chaim Ozer (p18)- teshuva about gelatin (he is the big makil)- even though the
‫ש”ך‬/Ran are ‫ מחמיר‬by wet bones, if they are dried out then they are not lach anymore.
The Rambam is also not a problem b/c he too is talking about wet bones.
Maadanei Asher– says then the wet bones should be ‫ מצטרף‬to the ‫!!איסור‬

R’ Ahron Kotler (p20)- was the ‫ מחמיר‬shittah on gelatin b/c of “‫( ”אחשביה‬if something is
)‫ נפסל (אסור‬and you eat it and consider it chashuv to you and this is an ‫)איסור דרבנן‬.
The ‫ מחבר‬seems to be against the Rambam [b/c the ‫ מחבר‬says that eating bones is ‫]מותר‬
(even though nobody quotes this ‫)מחלוקת‬. The Rambam holds of ‫ אחשביה‬if you eat the
piece of food, even though there is no ‫ טעם‬in it. If the bones happen to be in the pot then
there is not a problem [b/c that isn’t achshevay]. R’ Kotler says that the Rambam is only
‫( אסור מדרבנן‬and gelatin might be an ‫)איסור דרבנן‬.
[R’ Simon said it might be a ‫דאורייתא‬.]

--Bones may be “yotzei min ha’‫ ”אסור‬and that is why they are a problem.

Medicine and Vitamins

R’ Moshe says that medicine is not considered achshivei (R’ Belski said that vitamins
would need a hechser b/c you are eating them for their food/nutrients).

Chazarah on chulent
R’ Moshe and R’ Shlomo Zalman about chulent. R’ Moshe says we don’t eat the bones
and RSZ”A said that bones can’t be fully cooked, so you can’t put chulent back on the
fire. This is if they are eating the bones b/c bones are always getting softer.

)‫ אמא"ל‬:‫אין מבטלין איסור לכתחילה (להלן‬

15 ‫שיעור‬/ Nov 21- (M) Packet 15

We poskin that if you are ‫ מבטל‬an ‫ איסור‬with complete ‫ לכתחילה‬knowledge, then the ‫ביטול‬
isn’t ‫חל‬. Is this an ‫ איסור דאורייתא‬or ‫?דרבנן‬

‫דאורייתא‬
I) ‫ ספר איסור מהשהו‬:‫( ראב”ד‬p3)- ‫דאורייתא‬, the penalties are only ‫דרבנן‬. (It’s not even a
letter of the law/not letter of the law difference rather doing it ‫ לכתחילה‬is actually ‫אסור‬
‫מעיקר הדין‬. This is not the normative psak, because usually the poskim assume that this
‫ איסור‬is only ‫דרבנן‬.
IIA) ‫( חולין‬98a-99a)- isn’t the case of ‫ זרוע בשלה‬a case of ‫?אמא”ל‬
The ‫ גמרא‬says that the case of ZB is a ‫ חידוש‬and therefore you can’t learn out from ZB
that ‫ מין במינו‬is ‫בטל‬.
IIB) ‫( רש"י‬p2)- says that the ‫ חידוש‬by ZB is ‫אמא”ל‬. We learn from here that ‫ רש"י‬holds
that ‫ אמא”ל‬is a ‫דאורייתא‬, b/c the ‫ גמרא‬is talking about a ‫ חידוש‬on a Torah level.

41
 ‫דרבנן‬
‫ תורת הבית‬:‫רשב”א‬- quotes ‘‫ תוס‬that the ‫ גמרא‬in ‫ חולין‬by ZB means that it is a mitzvah to be
‫מבטל לכתחילה‬. By all other cases you can be ‫מבטל איסור לכתחילה‬. So ‫ אמא”ל‬is a ‫דרבנן‬. We
don’t find anywhere else that it is a mitzvah to be ‫מבטל‬.
Most ‫ ראשונים‬say it is Drabanan and that is the normative view.

R’ Akiva Eger (Os 2) SHUT- brings a NM b/t the )‫ רשב”א (דרבנן‬and the other ‫ראב”ד‬
)‫(דאורייתא‬:
N”M- According to the Raavid even shogeg would be ‫אסור‬, but if it’s only an ‫איסור דרבנן‬
then shogeg would be ‫מותר‬.
We pasken that if it’s ‫ מזיד‬it’s ‫ אסור‬but if it is shogeg it’s ‫מותר‬

Chiluk
Nodah B’Yehudah SHUT (Question 45) (p7-8)- ‫ אמא”ל‬is a ‫ דרבנן‬by ‫לח בלח‬, but by ‫יבש‬
‫ ביבש‬where you mix a tref meat and kosher meat and being ‫ כמבטל איסור‬means that you
are eating the ‫ איסור בעין‬b/c there is no ‫( עירוב‬mixture); this ‫ ביטול איסור‬is an ‫איסור דאורייתא‬.
ZB is therefore a ‫ לח בלח‬mixture.
This can explain a ‫ גמרא‬in )140( ‫( חולין‬p9), by the case of the ‫ מצורע‬birds, where one is
shechted and one is sent away.
Q) If the metzorah wants to use birds from the ‫עיר הנדחת‬- can he use them for the ‫טהרת‬
‫?המצורע‬
A) The ‫ גמרא‬says that he can’t use them.
Q) Is the ‫ איסור‬of using the ‫ עיר הנדחת‬bird only about the bird that is being shechted or
even the one that is being sent away?
It is clear that I can’t send out the bird from an ‫ עיר הנדחת‬b/c it is ‫ אסור בהנאה‬and here it
will be a ‫ מכשל‬for others, but what about to shecht it?
A) If you can’t use it to send out, then also not to shecht.
Q) Should I always have to be worried about an ‫ עיר הנדחת‬bird?
A) No, you have ‫ביטול‬. And, if you would send out the bird then it will be being ‫ מבטל‬the
‫איסור לכתחילה‬.
The N”B says that this proves that there is no ‫ ביטול‬by ‫יבש ביבש‬and ‫ אמא”ל‬is a ‫דאורייתא‬.

Baruch ‫טעם‬- disagrees with the NB”Y b/c in this case b/c you aren’t trying to be ‫ מבטל‬the
bird, only to send it out.

Being ‫ מבטל‬an ‫איסור דרבנן‬

‫ביצה ד‬: (p13)- wood that falls from a tree on ‫ יו”ט‬into your oven and you put wood that
was prepared before ‫ יו”ט‬on top of this wood that fell on ‫( יו”ט‬which is ‫)מוקצה‬.
The ‫ גמרא‬says that ‫ אמא”ל‬only applies by an ‫ איסור דאורייתא‬and not for an ‫איסור דרבנן‬.
‫רש”י‬- says that this is a )‫דבר שיש לו מתירים (דשל”מ‬, so how is it ‫ מותר‬now?
A) Since the ‫ איסור‬is getting burnt, in this case we don’t have the ‫ דין‬of ‫דשל”מ‬.

‫( רא”ש‬p14)- just as you don’t have ‫ דשל”מ‬only when the ‫ איסור‬is being burnt, therefore
the only time that you can be ‫ מבטל איסור לכתחילה‬by an ‫ איסור דרבנן‬is when the ‫ איסור‬is
getting burnt up.

42
‫( רשב”א‬p5): ‫תורת הבית‬-
I) If the ‫ איסור דרבנן‬is right in front of me I can NOT put it into the ‫היתר‬, even by an ‫איסור‬
‫דרבנן‬. But the case where I can be ‫ מבטל‬is a case where the ‫ היתר‬and ‫ איסור‬are already
mixed, but not in a proper amount, then you can add more ‫ היתר‬to achieve the ‫איסור‬.
II) There can be 2 types of ‫דרבנן‬s based on the Badei HaShulchan:
a) Ikkar ‫דאורייתא‬: Basar Oaf B’chalav (chicken)- the roots of the ‫ דרבנן‬are in ‫בשר בחלב‬, a
‫דאורייתא‬.
b) Ikkar ‫ מוקצה‬:‫דרבנן‬- is a brand new takanah w/o basis in the Torah.
Perhaps you can only be mosif by a ‫ דרבנן‬that doesn’t have its source in the Torah, but
those ‫דרבנן‬s that have there source in the Torah you can’t//
OR PERHAPS// a ‫ דרבנן‬that has ikkar from the Torah you can be mosif, but a ‫ דרבנן‬that
doesn’t have its source in the Torah you can even throw into a ‫ היתר‬that has the ‫שיעור‬
‫ביטול‬.

‫( ש”ע‬p24-5)- by an ‫איסור דרבנן‬: you can’t throw it into the ‫ היתר‬that has the ‫שיעור ביטול‬,
but you can add ‫ היתר‬to ‫ איסור‬and ‫ היתר‬in a ‫( תערובת‬Original ‫)רשב”א‬.
‫רמ”א‬- quotes ‫ רא”ש‬that you shouldn’t be ‫ מבטל‬unless it’s getting burnt up and you
shouldn’t be MIL by even a ‫דרבנן‬.

)99,19( ‫( ש”ך‬p25)- if you have leftover shemen in the menorah, it is ‫אסור בהנאה‬. He says
that you can’t add to it.
BUT, Chanukah is only a ‫דרבנן‬, so how can it be ‫?אסור‬
[The ‫ ש”ך‬also says “yesh me sheomer”]
‫חוות דעת‬/ Beis HaLevi (al HaTorah on Chanukah)- says there is a difference b/t an ‫איסור‬
‫ הנאה‬and the ‫איסור אכילה‬. The ma’aseh ‫ ביטול‬gives you ‫( הנאה‬now you have more shemen)
and that is ‫אסור‬.

Penalty if you are MIL

Mishna Terumos (‫( )פרק ה‬p10)- if ‫ תרומה‬fell into less than 100 and then more ‫ היתר‬was
added, if it was ‫ במזיד‬then you can’t eat it, if it fell ‫ בשוגג‬then it is ‫מותר‬.
‫גיטין נד‬: (p11)- quotes a ‫ מח' תנאים‬on this issue.
--We paskin that we don’t have a ‫ קנס‬on ‫שוגג אטו מזיד‬.

Is the ‫ איסור‬only on the person who did this ‫ ביטול איסור‬or even for others?
‫( רמב"ם‬p12)- says that you can be ‫מבטל איסור מדאורייתא‬. He says that there is a ‫קנס דרבנן‬.
He also says that this is only on the person that did the averah and not on someone else
(The ‫ רמב"ם‬prefaces this by saying "‫"ויראה לי‬which is what he says whenever he brings a
‫)חידוש‬.
‫רשב”א‬: (p5arrow2) ‫תורת הבית‬- disagrees, and says that the ‫ איסור‬is not only on the person
who did the ‫ביטול‬, but also for anyone who the ‫ מבטל‬did the ‫ איסור‬for. We don’t want the
person who he had in mind to get benefit from it, b/c then the person who did the ‫ ביטול‬is
getting ‫ הנאה‬from it.
‫נפק"מ‬: factories that are ‫ מבטל‬for their customers or that the ingredients don’t write
anything that ‫ אסור‬on the ingredients, can we ‘assume’ that it is kosher?

‫( ש”ע‬p15)- assumes this ‫ רשב”א‬as the halacha.

43
‫רמ”א‬- says that you can’t sell the ‫ ביטול לכתחילה‬to a Jew.
‫ש”ך‬- says that you can take a lesser price, but not the kosher price so that you don’t gain
from the ‫איסור‬. He thinks that the ‫’איסור והיתר‬s statement that you have to give away the
‫“ ביטול לכתחילה‬b’chinum” (free) is ‫ לאו דוקא‬and it really means, take the lesser price.
‫ט”ז‬- this is only if the person that the owner is being ‫ מבטל‬it for, knows that the ‫ ביטול‬is
being done for him.
(AV: when he eats it, or only during the ‫ביטול‬.)

R’ Akiva Eger quotes the ‫תשובת ריב”ש‬- if you have a store and you are ‫מבטל‬, you are
being ‫ מבטל‬for all your customers. Any person who comes to the store to buy, the ‫ביטול‬
was for him. This is called “ ‫ ”מבטל בעבורו‬and not like the ‫ט”ז‬. There is a ‫ קנס‬on this food
and these people can’t buy the food.

What happens if the person who is ‫ מבטל‬is a ‫ גוי‬who is not commanded about ‫תערובת‬
‫?איסור‬
Perhaps the ‫ גוי‬is being ‫ מבטל‬the product for all the ‫ גויים‬and there was no order from the
Jew to the ‫ גוי‬to do the ‫ ביטול‬for him.
‫( רדב"ז‬p27-8)- has a big ‫חומרא‬: once you are buying from the ‫גוי‬, you have created ‫אמא”ל‬
b/c you purchased the ‫איסור‬. You are putting yourself in a situation where you rely on
‫ביטול‬. [If he just did it for you then it’s fine but if you’re going to buy it then it is a
problem of ‫אמא”ל‬.]
‫( בדי השלחן‬p29)- doesn’t think that this ‫ רדב”ז‬is the normative psak. The ‫ קנס‬is only on
the person who did the ‫ ביטול‬and the person he did it for. He thinks that you can give a
‫ הכשר‬on a food item that has non-kosher ingredients in it, if the ‫ איסור‬is ‫בטל‬. He says that
the ‫ רדב”ז‬would mean that every product is ‫ אמא”ל‬because people have relied on this for
MANY years!
‫( דרכי תשובה‬p35-6)- he quotes poskim (like the ‫ )מהר"ם לובלין‬that argue with the ‫רדב”ז‬, but
he says that perhaps once you give a ‫ הכשר‬it is WORSE b/c then you are comman‫דין‬g him
to do the ‫ביטול‬.
‫רב שכטר‬- doesn’t think it is correct to give a ‫ הכשר‬if they are relying on ‫( ביטול‬b/c of ‫בין‬
‫ )אדם לחבירו‬and this is the policy of the OU.

What about ‫ אמא"ל‬with ‫ ?דרבנן‬On ‫ יו"ט‬it is ‫ מותר‬to do ‫ הבערה‬and it is only branches that
fell on ‫ יו"ט‬and weren’t set aside which are ‫מוקצה‬. The ‫ 'גמ‬brings a case where branches
fell into an oven on ‫ יו"ט‬and the solution is to add ‫ מותר עצים‬to the oven in order to be
‫ מבטל‬the ‫אסור עצים‬. The ‫ 'גמ‬asks why this is ‫ מותר‬and answers that it’s because this is only
and ‫ איסור דרבנן‬and there’s no problem of it being a ‫ דבר שיש לו מתירין‬because it is being
burnt.
‫ רא"ש‬in ‫ביצה‬-usually there is no ‫ קולא‬when it comes to a ‫ דבר שיש לו מתירין‬by a ‫ דרבנן‬issue.
‫ש"ע‬-it’s an ‫ איסור דרבנן‬to mix in with one’s hand in order to ‫ מבטל‬and if one did it ‫במזיד‬,
then it’s ‫אסור‬.
The ‫ ש"ך‬has a famous ‫קשיא‬: According to the ‫ש"ע‬, if someone took ‫ חנוכה שמן‬and mixed
it with normal ‫שמן‬, it is okay to use it again even if there in ‫ ביטול בששים‬even though ‫חנוכה‬
is ‫מדרבנן‬. How does this jive with what we have seen? ‫צ"ע‬.
According to Rav Abadi, you don’t have to be ‫ מיישב‬all of the ‫( סתירות בדברי מחבר‬maybe
one opinion is a ‫ חומרא‬and isn’t really ‫)מעיקר הדין‬.

44
 ‫מעשה שבת‬
‫( מגן אברהם‬Hilchos Shabbas End of S”K 2)- bishul b’shabbas (ma’aseh shabbas): cooking
done ‫ במזיד‬on Shabbas is ‫ אסור‬to the person who did the act forever and to others until
after Shabbas. M”A says that this also includes any person that they did it for, but then he
backtracks and doesn’t make that comparison.

Rav Soloveichik- if you have a kosher bakery that works on shabbas then you can never
eat the cakes.
R’ Moshe Soloveichik- if we say that you can’t use something, that is not a ‫קנס‬, but we
helped you not violate the ‫איסור‬. This ‫ איסור‬should also be the ‫ דין‬for other people.
By shabbas, it is a ‫ קנס‬on that person himself and not on others. The ‫ קנס‬by ‫ ביטול‬would
be more expansive and include more people than bishul which may only apply to the
‫ מבטל‬himself.
‫רב שכטר‬- says that it seems to be a ‫ קנס‬on the ‫ מבטל‬in a case of bishul (?) as well and
therefore perhaps it too should apply to others.

‫)אמא"ל‬B(
16 ‫שיעור‬/ Nov 23- (W) Packet 16

‫ע"ז לג‬.- Goyish wine that was kept in barrels (not cooked) for a long time, we assume that
the ‫ טעם‬went into walls of the barrel. The ‫ 'גמ‬distinguishes between ‫חדשים וגרודים‬-new and
unpitched (which is okay) and old and pitched barrels (which is problematic).
The remedy is ‫מילוי ועירוי‬. The process is to fill it up with water, let it stay for 24 hours,
spill it out, again: fill it up and wait another 24 hours then spill, and then again fill, wait
and spill (3 days in all). This is only used when the orginal ‫ בליעה‬was ‫צונן‬. Most of the
time you don’t have to do anything with a ‫ בליעה‬of ‫צונן‬.
After you finish kashering with the water the ‫ גמרא‬assumed that the water which was used
in the barrel could be drunk after the 24 hour period. The reason is that the ‫ טעם‬in the
barrel will be negligible (‫ )פגום‬and that would be why you can drink the water. After 3
times all the ‫ טעם‬will come out, but each day’s water has very little ‫טעם‬.
The strongest way of transferring taste is with fire and therefore one nees ‫ ליבון‬to kasher.
However, if one cooks treif hamburgers in a pot with water (or a utensil touches it), then
this is less than straight fire and one only needs to do ‫הגעלה‬. This involves boiling water
in a pot and then sticking the treif utensil in and the ‫ טעם‬will be extricated from the ‫כלי‬
and create a situation of ‫'בטל בס‬. But what do we do with something bigger like the pot
itself? Wait the 24 hours and then boil the water in the pot and that itself is a ‫הכשר‬
because the ‫ טעם‬of the pot will come in the water and then go right back in and it’s going
to be ‫ פגום‬already. What about a utensil that we don’t have a pot that is 60 times the
utensil? Similarly, we first need to wait 24 hours (now it’s ‫ )מותר מן התורה‬then put in hot
water and the ‫ טעם‬will come out because any additional ‫ טעם‬that would come would be
‫ פגום‬and the ‫ רבנן‬weren’t ‫ גוזר‬on this case). The reason is that it is coming in with ‫פגם‬.
Therefore, if there is ‫ ששים‬then one doesn’t even have to wait the 24 hours to create the
situation of ‫פגום‬. Rav Simon also discussed the idea of using of using amonia to be ‫מכשיר‬
‫ כלים‬to create ‫ פגום‬when one doesn’t have 24 hours to wait.

45
 Q) Isn’t that an issue of ‫?אמא”ל‬
I) ‫ר"ן יב‬: (p3)- ‫חידוש‬- he says that ‫ אמא”ל‬means: if a person is starved and wants to eat 3
sandwiches and there are only 2 kosher ones in the store and then he buys a non-kosher
sandwich, and then he mixes them together, then he wants to get ‫ הנאה‬of the ‫איסור‬,
THAT IS ‫אמא”ל‬. But in the case of the water, the Jew is not interested in the ‫ טעם‬of the
wine, but the Jew only wants the water itself. In such a case, this is not called ‫ אמא”ל‬b/c I
am using the water to drink and not for the ‫ טעם‬of the wine.

Proof: In the war against Midian the Jews won dishes and if they would’ve waited 24
hours they would’ve been kosher, but the Jews wanted to eat now, so the Torah gave the
‫ דינים‬of ‫הכשר כלים‬.
In this case you created the ‫ איסור‬of the water and the ‫טעם איסור‬, so it should be a problem
of ‫אמא”ל‬. The ‫ ר"ן‬says that these people didn’t get direct ‫ הנאה‬from the ‫ ביטול‬and that was
why it was ‫ מותר‬to permit ‫הגעלת כלים‬. Therefore the ‫ ר"ן‬fels he is correct. Here there is no
‫ הנאה‬from the ‫איסור‬.
[‫איסור מהשהו‬/‫ראב"ד‬/‫רש”י‬- say that ‫ אמא”ל‬is a ‫דאורייתא‬. The ‫ ר"ן‬says that he must be correct
According to these opinions.]

‫( אורחות חיים‬p5) (R’ Yosef Chaim M’Lunil)- also brings down this yesod of the ‫ר"ן‬. He
brings down the story of a person who found his honey full of bugs. He was told by the
‫ חכמים‬to warm up the honey until the bugs disintegrate and then filter out the honey and
the bugs will be strained. But, even if you get the bugs out, isn’t there going to be a ‫טעם‬
in the honey (R’ Simon- perhaps it was ‫ ?)פגום‬The ‫ א"ח‬answers that here you are only
interested in the honey and not in having the ‫ טעם‬of the bugs in your honey.

)84,13( ‫(ש”ע‬p6)- quotes this case of honey and bugs.

)38 ,84( ‫ש”ך‬- quotes the ‫א"ח‬
‫באר הגולה‬- quotes that the ‫ א"ח‬had this ma’aseh.

‫ אמא”ל‬in KSLB
‫ תורת הבית‬:‫רשב”א‬- if you have a kli and a little hot treif fell into the kli. The person wants
to know if he has to kasher his kli, b/c the ‫ טעם‬of the tref will be ‫ בטל‬in the next meal b/c
it is so minimal. Also, is it allowed to drink the water that was used for koshering? The
‫ טעם‬that comes out is ‫ בטל‬in the water. He could’ve answered like the ‫ ר"ן וא"ח‬that if you
aren’t interested in ‫ הנאה מהמים‬then it is okay. However, he tells us that reason is that
whenever you have a kli that is used ‫ בשפע‬and you have a small ‫ איסור‬then you can even
use it ‫ 'לכ‬and you don’t have to kasher it. Perhaps we can say that this huge pot where a
little treif fell in that you can use it, but not by a smaller pot where the pot isn’t be used
for shefa all the time. By an everyday pot it wouldn’t always be ‫ בטל‬so it is NOT ‫בטל‬.
The ‫ רשב”א‬brings a ‫ גמ' בע"ז‬as a source for his ‫חידוש‬. With barrels used for ‫( ע"ז‬wine) the
‫ טעם‬that the wine will give is in a minute amount; therefore, the ‫ טעם‬that will come out is
like a )‫ כשל"ב‬:‫כלי שדרכו להשתמש בשפע (להלן‬. BUT, a non industrial pot is ‫ אסור‬to use b/c of
a ‫ גזירה‬b/c of ‫ נתינת טעם‬and it must be koshered.

46
‫ טור‬I (p13)- (like the ‫ )רשב”א‬quotes the ‫ דין‬of ‫ כשל"ב‬and that you don’t need to kasher it.
In a small kli you can’t even use it even if you are going to fill it to the top. [A soup bowl
(smaller bowl) that a person is going to fill to the top, isn’t considered ‫ כשל"ב‬from a ‫גזירה‬
that he might fall into a ‫ מכשול‬by using the pot for too little ‫היתר‬.]
‫ טור‬II (‫)הכשר כלים‬: he says that a big kli is always ‫בטל‬, if it is a small kli he says you can’t
use it b/c of ‫ אמא”ל‬and does not say it is b/c of the ‫גזירה‬.
1) We see from here that ‫ אמא”ל‬applies even if you’re NOT getting ‫ הנאה‬from the ‫איסור‬
(against the ‫!)ר"ן‬
2) If the problem is ‫ אמא”ל‬then it should be a problem even in a case of ‫ כשל"ב‬b/c you are
still being ‫?'מבטל לכ‬

[R’ Zalman Nechemiah- Kli that’s not ‫ כשל"ב‬- why is that ‫ אסור‬because of ‫ אמא”ל‬or a
‫( ?*גזירה‬Question on Bechina).
Difference b/t the Turs- A kli that is not ‫ כשל"ב‬why is it ‫אסור‬, b/c of ‫ אמא”ל‬or a gezara?]
Isn’t the ‫ רשב”א‬arguing with the Ran and if it is ‫]כשל"ב‬

‫מחבר‬- quotes the ‫ הלכה‬in two places as well. He says that ‫ אמא”ל‬is the problem of ‫הכשר‬
‫כלים‬. This is a problem b/c the ‫ מחבר‬quoted the ‫ א"ח‬earlier and the ‫ א"ח‬says that ‫אמא”ל‬
doesn’t apply if you’re not getting ‫ הנאה‬from the ‫!איסור‬

‫רא”ה‬/‫רשב”א‬- don’t hold like the ‫ א"ח‬and ‫ר"ן‬.

‫רא”ה‬- isn’t NTL an issue of ‫ ?אמא”ל‬According to the ‫ ר"ן‬you are surely not interested in
the ‫טעם‬. [He argues with the ‫ רשב”א‬and holds ‫ אמא”ל‬across the board.]
‫רשב”א‬: Mishmeres HaBais- asks what the difference b/t a kederah that is aino bas yoma
and ‫ ?אמא”ל‬The ‫ רא”ה‬and ‫ ?רשב”א‬hold of ‫ אמא”ל‬at all times that a person is ‫מבטל איסור‬
even if he is NOT getting ‫ הנאה‬from the ‫ איסור‬itself.
‫אמא”ל‬- they don’t say the simple answer “that they are not interested in the ‫ ”טעם‬like the
‫א"ח‬/‫ ר"ן‬would say.

What about the ‫’ר"ן‬s proof from ‫?הכשר כלים‬

(1) The proof is only if you hold ‫ אמא”ל‬is a ‫דאורייתא‬.
(2) R’ Simon said that ‫ הכשל כלים‬could also be different b/c by ‫ הכשר‬kalim you are
throwing out the water and you are not getting ‫ הנאה‬from the water. The ‫ רשב”א‬can still
make a distinction b/t ‫ הגעלה‬and drinking the water afterward.

Q) If ‫ אמא”ל‬is the pshat, then why is ‫?כשל"ב מותר‬

A) ‫( מעדני אשר‬p21)- the ‫ רא"ה‬argues on the ‫רשב”א‬, he is a purist and says that ‫ אמא”ל‬is
always a problem and it is always ‫ אסור‬and he argues with ‫!כשל"ב‬

The problem is the ‫רשב”א‬. If you hold like the ‫ רא"ה‬all should be ‫ אסור‬and like the
‫א"ח‬/‫ ר"ן‬all should be ‫ ?מותר‬Is it a problem of ‫ אמא”ל‬then it should be a problem by
‫?כשל"ב‬

M”Asher- says that the ‫ רשב”א‬might say ‫ אמא”ל‬is a ‫ גזירה‬that you might not do a correct
‫ביטול‬. That is why if it is ‫ כשל"ב‬we are not worried about that b/c we are sure that you’ll
do a good ‫ביטול‬.

47
Where is this new ‫ ?גזירה‬This new ‫ גזירה‬is ‫( אמא”ל‬the new ‫ גזירה‬is that you won’t do a
good ‫ביטול‬.) This answers up both for the Tur and the ‫ מחבר‬that it is the same thing!

‫( שו"ת נודע ביהודה‬p19)-

Q) Apple juice: they put a tref ingredient in to “clear up” the juice so there is no sediment
and not b/c you want to eat it. They left the fish in the juice for 24 hours so it’s ‫נותן טעם‬,
but it’s ‫בטל‬. Are you allowed to do this?
1) The fish is dried and has no ‫טעם‬.
2) Perhaps ‫ אמא”ל‬is only with ‫הנאה‬, here I don’t want to eat the fish too, I want the
sediment to go to the bottom.
All in Poland were doing this and his uncle said it was ‫אסור‬.

A) The ‫א"ח‬/‫ ר"ן‬should say it is ‫מותר‬, the ‫ רא”ה‬should say it’s ‫ אסור‬and the ‫ רשב”א‬would
say that this case is different according to the ‫ נודע ביהודה‬b/c in the other cases we are
adding ‫ היתר‬into ‫ איסור‬to be ‫מתיר‬, but in this case we are adding the ‫ איסור‬into the ‫ היתר‬to
fix it. His yesod is that something that was already ‫ נתערב‬you can use ‫ היתר‬to be ‫מבטל‬
when you are not getting any ‫ הנאה‬from the ‫ איסור‬and you can use the water you were
‫ מבטל‬with (ie the water from the wine cask), but you can’t throw in tref (b’yadaim and
with kavanah) even if you are not planning on getting any ‫ הנאה‬from it and be ‫'מבטל לכ‬.

)‫( בריה (איסור מהשהו‬I)

17 ‫שיעור‬/ Nov 28- (M) P17 YD 100

‫בריה‬- a whole unit of creation: (ex: ‫ גיד הנשה‬is a natural creation). A ‫ בריה‬will not be ‫בטל‬
in a ‫ בריה‬.‫ תערובת‬exists in other places in the ‫ מדאורייתא‬and this principle was brought
from those other areas to ‫ תערובת‬to create an ‫איסור דרבנן‬.

‫מכות יג‬.- eating ‫ טבל‬is an ‫איסור דאורייתא‬, but what is the ‫?שיעור‬
1) R’Shimon says that all you need to be ‫ חייב‬is a kol shehu.
2) ‫ חכמים‬say ‫כזית‬.
R”S says that it is a ‫ כל שהוא‬b/c of ‫שרץ‬. A ‫ שרץ‬is not always a ‫כזית‬, but b/c it is one full
unit of creation, you are liable to ‫ מלקות‬if you eat the whole unit even if it is less than a
‫כזית‬. R”S compares one bug to one kernel. This “unit of creation” has its own chashivus
and therefore it should be ‫ חייב‬for ‫ מלקות‬even for less than a ‫כזית‬.
‫חכמים‬- said that the bug is only ‫ אסור‬b/c it is a ‫בריה‬, but that is no rayah to ‫חיטה‬.
R”S- answered that just as nemalah (bug) is an ‫איסור‬, so too is a ‫חיטה‬.

‫( מכות‬17a)- finished the conversation:

‫חכמים‬- a ‫ בריה‬needs to have been alive at one point to be given the extra chashivus of ‫בריה‬,
and a kernel was never alive.
PRINCIPLE 1: ‫ בריה‬REQUIRES A UNIT OF CREATION THAT WAS ALIVE.

‫חולין קב‬: (p3)- if you eat a whole kosher bird while it is alive you get ‫ מלקות‬b/c of ‫אבר מן‬
‫( החי‬even less than a ‫)כזית‬, but once the bird is dead, then the ‫ דין‬of ‫ בריה‬is removed and
you only get ‫ מלקות‬if you eat a ‫ כזית‬of the kosher bird (ie: if it had incorrect ‫)שחיטה‬.

48
If the bird is a non-kosher bird, then it has the “‫ ”שם בריה‬whether it is alive or dead.
Therefore, you can get ‫ מלקות‬for eating less than a ‫ כזית‬of a non-kosher bird even after
death.
‫רש”י‬- one of the requirements of ‫ בריה‬is that the item must have had the ‫ איסור‬from its
birth (onset). (Ex: a non-kosher bird was always a non-kosher bird and will always be
one, but a ‫ נבילה‬was not always a ‫נבילה‬.)
PRINCIPLE 2: THE OBJECT MUST ALWAYS HAVE HAD THE ‫איסור ("מתחילת‬
)"‫בריאתו‬.

When a ‫ בריה‬is in a ‫ תערובת‬is it ‫?בטל‬

‫חולין צט‬:- says that a ‫ גיד הנשה‬that was cooked with other ‫ גידים‬isn’t ‫ בטל‬b/c “‫ בריה‬is
different.”
‫( ריטב”א‬p5)- says that the fact that the ‫ בריה‬is chashuv by ‫( מלקות‬by other ‫)איסורים‬, the
‫ גמרא‬extended this chashivus to ‫( תערובת‬and a ‫ בריה‬is not ‫)בטל‬.
‫( ט”ז‬p17)- says that the ‫ חכמים‬were ‫ מחמיר‬by ‫( תערובת‬like the ‫)ריטב”א‬. This is an
extension.
‫שו"ת מהרי"ל‬- says that a ‫ בריה‬might not be ‫ בטל‬in a ‫!!תערובת דאורייתא‬

‫רב שכטר‬- says that many of his ‫ חידושים‬are b/c he tries to find out which ‫ איסורים‬the
chamimim used to extend to the ‫( דרבנן‬which ‫ איסורים‬they patterned the ‫ איסור דרבנן‬after).

‫ בדפי הרי"ף‬.‫ר"ן בחולין לו‬- there are 3 conditions for the food to fulfill before they are to be
called a ‫בריה‬:
1) It must be intrinsic in the thing. Many ‫ איסורים‬aren’t intrinsic and they come later in the
life of the animal (‫)איסורא מגופא‬.
2) Must be a ‫ברית נשמה‬.
3) The unit must be together (the whole bug must be together) and must be consumed as
a unit (‫)שתהא שלמה‬.

Is ‫ חלב‬a ‫?בריה‬
I) ‫ר"ן‬- says that ‫ חלב‬isn’t called a ‫ בריה‬b/c: IT ISN’T ALL IN ONE PLACE AND IT
ISN’T A ‫ בריה‬IF IT IS SPREAD OUT IN MANY PLACES.

II) ‫( רא”ש‬p10)- has another svara- he is against the ‫’ר"ן‬s svara- he says that if you got
“all the ‫ חלב‬on the ‫ ”קרב‬then you have one ‫ בריה‬and another piece of ‫ חלב‬is another ‫בריה‬.
PRINCIPLE OF ‫ בריה‬-‫ רא”ש‬is something that is called its name only when it is a whole
unit. If the name remains even after the ‫ איסור‬is cut up, then it is NOT a ‫ חלב‬.‫ בריה‬is
called ‫ חלב‬even in a small amount (not as part of the animal when it is whole), so that is a
‫בריה‬. The ‫ גיד הנשה‬is only called a ‫ גיד‬when it is whole, but it is not called a ‫ גיד‬when it is
cut up. ‫ נבלה‬is not only called ‫“ נבלה‬as a whole unit” but it is even called a ‫“ נבלה‬when it
is cut up.”

‫מכות טז‬:- if you grind up 9 bugs and mix them with one complete bug. For the ‫( בריה‬whole
bug) you get 5 ‫ איסורים‬and for the other 9 you only get ‫ מלקות‬when the aggregate amount
equals a ‫ כזית‬of ‫נבלה‬. The ‫ גמרא‬says that you only get 6 ‫ מלקות‬and not 51 ‫מלקות‬, therefore
you see that it must be complete to get ‫ מלקות‬on a ‫בריה‬.

49
 960
‫( ר"ש‬Terumos)- the ‫ בריה‬would seem to be an ‫ איסור מהשהו‬and not be ‫ בטל‬in ‫ רוב‬or 60.
The ‫ ר"ש‬says this is not true b/c a ‫ בריה‬is ‫ בטל‬in 960, based upon a Mishna and a
‫ירושלמי‬.
Mishnah Terumos (10,5)- ‫ דג טמא‬that is mixed into other fish, if you have 960 kosher to
non-kosher it is ‫ מותר‬OR 10 zuz in a ‫ גרב‬then it is ‫מותר‬.
1) 2 =‫ גרב‬sa’ah,
2) Sa’ah= 24 lug, (48)
3) Lug= 2 litrin, (96)
4) Liter=100 zuz (9600)

‫ תורת הבית‬:‫( רשב”א‬p12/3)- quotes the ‫ ר”ש‬and says that ‫ בריה‬is different from other ‫איסורים‬
of ‫מהשהו‬, b/c a ‫ בריה‬is ‫ בטל‬in 960.
The ‫ ערוך השלחן‬used this to be ‫ מלמד זכות‬to be people that would eat bread in the summer
with flour that was assumed to contain bugs.

Most other ‫ ראשונים‬don’t learn the mishna the way the ‫ ר”ש‬learned the mishna. They
don’t read the mishna as discussing a ‫יבש ביבש‬case. They learn that “kevishah” has a
potent ‫ טעם‬until 960.
The ‫ ר”ש‬learns the mishna differently. He says that the line that begins “kol grav” is a
new line about ‫ בריה‬that has nothing to do with nesinas ‫ טעם‬line (the first line of the
mishna). The ‫ פשוט פשט‬in the mishna is like the other mefurshim and discussing nesinas
‫טעם‬, so this ‫ ר”ש‬is a little bit of a ‫חידוש‬.
Nobody brings down this ‫ חידוש‬l’halacha, but perhaps it can be used to be matir the water
and the bugs.

BUGS IN FRUIT
‫( פלתי‬p25) (R’ Yonasan Eibeshitz)- there are bugs that form in fruit, he says that he can
be matir “if you don’t see the bugs.” He says that the bugs are only ‫“ אסור‬once they are
‫( ”פרוש‬once they leave the fruit and come outside) and therefore these bugs are just like
‫ נבלה‬and can’t be a ‫בריה‬. This is b/c they aren’t ‫ אסור‬until they leave the fruit. (The fact
that the bugs must be ‫ פרוש‬is a ‫ גזירת הכתוב‬from “‫)שרץ השורץ על הארץ‬.
‫פתחי תשובה‬- quotes the ‫פלתי‬.

In the summer there are probably bugs in the grain that are “visible with the eye” so why
is it ‫ מותר‬based upon ‫ ?בריה‬Use R’ Eibeshitz’s ‫ קולא‬and some disagree.

Badei HaShulchan/ Sefer HaEshkol (p24)- says that the requirement of ‫ בריה‬is that
there is an ‫ איסור‬that is present “‫ ”תחילת בריאתו‬and those ‫ איסורים‬that happen naturally in
the life of the ‫בריה‬.
Shor ha’niskal is not naturally formed thing and therefore a shor ha’niskal that is mixed
into a ‫ תערובת‬is not called a ‫ בריה‬and can become ‫ בטל‬b/c it wasn’t born a shor ha’niskal
and it isn’t a natural thing.

50
The svara of the S”H is NOT that the animal was born with the ‫איסור‬, but an animal can
be considered a ‫ בריה‬of ‫ איסור‬if it will naturally form a ‫ איסור‬in its natural life-cycle, even
if the animal was ‫ מותר‬when it was born (like coming out of the fruit for these bugs).
[What about ‫נבלה‬, that is also the natural life-cycle of the animal and should also be a
‫ בריה‬according to the svara of the S”E?]

‫חוות דעת‬- comes to argue with the ‫פלתי‬.

Why isn’t ‫ נבלה‬a ‫?בריה‬
What about “aino zevuchah”- an animal needs to be sheched, this is an “‫ ”איסור עשה‬of
requiring ‫?שחיטה‬
We don’t say that something is a ‫ בריה‬even though there is an ‫ איסור עשה‬of “aino
zevuchah” even though the ‫ איסור עשה‬is always there.
Is the ‫ איסור‬intrinsic (‫ )בריה‬or did it come from a davar acher (not a ‫?)בריה‬
The case of the ‫ שרץ‬is the normal way of the ‫ איסור‬that it comes out of the fruit and goes
onto the ‫ארץ‬. The point is not if it was created that way, but the issue is whether the
‫ איסור‬comes from something internal or externally created. If something unnatural
happened then it’s not a ‫בריה‬.
[What about ‫נבילה‬- would be considered a ‫דבר אחר גורם לו‬.]

Egg and ephroach

‫( ש”ע‬p17/9)- an egg that has an ephroach- what happens if it gets mixed up in others
(quotes the ‫)רא”ש‬.
)100,2( ‫( ש”ך‬p19)- what about an egg that has blood in it, which means it was fertilized
and then it didn’t form. He says that ‫ מהר”ם‬Ibn Chabib says it is a ‫בריה‬, but the ‫ ש”ך‬says
that there was no ‫ נשמה‬and it’s not a ‫בריה‬. A ‫ בריה‬needs a ‫נשמה‬.
Be’er Haetev- also says that a blood spot isn’t a problem.
)100,4( ‫ש”ך‬- a good chicken that became a trefah is also not a ‫ בריה‬b/c it wasn’t a trefah
forever.
Q) Why does the ‫ ש”ך‬say “‫ ”כל שכן‬a trefeah?
A) )‫גליון מהרש"א (ר' שלמה עיגר בן ר' עקיבא עיגר‬- says that there is more svara to say that a
trefah is a ‫בריה‬, b/c it is a super-aino zevuach and it may be “‫ אסור‬from the beginning” but
the ‫ נבלה‬is not from the beginning.
[This implies that aino zavauch doesn’t count to create a ‫בריה‬.]

Brachah Acharonah
‫ תוס' בסוכה‬quotes the ‫ ירושלמי‬that if you eat a ‫ בריה‬then you don’t make a ‫ברכה אחרונה‬.
These aren’t the normal criteria of ‫בריה‬, b/c a grape isn’t a berias neshamah.
‫פמ”ג‬- a piece of grain isn’t a ‫בריה‬, but perhaps the ‫ חכמים‬said that you make a bracha
acharonah by a “‫”בריה‬
‘‫ תוס‬Berachos- says that R’ Yochanan said a bracha acharonah even though he didn’t eat
a ‫( כזית‬b/c he left out the pit)
‫( ש”ע‬p30)- there is a ‫( ספק‬Tos. is b’‫)ספק‬, so it is not right to eat one grape.

)‫( בריה (איסור מהשהו‬II)

18 ‫שיעור‬/ Nov 30- (W) P18 YD 100

51
‫חולין צו‬: - there is an ‫ איסור‬to eat the ‫גיד הנשה‬. The ‫ משנה‬says that the ‫ גיד‬has a ‫ טעם‬that
would have to be ‫ מבטל‬in a ‫תערובת‬.
‫חולין צט‬: - R’ Yochanan ben Brokah says “‫”אין בגידים בנותן טעם‬
‫גיד הנשה‬- is a ‫ מחלוקת תנאים‬whether there g”h has a “‫נותן טעם‬.” If it has no ‫טעם‬, then the
Torah prohibited something like “wood” and “etz hu, ela haTorah osarto.”

What if a g”h was in a ‫ תערובת‬and it then disintegrated/melted into the pot assuming "‫אין‬
‫( "בגידים בנותן טעם‬the way we paskin)?
I) ‫ רשב”א‬Bais HaKatzar- even though we hold “‫ ”אין בגידים‬we need 60 if the ‫ גיד‬liquefied.
One could argue that you don’t require 60 ‫ דרבנן‬b/c if it can’t come to ‫ איסור טעם‬then
there should never be the requirement of 60 b/c the ‫ חכמים‬wouldn’t have created the ‫איסור‬.
The ‫ רשב"א‬in the ‫( בית הארוך‬p. 4) says that even if it disintegrated you need 60.
The ‫ רשב"א‬in the ‫( תורת הבית‬p. 7, 8) says that when the actual ‫ איסור‬is disintegrated into
the kosher food we don’t rely on a ‫ קפילא‬and there is a need for 60.
Tur (p5)- says that you need 60 against it.
60 -‫ רמב"ן‬is required l’‫חומרא‬

II) ‫מנחת כהן‬- doesn’t think that this should be true. He thinks that the only reason why the
‫ חכמים‬extended past ‫ בטל‬b’trei was for ‫טעם‬, and here there is no chashash of ‫טעם‬, so there
is no reason to extend the amount needed past chad b’trei.
At first glance this is what you would’ve said b/c “‫ ”אחרי רבים להטות‬applied and you don’t
require 60 ‫ מדאורייתא‬b/c there is no ‫טעם‬.

The ‫ מנחת כהן‬says that this shittah of the ‫ רשב”א‬might be the ‫רשב”א לשיטתו‬- the ‫רשב”א‬
discusses when ‫ טעימת קפילא‬is needed. He says that you can use a ‫ קפילא‬only if the ‫איסור‬
was cooked and then removed, but he says that when the ‫ איסור‬was in the ‫ תערובת‬we feel
that the ‫ קפילא‬might have “missed” the ‫ טעם‬in the ‫תערובת‬. Perhaps this is the extension of
this ‫ רשב”א‬by g”h. If the g”h is in the ‫ תערובת‬then you still require 60.

‫?פרי חדש‬-the ‫ מחבר‬holds that it is ‫ מותר‬with a ‫ קפילא‬so why would it be different here.

Perhaps g’h has a ‫טעם קלוש‬

)100,4(‫( חוות דעת‬p14)- shittah of the Or Zaruah by bones was that they don’t count for
‫ איסור‬or ‫היתר‬. The ‫ חוות דעת‬says that he doesn’t think that the g”h has “no ‫טעם‬,” but that “
‫ ”אין בגידים‬means that the ‫ איסור‬has a ‫ טעם‬kalush. He says that the ‫ טעם‬kalush can’t come
out of the ‫ גיד‬during cooking, but if you eat the ‫ גיד‬itself, then you are eating the ‫מקור‬
‫( של הטעם‬b/c you are eating the ‫ גיד‬itself) therefore it will ‫ אסור‬the ‫תערובת‬.
R’ Ahron Soloveichik- says that all ‫ מחלוקת‬in metzius should be made into a ‫ מחלוקת‬of
halacha. The issue here would be that is agreed that the ‫ גיד‬has some ‫טעם‬, but does this
‫ טעם‬reach the status of “‫ ”טעם‬is what they are arguing about.

Bugs in the vegtables

‫ש”ע ס' ק‬- if you have a bowl of soup and a bug fell in and you can’t find it, then the
whole bowl is ‫ אסור‬as the ‫ בדי השלחן‬says- b/c it isn’t ‫בטל‬.

52
‫ירקות מבושלות‬- if you see that there are 3 bugs in the cooked vegetables (3: based upon the
creation of a ‫ )חזקה‬then it is okay to use the ‫ מי שלקות‬if you strain it. (‫רשב"א‬- Once
something is ‫ מוחזק‬the only way to get out of it is to do a ‫)בדיקה‬.

)100,46(‫( בדי השלחן‬p21)-gives an overview of 4 halachos by bugs in a mixture:

1) ‫מיעוט שאינו מצוי‬- even ‫ 'לכ‬you don’t need to check for bugs. There is a ‫ דין‬of the Torah
of ‫ רוב‬and ‫ מן התורה‬.‫ חזקה‬we can follow ‫ רוב‬and even ‫ מדרבנן‬we don’t need to check unless
there is a ‫ספק‬. [If you have a vegetable and this type of vegetable generally has no bugs or
very unlikely to have bugs then it is considered a “‫מיעוט שאינו מצוי‬.”]
By ‫ שחיטה‬we also follow ‫ רוב‬and ‫חזקה‬- we only check an animal for trefos in those places
in the animal where it is shechiach, but not where it isn’t. We look at the lungs of the
animal b/c it is more ‫( שכיח‬it is ‫ )מצוי‬and it requires ‫בדיקה מדרבנן‬. If you lost the lungs
before the ‫ בדיקה‬then it is a ‫ספק דרבנן‬.
‫רמ”א‬- only permits the cow when the lungs were lost if there is a hefsed m’rubah.
This is also relevant for checking for shatnez. If you can’t check it, and it is a ‫מיעוט שאינו‬
‫ מצוי‬then it is ‫ מותר‬to use.
2) ‫מיעוט המצוי‬- there is a ‫ חיוב מדרבנן‬to check the food for bugs. What percentage makes it
a ms”m? Even if it is less than a 50% chance you must check, and if there is a ‫ ספק‬you
must go l’‫חומרא‬.
3) ‫ספק השקול‬- there is a ‫ חיוב דאורייתא‬to check the bugs. But, once the vegetables were
cooked then they are ‫ מותר‬to eat from a 1 :‫ )ספק ספיקא‬perhaps this one didn’t have the
bugs (of the good 50%) and 2) perhaps the bugs broke apart and then they wouldn’t be
‫ בריה‬and would be ‫בטל‬.
4) ‫מוחזק בתולעים‬- if you saw three bugs in your vegetables, even if you will wash them,
you can’t eat them b/c we assume that there are bugs in these vegetables. If you want to
eat this then you must do a thorough ‫ בדיקה‬checking each leaf before using it.

Mekoros for this Halachah

‫חולין ג‬:- If someone is doing ‫ שחיטה‬they are assumed to be a “mumcheh”
‫רא”ש‬- if someone says he knows how to shecht I don’t need to give him a bechinah. This
is only if the ‫ שוחט‬is not around anymore, but if he is around, then we have to give him
a test, b/c there are many shochtim who shecht and don’t know what they are doing.
There is a ‫ מיעוט המצוי‬of shochtim that shecht w/o knowing how to shecht.
‫ש”ע‬- quotes the halacha that you need to test him if he is still around.

‫פסחים ד‬. (p27)- if you rent a house on the 14th of Nissan you can assume that the home-
owner that you are renting from did ‫בדיקה‬. The ‫ גמרא‬says that if the owner was there in
front of you then you have to ask, and if he is not in front of you then you don’t need to
go and find out.
Ran- difference b/t ‫ מצוי‬and ‫אינו מצוי‬- there are certain spots in the lungs that you have to
check b/c they are a ‫מיעוט שמצוי‬.

What is the percentage?

Different people give different source for this but there are 2 classical sources:
‫שו"ת ריב”ש‬- it is karuv to 50%, if it is 50% then it is shakul. This is a huge ‫ קולא‬and we
are generally more ‫מחמיר‬, “he says “karuv l’mechtzah”

53
‫שו"ת משכנת יעקב‬- says 10% is a miut hamatzuy and you can use it. The Source is in ‫גיטין‬
‫לא‬. where the ‫ גמרא‬says that you can eat fruit which didn’t have ‫ תרומה‬taken from it if the
rest of the fruit is in another location. You can prevent the ‫ תרומה‬from being ‫ אסור‬by
verbally placing the ‫ איסור תרומה‬on some of the grain in your house.
The ‫ גמרא‬says that there is a ‫ חיוב בדיקה‬in the fruit 3 times a year to make sure that the
fruit didn’t spoil and as long as you do this you can rely on the ‫ חזקה‬that they are fine.
Bava Basrah- says that in every 100 fruit he must assume that there are 10 rotten ones,
b/c that is normal. The fruit rots at a rate of 10% and you must check the fruit, so the
‫ שיעור‬is 10% b/c the chovas ‫ בדיקה‬means there is a miut hamatzuy (Also by wine).
Rav Soloveichik- says 12.5% of animals have ‫ טריפות‬in the lungs and you must check the
lungs.

Why three bugs?

‫משנה ביבמות סד‬. (p18)- if a couple is married for 10 years and they have no children, the
husband can either take another wife or divorce her (in order to ‫)מקיים מצוות פרו ורבו‬.
She is able to remarry and stay with her new husband for 10 years. The ‫ גמרא‬says that if
she was married twice and it didn’t work with the 2nd husband, then she can’t remarry a
husband who didn’t do pru u-rvu b/c there is already a ‫ חזקה‬according to ‫רבי (תרי זמנין‬
)‫לחזקה‬. This is also ‫’רבי‬s shittah by children dying by the bris milah. ‫ רשב"ג‬says if three
children died, then on the 4th you don’t give a bris milah. If a woman gets married and
every husband she marries dies, can she marry a 3rd husband or 4th husband? Also ‫וסתות‬-
does it need to happen 2 or three times?

How do we paskin: 2 or 3 times?

‫( רא”ש‬p20)- says that we hold 3 times for ‫וסתות‬, except by milah and nesuin (husband
kept dying). We say 2 times creates a ‫ חזקה‬by cases of ‫ ספק‬nefashos.
‫( ש”ע‬p22)- says that you need 3 bugs.
‫ט”ז‬- brings the ‫ רא”ש‬and says that this isn’t a nefashos case so you need 3 bugs.

How much do you look at?

What if you are a hotel and not merely a household- if you see 3 bugs in a huge amount
of food, are you going to check every leaf?
R’ Elyashiv SHUT- R’ Shwab and R’ Luben were sent to R’ Elyashiv to ask him this
question about restaurants, summer camps, hotels etc. Can you do something to un-
muchzak the vegetables (perhaps salt water) where the bugs will come to the top?
R’ Elyashiv said that salt water should be used and then wash the vegetables assuming
that you found three bugs.

‫חתיכה הראויה להתכבד‬

19 ‫שיעור‬/ Dec 5- (M) Packet 19 101 ‫ש”ע‬

CH”L- is a piece of food that someone would give a guest and ‫ מדרבנן‬it is not ‫בטל‬.

‫חולין צו‬:- if you have a chaticha of nevilah and you remove it then you can eat the other
pieces, but if you don’t know which is the ‫איסור‬, all are ‫אסור‬.
‫חולין ק‬.- Shouldn’t the piece be ‫ ?בטל ברוב‬The mishna is talking about CH”L.

54
“‫”את שדרכרו למנות‬- only things that are ALWAYS counted are ‫ חשוב‬enough not to be ‫בטל‬.
“‫”כל שדרכו למנות‬- even things that are sometimes counted aren’t ‫בטל‬.

‫רי"ף‬- doesn’t quote CH”L from mishna ‫ע"ז עד‬. which says that there are certain things
that are not ‫בטל‬, and it left out ‫ נבלה‬and ‫חמץ בפסח‬. This mishna requires ‫ דבר שבמנין‬and
‫אסור בהנאה‬. This mishna implies that only these things aren’t ‫ מבטל‬and seems to
contradict the mishna which doesn’t require both things.
‫( רי"ף‬p6)- quotes the mishna of ‫ ע"ז‬and he says that we only say that the ‫איסורים‬
enumerated in the mishna aren’t ‫בטל‬. The ‫ ר"ן‬says that the ‫ רי"ף‬learns like the ‫ רמב"ם‬that
there is a ‫ 'מח‬between the 2 ‫משניות‬.
‫ש”ע‬- holds of CH”L.

‫( רא”ש‬p8)- discussion of ch”l matters:

‫( אסורה מחמת עצמה‬it must be a piece of meat that is intrinsically ‫אסור‬, not that it swallowed
‫ )איסור‬not ‫מחמת בליעה‬.
The exception to the rule is ‫ בשר בחלב‬which is a ‫בליעה‬, but is considered an‫ איסור עצמה‬b/c
the meat turns into ‫ איסור‬of B”B. The ‫ רא"ש‬is the ‫מחמיר שיטה‬.
‫( ש”ע‬p19)- it must be ‫אסור מחמת עצמה‬.
‫ש”ך‬- says that this is the new form of the ‫ איסור‬and is Ch”l even through a ‫בליעה‬.

RAW MEAT: If you go to the grocery store and you buy 5 pieces of meat and the pieces
are raw. Is raw meat considered ‫ ?ראוי להתכבד‬Does it lose its ability to become ch”l later
(ie if you buy it raw)? Do you need to by it cooked or is it fine to buy it raw and know
that eventually it will be able to be ch”l?
‫רא”ש‬- quotes I) “some gedolim” who say that you have to buy a “cooked piece” but the
II) ‫ רא”ש‬says they are “‫ ”דברי הבל‬and as long as it can come to the potential of being ‫ראוי‬
for a guest they are not ‫בטל‬. The perspective should be from size, not whether it was
cooked.

SHALEM (whole animal): What happens if you have 3 animals and one is tref and you
would say chad b’trei, but, is this whole lamb ch”l? The ‫ רא”ש‬would say that it is CH”L
in this case. This is a ‫ דין‬of chashivus- and this is more chasuv than even a regular steak.

FEATHERS- what happens when there are feathers on the animal? Does the one animal
that is tref, make all the others tref?
That is why they keep the feathers on longer in the kashrus agency, so the animals
won’t be ‫ בטל‬so you don’t have shailos.

This ‫ מחלוקת‬b/t the ‫ רא”ש‬and gedolim is in the ‫ רשב”א‬as well and he may also be one of
these gedolim.
‫ רשב”א‬argues with the ‫ רא”ש‬and says that the piece of meat can’t be too big or too small.
(It must be ‫ ראוי‬to give at that time—Av.)

‫( סמ”ק‬p13)- if the animal still has its feathers on it, it is not ch”l. ‫ סמ”ק‬says that he can be
m’chalek, perhaps if the piece of meat only needs cooking is not a “big enough deal” but
requiring de-feathering might be a lot.

55
‫( שערי דורא‬p15)- brings down a story from R”T (called R’ Yaakov) that one tref got
mixed with 2 kosher animals and it was before the feathers were removed and R”T
permitted the animals.

How do we paskin about these questions?

‫( ש”ע‬p21)- says I) that a piece of meat that wasn’t salted isn’t ch”l, b/c of ‫ בלועה‬inside.
II) ‫( כדי קליפה‬then the ‫ קליפה‬is ‫)אסור‬, but that piece of meat isn’t ch”l.
(101,3) the ‫ מחבר‬says that meat that has feathers is ‫בטל‬, b/c he paskins like the gedolim
that it must be cooked, correct size (against the ‫)רא”ש‬.
‫רמ”א‬- says l’chain nohagin: that the animal is ‫בטל‬. The ‫ רמ”א‬says that if the animal is
missing a davar gadol, then it isn’t ch”l, but just missing cooking isn’t a problem.

)101,13( ‫ש”ך‬- says that the ideas of chashivus is based upon ‫ זמן‬and ‫מקום‬.
‫רמב"ם‬- says that ‫ חשיבות‬is based upon that time period and that place.
‫( ש”ע‬p25)- ch”l only isn’t ‫ בטל‬if it’s whole, and not if it is cut up (unless it is done ‫במזיד‬.)

‫( שו"ת נודע ביהודה‬p26)- one woman asked her friend for two metal trays for baking. She
forgot to tell her that they were meat, and the friend made milchig food on them and she
didn’t say that she used them for milk. Now the original woman cooked meat on these
trays that day and she also used 9 other trays of food (assuming ‫)בן יומו‬.
The kreplach are only ‫אסור מחמת בליעה‬, but perhaps B”B is different. To ‫ אסור‬he thinks is
a mistake b/c when you have a piece of meat and the chalav is baluah in the piece of
meat- then there is an ‫ איסור‬baluah. The ‫ עיקר חתיכה‬is the ‫ דבר היתר‬of the dough. In the
dough there will be chalav and basar- when it is ‫אינה ראויה להתכבד‬. But here the ‫ עיקר‬is not
the meat, but the dough.
You aren’t mischabed someone with ‫ בליעות‬of ‫בשר בחלב‬, only the ‫( בעין‬real ‫)איסורים‬.

‫( שו"ת נודע ביהודה‬p28)- an animal had a hole in it, so it was tref, and it fell into a ‫תערובת‬,
so it should be ‫בטל‬. On the other hand it is ch”l.
He says that it was not a ch”l b/c he quotes the ‫רמ”א‬- says that the big stuff is a problem
(take off feathers- called ‫ מחוסר מעשה‬and a ‫)טרחה גדולה‬, but to do a small thing, it isn’t a
problem. To remove the ‫ גיד‬and the ‫חלב‬, that is big stuff so the animal isn’t ch”l.
Quotes a ‫'תוס‬- does ch”l mean that the meat must be ‫ ראוי‬for a Jew to eat or is it enough
for it is ‫ ראוי‬for a ‫ ?גוי‬He says that it must be ‫ ראוי‬for a Jew to eat and not a ‫גוי‬.

‫פסחים‬- there are 2 boxes of food with 2 sections per box: I) A)‫תרומה‬/B)‫ חולין‬and II) C)
‫תרומה‬/D)‫חולין‬- C fell into A or B, and D fell into A or B. By ‫ דרבנן‬we can be makil and
assume ‫ תרומה‬into‫ תרומה‬and ‫ חולין‬into ‫חולין‬.

‫ סע' ו‬,‫( ש”ע ס' קי‬p34)- if someone ate one piece of a ‫תערובת בשוגג‬, can I assume that that
person ate the tref piece?
‫ רשב”א‬says that by a ‫ דין דרבנן‬we can assume that the one that fell was the ‫ אסור‬piece. The
one piece must be gone forever, not that it is still there or else we have to paskin on that
piece and we would have to say it is ‫ אסור‬and therefore the rest of the ‫ תערובת‬it fell from
would be ‫אסור‬.

56
‫מהרש”ם‬- says that it must be gone, but even a ‫ פחות מכזית‬is not allowed to exist or else we
have to make a judgment on that piece, so the ‫ תערובת‬won’t be ‫מותר‬.

‫ש”ך‬- ch”l is both by ‫מין במינו‬and ‫מין בשאינו מינו‬. He says that it is a ‫ דבר חשוב‬and isn’t ‫בטל‬.
‫איסור והיתר‬- says only ‫מין במינו‬.
‫פמ”ג‬- says like the ‫ש”ך‬.

‫חלקת יואב‬- he wants to put together ch”l and ‫ריבית‬.

‫ב"מ עד‬.- a person wants to give money to buy future harvested grapes. He wants to give
the money now so he can get the future profits. The problem is that, if the grapes aren’t
ready to be bought yet, this might be a ribis problem. If the grapes would’ve been worth
much more, then giving money now will get you more money later, and that is ribis. But,
if the grapes already exist somewhat then he can give the money.
The ‫ גמרא‬discussed what is too far in advance: if two ‫ מלאכות‬are missing, then you can
give money as if it’s yours, but three makes it too far removed and it would be ‫ספק ריבית‬.
The ‫ חלקת יואב‬quotes the ‫ רמ”א‬that a ‫ חתיכה גדולה‬is missing a maaseh gadol and therefore
it’s not ch”l (like the ‫)סמ”ק‬. He doesn’t know why plucking feathers is such a big deal.
By ‫ הלכות ריבית‬he shows that missing 3 melachos are a different realm of “‫ ”אין לו‬by ‫ריבית‬,
therefore by the animal, if it is missing 3 melachos then it can’t be ch”l, but 2 or less is
ch”l. He says that feathers require removing feathers, ‫ מליחה‬and ‫ בישול‬so there are three
steps and it is too far removed. This is way he explains the ‫רמ”א‬.
The raw animal is only missing 2 steps, so it is already ch”l. Therefore, if you want to do
‫ צלי‬and not ‫מליחה‬, then it is only missing 2 steps and you don’t need ‫מליחה‬, so then it
WOULD be a ch”l and not ‫בטל‬.

)1( ‫דבר שיש לו מתירים‬

20 ‫שיעור‬/ Dec 7- (W) P20 YD 102

)‫דבר שיש לו מתירים (דשל”מ‬- classic case: ‫ביצה שנולדה ביו"ט‬. There are 4 opinions about why
it is )‫אסור (מוקצה‬. This ‫ ביצה‬is a ‫ דשל”מ‬and is not ‫ בטל‬in a ‫תערובת‬.
I) ‫ דשל”מ‬defies the rule of ‫ביטול‬
II) ‫ דשל”מ‬also defies the rule of ‫לקולא ספק דרבנן‬

‫ מחלוקת‬Ran and ‫ רש”י‬with the N”M

What is the svara about why we are ‫ מחמיר‬by a ‫?דשל”מ‬
I) ‫רש”י ביצה ג‬: (p1)- says that ‫ דשל”מ‬is only a ‫דין דרבנן‬. He also explains that the reason
for ‫ דשל”מ‬is that you shouldn’t eat it b’‫ איסור‬when you can eat it b’‫היתר‬.
‫מהרש”ם‬- isn’t the ‫ דין‬of ‫ ביטול‬a ‫ ?היתר‬He says that ‫ דשל”מ‬shows that there is a reason
NOT to hold of ‫ ביטול‬and there is some b’dieved.

If ‫ ביטול‬is a ‫לכתחילה‬, why should there be a reason to be ‫ מחמיר‬on the ‫?ביטול‬

‫(בדי השלחן‬p7)- maybe ‫ חז”ל‬should’ve made a ‫ חומרא‬not to allow ‫ ביטול‬b/c it will lead to
‫זלזול איסורים‬, but they didn’t b/c they were more afraid of ‫הפסד ממון ישראל‬. In a case of
‫ דשל”מ‬there is no ‫ הפסד ממון‬because it woud be okay the next day according to everyone
and therefore the ‫ חכמים‬would’ve made a ‫ תקנה‬in this area (slippery slope theory).
This helps to explain how ‫ רש”י‬isn’t saying that ‫ ביטול‬is a ‫בדיעבד‬.

57
)??‫ט"ז (מקור‬-Something that is ‫ מפורש מותר‬the ‫ חכמים‬can’t come and make ‫( אסור‬Rav
Dovid Cohen has a whole ‫ קונטרס‬on this ‫ ט"ז‬included in the ‫)ספר קול יעב"ץ‬.

II) Ran ‫( נדרים‬52a) [Telzer Ran- too much philosophy]- [the ‫ש”ך‬/‫ ש”ע‬don’t quote the
Ran]- there is a fundamental difference b/t ‫בריה‬/ ch”l and ‫דשל”מ‬. Although ‫בריה‬/ch”l are
NOT ‫ בטל‬in mbm and mbsm, ‫ דשל”מ‬is at least ‫ בטל‬in mbsm.
‫בריה‬/CH”L are ‫ דינים‬of chashivus so there is no difference b/t mbm and mbsm.
The Ran comes to explain what the difference is b/t the ‫ דינים‬of ‫ בריה‬and ch”l vs. ‫דשל”מ‬.

1) The dam par (greater) and dam sair (smaller) and the sair isn’t ‫ בטל‬in the ‫טעם‬.
The concept of ‫ ביטול‬is that there is a clash b/t ‫ איסור‬and ‫ היתר‬and the ‫ היתר‬wins if it is ‫רוב‬.
2) The opinion of R”Y who says mbm isn’t ‫ ביטול‬is b/c things are too similar and there is
NO clash. According to the Rabanan- the fact that one dam is ‫ מותר‬and one is ‫אסור‬, from
that perspective there is a clash and therefore you can have ‫ביטול‬.
3) When it comes to a ‫דשל”מ‬, even though the ‫ חכמים‬say they only need a halachik clash (
‫ אסור‬and ‫)היתר‬, when the ‫ איסור‬is going to become ‫ מותר‬the next day ultimately that is not
as much of a clash. This clash is only needed by mbm where the ‫ טעם‬isn’t a clash, but by
mb‫שטמ”ק‬there is already a ‫ טעם‬clash and a halachik clash is not needed.

R’ Moshe Dimmerman- quoted the Pnei Yehoshua (R’ Simon couldn’t find it)- the Ran
has to agree to ‫רש”י‬- the Ran’s svara is only a svara in ‫ביטול תערובת‬, but the issue is why
you don’t say ‫ ספק דרבנן‬l’‫קולא‬. [Ran must agree to ‫ רש”י‬that there is no ‫ ספק‬l’‫ קולא‬b/c of
“ad she’tichlena b’‫ איסור‬tichlena b’‫היתר‬.”]

Nafkah Minah b/t ‫ רש”י‬and Ran

Tzamach Tzedek (not the Lubavitch sefer)- if you have a tref bird that laid an egg on
‫יו”ט‬, it has 2 problems (tref and ‫ )יו”ט‬and then this egg fell into a ‫תערובת‬.
From the perspective of ‫דשל”מ‬: the ‫ יו”ט איסור‬is YLM, but not the tref part.
Do we say that we should wait until tomorrow and be ‫ מבטל‬the ‫ איסור‬of ‫יו”ט‬, or b/c the
‫ איסור‬trefah will never be ‫בטל‬, we can eat the ‫ תערובת‬on ‫?יו”ט‬

‫(פמ”ג‬p3):
A) If you hold like ‫ רש”י‬it would seem that you should wait until tomorrow and rely on
one ‫ביטול‬.
B) According to the Ran who requires a clash, the trefah should p‫רוב‬ide a clash even on
‫יו”ט‬, therefore there should be ‫ ביטול‬on ‫ יו”ט‬and the ‫ תערובת‬can be eaten.

Differences b/t ‫בריה‬/CH”L and ‫דשל”מ‬

‫(פרי מגדים‬p4)- he says that ‫ דשל”מ‬is sometimes more chamur:
a) ‫ דשל”מ‬does not need to be shalem,
b) defies the rule of ‫ ספק‬l’‫חומרא‬.
‫ בטל‬:‫ קולות‬by mbsm (‫)טעם‬.

58
Badei HaShulchan- (found in Kanfei Yonah)- found a reason for why ‫ דשל”מ‬isn’t ‫בטל‬:
people are going to see these ‫ איסורים‬as ‫איסור‬e kal, b/c the ‫ איסור‬is falling off tomorrow,
so they will violate the ‫איסור‬. Therefore the ‫ חכמים‬said that it isn’t ‫בטל‬.

Sfaik Sfaikah
We use SS to matir even ‫איסורי דאורייתא‬. The question is about a ‫ דשל”מ‬SS where we
don’t have the regular rules of ‫ ביטול‬and ‫ספק דרבנן‬.
What is the ‫ דין‬by SS ‫ ?דשל”מ‬We don’t rely on ‫ ספק דרבנן לקולא‬by ‫דשל”מ‬, but can we
rely on SS?

EX: ‫חדש‬- we want to know if the grain is chadah? Perhaps you can be matir, or do you
say that it is a ‫( דשל”מ‬b/c after Pesach it will be ‫ ?)מותר‬Why rely on it now if it will
‫ דשל”מ‬apply?
SS- perhaps it is yashan and not ‫ חדש‬and perhaps even if it was made this year, it may be
that it rooted in the previous year (and now it may be in a ‫)תערובת‬.

‫ מחלוקת ראשונים‬based upon ‫גמרא ביצה‬

‫( ביצה‬3b)- an egg is mixed into 1000. The question is what type of egg got mixed (tref)?
I) Rabbenu ‫( טעם‬R’ Yaacov)- says that it is ‫ ודאי‬noldah on ‫ יו”ט‬and is only one ‫ספק‬
therefore ‫ דשל”מ‬applies, but if it was a ‫ ספק‬noldah then it will be a sfaik sfaikah and all
SSs are ‫ מותר‬even by ‫דשל”מ‬.
II) ‫( מרדכי‬pg 10) disagrees and says that the ‫ ביצה‬being discussed is a ‫ ספק איסור‬and STILL
the ‫ גמרא‬said that ‫ דשל”מ‬applies. This means that SS does NOT apply to a case of ‫דשל”מ‬.

III) ‫ רא”ש‬SHUT- when we drink ‫ חדש‬beer and we don’t wait until pesach for the zman of
yashan- we have a ‫ ספק‬yashan/‫ חדש‬and they were treating this as a SS (‫ ספק‬yashan and
even if ‫ ספק‬,‫ חדש‬whether it rooted in the previous year)?
Mahram (?)- says SS ‫ דשל”מ‬is ‫מותר‬.
‫רא”ש‬- says that SS ‫ דשל”מ‬is really ‫ מותר‬and the reason why the ‫ גמרא‬in ‫ ביצה‬says that the
‫ ספק‬egg was not ‫ בטל‬was b/c ‫ ביצה‬is an exceptional case [R”T said the ‫ גמרא‬is talking
about a ‫ ודאי‬egg]. The ‫ רא”ש‬says that it can still be the ‫ ספק‬egg (and SS is ‫)מותר‬. SO why
isn’t it ‫?אסור‬

‫( ש”ך‬p12)- in order to have a SS, it may need that one ‫ איסור‬unit fell into 100 units and
from those 101 units they fell into a 2nd batch. When you look at the 2nd batch, you don’t
know if the bad one fell in and then you don’t know whether the think you are taking out
know isn’t the ‫איסור‬.
SS is usually ‫מותר‬, but there is a difference b/t a SS by ‫ ספק‬b’guf and a SS by a ‫ ספק‬b’
‫תערובת‬. The ‫ ש”ך‬says that the case of ‫ ביצה‬is not a real SS b/c there is one ‫ ספק‬about the
guf of the ‫( איסור‬whether it is a ‫ יו”ט‬egg) and another about the ‫( תערובת‬whether the egg
you chose was the ‫)איסור‬. We can’t use one ‫ ספק‬about the guf and another on the ‫תערובת‬.
This is not a good SS or else it would’ve been good.
[‫ש”ך‬/‫ רא”ש‬is like the R”T for the Halacha and the ‫ מרדכי‬when explaining the ‫ גמרא‬in
‫ביצה‬.]

59
Bedek HaBais (‫)רא”ה‬- (argues on the ‫)רא”ש‬: the ‫ רא”ה‬feels that SSs are ‫מותר‬, so why
aren’t we matir by SS? ‫ רא”ה‬isn’t happy with ‫ ספק‬echad b’guf etc.

He says that we only say SS l’‫ קולא‬by a ‫ דאורייתא‬when

a) Teshuvas ‫רשב”א‬- it is a beirur (clear): using the ‫ רוב‬principle,
b) ‫פמ”ג‬- if ‫ ספק דאורייתא‬l’‫ חומרא‬is a rabanan, then all ‫ספק דאורייתא‬s are ‫דרבנן‬, then SS is a
‫דרבנן‬.

The ‫ רא”ה‬does not agree with the svara of the P”M and he says that a ‫ ספק דאורייתא‬l’‫חומרא‬
is a ‫דין דאורייתא‬. The only time that a SS can work is when the first ‫ ספק‬is based upon a ‫דין‬
‫דרבנן‬. If the first ‫ ספק‬is a ‫ דין דאורייתא‬then the second ‫ ספק‬is only a ‫ ספק‬on a ‫ דאורייתא‬and
not ‫ ספק דרבנן‬l’‫קולא‬.
EX: If the egg falls into one ‫ תערובת‬and then into a 2nd ‫ תערובת‬then it is a ‫ ספק דרבנן‬and SS
can be said.
EX2: If the egg is a ‫( ספק דאורייתא‬b/c of hachana d’rabbah [preparing from Shabbas to
‫יו”ט‬- an ‫ )]איסור דאורייתא‬then we can’t say SS b/c the second ‫ ספק‬is on a ‫!!דאורייתא‬

‫חמץ בפסח‬
‫ דשל”מ‬isn’t ‫ בטל‬only is a case of mbm, but in a mbsm case it is ‫( בטל‬Ran).
Rambam (p15)- writes that ‫ דשל”מ‬is not ‫ בטל‬by mbsm. He says that ‫ חמץ בפסח‬is isn’t ‫בטל‬
b/c it is a ‫ ?דשל”מ‬His ‫ חידוש‬is that ‫ חמץ‬is not ‫ בטל‬even in a mbsm case b/c of the ‫“ פסוק‬kol
machmetzes lo tocheilu.” He says that ‫ חמץ‬is different by mbsm and he seems to be
saying a ‫ חידוש‬about other ‫ איסורים‬that they are ‫ בטל‬by mbsm!
Raavad- says that it is a mishna shlaima, so what is Rambam’s ‫חידוש‬.

‫נדרים‬
‫נדרים‬- if you make a neder about an apple and then you have that apple in a ‫תערובת‬, does
‫ ביטול‬occur?

1) Is this is a ‫ דשל”מ‬b/c it can be undone and the neder is retroactively undone.

A neder is not a ‫ דשל”מ‬b/c they are retroactively undone. A ‫ דשל”מ‬means that something
that was ‫ אסור‬is now ‫מותר‬. By ‫נדרים‬, the neder is considered as if it never existed so
PERHAPS it is not considered a ‫דשל”מ‬.
2) OR// maybe when the chacham is mater the neder it is only l’habah and not l’maph
‫רא”ה‬.

‫( ירושלמי‬p16)-brings a list of YLM and Ain LM and it decides that ‫ נדרים‬is YLM.
Pnei Moshe- thinks that this depends upon the nature of the hataras chacham, whether it
is ikar m’ikarah or m’kan ulhabah. ‫ דשל”מ‬means that once it was ‫ אסור‬and now it is ‫מותר‬.
[The Ran would say that a retroactive ‫ ביטול‬ha’neder would not have a clash and therefore
it would NOT be ‫בטל‬.]

Why is ‫ דשל”מ‬only be ‫?מין במינו‬

I) Ran- clash

60
II) Toras Chatas- quotes the ‫ איסור והיתר‬that ‫ בריה‬is ‫ בטל‬by mbsm and not mbm. ---- TC
says that the I”V is wrong from a bug in lettuce (and this is mbsm). He says something
different that the Ran who asks about the difference b/t mbm and mbsm.
-- TC argues that when the ‫ תערובת‬is “nikrah al shem ‫ ”היתר‬it is ‫מותר‬. By mbsm the ‫תערובת‬
is called by shem ‫ היתר‬so it is ‫מותר‬, but by mbm it is called by shem ‫ איסור‬so it is ‫אסור‬.
Rabbi Simon thought this sounded like the Badei HaShulchan.

When the ‫( ש”ך‬p20) quotes this ‫דין‬- he doesn’t mention the Ran, but he quotes the TC.
‫ ש”ע‬says that ‫ דשל”מ‬doesn’t apply to mbsm.

‫רמ”א‬- quotes the ‫ מרדכי‬that egg white if it is used l’chazusa (for whitening of the food) is
not ‫בטל‬.

Shem and ‫טעם‬

‫( ש”ך‬p19) (102,3)- ‫( מחלוקת רמ”א‬shemah) and ‫טעם( ש”ך‬ah until 60)- if you already have
60. He says we go shemah here only where we do have 60, but up to 60 we follow ‫טעם‬
and the ‫ מחלוקת‬b/t ‫ אביי‬and ‫ רבא‬is after 60.

Rav- chl/ ‫ בריה‬is a davar chashuv which deals with hukar ha’‫ איסור‬and ‫ דשל”מ‬which is
not machria l’‫קולא‬. By SS there is no laidas ha‫ ספק‬so don’t need hachriah and therefore it
is ‫ מותר‬before we even enter into the ‫ דשל”מ‬discussion.
‫דשל”מ‬- you can’t be machriah l’‫חומרא‬- is a SS a laidas ha’‫ספק‬. A) doesn’t make it as if
there is a laidas ha‫ ספק‬or B) there is no laidas ha‫ ספק‬at all and ‫ דשל”מ‬would be ‫( מותר‬for
RT and the ‫)מרדכי‬

)2( ‫דבר שיש לו מתירין‬

21 ‫שיעור‬/ Dec 12- (M) P21 YD 102

‫נדרים נז‬:- talks about things that are ‫ טבל‬:‫( דשל”מ‬where you can give‫ תרומה‬even verbally)
or ‫( מעשר שני‬to ‫ פודה‬the ‫)מעשר‬, ‫ מותר( חדש‬on the 2nd day of pesach) or ‫הקדש‬.
NON ‫ כלאי הכרם‬-‫ דשל”מ‬and ‫ערלה‬.

Limitations of ‫דשל”מ‬
)‫רשב”א (תורת הבית‬- has yesodos about ‫דשל”מ‬:
‫ ביצה‬of ‫ ספק‬trefah (during the week) fell into a ‫תערובת‬. The question is whether “later” we
will be able to tell if the animal was a trefah (ie if it gives birth again or if it lives 12
months.) He says that the ‫ ספק‬trefah is NOT a ‫ דשל”מ‬and is ‫בטל‬.
a) ‫ ודאי‬yavoh- He says that this is NOT a ‫ דשל”מ‬b/c it is not ‫ בודאי‬going to be ‫ מותר‬at any
point. This egg may become ‫ אסור‬b/c the animal is a trefah in the end of the day after the
12 month wait. You don’t have to wait for a ‫ היתר‬which might not come.
b) B’yado- if it is in a person’s hands to do, that is considered a ‫דשל”מ‬, but if not then
it’s not. Tirchah- is not b’yado.

‫חדש‬- is not coming tomorrow, and it may come in a few months, this is also a ‫ דשל”מ‬even
if it is 10 months before b/c it is “‫ ודאי‬yavoh,” but it might be a hefsed and therefore may
be ‫בטל‬.

61
‫מרדכי‬- c) Miskalkel- if the food will be ruined or will have spoiled, then it is ‫ מותר‬today.
This is b/c ‫ דשל”מ‬is a ‫דרבנן‬.
(RE: B”HaShulchan said, the ‫ חכמים‬wanted to say that the whole category was ‫אסור‬, but
we won’t go that far b/c of ‫התורה חסה על ממון של ישראל‬- and by YLM we don’t have that
problem, unless there is a hefsed.)

Rabbenu Yonah: ‫( איסור והיתר‬p4)- you didn’t know the halacha of ‫ דשל”מ‬and you took
the egg and cooked it, if there is 60 against the egg, can you eat the rest of the ‫?תערובת‬
Q) Is the ‫ טעם‬also a ‫ דשל”מ‬even though there is ‫?ביטול‬
A) The ‫ טעם‬of ‫ בריה‬is ‫ בטל‬in 60, and the ‫ טעם‬of ‫ דשל”מ‬is also ‫ בטל‬as well.

‫( מרדכי‬Shabbas) (p12)- famous case: mashkin shezavu (oozed juice on Shabbas). The
juice is muktzeh. If the fruit already oozed out on Friday and on Shabbas it will continue
to ooze out more. The muktzeh is a ‫ דשל”מ‬so can I drink the juice on Shabbas if a lot fell
before Shabbas?
--If the item never existed as an independent unit, but came into this world into the
‫תערובת‬, the ‫ חכמים‬weren’t m’taken on such an object.

‫היתר באופן אחר‬

‫תקנת גאונים‬- the point of ‫ מליחה‬is to get out the blood. They said that ‫ מליחה‬must take place
w/in 72 hours of the ‫ שחיטה‬and the blood will become embedded in the meat and won’t be
able to be taken out.
Imported meat is frozen before salted- this is a question of whether freezing is a valid
‫ היתר‬before salting. (Some poskim say freezing stops the 72 hour process.)

‫תרומת הדשן‬- if you plan to do ‫ צלי‬then you don’t need to salt the meat:
Q) What if you held meat for 3 days w/o salting? If this piece of meat fell into a ‫ תערובת‬is
this like a tref piece of meat that fell in and would be tref, or is this a ‫( דשל”מ‬b/c the meat
can be fixed through ‫?)צלי‬
‫ דשל”מ‬means “the removability of the ‫ איסור‬that it has, not that it can become ‫ היתר‬in
another manner (‫)היתר באופן אחר‬.” This is not ‫ מותר‬b/c bishul remains ‫ אסור‬even if it can
be salted. Thus, ‫ צלי‬will not take it out of that ‫ איסור‬of bishul, it just changes the situation.

Rif says that the animal was never ‫( אסור‬b/c it could’ve been roasted)
The ‫ תרומת הדשן‬feels the ‫ ראבי"ה‬is the ikkar. The ‫ ראבי"ה‬argues that “‫ ”היתר באופן אחר‬is
NOT ‫דשל”מ‬.
Pesachim (77a) (p7)- roasting 2 pieces in an oven: one was fatty and one was not. Do we
think that the particles of the tref went to the other food (smell). Rav says it is ‫אסור‬. Levi
says that “‫ ”ריחא לאו מילתא‬and it is ‫מותר‬.

Rif uses a different scenario: he deals with a case of a piece of bread with meat (not tref
and kosher meat) that are cooked in the same oven.
He says that even though ‫( ריחא לאו מילתא‬Levi), still he can’t eat the bread with ‫כותח‬
(dairy) b/c the bread is a ‫ דשל”מ‬that could be eaten w/o dairy (he can’t rely rely on the
‫ היתר‬of ‫ ביטול‬of particles). This is a )‫דשל"מ (היתר באופן אחר‬. According to the Rif ‫דשל”מ‬

62
doesn’t only mean that the direct ‫ איסור‬is going to become ‫מותר‬, but even that the food
will become ‫מותר‬. As long as you find a permissible way to eat it, it is a ‫דשל”מ‬. This is
the point of dissent between the Rif and the ‫תרה"ד‬.
Rabbi Simon-it is “like” a ‫דשל”מ‬, but the Ran really thinks it is a ‫דשל”מ‬.

‫מרדכי‬-something that is ‫ בא לעולם בתערובת‬there is no ‫דשל"מ אינו בטל‬.

‫חמץ בפסח‬
‫ חמץ‬isn’t ‫ בטל‬even mbsm. People try to buy milk before pesach so there is no “ze v’ze
gorem” of the chamtz eaten before pesach that causes the milk that was produced.

I) ‫( רמב"ם‬p13)- Why is ‫?חמץ במשהו אסור‬

It is a ‫ דשל”מ‬therefore it is ‫אסור‬. This is a ‫ חידוש‬b/c ‫ דשל”מ‬usually is not ‫ בטל‬by mbm, but
for ‫ חמץ‬the ‫ חכמים‬were gozer for mbsm from “kol machmetzes lo tochailu.”

II) ‫( מרדכי‬Pesachim) (p3)- if the ‫ איסור‬will return some time in the future, it is not a
‫דשל”מ‬, even if it will become ‫ מותר‬for a period of time (ie ‫חמץ‬- which will become ‫אסור‬
next year on Pesach.)
The reason why ‫ חמץ‬isn’t ‫ בטל‬is b/c of the ‫ חומרא‬b’‫ חמץ‬as an ‫ איסור‬kares, therefore we are
‫ מחמיר‬by ‫“( חמץ‬baal yeraeh” etc.).

NM) ‫( רא”ש‬Pesachim)- ‫ חמץ‬on erev pesach after 6 hours (on the 14th of Nissan). What
happens if the ‫ חמץ‬falls into a ‫ תערובת‬at this juncture? Is it like Pesach (and is an ‫איסור‬
‫ מהשהו‬b/c it is ‫ )דשל”מ‬and the chametz isn’t ‫בטל‬, or is it considered like before Pesach
and ‫ בטל‬b’60 (b/c there is not yet an ‫ איסור‬kares)?
The ‫ רא”ש‬says it is ‫( בטל‬even though eating the ‫ חמץ‬would be a ‫ )חיוב מלקות‬b/c the ‫איסור‬
was ‫ בטל‬before Pesach and this ‫ תערובת‬would be ‫ מותר‬on Pesach.
The ‫ רא”ש‬seems to say that it is ‫ בטל‬b/c “there is no ‫ איסור‬kares” on the ‫ חמץ‬yet. [This
seems like the ‫ מרדכי‬b/c the ‫ חומרא‬of ‫ חמץ‬didn’t yet apply therefore it should be ‫בטל‬, but
the ‫ חמץ‬is still ‫ אסור‬and a ‫דשל”מ‬.]
-- Many only make erev pesach matzos when it is being cooked (and make a bracha and
say halel). If there is ‫ חמץ‬then there will be a shaila b/c erev pesach is also a ‫דשל”מ‬.

Ran (p18)- How is waiting for after Pesach a matir b/c there is an ‫ איסור‬of “ ‫חמץ שעבר עליו‬
‫ ”הפסח‬even after Pesach? He says that “‫ ”חמץ שעבר עליו‬is ‫ מותר‬in a ‫ תערובת‬and therefore it
would still be a ‫דשל”מ‬.
(‫מרדכי‬-It becomes ‫ איסור‬again in the next year so it can’t be a ‫דשל”מ‬.)

‫( רמ”א‬p27)- quotes the ‫( מרדכי‬not a ‫ )דשל”מ‬and there are cholkim (‫)רמב"ם‬. The ‫ רמ”א‬adds
that the food item must be ‫ מותר‬to the person who we are saying it is not ‫ בטל‬for (which is
a NM by a person who was ‫ מזיד‬and cooked food on Shabbas.)

‫חדש‬
The ‫ גמרא‬says that ‫ חדש‬is a ‫ דשל”מ‬by ‫ נדרים‬b/c it will be ‫ מותר‬on the 2nd day of ‫יו”ט‬. By
‫ דשל”מ‬we don’t say ‫ ספק דרבנן לקולא‬and it should not be ‫בטל‬.

63
‫( מנחות‬68b-69a)- the 1st day of pesach is 15 and 2nd is 16 and it could be that 16 is the first
day. When can you eat the ‫חדש‬- can you eat it after 15 or 16 (‫ ?)ספק יום‬The ‫ חכמים‬were
eating end of 16 early 17, which is the day before the omer on the 17th (‫)בספק‬. They said
that ‫ חדש‬in ‫ חו"ל‬is ‫ דרבנן‬and therefore they don’t need to wait and therefore they didn’t
wait to the end of the 17th.
Q) ‫ חדש‬is a ‫ דשל”מ‬and why do they say ‫ ?ספק לקולא‬Shouldn’t they have waited the extra
day?

‫( מרדכי‬p20):
1) This is a different type of ‫ספק‬. We know that 15 is the 1st day, it is not a real ‫ספק‬
anymore. We are really using ‫מנהג אבותינו בידינו‬. We are experts in the months today.
2) The ‫ איסור‬is going to come back next year so it’s not a ‫דשל”מ‬.

‫(פרי חדש‬p21)- says that by ‫ חדש‬there is no new ‫ איסור‬the next year, the next year NEW
PRODUCE has the ‫איסור‬, not the old produce!! So he doesn’t understand the ‫’מרדכי‬s 2nd
answer. (Rav Zalman Nechemia asks about this ‫ מרדכי‬and the difficulty in it)

‫( ש”ע‬p22)-
102,2- ‫רשב”א‬.
102,4- kilkul- ‫מרדכי‬.
‫רמ”א‬- brings down the ‫איסור והיתר‬.

‫רמ”א‬-if the ‫ איסור‬isn’t machmas atzmoh then it is ‫בטל‬, therefore the TH”D’s case is ‫בטל‬
b/c it is NOT “‫ איסור‬machmas atzmoh.” Since the whole ‫ איסור‬is from the dam in the
meat, then it isn’t a machmas atzmoh. This is a kosher piece of meat with a ‫היתר‬.
‫ש”ך‬- attacks this ‫ רמ”א‬and says that the reason why the meat was ‫ בטל‬in the ‫ צלי‬case was
b/c it is NOT A ‫ דשל”מ‬at all b/c it’s “‫ היתר‬b’makom acher” (like the TH”D) and NOT b/c
a ‫ דשל”מ‬has to be ‫ אסור‬machmas atzmoh. A ‫ דשל”מ‬should be ‫ אסור‬even by a belias ‫איסור‬
as long as there is a ‫ היתר‬at some point.

?‫טלטול דשל”מ‬
‫( צל”ח‬written by ‫( )נודע ביהודה‬p29)- ‫ ביצה‬on ‫יו”ט‬: if something is ‫ מוקצה‬there are 2 :‫איסורים‬
‫) טלטול‬1 and 2) ‫אכילה‬.
Once there is a ‫תערובת‬, can I move the eggs or am I worried about the ‫?דשל”מ‬
‫ צל”ח‬says that it’s ‫ מותר‬b/c ‫ דשל”מ‬applies only when you do something ONCE and
when you do that action, do it ‫ בהיתר‬and not ‫ דשל”מ‬.‫ באיסור‬doesn’t mean that we can
prevent you to move something that you would’ve moved 5 times, and we say that you
only move it 4 times.

‫ביכורים‬
Mishna ‫( ביכורים‬Rav Dimmerman quotes)- maser sheni fell into a ‫ תערובת‬in ‫ירושלים‬, can
you eat it out of ‫ם‬-‫ י‬where it is ‫ אסור‬b’mashehu.
‫ברטנורא‬- says that it is a ‫ דשל”מ‬b/c you could’ve eaten it in ‫ם‬-‫י‬. He splits b/t a case of
maser sheni that fell into the ‫ תערובת‬in ‫ם‬-‫ י‬where it is a ‫ דשל”מ‬and can’t be eaten outside.
But, if it fell into the ‫ תערובת‬outside of ‫ם‬-‫ י‬then there is an expense to force the person to
go to ‫ם‬-‫ י‬to eat the food, and by this type of case (of expense) the ‫ חכמים‬weren’t ‫מתקן‬.

64
This is like the svara of the ‫ רשב”א‬by kelim which would require ‫הגעלה‬, and it isn’t a
‫דשל”מ‬. A ‫ טירחא‬isn’t considered a ‫דשל”מ‬.

)1( ‫נותן טעם לפגם‬

22 ‫שיעור‬/ Dec 14- (W) P22 YD 103

(NTL‫להלן‬:)‫ נותן טעם לפגם‬is an extension of ‫טעם כעיקר‬, except that NTL is discussing a
case where the ‫ טעם‬is ‫פגום‬.
Why isn’t a ‫ טעם פגום‬considered a regular ‫ טעם‬and an ‫?איסור דאורייתא‬

1) Devarim (14,20) (p1-2)- "‫בשעריך תתננה ואכלה‬-‫ לגר אשר‬,‫"לא תאכלו כל נבלה‬
2) A”Z (67b) (p3-4)- “‫לא תאכלו‬:” whatever is ‫ ראויה לגר‬is called a ‫ נבלה‬and whatever is not
‫ ראויה לגר‬is not called a ‫נבלה‬. Anything that is ‫ נפסל‬from human consumption is not
included in the ‫פסוק‬.

‫בעין‬- requires ‫פגום לגמרי‬

‫טעם‬- needs 24 hours

‫ ר' מאיר‬holds that NTL is ‫אסור‬.

We paskin that if it is w/in 24 hours the ‫ טעם‬goes into the food and after 24 hours the ‫טעם‬
is ‫פגום‬. This is based upon ‫ ר’ שמעון‬and the ‫ פסוק‬of “‫לא תאכלו‬.”
When we say that NTL is ‫ מותר‬because of the delay of 24 hours, is it because the thing is
putrid and not ‫ ?ראוי לאכילה‬If this is literally true then you wouldn’t want to eat anything
cooked inside of pot because ti’s putrid and not ‫ראוי לאכילה‬. Therefore, there is a ‫ חילוק‬in
standards between ‫בעין וטעם‬. Isn’t it learned out from the same ‫ פסוק‬though?
The Ran addresses this (p5):
When the Torah was ‫אוסר נבילה‬, this was only for ‫הנאה‬. When you have a ‫ בעין‬then there is
a chance to be ‫ נהנה‬even after 24 hours therefore it must be ‫ נפסל מאכילת אדם‬but when it’s
just a ‫ כלי‬then we are concerned with ‫ טעם‬and there is no ‫ הנאה‬after 24 hours.
Therefore, the Ran says, if the ‫ דבר האסור‬helps to expand the volume of the ‫דבר המותר‬
and the value of the expansion is greater than the loss, then there is a net gain against the
bad ‫ טעם‬and the food is NOT considered NTL, rather it is a ‫שבח‬.

‫( רשב”א‬Bais HaKatzer) (p6-7)- to make NTL into a ‫ היתר‬you need:

‫ טעם‬Track: 1) the ‫ היתר‬food must be the ‫ רוב‬and then 2) it is only ‫ אסור‬by a ‫טעם‬. The only
‫ איסור‬of the ‫ טעם‬is if the ‫ איסור‬has a positive ‫( טעם‬NTL is not considered ‫)איסור‬.
‫ בעין‬Track: if the 1) ‫ איסור‬is ‫ רוב‬then 2) the ‫ טעם‬must be putrid to make the ‫תערובת מותר‬
b/c the ‫ איסור‬is then like ‫ בעין‬and a mere ‫ טעם פגום‬isn’t sufficient.

Perhaps the Ran doesn’t require ‫ רוב היתר‬and even ‫ רוב איסור‬wouldn’t require ‫פגום לגמרי‬
and only if the ‫ בעין‬is alone then you need ‫פגום לגמרי‬.
The way people explain this ‫מחלוקת‬: that there are two ways explain the partial ‫ פגם‬by
‫טעם איסור‬:
1) ‫( ראויה לגר‬perhaps Ran doesn’t need ‫ רוב‬and only a ‫ תערובת‬w/ ‫( )טעם‬Ran) or
2) need )‫רוב (היתר) (רשב”א‬.

65
‫( פמ”ג‬Mishpetzos Zahav [103, end of 1])- says that the Ran and ‫ רשב”א‬are arguing.
R’ Simon is not convinced that they are arguing. He thinks that all agree that you need
‫ רוב היתר‬before the ‫ טעם פגום‬is enough (even the Ran).

‫שיטת רש"י‬-he has a ‫ חידוש‬on ‫ לינת לילה‬to create ‫פגום‬.

‫ חמץ‬on Pesach
R’ Ovadiah Yosef- quotes a story of a woman crying for using ‫ חמץ‬kelim on Pesach to
make food for Pesach. He told her not to worry b/c she was a Sephardi woman and
therefore the food would be kosher.

NTL is ‫ מותר‬to eat (like a pot after 24 hours) and a ‫ בליעה‬is ‫פגום‬.

What about ‫ חמץ‬on pesach?

‫מחבר‬- says that ‫ טעם פגום‬is ‫ מותר‬even on pesach.
‫רמ”א‬- says that we are ‫ מחמיר‬and we say that NTL is ‫ אסור‬on Pesach b/c ‫ חמץ‬is an ‫איסור‬
‫ מהשהו‬on pesach.
(All agree that before Pesach if the ‫ תערובת‬occurred then it is ‫ בטל‬and ‫ מותר‬on Pesach.)

‫ רשב”א‬says that NTL on Pesach is ‫( אסור‬like the ‫)רמ”א‬.

‫(פמ”ג‬cited earlier)- says that this ‫ רשב”א‬is ‫לשיטתו‬. The ‫ רשב”א‬says you need ‫ ביטול ברוב‬for
NTL to be effective w/o the food being putrid. ‫ חמץ‬is an ‫ איסור מהשהו‬and therefore there
can’t be a ‫ היתר‬of ‫ רוב‬so there can’t be a ‫ היתר‬of ‫ רוב‬on Pesach. There is no such thing
ON PESACH of ‫ביטול ברוב‬.
The Ran doesn’t require ‫ ביטול ברוב‬and hence this can be the ‫ נקודת מחלוקת‬b/t the 2.

)103( ‫ש”ע‬- quotes the ‫ רשב”א‬and then quotes the Ran’s ‫חידוש‬.

NTL by ‫איסור מהשהו‬

‘‫( תוס‬A”Z 66a) (p11)- if you have an ‫איסור מהשהו‬, is it shayach to say that you can’t say
NTL OR/ can it have been masriach and NTL still applies and the food is ‫?מותר‬
I) ‘‫ תוס‬says that ‫ איסור מהשהו‬means there is no NTL. ‫(ספר יראים‬p16)- if it is an ‫איסור כל‬
‫ שהוא‬then NTL won’t be ‫מותר‬.
II) ‫ "המחמיר טובו עליו ברכה‬-‫ "תרומת הדשן‬but it may be that it can be ‫ מותר‬by NTL.
‫נקודת המחלוקת‬: Do we view ‫ טעם פגום‬as better than an ‫ איסור מהשהו‬or not?

‫ קדירא‬and ‫אינו בן יומו‬: how long?

There are 2 opinions in the poskim about ‫ קדירא‬and what the phrase “‫( אינו בן יומו‬ABY)”
means.
I) Hagahos Ashri (p12)- says that it ABY means 24 hours “‫ ”מעת לעת‬from the last time it
has time in it.
II) ‫ רש”י‬A”Z (67b) (p3)- says that the ‫ שיעור‬is “‫”לינת לילה‬- one nighttime.

)103,5( ‫( ש”ע‬p22)- brings down the 24 hour shittah (but we do use the ‫ לינת לילה‬shittah
for some ‫דינים‬.)

66
A”Z (65b-66a) quotes ‫ פסוקים‬from ‫ פרשת מטות‬talking about ‫הכשר כלים‬. The ‫ גמרא‬asks
about why we need a parsha of ‫הכשר כלים‬, if everything is ‫ מותר‬in 24 hours ‫?מדאורייתא‬
A) The ‫ חכמים‬made a ‫ גזירה‬of "‫"בת יומו אטו אינו בת יומו‬. If you aren’t ‫ מכשיר כלים‬you are ‫עובר‬
on the ‫גזירה דרבנן‬, but it would seem that the food would still be fine b/c the ‫ טעם‬was
really ‫ פגום‬after 24 hours.

‫רשב”א‬- disagrees and says that a kli used after 24 hours w/o ‫ הכשר‬creates a problem to
eat the food.

‫רא”ש‬- asks why “linas ha’lailah” was a possible ‫?שיעור‬

A) People didn’t cook at night, instead they went to sleep. Since everyone went to sleep,
the pots weren’t used. The disuse causes the pot to become stale, and the use of the pot
will keep the pot fresh. ‫ ר"ת‬says that you need the night b/c of disuse.
When is the “night,” at the beginning of the night or the end?
The ‫ רא”ש‬and ‫ רש”י‬aren’t sure about it. Perhaps it is like ‫ קדשים‬and you have to wait the
whole night.

The ‫ רא”ש‬therefore has an issue with ‫’רש”י‬s shittah of “linas ha’lailah.”

Q) We know that if you cook ‫קדשים‬- when the morning comes then the food is ‫ נותר‬and
the ‫ טעם‬in the kelim is also ‫( נותר‬and the kelim would have to be broken). If all that you
need is ‫ סוף הלילה‬to make the ‫טעם פגום‬, then you’d never have to break a kli b/c it would
become ‫ נותר‬and ‫ פגום‬at the same time?!
The ‫ רא”ש‬feels that even if you leave the kelim of ‫ קדשים‬until ‫פגום‬, in the mikdash they
wouldn’t rely on it. Also, maybe you will cook with the ‫ כלי חרס‬at night.

The ‫ רא”ש‬says that if you use the kli that isn’t ‫בן יומו‬, the kli is ‫ אסור‬and the food is ‫מותר‬.
Why is the food permissible? This is the ‫ היתר‬of “‫תחילת בליעתו לפגם‬.” Here the ‫ טעם‬was
good in the kli and then it became ‫ פגום‬so that is why we are ‫מחמיר‬, but when the ‫טעם‬
went into the food, it started as ‫ פגם‬so we don’t say "‫"אינו יומו אטו בן יומו‬. This is why the
‫ רא”ש‬says the food is ‫מותר‬: b/c the food started off with ‫טעם פגום‬.

)2( ‫נותן טעם לפגם‬

23 ‫שיעור‬/ Dec 19- (M) P23 YD 103

‫רש"י ע"ז עו‬. says that ‫ נותן טעם לפגם‬is based on ‫לינת לילה‬.
If you use a kederah w/in 24 hours it will tref up the food, but after 24 hours all the food
is ‫ מותר‬and the Torah’s parsha of ‫ הגעלה‬was for the first 24 hours. The ‫ חכמים‬were ‫מתקן‬
that even after 24 hours there is a ‫ חיוב‬to do ‫ הגעלה אטו‬before 24 hours.

‫תחילתו בליעתו לפגם‬

‫( רשב”א‬p3)- [from Rabenu Yitzchak] there are 2 types of ‫הגעלה‬:
1) a fork is put in a pot of hot water and then the ‫ טעם‬of the hot fork goes into the water
2) if the pot itself is tref you boil water in the pot itself and the ‫ טעם‬comes out.
Any ‫ הגעלה‬done w/in 24 hours is being done on a ‫טעם לשבח‬.
Q) The ‫ טעם‬may come out, but then it goes right back in?

67
A) The fork would take back what it regurgitates.
Q) The kli isn’t a navi to know what it regurgitated and what it didn’t. The pot is going to
take in what it let out.
A) There are 2 possibilities:
1) That there must be 60 times in the water compared to the small utensil, but if there
were big pots then you won’t have 60 times inside the pot as compared to the pot walls
(and therefore the ‫ כלי מדין‬didn’t use big kelim).
2) Perhaps to use a big kli you have to leave it for 24 hours.
So what did you accomplish—the ‫ טעם‬is already ‫ פגום‬and then you can put it in a less than
60 times mixture?
Q) But then what did you accomplish, before the ‫ הגעלה‬there was a ‫ טעם פגום‬in the kli and
after the ‫ הגעלה‬the ‫ טעם‬was also ‫?פגום‬
A) {Like the ‫ }רא”ש‬The first time that the ‫ טעם‬went into the kli was ‫לשבח (תחילת בליעתו‬
)‫ לשבח‬and after the ‫ הגעלה‬the ‫ תחילת בליעה‬will be ‫לפגם‬. This was the reason for the ‫דרבנן‬.
When it is ‫ תחלית בליעתו לפגם‬there is no ‫“ חיוב‬even” ‫ דרבנן‬to do ‫הגעלה‬.
If you have a bowl of hot cereal that has milk in it and by mistake you use a fleishig
spoon, then even though the spoon itself is ‫( אינו בן יומו‬because it is ‫ בן יומו‬of something)
you need to do ‫ הגעלה‬on the spoon (there is no need though for ‫ הגעלה‬on the bowl). You
could in theory do ‫ הגעלה‬right away by putting the spoon in a pot that has 60 times it,
however we try not to rely on our ability to be 60 ‫ משער‬and therefore you should first
wait a day in order to make the ‫ טעם פגום‬and then do ‫( הגעלה‬even without 60). Also the
cereal that you cooked is ‫ מותר‬indefinitely.

‫ש"ע ס' קג‬-The definition of ‫ בן יומו‬is based on ‫ מעת לעת‬and if you cooked in a pot that was
‫ אינו בן יומו‬then the ‫ תבשיל‬is ‫ מותר‬because ‫נותן טעם לפגם‬.

‫[ רא”ש‬Pesachim pg250 (2,7)] (p12)- is dealing with the same question as the ‫רשב”א‬, how
do you kasher something if it becomes re-absorbed if something is not ‫בן יומו‬.
If it is not ‫ בן יומו‬then the kli can be kashered w/o 60 times water b/c if the ‫ טעם‬is ‫ פגום‬then
the ‫ טעם‬coming back into the pot is NAT bar NAT (‫)נותן טעם בר נותן טעם‬.

If you want to be machshir a kli in a tref kli after 24 hours

Q) If we say that you can’t use an aino ‫ בן יומו‬to cook, why can we use it to do ‫?הגעלה‬
A) The only reason that cooking is ‫ אסור‬is “uto cooking in it ‫ ”בן יומו‬which is an ‫איסור‬
‫דאורייתא‬. By ‫ הכשר‬kelim, even if I use the tref kli after 24 hours, the maximum ‫ איסור‬that
can come out of the pot is then a NAT bar NAT. By bishul, the fear is a worse case
scenario of making food tref.
Dishwashers
You want to use a tref dishwasher:
1) If it is stainless steel- do a heat cycle.
2) Porcelin is a problem to kasher

Igros Moshe (pg 18-19) quotes R’ Dovid Feinstein- said from this ‫ רשב”א‬that just as the
‫ הגעלה‬kli doesn’t need ‫ הכשר‬first, so too the dishwasher. Therefore, after 24 hours the
dishwasher should be ‫ מותר‬w/o anything. The ‫ רא”ש‬was only concerned about the pot
(that there would be cooking in it) and not the ‫ הכשר‬kli.

68
R’ Moshe wasn’t ready to accept this b/c you are using it for your own ‫ צורך‬and maybe
the reason for no ‫ גזירה‬on the ‫ הכשר כלי‬was only for that purpose.
There are opinions that you should first wait a year before doing any ‫ הגעלה‬on the
dishwasher.
Rav Simon asked Rav Dovid Feinstein about this and he said that y because there will
almost always be enough time between the last time it used between when the new tenant
wants to use the dishwasher and it is probably enough to do ‫הגעלה ג' פעמים‬.

R’ Abade- said that he doesn’t even need to wait 24 hours based on the ‫ רשב”א‬b/c there
is soap in the dishwasher and there is ‫תחילת בליעתו לפגם‬.
The problem is: 1) is all soap considered ‫( פגום‬caustic)? and 2) whether when the first
dishwasher cycle- the water is released before the soap is released and then there is a
‫ בליעה‬before the soap is used.
[R’ Konegsberg said that perhaps R’ Abade would say that it is all one process.]
‫ רב שכטר‬says the soap must be caustic soap to be considered ‫פגום‬.

Magen Ba’ade (Sephardic Teshuva) (p23)- he held that all the ‫ טעם‬is all ‫ פגום‬in the
dishwasher and therefore milk and meat kelim can be put together in the dishwasher.
This is not the Ashkenazic minhag.

Does the ‫ גזירה בן יומו‬ever expire?

Chacham Tzvi (p30)- Does the ‫ גזירה של אינו בן יומו אטו בן יומו‬ever end? Do we ever say
that the ‫ טעם‬is as if it isn’t there and it is ‫ מותר‬to use?
Q) There was a kli that had ‫ חמץ‬cooked in it two years earlier and the family accidentally
used the pot on Pesach?
1) This is a ‫ מחלוקת‬between the ‫רמ"א‬/‫( מחבר‬see earlier shir) and b/c the pot was used ON
PESACH the ‫ ביטול‬would not take place according to the ‫רמ"א‬, therefore the Ashkenaz
poskim would say that the food is ‫אסור‬.
2) The Chacham Tzvi said that it doesn’t make sense that the ‫ טעם‬will be ‫אסור מדרבנן‬
forever. There must be a limit to this ‫גזירה‬. He says that the ‫ רמ"א‬would agree that 12
months should be the cut-off point.
The ‫ גזירה‬is only for a 12 month period and then the ‫ טעם‬is like ‫עפר דעלמא‬.

Chacham Tzvi based his psak on a ‫ גמרא‬in A”Z (34a) (p29)- where tref wine was left in
barrels. The barrels can be used 12 months after the ‫טעם‬/wine goes away. [Some say this
‫ דין‬is only about wine, but the Chacham Tzvi extends this ‫ דין‬to other cases.]

Q) Who says that we make a ‫ גזירה‬only up to 12 months, perhaps there is a ‫ גזירה‬after 12

months for fear of using it before 12 months?
A) ‫יין נסך‬: even the ‫ בן יומו‬was ‫ אסור‬even ‫בדיעבד‬. For 12 months it is ‫ אסור‬to use the
barrels of ‫ יין נסך‬at all. If after 12 months we say it is ‫מותר לכתחילה‬, there is a clear
difference b/t the ‫ היתר‬period and the ‫ איסור‬period.
-- Tref kli after 24 hours: after 24 hours it is ‫ מותר בדיעבד‬and this ‫ קולא‬would say that
after a year it would be ‫לכתחילה‬. The Chacham Tzvi says that in this case he will NOT
make a ‫ גזירה‬b/c there is not a clear differentiation b/t the ‫ איסור‬period and the ‫היתר‬
period.

69
-- ‫ חמץ בפסח‬According to the ‫רמ"א‬: would be ‫ מותר‬b/c there is a strong distinction b/t the
‫ איסור‬period (even ‫ בדיעבד‬it is ‫ )אסור‬and then making it ‫ מותר לכתחילה‬would undermine the
‫גזירה‬.
BUT, According to the ‫ מחבר‬where the pot is ‫ מותר דיעבד‬until 12 months and then it is
‫מותר לכתחילה‬, the Chacham Tzvi would say the ‫ גזירה‬would still apply.

R’ Moshe says that you should 1) wait a year (b/c of hefsed) and then 2) be mosif 3 ‫הגעלה‬
times based upon the ‫ירושלמי תרומות‬.
‫ירושלמי תרומות‬- says that 3 ‫ הגעלה‬times can ‫ מתיר‬even a ‫כלי חרס‬.

What if you are getting something from a ‫?גוי‬

If the ‫ גוי‬has kosher food, but he has tref kelim that haven’t been used for 24 hours. You
can’t tell a ‫ גוי‬to cook for you, but if he did cook, can you eat that food?

‫( תורת חטאת‬p5)- ‫ רמ"א‬quotes the ‫ שערי דורא‬says that if the ‫ גוי‬cooked kosher in a kli that
was ‫אינו בן יומו‬, you can eat the food ‫ לכתחילה‬b/c the ‫ גוי‬doesn’t have a ‫גזירה‬. He is telling
us that this isn’t a violation of ‫'אין מבטלין איסור לכ‬.
‫ רשב”א‬argues and says that telling a ‫ גוי‬to cook for you is like you cooked in that pot.

‘‫ תוס‬A”Z (p11)- the famous case of the ‫( מרדה‬spatullah) used for non-kosher food. Q) If
the ‫ מרדה‬is now clean and hasn’t been used for 24 hours, can the ‫ גוי‬use it to remove
kosher food from the oven for the Jew?
A) The ‫ גוי‬is not going to make two ‫ מרדות‬for the Jew, therefore it is ‫ מותר‬to allow the ‫גוי‬
to get the bread with this ‫( מרדה‬the Jew can’t use it).
‫ מחבר‬quotes this ‘‫תוס‬
[‫ רשב”א‬would say where the ‫ גוי‬was being asked to get the bread out, it is ‫ אסור‬to eat.]

‫כלים‬-‫ ש"ע ס' קכב‬that are in the possession of ‫ גוים‬have a ‫ חזקה‬that they are not ‫בן יומו‬.
However, you still can’t tell a ‫ גוי‬to cook for you (however, it is okay to tell an ‫ אומן‬to
cook for you). He also says that just like their ‫ כלים‬are assumed not be ‫ בן יומו‬so too ours.

Igros Moshe (p25)- R’ Moshe has a question about a margarine factory. Every Friday
they would clean the machinery by using boiling water through the machinery. They
would then open on Monday morning. There is no mashgiach who can stay in the plant
on Friday afternoon to see the ‫ הגעלה‬on Friday and then the kosher batch is put on early
Monday morning. Can the mashgiach assume that a proper ‫ הגעלה‬was done.
1) If the law is (the American law) that there must be a ‫ הגעלה‬then we can assume that
there was a proper ‫הגעלה‬.
2) Really no ‫ הגעלה‬is needed, only that it is clean. The ‫ איסור‬is on the bishul and the akum
doesn’t have an ‫ איסור‬of using kelim that aren’t ‫בן יומו‬. This is a ‫’גוי‬s factory so ‫ הגעלה‬isn’t
needed.

Chamude Daniel/ ‫( רשב”א‬p8)- to cook with a kli that isn’t ‫בן יומו‬, we were taught that the
food is always ‫מותר‬. The ‫ רשב”א‬says that using the food from the pot if done ‫במזיד‬
(whether a Jew or a ‫ )גוי‬is ‫אסור‬. It is a violation of ‫ אמא”ל‬and therefore anyone who tells a

70
‫ גוי‬to cook in an ‫אינו בן יומו כלי‬, the food is ‫אסור‬. You can NOT tell a ‫ גוי‬to take bread with
his ‫כלים‬.
R’ Moshe says that we don’t hold like that ‫[ רשב”א‬at the end of the margarine teshuvah.]

‫ חידוש‬of the ‫מנחת יעקב‬: the ‫ גזירה‬never applied to a ‫כלי חרס‬

‫ מנחת יעקב‬- perhaps ‫אינו בן יומו אטו בן יומו‬doesn’t apply to a ‫ כלי חרס‬b/c perhaps the ‫גזירה‬
was only on a metal kli. The ‫ חכמים‬didn’t want people to throw out dishes. The ‫ גזירה‬was
to force people to do ‫הגעלה‬.
Many Achronim are against this opinion.
Some ‫ הכשרים‬will do ‫ הגעלה‬with soap that is NTL so they can undermine the ‫ חיוב‬to wait
24 hours.
‫ רע"א‬discusses this but is not so convinced of the ‫ היתר‬in the end of the day.

)3( ‫נותן טעם לפגם‬

24 ‫שיעור‬/ Dec 21- (W) P24 YD 103

Devarim (14,21) (p1-2): "‫[ "לא תאכלו כל נבלה לגר‬you can get ‫ הנאה‬from ‫]נבלה‬
‫ע"ז סז‬: (p3-4) “‫”כל הראויה לגר‬- only ‫ נבלה‬that is ‫ ראוי לגר‬is ‫אסור‬, but if it isn’t then ‫פקוע‬
‫( איסורא‬the ‫ איסור‬of ‫ נבלה‬doesn’t apply).

‫פסחים כד‬: (p5)- in order to get ‫ מלקות‬for ‫ מאכלות אסורות‬you must eat it in the normal way. If
people would not eat the ‫ איסור‬raw or burning hot, you won’t get ‫ מלקות‬for this ‫אכילה‬. The
‫ חיוב מלקות‬is based upon eating it in the “derech” that it is normally eaten.
There are 2 exceptions to this rule: a) ‫( כלאי הכרם‬K”H) and b) ‫( בשר בחלב‬B”B)
In these 2 cases, the Torah never expresses the ‫ איסור‬in a language of “‫ ”אכילה‬but only in
other language (eg. bishul). B/c of this, even if the ‫ איסור‬isn’t eaten in the “derech” of
‫אכילה‬, you will still get ‫מלקות‬.

Q) Are these 2 sugyos related?

This is a very fundamental ‫ מחלוקת‬of the ‫ כרתי‬and ‫חוות דעת‬:
We said that if something is ‫ נפסל מאכילה‬then it isn’t )‫אסור מדאורייתא (כל הראויה לגר‬. Is this
a separate halacha or part of ‫?שלא כדרך‬
N”M 1) Is ‫ בשר בחלב‬only an exception in ‫( דרך אכילה‬Pesachim) or is it also an exception
to “‫ ”נפסל מאכילת אדם‬as well?
N”M 2) Are the processes reversible? Is ‫ נפסל‬irreversible and “‫ ”שלא כדרך‬reversible?

I) ‫( חוות דעת‬p9)- The simple pshat is that these 2 sugyos have nothing to do with each
other b/c their ‫ דינים‬come from 2 different pesukim. In Pesachim the meat is fine, but not
‫ ראוי‬to eat and in A”Z it is about ‫ נפסל‬meat (a rotten piece of meat). Even though b”b is
eaten raw you don’t get ‫מלקות‬, if it is ‫ נפסל‬then it isn’t called ‫נבלה‬. One is “‫ ”שלא כדרך‬and
one is “‫נפסל‬.” If b”b is ‫ נפסל‬then it is ‫מותר‬. (One is in the ‫ גברא‬and one is in the ‫)חפצא‬.
[Toras Chaim- if you swallow something w/o chewing is it “‫]”?שלא כדרך אכילתו‬

II) ‫פלתי‬/‫כרתי‬- says based upon the ‫ רמב"ם‬that ‫ נפסל‬is ‫שלא כדרך‬. The ‫ פלתי‬connects the
sugyos and says that the ‫ חומרא‬on b’b and k’h that is stated in Pesachim about “‫”שלא כדרך‬
is also extended to ‫( נפסל‬and b’b doesn’t have the ‫ היתר‬of ‫אינו ראויה לגר‬.)

71
‫( רמב"ם‬p6)- you must eat the ‫“ איסור‬derech ‫ ”הנאה‬except for B”B and K”H where ‫הנאה‬
isn’t written. He then says that something that is “nisrach” by b”b and k”h you will be
‫ חייב‬for it b/c he includes nisrach in his list of “‫שלא כדרך‬.” B”B and K”H are therefore
also exceptions to the derech ‫ אכילה‬rule.

How can the C”D explain the ‫?רמב"ם‬

Bechoros (23b)- brings a ‫ מחלוקת‬at interpreting the ‫ פסוק‬of “‫לא תאכלו כל נבלה לגר‬:” one ‫מ"ד‬
says that it comes for ‫ אינו ראויה‬and the other says it is to exclude ‫סרוח מעיקרא‬. The
Rambam must be using the ‫ פסוק‬for ‫סרוח מעיקרא‬.

Ma’adane Asher-
Q) Does the ‫ פלתי‬mean to say if you have a disgusting b’b you get ‫ מלקות‬b/c it is bain or
does it even apply to ‫ ?טעם‬If you have a pot of b’b after 24 hours is there is no ‫?היתר‬
A) Even the ‫ פלתי‬wouldn’t apply his ‫ איסור‬by “‫ טעם‬b’almah.” By ‫ טעם‬it is only by ‫טעם‬
m’shubach and only by bein it needs nisrach.

Imrei Baruch- Q) asks on the ‫ רמב"ם‬who says there is a ‫ דין‬of nt”l (by devash) which was
not a case of saruach m’ikkarah?
Maadane Asher- A) the question is whether the ‫ טעם‬was ‫ פוגם‬the devash or not.
If the whole thing is ‫ טעם‬then all will agree that the ‫ איסור‬of b’b wouldn’t apply, only by a
bain, even by nisrach, would it apply.

Gelatin
‫חוות דעת‬- also says that something that is “‫ ”שלא כדרך‬is reversible, while “‫ ” נפסל‬is not
reversible b/c it is “‫( ”פקע איסורא‬the ‫ איסור‬was removed). “‫ ”שלא כדרך‬is a problem in the
gavrah (ie: the meat is raw, so now it is not derech, but it can be cooked.) C”D says that
‫ שלא כדרך‬is different from ‫ נפסל‬. Gelatin is ‫פקוע איסורא‬.
-- This is crucial for the gelatin question which was ‫ נפסל‬and is then reconstituted.
The C”D would say that this is not ‫ איסור‬anymore.

Based upon this C”D, According to the Rambam/Kresi who say that the ‫גמרא‬s in A”Z and
Pesachim are really one joint ‫גמרא‬, they will say that: just like in the ‫ גמרא‬of Pesachim,
food eaten in an aino reuyah fashion can surely be fixed (eg raw food cooked), they will
also say in A”Z that a piece of meat that was nisrach, if it was reconstituted, will regain
its ‫!!איסור‬
Rambam- if you say like the Rambam that the category of aino ‫ראוי‬ah l’ger includes
nisrach then there is a problem of gelatin.

R’ Ahron Kotler- in his teshuva to ‫ אסור‬gelatin uses the Kresi/Rambam.

- If the psak was using shitas Rambam, then gelatin would be ‫ איסור‬gamur. The C”D can’t
read his pshat in the Rambam and therefore would have to hold like other ‫ראשונים‬.
R’ Chaim Ozer- was the matir

R’ Simon- felt that the C”D was correct for many years but now isn’t sure that it reads
into the ‫רמב"ם‬, therefore he is not so clear that the gelatin is ‫ מותר‬according to the ‫רמב"ם‬.

72
 Is there an ‫ איסור דרבנן‬by ‫?נפסל‬
Q) If something is ‫נפסל מאכילה‬, is it ‫ אסור‬to use ‫( מדרבנן‬whether we are assuming like the
‫[ פלתי‬R’Ahron] or the C”D) b/c of ‫?אחשביה‬
This is an important issue for gelatin and is also relevant for questions regarding
medicine, whether the medicine is an ‫ אוכל‬and whether ‫ אחשביה‬applies?
Is ‫ אחשביה‬agreed upon to all opinions?

Pesachim (21b)- if you char bread before Pesach and it is now ‫ נפסל‬, it loses its shem ‫חמץ‬
on pesach and it is ‫ מותר‬b’‫הנאה‬.
‫( רא”ש‬p15)- Q) why doesn’t the ‫ גמרא‬say it is ‫ מותר‬for ‫ ?אכילה‬Why does it say “‫ מותר‬b’
‫”?הנאה‬
A) The ‫ רא”ש‬says that some say it is also ‫ מותר‬for ‫אכילה‬, but this is not mistaber. He says
“if you decide to eat it then it is ‫( ”אסור‬it seems ‫ מדרבנן‬and some may say it is ‫דאורייתא‬.)
The ‫ רא”ש‬doesn’t use the term ‫אחשביה‬.

Baal HaMaor- There are many ‫ ראשונים‬say that this is not true- b/c charred bread is not
usually eaten, and the bread might also be ‫ מותר‬l’‫אכילה‬, but it isn’t derech to eat it. That is
why the ‫ גמרא‬uses the lashon of ‫הנאה‬, in a lav davkah form. Normal people will get ‫הנאה‬
from something that is even ‫( נפסל‬like shampoo with wheat) so the issue isn’t so simple.
Ran- also says that it is ‫ מותר‬for ‫אכילה‬.
-- These shitos wouldn’t hold of ‫אחשביה‬.
Do we hold like the ‫ רא”ש‬and not the Ran?

Terumos HaDeshen SHUT- using ink (made from barley) on Pesach- can you use a pen
from this ‫ אינו ראויה לאכליה‬on Pesach? He quotes the ‫ רא”ש‬and uses the lashon of ‫אחשביה‬
discussing the ‫רא”ש‬. He says that this is only for ‫דרך אכילה‬, but if not, then the ‫ דין‬of
‫ אחשביה‬doesn’t apply and therefore, even though you might come to suck the pen it still
isn’t a problem because you aren’t doing it to eat the ink.

‫( ש”ע‬p19) (O”C 442,10)- quotes the T”H and says that you are allowed to write with
such a pen. It is unclear whether he is using the shitas ‫ רא”ש‬or even the Baal HaMaor.
‫ט”ז‬- uses the lashon of ‫אחשביה‬.
M”A (p19)- explains the T”H, that the ink isn’t being eaten with machshavah to eat.

Medicine
You are not eating it for ‫אכילה‬.
Shagas Aryeh (p21)- [‫ ]מחמיר‬says that it’s ‫ אסור‬and it is ‫ אחשביה‬by medicine (probably
‫)מדרבנן‬.
R’ Moshe- says that ‫ אחשביה‬isn’t for medicine, only food items. Food is being taken for
‫אכילה‬, but medicine is not and therefore it doesn’t matter about tarfus or something else.
R’ Belski- even though medicine is ‫מותר‬, R’ Moshe said that vitamins would not be ‫מותר‬
b/c you are trying to supplement your food and not like medicine to cure your problems.
This is like food and you should try to get those that are kosher.

Shitas Rambam

73
Achronim- say that ‫ אחשביה‬might be the shitas Rambam (p25) and perhaps ‫שלא כדרך‬
would be ‫מותר‬, but it would still be ‫ אסור‬b/c of ‫אחשביה‬.
Rambam- if you eat ‫ נבלה‬or trefah (the bones) even though they aren’t ‫ ראוי‬l’‫ אכילה‬it’s
‫ אסור‬and R’ Ahron says that this is b/c of ‫אחשביה‬.

By ‫עצמות‬- the Rambam doesn’t say it is a davar ‫ אסור‬and we don’t need ‫ביטול‬, but he only
says that they are ‫ אסור‬themselves. The Rambam’s shitah has nothing to do with the issue
of ‫מצטרף‬, but only the ‫ איסור‬of eating them, which would be from ‫אחשביה‬.
[See ‫ שיעור‬on ‫עצמות‬: O”Zaruah- says that the bones are neutral.]

Chewable medicines- not a problem like C”D, but perhaps problem to Kresi.

‫(פרי חדש‬p28)- paskins that there is no ‫ דין‬of ‫ אחשביה‬like the Ran and B”H.
He says that the reason why ‫ איסורי נפסל‬are ‫ אסור‬is “baal teshaktzu” (medicine wouldn’t
be teshaktzu and therefore would be a problem and he says that there is no ‫ דין אחשביה‬and
we don’t hold like the ‫)רא”ש‬.

Chazon Ish (p29)- quotes the 5 :‫ פרי חדש‬things

‫ איסורי אכילה‬that are ‫ נפסל‬: [he could’ve quoted the ‫ מחלוקת‬between the ‫ רא”ש‬and B”H,
instead he] quotes the ‫פרי חדש‬and says that they are ‫מותר‬.
He says that even those who want to say ‫ אחשביה‬is ‫אסור‬, that is only by ‫ חמץ‬like the T”H
(who HOLDS of ‫ )אחשביה‬b/c he says that we can be ‫ מחלק‬between ‫ חמץ‬and ‫שאר מאכלות‬
‫( אסורות‬and the ‫ חמץ‬now becomes ‫)חמץ דרבנן‬.

Bach- wants to understand how ‫ אחשביה‬works. Why should there be a ‫ דין‬of ‫ אחשביה‬once
it is ‫ ?נפסל‬He says that there has to be a limit of ‫ אחשביה‬and that when it hits ‫עפר בעלמא‬
then it isn’t ‫אחשביה‬. Perhaps if it is edible in its state, it can have ‫אחשביה‬, but something
totally putrid that even in a ‫ תערובת‬wouldn’t be edible, doesn’t have the ‫ דין‬of ‫אחשביה‬.
He says there is no ‫ דין דרבנן‬on this either.

R’ Abade thinks that this Bach is against the T”H (ink teshuva). The Bach wouldn’t need
the svara of the T”H to say the ink is ‫מותר‬.

)4( ‫נותן טעם לפגם‬

25 ‫שיעור‬/ Dec 26- (M) P25 YD 103

‫ע"ז סז‬.-what if the food is “shvach and then ‫ ”פגום‬or “‫ פגום‬and then shvach.” The ‫גמרא‬
quotes a case of “shevach and then ‫ ”פגום‬and says it is ‫אסור‬.
‫( ש”ע‬p2)- says it is ‫ אסור‬by either of these cases.

When does it become ‫ ?אסור‬Is it ‫ אסור‬immediately or only later on?

‫ש”ך‬- says the ‫ תערובת‬is only ‫ אסור‬once it is ‫השביח‬, but before that it is ‫ !מותר‬But, if it is
shvach and then ‫ פגום‬it is always ‫ אסור‬at the end.
‫פרי חדש‬- says that the ‫ תערובת‬is even ‫ אסור‬during the ‫ פגום‬period (even before ‫)השביח‬.
The ‫ פרי מגדים‬thinks that both of these ‫ דינים‬are ‫מדרבנן‬.

74
Rav Soloveichik- we understand the ‫ פרי חדש‬b/c the ‫ פגם‬is treated the same way the
whole time, but what is the svara of the ‫?ש”ך‬
‫ "אין ביטול אלא מתחילת התערובת‬:‫"חידוש‬- when the ‫ תערובת‬is made, the ‫ ביטול‬has to set in
immediately, or it won’t set in. If it is ‫ משביח‬first, then it’ll always be ‫אסור‬. But, if it starts
‫ פגום‬then the ‫ תערובת‬is ‫ מותר‬and can only later become ‫אסור‬.
Proof 1: ‫ש”ך‬
Proof 2: ‫"אפשר לסוחטו אסור‬-‫"מחבר‬-meat has milk in it and cooked in corn 70 times, but
what about the piece of meat? “‫ ”אפשר לסוחטו‬teaches that the piece of meat remains ‫איסור‬.
The Rav learns from here, “‫ ”אין ביטול‬b/c the ‫ ביטול‬must come ‫מתחילה‬.
Questions against this yesod:
Q1) “‫ ”אמא”ל‬seems against this yesod b/c there can be ‫ ביטול‬after the ‫ תערובת‬is already
formed, ‫בדיעבד‬.
A) The Rav says that “‫ ”תוספת היתר‬becomes like the new ‫תערובת‬.
Q2) ‫ בריה‬is not ‫בטל‬- but if it breaks up even afterward then it is ‫בטל‬.
A) The Rav says that ‫ מדרבנן‬we say as if it’s not in the ‫ תערובת‬and not ‫בעין‬.

R’ Simon would rather answer up the other two proofs than say the Rav’s ‫חידוש‬:
Q) How do you answer the ‫ ש”ך‬and ‫?אפשר לסוחטו‬
1) ‫ אפשר לסוחטו‬can be b/c you can never be sure that it was fully removed.
2) The ‫ ש”ך‬can be explained by the ‫(פרי מגדים‬p4): that the ‫ ש”ך‬is probably a ‫דין דרבנן‬, b/c
you don’t want to be matir things that are mushbach m’techilaso.

?‫רא"ה‬-Once it’s ‫ משביח‬and then later it’s ‫ פגום‬now there is a ‫ פגום כל דהו‬and maybe if it’s
so strong then the ‫ שבח‬wouldn’t even make a difference.

‫יתרה מלח‬/‫חסרה מלח‬

‫ע"ז סז‬.- If you have something that is ‫ פגום‬and the only reason it is ‫ פגום‬is because of a ‫דבר‬
‫( מותר‬ie salt) to make the ‫תערובת פגום‬, but if the salt wasn’t there then it wouldn’t have
been ‫פגום‬.
)103,3( ‫ש”ע‬- brings down the cases and is makil (like the 2nd opinion of R”L) and says
that even the non perfect )‫ תערובת (פגום‬is ‫מותר‬.

Boiling hot water in a pot that was last used for tref and is waiting 24 hours?
Q) A pot used for ‫ איסור‬at 9AM and then water at 11AM, does the 24 hour period begin
from 9 or 11 b/c at 11 the ‫ טעם‬of the meat will come into the water and go back into the
pot, perhaps we should start the clock again?
A) ‫(ספר התרומה‬p11)- the water is CNN and the pot is reinfused with the ‫( איסור‬w/o 60).
The water now is like a piece of ‫ נבלה‬and you must restart the 24 hours.
However, CNN only applies when trefus was cooked in the pot and then water was
cooked in it, but if kosher meat was used at 9AM, at 12PM you used water in the pot and
then 10 AM the next day you used milk in the pot, did the water reinvigorate the ‫?איסור‬
No, we don’t say CNN by ‫ היתר‬therefore the walls of the pot won’t be re-infused with the
‫היתר‬. The meat ‫ טעם‬ends at 9AM the next day.
‫ שיטת ספר התרומה‬assumes that CNN applies by ‫( שאר איסורים‬like R”T).
‫סמ”ק‬- says that there are many ‫ מקילין‬in this case and say that the pot is ‫מותר‬. The ‫תערובת‬
is ‫ מותר‬b/c the ‫ טעם‬of the ‫ איסור‬is not ‫בן יומו‬.

75
It is unclear whether this shitah is only according to those who say CNN only by BB or
even according to those opinions that hold of CNN by ‫שאר איסורים‬.

‫( ש”ע‬p15)- if a kederah had meat and milk cooked in it and then the same day water was
cooked in the pot, we start the 24 hour el”e period from the end of the water cooking.
-- We can imply from the ‫ ש”ע‬that if there was linas lailah b/t the BB and the water that
the starting time would be the time when the BB stopped cooking el”e.

‫רמ"א‬-if a pot was used for meat at night and the next day at 8AM it was used for milk
(after linas lailah) and then for water at 9AM: at 8AM the pot becomes BB (and we don’t
hold like ‫ רש”י‬who says linas lailah creates ‫)פגם‬, BUT the ‫ רמ"א‬is makil and says that the
el”e goes from 8AM and that he will hold like the ‫ סמ”ק‬and ‫ רש”י‬to say that the ‫קדירא‬
itself doesn’t have it’s el”e extended, even though the food cooked in the pot is ‫ אסור‬b/c
of BB. The ‫ רמ"א‬says that linas lailah at any point of the process creates an earlier el”e (es
l’es=24 hour) period.

‫ב"י‬- doesn’t hold of CNN by ‫שאר איסורים‬.

‫( ש”ך‬p17) quotes the B”Y and says that water can’t be CNN by having the ‫ בליעה‬of BB
b/c CNN can only be formed in BB when forming the ‫( איסור‬putting the meat and milk
together). The ‫ ש”ך‬feels that the ‫’ספר התרומה‬s ‫ דין‬might not be based upon CNN at all.
Gileon Maharsha- if the stuff came in fresh then it would be a problem and he feels that
the water does re-invigorate the pot.

Spicy Things
‫ע"ז לט‬.- you can’t get a type of sharp plant (chilkis) from a ‫גוי‬, b/c it could’ve been cut
with a tref knife. When dealing with sharp foods, we assume that the ‫ טעם‬can be remade
shevach even after 24 hours. The food can pull out the ‫ טעם‬and make a techias hamasim.

What about onions?

‘‫ תוס‬opinion 1: says it is also onions
‘‫ תוס‬opinion 2: it doesn’t include onions, only chilkis.
‫מרדכי‬- this applies to all spicy things that are similar to chilkis.

‫( ריטב”א‬A”Z) quotes the ‫רא”ה‬- who denies this ‫ דין‬that something spicy can re-energize a
‫[ פגום טעם‬like the C”Daas would say]. It is already ‫פגום‬, so how can it come back?
Ran says there are 2 tracks to ‫) פגם גמרי‬1 :‫ אינו בן יומו‬and 2) ‫פגם פורטא‬. A ‫פגם פורטא‬,
although it is ‫פגם‬, it can have a “techias hamesim,” while a ‫ פגם לגמרי‬can’t.
‫רא”ה‬- disagrees and says there are not 2 tracks to ‫ פגם‬and therefore when it is ‫ פגום‬it is
‫ סרוח‬and there is no “techiyas hamesim” and the ‫ טעם‬is like afar.
‫ רא”ה‬says that the ‫ גמרא‬A”Z might be talking about a case where the knife was dirty with
‫ בעין‬grease and the chilkis is giving ‫ טעם‬to that grease l’shevach. Once the ‫ טעם‬is ‫נפסל‬, the
tref knife won’t effect anything. Perhaps the ‫ רא”ה‬is l’shitaso.

Teshuvas ‫רשב”א‬: case there was ‫ דבר חריף‬and not chilkis: the charifus won’t be able to
make the b”y shevach unless there is a lot of ‫ דבר חריף‬in the ‫תערובת‬.
Teshuvas ‫( רשב”א‬p24)- perhaps it is only by chilkus.

76
‫( ש”ע‬p15) (103,6)- says that chilkus makes it charif.
‫ ש”ך‬says that the spicyness has to be the majority in the pot.

)5( ‫נותן טעם לפגם‬

26 ‫שיעור‬/ Dec 28- (W) P26 YD 104

A”Z (69b)- a mouse that fell into a barrel of cold beer and we assume that through ‫כבוש‬
(soaking for 24 hours) it is like cooking (w/ a heat element of yad soledes).
Rav says that the beer is ‫ אסור‬b/c ‫ עכבר‬is one of the 8 sheratzim and is ‫ אסור‬to eat. ‫ עכבר‬by
definition is a ‫ דבר מאוס‬and the Torah said it is ‫אסור‬, therefore the Torah is teahing me that
NTL by achbar is still ‫אסור‬.
Rav Sheshes says that ‫ עכבר‬is the exception to ‫נותן טעם לפגם מותר‬.

‫רא”ה‬/‫מחלוקת רשב”א‬: Dvarim Meusim

)‫( רשב”א (בתורת הבית‬p6)- says that if you cook sheratzim/shekatzim with your rice, it will
be NTL and ‫מותר‬. We paskin like Rava and distinguish between the ‫ בעין‬and the ‫טעם‬.
Rava says that the ‫ איסור‬is only on the ‫ בעין‬and ‫ טעם‬follows the regular rules. Therefore,
even if you took out the ‫ עכבר‬it’s still a problem because there is ‫טעם‬. Rav Sheshes holds
that ‫ דבר מאוס‬is definitely assur with ‫ טעם‬in addition to the ‫בעין‬.
The ‫ חידוש‬of the Torah is that one of the sheratzim is only ‫ אסור‬when you eat it “ ‫בפני‬
‫עצמו‬,” even if it is ‫ פגום לגמרי‬but when you eat it within a ‫תערובת‬.

)‫רא”ה (בדק הבית‬- does not hold of the 2 standards. He doesn’t think that something itself
is ‫אסור‬, but something in a ‫ תערובת‬would be ‫ אסור‬w/o a ‫שיעור ביטול‬. Maybe the ‫ אסור‬was
only on the mice that aren’t pagum. If the Torah mentioned the ‫עכבר‬, then the ‫ טעם‬is also
‫אסור‬. This is like the svara in the ‫גמרא‬. Any shekatzim that aren’t mentioned in the Torah
are not ‫ אסור‬w/o good taste. We don’t follow the ‫( רא"ה‬not this time and not usually).

Yetushim she’e efshar l’hotzeum

A”Z (69a)- if the mouse fell into into vinegar it’s ‫ אסור‬b/c the ‫“ עכבר‬falls apart” in the
vinegar and we are afraid that you are going to eat one of these pieces.
Are these pieces ‫?ניכר‬
‫רש”י‬- says it is ‫אינו ניכר‬. The question is then why isn’t the mouse ‫ בטל‬when it is not a
‫ בריה‬anymore?
Meilah (16b) (p3)- the ‫ שיעור‬of ‫ איסור‬is a ‫ כזית‬in order to get ‫ מלקות‬and it would seem that
this same ‫ שיעור‬applies to shekatzim b/c it uses the lashon of “‫ ”אכילה‬when describing that
‫איסור‬. The ‫ גמרא‬then brings a second opinion that says that the ‫ שיעור‬for tumas sheratzim
is the ‫ שיעור‬of a lentil.
Q) Why there are 2 ‫ שיעורים‬by ‫ ?שרץ‬A) If you eat the ‫ שרץ‬while it’s alive it is not ‫מטמא‬
and then the ‫ שיעור‬is ‫כזית‬, but when it is dead and ‫ מטמא‬the ‫ שיעור‬is ‫עדשה‬.
‫ מחלוקת ש”ך‬and ‫ט”ז‬
‫( ש”ך‬p11)[104,3 top line]- says that just a ‫ שרץ‬has a special ‫ שיעור‬of ‫עדשה‬, it also has a
special ‫חומרא‬. Any part of a ‫ שרץ‬has a pseudo ‫ דין‬of that ‫ שרץ‬and still has a status of ‫בריה‬.
The mouse contains an ‫ איסור בריה‬even if it contains less than an ‫עדשה‬, ie a ‫ שרץ‬contains
an ‫איסור מהשהו‬.

77
]104,1[ -‫ ט”ז‬argues and says that the mouse in vinegar is ‫ אסור‬b/c of ‫( ניכר איסור‬NI). The
‫ שרץ‬is visible in the ‫תערובת‬, but it is too small to be able to get it out with a sieve. That is
why you can’t eat the ‫ ט”ז‬.‫ תערובת‬says that NI is a ‫ דין דאורייתא‬even if there’s a ‫שיעור ביטול‬.

‫רשב”א‬/Rambam ‫ מחלוקת‬by butter

Rambam (p13/4)- There is a ‫ תקנת דרבנן‬to eat ‫ חלב ישראל‬and one who doesn’t follow it
gets ‫מכת מרדות‬. Butter can’t be made only from non-kosher milk. The kosher part will
become solid and the non-kosher won’t be able to solidify (like cottage cheese).
However, the miktzas Geonim say that there is no ‫ גזירה‬on butter because of the ‫מציאות‬.
However, there are other ‫ מקצת גאונים‬that hold that you can’t eat the solid b/c the non-
kosher is right there on top of the cheese, and it isn’t ‫ בטל‬b/c of NI.
The Rambam says that if you can remove the ‫איסור‬, then it should be fine.

‫רשב”א‬- says that the Rambam is not correct and it should be ‫מותר‬. Anything that you
can’t remove is ‫בטל‬, even though it is ‫ !!ניכר‬The miktzas geonim (2) and the Rambam
don’t agree to this. This is a case of ‫ ביטול‬by NI as long as “‫א"א לסנן‬.”
Bugs in NY
Divrei Chaim (p18) said that this might apply to the bugs in NY. 1) It might not be
called ‫ ניכר‬w/o expert and 2) if it is very hard to rid of the bugs, perhaps it is ‫( אסור‬and
‫ בטל‬as well). It is unclear who we paskin like in this case. Perhaps it is possible to get part
of them out.

‫הקריבהו נא לפחתך‬
Shuls used to be lit by candles/oil. If you have oil and the achbar went into the oil, can
you use it for the shul?

A1) ‫( רשב”א‬p22) ‫תורת הבית‬- whatever is ‫ אסור‬to eat you can’t use for the shul from the
‫ פסוק‬from Malachi (p20) (1,8) which says “hakrevu nuh l’pechushechuh”- try to bring
these ‫ קרבנות‬to your governor. If you can’t bring them to important people, then you
shouldn’t bring them to Hashem. However, if you want to use the oil for eating, this is
okay even w/o 60 if you can get the ‫ עבכר‬out (assuming it was only ‫)צונן‬.

Sukkah (50a) (p21)- ‫ניסוך המים‬, if you left the water overnight b/c we are afraid that the
snake left poison in the water even though no person is drinking it.
Q) So why don’t we sift out the poison according to R’ Nechemiah who says that once
something is filtered there is no more ‫ ?געולים‬A) Filtering is only ‫ מותר‬for your private
house, but this water is being used in the B”M and gevoah (B”M) is a higher standard.

‫( ש”ע‬p12)- says that we can be somech on the makilim by makom hefsed even if the oil
is ‫ אסור‬to eat, but if it is ‫ אסור‬to eat you really shouldn’t use it for the shul.

‫כבוש כמבושל‬
27 ‫שיעור‬/ Jan 2- (M) P27 YD 105

‫ טעם‬:‫ כבוש כמבושל‬is generally imparted with heat, but it can also be imparted through
soaking the solid in a liquid for a certain period of time with the absence of heat.

78
Requirements: 1) Liquid in a solid and 2) proper time. This works both ways, if the
liquid is tref or if the solid is tref, the ‫ איסור‬can go both ways.

‫( חולין‬111b)(p1)- Shmuel said that ‫ כבוש‬is like mevushal.

Does any liquid qualify or only a sharp liquid?

‫( רש”י חולין‬97b)(p2)- says that ‫ כבוש‬means vinegar (chometz).
Do we take this ‫ רש”י‬literally and say only vinegar, or even water?

)‫( מרדכי (ביצה‬p3)- ‫ רש”י‬always says vinegar when discussing ‫כבוש‬. The ‫ מרדכי‬disagrees
with ‫ רש”י‬b/c we have a mishna in Shevios that says:

Shevios Mishna (7,7) (p4-5)- [Ramban says it is a mitzvah to eat peros shevios] There is
a ‫ דין‬called “shas ha’beur.” Shevios is only ‫ מותר‬if that same species is still on the field.
Once there are no more of that min in the field, the person has to be mafkir his fruit.
There is a different zman of biur for different species and then it becomes ‫ אסור‬to eat.
CASE: A new rose from Shemitah was soaked in oil from the 6th year. Is that rose going
to make the 6th year oil ‫ ?אסור‬The Mishna says that you must take the rose out before the
time of ‫ כבוש‬and the oil will be fine.
But, what happens if you have a 7th year rose in oil of the 8th year and there was already a
shas biur of that 7th year rose. If you keep the rose in long enough, then the rose will be
‫ אסור‬and the oil will also be ‫אסור‬.

The ‫ מרדכי‬proves from here that the ‫ דין‬of ‫ כבוש‬doesn’t only apply to vinegar. This proves
that ‫ רש”י‬can’t be davkah.

What is the ‫ שיעור‬of ‫?כבוש‬

Pesachim (44b)(p6)- what is the source for ‫ ?טעם כעיקר‬Perhaps you can learn it from BB
b/c the whole ‫ איסור‬is based upon ‫טעם כעיקר‬.
We say that BB is a ‫ חידוש‬b/c 2 ‫ מותר‬things make it ‫אסור‬.
Q) Kelaim?
A) The ‫ חידוש‬is: if I would soak the meat in the milk for the whole day it wouldn’t
become BB, but if I would cook BB then it would be ‫אסור‬.

‫רא”ש‬- Why is this different than any ‫ איסור‬where you soak it in water that it wouldn’t be
‫?אסור‬
Ritzbah- said that this ‫ גמרא‬is a proof that the ‫ שיעור‬of KKM is 24 hours. By other
‫איסורים‬, if you would keep the ‫ איסור‬in for the whole day then the ‫ טעם איסור‬would go into
the ‫היתר‬. But by BB, b/c there is no ‫ איסור‬of KKM, BB is a ‫ חידוש‬even though it gets the
same ‫טעם‬.
R’ Simon said that the es l’es ‫ שיעור‬is very strange ‫שיעור‬. Ritzbah is a ‫ חידוש‬to say “kulai
yomah” means 24 hours.

Perhaps KKM of 24 hours only applies to oil, milk and water, but what about the
sharper liquids like zir (the salty liquids coming out from the animal) and chometz?

79
‫( רא”ש חולין‬p8)- says that the ‫ שיעור‬of KKM by zir is different from other liquids. The
‫ שיעור‬is “the amount of time that it takes to put water on the fire and it will get cooked.”
Other liquids have a different ‫שיעור‬.

)105,1( ‫(ש”ע‬p13-21)- says that the whole piece of meat is ‫ אסור‬from the tref liquid (if
water medium was used) and if it was less than the 24 hour period then you just wash the
piece of meat and it is ‫מותר‬.
‫רמ”א‬- if half the solid is in the liquid and half is outside the liquid, it will be fully ‫אסור‬.
)105,2( ‫ש”ע‬- If it is ‫ כבוש‬with zir or vinegar, then the ‫ שיעור‬is the amount of time that it
can be on the fire and be heated up (from the ‫ שיעור‬of bishul).
If you take it out before this ‫שיעור‬, then the outer klipah is ‫( אסור‬in vinegar/zir).

Cleaning Romaine Lettuce (Maror)

This issue comes up on erev Pesach when the romaine lettuce needs to be cleaned of
bugs. If we use vinegar then this issue would come up.

Pesachim Mishna (p24)- tells us that the different species of maror can’t be cooked or
soaked.
Teferes Yisrael- What is that ‫ שיעור‬of bishul by zir? says that water is 24 hours and
vinegar is 18 minutes. The ‫ שיעור‬of bishul must be a set ‫שיעור‬.
Gra- perhaps the ‫ שיעור‬of ‫ כבוש‬is like mevushal and the ‫ שיעור‬mevushal is 18 minutes, so
that is the source for that ‫דין‬.
‫מרדכי‬- says that ‫ כבוש‬is 3 days and it includes vinegar for that 3 day shittah.

RSZ”A- says that vinegar won’t help you even less than 18 minutes. (This ‫ שיעור‬is
gleaned from the ‫ שיעור‬of a mil which is 18 minutes). The vinegar immediately “cooks”
k’dei kelipah and the whole lettuce is a kelipah, so the vinegar would make the lettuce
‫ אסור‬to use as maror.

‫ ש”ע‬pulled a fast one!!

Be’er HaGolah- says that the ‫ ש”ע‬pulled a fast one on us- the ‫ רא”ש‬only said his ‫חומרא‬
by zir and the ‫ ש”ע‬extended this ‫ שיעור‬to vinegar!!
How do we know if this is legitimate or not?
‫ ש”ך‬doesn’t think it is legitimate b/c he quotes another ‫ רא”ש‬that disagrees with the
‫’ש”ע‬s extension.
‫( רא”ש‬p7) A”Z (87b, 11)- says that the shorter ‫ שיעור‬by ‫ כבוש‬only applies to zir and not to
vinegar.
‫( ש”ך‬p19) says that the ‫ ש”ע‬had no right to extrapolate and extend vinegar to the ‫ שיעור‬of
zir when he’s exten‫דין‬g the ‫ רא”ש‬who disagrees with this ‫דין‬.
Pri ‫חדש‬- also says that the ‫ ש”ע‬is wrong to compare zir and vinegar.

According to the Ran- there might be another ‫ קולא‬of having “k’dei sheya’aleh.” Perhaps
it won’t be boleah at all.

80
R’ Simon- said there might be a reason to be makil on erev pesach to use vinegar to get
rid of bugs b/c the ‫ ש”ע‬seems to be on shaky ground. Perhaps by shas hadchak. There are
generally better ways to get out bugs w/o relying on the ‫ ש”ך‬and discar‫דין‬g the ‫ש”ע‬.

‫ספק כבוש‬
Is KKM a ‫ דאורייתא‬or ‫?דרבנן‬
‫איסור והיתר‬- says that ‫ כבוש‬is a ‫ דין דאורייתא‬and ‫ ספק‬is l’‫חומרא‬, except for BB b/c it requires
bishul and by BB, KKM is only a ‫דין דרבנן‬.
‫ ש”ע‬brings this I”V l’halachah in the ‫רמ”א‬.

‫ט”ז‬- by ‫ טעם כעיקר‬the ‫ איסור ודאי‬fell in, but in our case “we don’t even know if the ‫איסור‬
fell in” b/c we don’t know how much time elapsed.
Q) So even by ‫ ספק דאורייתא‬we should also be makil?

Shev Shematsa- quotes this ‫ דין‬of ‫ספק כבוש‬. He says that you don’t say ‫ ספק‬m’ikkarah by
a ‫ספק תערובת‬. Here the kosher is really still kosher and something tref fell in, you need to
change the chazakas kosher, so there would still be an ‫איסור‬.

Kelim and KKM

If you have a kli that just had tref in it and it is clean, then you put cold soup in kli.
‫איסור והיתר‬- says that the kli’s ‫ טעם‬goes into the soup after 24 hours and it becomes ‫אסור‬.
‫ט”ז‬- isn’t it not a ‫ ?בן יומו‬The last part will be ‫פגום‬.
‫( פלתי‬p23)- has 2 answers?
A1) He says that it is hard to believe that up to 24 hours nothing happens and after 24
hours the flood gates open. Really the ‫ טעם‬comes in slowly and after 24 hours there is a
palpable ‫טעם‬. The ‫ פלתי‬says that the ‫ טעם‬comes in goes out over the 24 hours and it is
regenerating the ‫ טעם‬over that time. It is just that not enough stuff came out until after
24 hours.
A2) We have a ‫מחלוקת‬- when does something become NTL, linas lailah or 24 hours. He
says that we are choshesh for linas lailah l’‫חומרא‬. If you cook something during the night,
then you’ll have 24 hours and not the entire night and we should be choshesh for NTL l’
‫חומרא‬. He says that will make some periods longer than 24 hours. He’ll use ‫ רש”י‬and R”T
l’‫חומרא‬.

Kli Rishon and Kli Sheni

28 ‫שיעור‬/ Jan 3- (T) P28 YD 105

Are the status of ‫ בליעות‬in a kli rishon any different that those of a kli sheni? Most of our
cutlery has the status of a kli sheni b/c is isn’t used on the fire. This may mean that a baal
teshuva wouldn’t have to be worried about kashering their cutlery OR// do the kli rishon
and sheni have the same status?

What is a kli rishon?

Shabbas (40b)- Sugya of Ambatie (bottle): The ‫ גמרא‬defined yad soledes bo (YSB) as the
heat required to burn the stomach of a young child.

81
There was a case where one tannah wanted to put an oil flask in a bathtub on Shabbas.
The rebbe said that this would be bishul, so he should instead take water out of the
bathtub into another kli and then heat the water in the other kli.
We learn from here that kli sheni isn’t m’vashel.

‘‫( תוס‬40b S”Mina)- says that it is clear that a kli sheni can also be YSB, so the
determination of kli status can’t be a heat issue or else a kli sheni should also be
m’vashel. It must be that the kli rishon is on the fire and the pot also becomes hot, so the
walls and the food is hot and the heat is maintained in the kli rishon. The kli sheni doesn’t
have maintained heat b/c the heat is slowly lowering from the walls.
- This may mean that kli rishon not on the fire is only an ‫ איסור דרבנן‬According to ‘‫ תוס‬b/c
it too is cooling down and therefore the food is also.

Kli sheni by a davar lach poured from a kli rishon

[RZNG question]- You would assume if you have a hot water urn plugged in, it is a kli
rishon and would be considered al gabeh hu’aish and the cup it is pored into would be a
kli sheni.

‫(פרי מגדים‬p11)- has a ‫ חומרא‬if you pour a davar lach from a kli rishon into a second kli
while the kli rishon is still on the fire. He says that the second kli has a ‫ דין‬of a kli rishon.
Only once the kli rishon is off the fire can the second kli get the status of a kli sheni.
‫( רש”י‬source for Pr”M)- says that the bathtub in the ‫ גמרא‬Shabbas was getting its hot
water from an underground stream (According to ‫ )רש”י‬and should be considered a kli
sheni. The fact that the tanna required another kli beyond the bathtub showed that he
considered the bathtub to be a kli rishon.
- ‫פרי מגדים‬defines kli sheni as the first kli that the food is poured into once the food is
disjointed from the original heat source. The food must be removed from the fire to get
to a kli sheni status.

It’s not clear that ‘‫ תוס‬holds of this shittah. ‘‫ תוס‬does understand that there is a ‫ דין‬of kli
rishon al huaish, but it is probably only ‫דרבנן‬.

Harchakah of kli rishon

Shabbas (42b) Mishna- iflis: you can’t put ‫ תבלין‬in a kli rishon that is not on the fire.
This ‫ גמרא‬shows that there is an ‫ איסור‬even when the food is not on the fire (probably
‫)מדרבנן‬.
‫ ירושלמי‬Shabbas- brings a clear definition of kli rishon as when the fire is under the pot-
this ‫ גמרא‬seems to be the only ‫ דאורייתא‬form of kli rishon.
‫ ירושלמי‬Shabbas (p5-6)- Rav Yona says that the difference b/t a kli rishon and sheni is
that “asu harchek l’kli rishon” and “lo asu harchek l’kli sheni.”

What does this mean?

Shevisas Shabbas has 6 interpretations of this ‫ירושלמי‬
1) ‫(פרי חדש‬p8)- says that the heat is not important. The issue is making a harchakah for
a kli rishon. A kli rishon is ‫ אסור‬even if it isn’t on the fire if the food is ys”b and a kli

82
sheni is ‫ מותר‬even if there is yad sholetes water. The mishna by ilfes is only a chashash
‫דרבנן‬. This works well with all shitos.

2) Yam Shel Shlomo- says that the harchakah is that we should be ‫ מחמיר‬to use the kli
rishon that is on the fire even though the food is not ys”b like a regular kli rishon, l’
‫חומרא‬.

3) M”A- The harchakah is for a kli 1 that is NOT on the fire and which is NOT ys”b.

4) Vilna Goan [Beur HaGra] (p10)- if I take cold milk and put it on the fire for a short
amount of time, and there is a fear that you’ll leave it there for a longer period, this is
where the ‫ ירושלמי‬was gozer on the kli rishon.

‫ בליעה‬by kli sheni

]‫רשב”א [תורת הבית‬- Some say that only kli rishon can do ‫( בליעות‬at ys”b) b/c it can do
bishul. This is a tremendous ‫ קולא‬b/c then you could go to a tref restaurant and eat on
their plates.
‫ רשב”א‬doesn’t think this is the pashtus. He feels that as long as the food is from the fire
it can be polet even if the food isn’t ys”b and even in a kli sheni.

Proof to ‫רשב”א‬
1) ‫( חולין‬8b)(p14)- if you shecht an animal with a ‫’גוי‬s knife:
Rav- peel the outer part (b/c the beis ha‫ שחיטה‬can be cooked)
Rabba bar bar Channah- wash off (maidiach) the place of the ‫( שחיטה‬b/c the blood is
“polet harbeh,” but if not, then it would cook).
Therefore both agree that there is enough heat to give ‫ בליעות‬and the beis ha‫ שחיטה‬isn’t a
kli rishon and can be colder than a kli sheni

-- Maybe the ‫ רשב”א‬doesn’t have such a good example b/c this ‫ בליעה‬is NOT a function of
heat, so it doesn’t matter how hot the beis ha‫ שחיטה‬is.

2) ‫( חולין‬8b)- if an animal was shechted and ‫ חלב‬is removed from the animal, you
shouldn’t put the ‫ חלב‬on top of meat b/c the ‫ טעם חלב‬will get into the meat b/c it is very
hot when it is being taken out of the animal.
Proof- if the ‫ חלב‬out of the body of the animal is able to be polet then a kli sheni would
also be able to. Here the ‫ חלב‬is also detached so he wants a kal v’chomer to kli sheni (vs.
Tos.).
Problem for ‫רשב”א‬- is the same as #1, the ‫ בליעה‬isn’t specifically a function of the heat.

Tur- says ‫’רשב”א‬s rayos aren’t good b/c these gemaros can only do ‫ בליעות‬to kdei klipah.
The whole item can only be cooked if the heat is ys”b.

Q on Tur) there is still a ‫ בליעה‬to kdei klipah and the other ‫ ראשונים‬said there aren’t any
‫?בליעות‬

83
A) ‫ לכתחילה‬-‫ ש”ע‬you should be nizhar not to put hot chicken on their kli sheni, but
b’de’eved it is ‫ מותר‬w/o klipah and hadacha alone is needed (like those that the ‫רשב”א‬
quoted originally) when a ys”b food was put on a kli sheni.

What do you do with the old china?

RA”E- says that even if we rely on the ‫ש”ע‬, this would only apply to items that can be
kashered, but ‫כלי חרס‬, which can’t be kashered would be ‫ מותר לכתחילה‬even without
‫!!הגעלה‬
Some say that old china needs to be pot in a self cleaning oven cycle (which can destroy
the china) and other recommend that the china not be used for 12 months before use.

Minchas Yaakov- perhaps aino ‫ בן יומו‬uto ‫ בן יומו‬doesn’t apply to a ‫ כלי חרס‬b/c the ‫גזירה‬
was only on metal kelim. The ‫ חכמים‬didn’t want people to throw out dishes and the ‫גזירה‬
was to force people to do ‫הגעלה‬.
Many Achronim are against the Minchas Yaakov.

Davar Gush and Kli Rishon

‫( ים של שלמה‬p23) big ‫ חומרא‬of davar gush: he says that kli sheni only applies to davar
lach, but not to a davar gush, b/c it maintains a kli rishon state even on an actual kli
sheni, but the food item is still considered a kli rishon and then all the ‫ קולות‬are gone. He
says that the tref chicken puts bleos into the pot and all the ‫היתר‬im for china wouldn’t be
there anymore! He said that solids don’t cool down like liquids do (his shittah deals more
with the metzius of the hot davar gush cooling down).
‫איסור והיתר‬- also talks about basar in a pot and says that the walls that would cool off the
liquids in a kli sheni aren’t cooling off the davar gush, therefore the davar gush doesn’t
have the kli sheni status even on a second plate. (His argument focuses more on the walls
cooling the davar lach and not the davar gush.)

R’ Moshe- hot chicken in the ketchup if the chicken is a kli rishon and is this aba”b and
ketchup is a davar lach even if it was already cooked. He says that putting together all the
food, when it is fully cooled ketchup we can still be matir.
)94,7( ‫( ש”ע‬p25)- he says that if a hot piece of meat is cut with a milk knife, the whole
piece of meat is ‫( אסור‬w/o 60 against the makom ha’sakin). If it’s a ‫בן יומו‬
Rameh- disagrees with the YSS and I”V: the Rameh says that a hot piece of davar gush is
only ‫ אסור‬if the davar gush is in a kli rishon, but if the meat is in a kli sheni then only a
klipah of the meat needs to be removed.
‫ט”ז‬- we should be ‫ מחמיר‬like the YS”S.

Ladels
‘‫ תוס‬A”Z [Ri]- if a person scoops up the boiling water with a ladel, can you use this ladel
for ‫( הגעלה‬ie is it a kli sheni)?
He is ‫ מחמיר‬both ways. By ‫ הגעלה‬we are ‫ מחמיר‬and say it is a kli sheni, but in a case of
removing the feathers of the chicken where you put it in boiling water, we say that ladel
is a kli rishon.
Maharil- says that if you leave the ladel in the kli rishon long enough it’s a kli rishon,
but to ladel out is a kli sheni.

84
‫ט”ז‬- says that it is a kli rishon.
Rayah from Shabbas (40b) from ambate case. If a ladel automatically is kli sheni then
why say “toll b’kli sheni” and not “toll b’kli” which would automatically be a kli sheni.
‫פמ”ג‬- says anything from a fire is a kli rishon.
‫רב שכטר‬- if the plate that the soup is poured into is hot then the soup plate might not be a
kli shelishi.
Bram Weinberg- said that styrofoam would always be a kli sheni (ie if it is used as a
ladel).

‫ עירוי‬Kli Rishon
29 ‫שיעור‬/ Jan 4- (W) P29 YD 105

‫ עירוי‬is very Halacha L’Maaseh. You are taking a Kli Rishon and pouring onto
something. A good example would be a sink. If you take dirty (‫ )ממשות‬milk dishes and
dirty meat dishes, put them in the sink and clean them together with boiling hot water
from a kli rishon, are the pots tref?
We have seen the status of a kli rishon on the fire (‫ )בליעות דאורייתא‬and off the fire (‫)דרבנן‬,
but what is the status of ‫ ?עירוי‬Is it like a kli rishon or sheni?

‘‫ תוס‬Shabbos (42b) quotes a machloket about this. The Mishna says you can’t put an
ambate into a kli rishon, but putting it into anything else is ‫ ‘תוס‬.‫ מותר‬then says that a kli
sheni is ‫מותר‬, which implies that ‫ עירוי‬kli rishon is ‫אסור‬.
R”T/Rei- ‫ עירוי‬kli rishon = kli rishon (not on the fire)
‫רשב”א‬m- ‫ עירוי‬k”r= kli sheni
R’ Baruch- ‫ עירוי‬cooks kdei klipah.

NM: ‫ עירוי‬by Hagalat Kalim

NM: ‘‫ תוס‬A”Z (74b)- Rav says that to purify a winepress (that became tref by ‫ )יין נסך‬you
need to scald it with boiling water.
R”T says that since the size of the winepress presumably can’t be done in another kli, so
scal‫דין‬g is done by ‫ עירוי‬kli rishon. m yayin nesesh. They prove from here that ‫ עירוי‬is kli
rishon and this ‫ גמרא‬is referring to ‫ יין נסך‬where beliyot were not from heat.
‫רשב”א‬m disagees and says that this ‫ דין‬is specific to a winepress and doesn’t apply to
kashering a pot. He also says that generally ‫ עירוי‬is k’kli sheni.

Tatah gavar or ilahah gavar

‫ בליעות‬require heat the reaches the temperature of ys”b. This degree of heat will permit a
bishul of the whole food item.
What if you have one hot piece of meat sitting on top of a cold piece w/o any water
medium, does the cold piece cool off the hot one or does the hot piece penetrate the cold
one and cook it?
Pesachim 75a has a machloket between Rav and Shmuel. What if you have hot and cold
meat where you put one piece on top of the other where one piece is kosher and one is
tref. What “wins”, the top win or the bottom? If both are hot then the ‫ איסור‬definitely
cooks the ‫ היתר‬and if they are both cold then neither cooks (just wash off the kosher

85
piece). If the “hot piece” was on the fire then the bottom would win unless the bottom
piece got hot.
Rav- elaha gavar
Shmuel- tatuay gavar
We pasken that the bottom is the stronger piece and we go after its state, whether cold or
hot, b/c bishul always takes place bottom up [Rav].
The ‫ גמרא‬does say that even if you hold tatuay gavar, if you leave a cold piece under a hot
one, there must be some ‫בליעה‬s of kdei klepah that get into the bottom piece.

‘‫ תוס‬A”Z- Rabbenu Baruch says that the ‫ מחלוקת‬of R”T and the ‫רשב”א‬m is based upon the
‫ מחלוקת‬of tatuay gavar. R’ Baruch says that ‫ עירוי‬is not like kli rishon or sheni, but it in
between which will make the ‫ בליעה‬only kdei kelipah.
We pasken like this middle shitah and ‫ עירוי‬will make a kedei klipah ‫אסור‬.
However, the ‘‫[ תוס‬Pesachim] says that kelipah is a ‫חומרא‬, so if the substance is one
where kelipah is not possible, like a liquid, we will ignore kelipah and say that the ‫ עירוי‬is
like a kli sheni.
The ‫רשב”א‬m seems to fit better with the psak of tatuay gavar and R”T wouldn’t.

If we paskin tatuay gavar how does R”T say that ‫ עירוי‬is k’kli rishon?
‫ איסור והיתר‬wants to defend R’ Tam from the ‫[ גמרא‬Pesachim]. By tatuay gavar, the heat
source is no longer there (disconnected from the heat source) and therefore there is a
hefsek b/t the pieces of meat and their heat source, therefore the bottom piece will win.
But, by a case of ‫עירוי‬, the hot item is still connected to the fire, therefore we can’t apply
the tatuay gavar standard and there would still be ‫ בליעות‬and the ‫ עירוי‬can be considered
like a kli rishon.

Pour meat juice onto ab”y milk plate

‫ איסור והיתר‬discusses a question where you take hot meat juice and pour it onto a milk
plate which is aino ‫בן יומו‬.
We pasken that ‫ בליעות‬in a kli are treated in a more strict fashion than if the meat food
was cooked in the plate and there is an ‫ איסור‬even if the kli isn’t ‫בן יומו‬. But, the bowl is
only ‫ אסור‬kdei kelipah. Therefore the kli is ‫ אסור‬and needs ‫ הגעלה‬but the food is ‫מותר‬.

What happens if you do multiple ‫עירוי‬s?

If we use a kli that had ‫ בליעות‬of b”b as a kli rishon for kosher soup- do you need 60
against the whole bowl or just the kelipah? The pashtus would be that we would be
m’sha’ar against only the kelipah of the bowl, but the fear is that many ‫ בליעות‬were done
and therefore there are many kelipos. Perhaps each new ‫ עירוי‬infects another portion of
the bowl?
‫ איסור והיתר‬says that it will go past kdei klipah and will make the whole kli ‫אסור‬. Chavat
Daat says that no matter how many ‫בליעות‬, the ‫’עירוי‬s potency stops at k’dei klipah.

Maflit Umavlia K’achad

In a kli rishon, the heat has the ability to take ‫ טעם‬out of one solid and put it into another
solid at the same time. Not everything has that power. The liquid in a kli rishon can
penetrate all the food items in the kli (maflit and mavliah).

86
 Does ‫ עירוי‬have the power to take tref ‫ טעם‬out of a solid and put it into
another solid at the same time?
Remah (95,3)- if you pour boiling water on dairy and meat dishes together in a sink, the
two dishes are ‫ מותר‬b/c ‫ עירוי‬is not really like a kli rishon (unlike R”T) being maflit and
mavliah when it comes to the two kelim, so nothing becomes ‫אסור‬.
If you put all your dishes in the sink (both meat and milk)- the worst that will happen is
that you have ‫( עירוי‬which would make a kdei kelipah of ‫ איסור‬if tref was poured onto the
plate), but it’s not strong enough to take the ‫ טעם‬from the meatball and put it into the milk
dishes.

Remah (68,10) [hilchos Melicha] Meliga means that if you want to take off the feathers
of a chicken is to boil it in hot water. The problem is that to do the meliga, you must pour
boiling water on the chicken and this would mean that he is pouring boiling water on the
chicken with its blood still there b/c it is before ‫ מליחה‬and it should tref up the chicken.
The Remah therefore paskins that you can’t do meliga on a chicken in a kli rishon unless
you take out the ‫ אסור‬parts and the blood, as well, you can’t do meliga with ‫ עירוי‬kli
rishon.

How can this be, if the ‫ עירוי‬is not maflit and mavliah?
‫ ש”ך‬asks: Q) how can the Remah say by meliga that you can’t do it with ‫ עירוי‬but when it
comes to the dishes together we say that you CAN do ‫עירוי‬. What’s the difference?
A) Restatement of Remah: the Remah holds that ‫ עירוי‬is maflit umavlit k’achat except
for when it comes to kalim b/c kalim are harder to penetrate and they need a stronger
transfer than simply ‫עירוי‬.
But, by chicken, ‫ עירוי‬is strong enough because chicken isn’t so strong.

‫ ש”ך‬rejects this restatement and brings the Hagahot Sharay Dura (‫ )תרומת הדשן‬who
holds that ‫ עירוי‬kli rishon is maflit umavlia k’achat even in a kli. Therefore, you should
NOT clean your dishes with ‫ עירוי‬kli rishon.

You can’t accuse someone that only has one sink that it is mamush tref b/c he has the
Remah to rely on. [This is even without the ‫ פגם‬of soap, and nat bar nat and non ys”b
water.] But, ‫ לכתחילה‬we should be ‫ מחמיר‬like the the ‫ש”ך‬, who says it is mfalit umavlia by
kalim.

Q) On the Remah: what if there is liquid on the plate when you pour the boiling water on
the plate. Maflit and mavliah is only difficult by a solid with another solid, but maybe
‫ עירוי‬kli rishon can infuse from a liquid into a solid or into a kli?

What about by a dishwasher which would also seem to have the same ‫ דינים‬as a sink, but
it might not be ‫ עירוי‬b/c the heating element is actually IN the dishwasher so it could be
considered a kli rishon?
Rabbi Gedalya Burger thinks a dishwahser should be more chamur because the heating
element in the dishwasher itself. Therefore, the water going around is not necessarily ‫עירוי‬

Also, this whole discussion is with hot water. If it’s with cold water it’s no problem.

87
 ‫ עירוי‬not in the air but on a stove
What if ‫ עירוי‬is poured on something else?
‫(תרומת הדשן‬SHUT) discusses the case of hot milk on the fire. The milk over flows onto
the stove and touches a piece of meat. Is this like ‫ עירוי‬kli rishon and the basar is ‫?אסור‬
Or// ‫ עירוי‬has its special status b/c it is in the air until it lands, but here the water went
onto the stove and cooled off before hitting the meat?
Th”D says that the liquid is called ‫ עירוי‬kli rishon as long as it’s still yad soledet bo. We
see a proof from chamey teveria where it stays ‫ עירוי‬kli rishon even though it’s not in the
air, since it’s flowing from the original heat source.
‫ ש”ך‬says it’s still ‫ אסור‬kdei kelipah.
Rema- ‫ עירוי‬is only when the liquid is still flowing from the kli rishon, but once the flow
is interrupted from its source, it is no longer considered ‫ עירוי‬k”r and can’t infuse to a
kdei klipah. Kli sheni has NO beliyot.

Remah- also assumes that the discussion of ilahah gavar verses tatahah gavar can apply
to two plates as well.
‫ מהרש”ל‬disagrees with this Rema.

‫בליעות בלי רוטב‬

30 ‫שיעור‬/ Jan 9- (M) P30 YD 105

‫ צלי‬and ‫בליעה‬
Q) What if there is no rotev, but the heating was done through ‫ צלי? צלי‬also has the
ability to be maflit u’mavliah, but perhaps not to the same degree as bishul?

‫( חולין‬96b)- a thigh that was cooked with a ‫גיד הנשה‬, the ‫ דין‬is based upon whether there
was ‫ טעם‬in the thigh to the degree calculated by the ‫ שיעור‬of basar b’lefes. But, if the
thigh and ‫ גיד‬were ‫צלי‬-ed together then the ‫ דין‬is “kolef v’achel ad shemagiah l’‫גיד‬.”
This ‫ גמרא‬is mashmah that you can eat the basar even if there isn’t 60 k’neged the ‫גיד‬.

Q) Don’t we have another ‫ גמרא‬that says that a piece of meat that was roasted can’t be
eaten (even “ad ‫ רא”ש‬uzno”) b/c the ‫ איסור‬goes throughout the piece of meat?
A) This is talking about ‫ צלי‬done with ‫חלב‬, which is different b/c it spreads out in the
‫צלי‬-ing process.
Normally, a liquid medium is required to totally penetrate the whole piece of kosher
meat, but this ‫ גמרא‬teaches that if a fatty substance is involved, that is like a liquid.
If neither piece is fatty and both are solid, then the ‫ בליעות‬aren’t going to go through the
tref piece to the kosher piece.
Q) There is a case where the animal was roasted with fat and it was matir?
A) That was a “lean” animal.
- We are generally ‫ מחמיר‬even though the meat might be kachush (lean) and we will treat
the pieces as shamen.
‘‫( תוס‬R”T)- explains the ‫ גמרא‬in ‫ חולין‬of kachush to mean that kachush meat doesn’t
spread throughout the kosher piece of meat or// that the lean piece of meat has some fat
that is ‫ בטל‬b’60 in the kosher piece.

88
 Is the ‫ שיעור‬of bishul and roasting the same: 60?
Roasting would seem to be the same as bishul and the issue would be one of 60
(assuming a fatty substance), but the ‫ ראשונים‬point out that the ‫ שיעור‬is not the same even
if the roasting is “m’fapeah b’kullo.”

‫( רשב”א‬p3)-
Kdei Netilah- requires that a person still has to remove a portion from the kosher piece
that is roasted with tref even if there is 60 k’neged the tref. (A kdei netilah- is the ‫שיעור‬
equal to the thickness of a finger, which is a larger ‫שיעור‬.)

Kdei Kelipah- if the bottom piece is cold and the top piece is ‫ אסור‬and hot, tatuay gavar is
the psak. But, even though the kosher piece cools off the piece of ‫איסור‬, the ‫ גמרא‬in
Pesachim says that for the first few minutes the bottom is cooked and you must remove a
kdei kelipah.

Why is the ‫ שיעור‬kdei netilah here?

)‫רבינו יונה (איסור והיתר‬- when you do bishul, it is clear that the ‫ טעם‬will be nis’pashet
throughout the whole ‫תערובת‬, but by ‫צלי‬, it’s not clear that it will be mifapeah b’kulloh.
Therefore, we are ‫ מחמיר‬and we fear that most gets stuck in the outer layer and therefore a
kdei netilah must be removed. We are ‫ מחמיר‬both ways, for 60 and kdei netilah.
[The ‫ שיעור‬of kdei netilah must be removed even though there was 60 k’neged the
‫]!איסור‬

)105,4-5( ‫( ש”ע‬p15/6)- says l’halacha that we distinguish b/t lean and fatty meat and the
‫ שיעור‬of kdei netilah is only by a lean piece, whereas a fatty piece requires a ‫ שיעור‬of 60.
This would also be true if there is a piece of lean tref meat on top of a potato that is in a
‫( תערובת‬which would be ‫)צלי‬. The ‫ דין‬is that a kdei netilah of the potato must be removed.

Kesef Mishna says that the Rambam holds that kachush means a minimal amount of fat,
so it will be ‫ בטל‬b’60, but there is no fundamental difference b/t a shamen and kachush
animal.
Rambam (p2)- doesn’t have the ‫ שיעור‬of kdei netilah, he says that if there is a lean piece
of meat that is less than 60:1 then ‘kolef v’ochel,’ remove the ‫ חלב‬and eat it. A fatty piece
of meat is m’fapeah b’kulloh, but kachush has a 60.
We hold like the ‫ רשב”א‬and ‫ ש”ע‬vs. the Rambam

Ain ha’baluah yotzeh ma’chtichah l’chatichah bli rotev

CASE 1) If you have lettuce and you cook it together with tref meat, the lettuce is tref b/c
there is no 60. If you remove the meat and place this lettuce (w/ ‫ בליעות‬of tref) on a grill,
and roast it with kosher meat w/o 60 ‫שיעור‬, is the kosher meat ‫ אסור‬b/c of the lettuce?
A) ‫( רשב”א‬p6)- The meat isn’t ‫אסור‬. If the ‫ איסור‬is ‫ אסור‬b/c of ‫ בליעות‬of ‫איסור‬, then that
‫ בליעה‬will only come out through bishul and not through ‫צלי‬. This is the principle of “ain
ha’baluah yotzeh ma’chtichah l’chatichah bli rotev.”

89
CASE 2) What if the chatichah of ‫ היתר‬is roasted with kosher fat that was made tref by
being cooked with tref meat?
A) The kosher piece of meat is ‫ מותר‬even though the davar ‫ איסור‬is fat and fat is treated
like bishul b/c we don’t say that the fat can take the tref ‫ טעם‬further than it could’ve gone
itself.

CASE 3) What about tref ‫ חלב‬cooked with kosher meat, then the kosher meat with ‫בליעות‬
of tref ‫ חלב‬is then roasted with another kosher piece of meat?
A) In this case, the ‫ בליעות‬of ‫ חלב‬DO make the other piece of meat ‫אסור‬.

Efshar L’hafrido
Q) If you put a piece of meat in vat of milk on fire: you then take the meat with ‫ בליעות‬of
milk and you roast it with kosher meat, does that kosher piece of meat become b”b?
1) On one hand, this piece of meat is b’b, so the other piece should become ‫ אסור‬b/c of
the ‫ איסור‬of b’b and there is a ‫ חיוב‬of 60 plus kdei netilah. It then wouldn’t matter if the
milk doesn’t come out b/c the meat itself is ‫ איסור‬b’fnei atzmoh
2) OR// the ‫ איסור‬of the first piece was from ‫ בליעות‬of milk (‫ בליעה‬ma’‫)איסור‬, and therefore
if you roast it with the other piece of meat then the ‫ בליעות‬don’t come out and the other
piece of meat is ‫אסור‬.
N”M: Efshar l’hafrido- is a case where you are sure that all the ‫( איסור‬in this case, the
milk) was totally removed from the ‫היתר‬.

Why is efshar l’sochto ‫?אסור‬

Two possibilities: 1) Rav and 2) ‫רשב”א‬
A1) Rav Soloveitchik- ein ‫ ביטול‬ela b’techilas ha’‫תערובת‬: even though the Rav would
say that efshar l’sochto is ‫ אסור‬b/c no matter how much milk is removed, the meat will
still remain ‫אסור‬, the Rav will agree that in a case of efshar l’hafrido, where all the milk
can be removed, that the meat would be ‫מותר‬.
This means that the milk is really an ‫איסור בליעה‬, as proven from the psak that the meat
would be ‫ מותר‬in a case of efshar l’hafrido.
R’ Koenegsberg quotes the Rav- as questioning whether this piece of meat is an ‫איסור‬
baluah or b’b mamush.

A2) ‫( רשב”א‬p7)- says that the piece of b’b is considered an ‫ איסור‬baluah b/c you can’t be
sure that everything was removed. It is an ‫ איסור‬of metzios and you can’t get all of the
milk out.

‫( ספר התרומה‬p13)-
Tipas Chaluv- chulent with piece of meat on top and a drop of milk falls on top of the
piece of meat. If there is 60 against the drop of milk it will be ‫מותר‬, but the question is
what is included in the 60: a) the whole pot or b) is it a separate battle b/t the piece of
meat and the milk?
A) The ‫ גמרא‬says that if the meat is sticking out of the pot fully, then it is the milk against
that piece of meat and it will only ‫ אסור‬the whole pot if that piece then goes into the rest
of the kederah.
Q) Why won’t that piece mess up the rest of the pot?

90
A) ‫ספר התרומה‬answers that this proves that the ‫ בליעות‬of the milk in the meat won’t go
into the pot to make it ‫אסור‬: and we say “ain ha’baluah.”

Tur (p11)- simple rea‫דין‬g is that b’b that is roasted WILL ‫ אסור‬other pieces of meat b/c it
is an ‫ איסור‬atzmoh and make the meat into a cheftzah of b’b.
‫( ש”ע‬p17) (95,7)- quotes the Tur!! This seems to go against the ‫רשב”א‬.

‫ט”ז‬- was adamant that the ‫ רשב”א‬and ‫ספר התרומה‬have to be correct, so he will say a
different p’shat in the Tur and ‫ש”ע‬. He feels the ‫ רשב”א‬is correct b/c that is the pashtus in
the sugyah about tipas chalav, (stirring is the only way to create ‫ איסור‬in tipas chalav) and
therefore he must re-interpret the ‫ש”ע‬.
‫ ש”ע‬really means: not that the meat got a ‫ בליעה‬and thereby made another piece of meat
‫אסור‬. The ‫ ש”ע‬is discussing a case hot meat touching cheese and the cheese is the davar
ha’oser machmas atzmoh and that is why ‫ צלי‬can create the ‫ איסור‬in the piece of meat.
The ‫ ש”ע‬is discussing the formation case of b’b and comparing it to ‫ נבלה‬which can make
another piece ‫ אסור‬through negeah during ‫צלי‬, but the ‫ ש”ע‬isn’t saying that ‫ בליעות‬of a b’b
piece can make another kosher piece of meat ‫אסור‬.

The ‫ ט”ז‬says that the next line in the )105,7( ‫ ש”ע‬is talking about ‫ בליעות‬of b’b (which is
an ‫ איסור בליעה‬and can’t transfer to another ‫ איסור‬w/o rotuv).
The ‫ ש”ך‬would say that this line must be talking about ‫ נבלה‬that had ‫ בליעות‬of ‫ איסור‬and
not b’b which is an ‫ איסור‬atzmoh.

‫ש”ך‬- says that the ‫ ש”ע‬is k’peshuto.

Q) What about the ‫ ?גמרא‬A) The ‫ גמרא‬which says that you have to bring it back into the
liquid is the havah aminah, but once we learn about CNN, the whole piece is b’b and then
the piece of kosher meat will be ‫ אסור‬w/ ‫ צלי‬b/c everyone agrees to CNN by b’b.
‫ ש”ך‬quotes the ‫[ תרומת הדשן‬in Hagaos Sha’are Durah] (p14)-
Q) Why by the case of CH”L b’b isn’t considered to be an ‫ איסור‬baluah and here there
‫ רשב”א‬says that it is an ‫ איסור‬baluah?
A) He says that the ‫ רשב”א‬is correct: in a case where there is milk, like a case of CH”L,
then the meat is considered guf ha’‫ איסור‬and is an ‫ איסור‬machmas atzmoh. BUT, when
there is no milk, like in the case of efshar l’hafrido, then we don’t view it as guf hu’‫איסור‬,
but is only an ‫ איסור‬baluah.
Example: If you have a wool talis with one thread of linen, it’s kelaim. If you cut away a
little bit of the begged that had the linen string, the begged is now not shatnez. B’b (or the
piece of meat) requires chalav to trigger the ‫ איסור‬machmas atzmoh.
If we can remove the milk from the piece of meat, then it would be ‫ מותר‬like the ‫רשב”א‬
and Sefer HaTerumah.

Ochel to kli
If you have a plate that is ‫ בן יומו‬that is clean and you used the plate for hot kosher meat
w/o rotev: The plate is baluah, but ain habaluah yotzeh m’chatihah l’chatichah blo
rotuv?”

91
HaGaos Sha’are Durah (p22)- has a ‫ חידוש‬that is assumed l’halacha: ‫ בליעות‬don’t go
from one piece of meat to another w/o rotuv, but by kelim you don’t need rotev to get
the ‫בליעות‬.
Rayah- from the sugyah of nat bar nat. Hot fish put on a meat kli and you want to know
whether you can eat it with cheese. The ‫ גמרא‬says that the ‫ טעם‬is too weak.
Q) Why don’t you matir it b/c “ain habaluah?”
A) We see from here that there can be a ‫ בליעה‬from a kli even w/o rotev.
‫רמ”א‬- brings down the Sha’are Durah.
‫ט”ז‬- explains that by a food it is harder to get ‫ בליעות‬in and out (of a food item), but by a
kli, the kli takes in and lets out ‫ בליעות‬more easily.

2 kederos
Example: 2 kelim, milk and meat touch each other and both are ‫( בן יומו‬ie a stove).
‫( ש”ך‬p20)- says that a kli can ‫ אסור‬a food w/o rotev, but not from one kli to another kli
w/o rotev.
Remah (p29)- to get ‫ בליעות‬from one kli to another kli (like by ‫ )עירוי‬is a higher standard,
but he says that we should be zahir.
‫( מרדכי‬p27)- is the earliest source of the ‫ דין‬that kelim that touch don’t give ‫ טעם‬to each
other.
R’ Moshe- says that you can use the same grates and counters for milk and meat.
There will never be enough rotuv on the counter to make it boleah.

Q) Perhaps there is rotev by ‫?צלי‬

A) ‫(חוות דעת‬p25)- says that a little spill isn’t rotev. You need a significant amount of
water. Milk in a meat pot requires 60, but you don’t need 60 against the spill. ‫ צלי‬isn’t
totally dry, but ‫ צלי‬isn’t considered rotev.
Remah (p24) in b’b: what happens if milk spills over the side of a milk pot (like Th”d of
last time) and it hits a piece of meat, it may or may not make the meat ‫אסור‬.

We are ‫ מחמיר‬by ‫ בליעות‬on Pesach.

R’ Moshe- has a teshuva on the tri-pod.

Chasam Sofer- if you have 2 thin kelim that touch each other, the ‫ בליעות‬won’t go from
one to the other, but in a thick kli, a ‫ בליעה‬in one part will go from one side to the other
even if it is thicker than the two pots together [car service mashul.]

‫ מליח כרותח‬and ‫איסור דבוק‬

31 ‫שיעור‬/ Jan 10- (T) P31 YD 105

Another case of ‫ בליעה‬that doesn’t require heat is ‫( מליח‬salt) that is present b/t the ‫איסור‬
and the ‫היתר‬.

I) ‫( חולין‬97b)(p1)- Shmuel said that ‫ מליח‬is ‫ כרותח‬and ‫כבוש כמבושל‬.

Q) Why doesn’t the ‫ גמרא‬say that ‫ מליח‬and ‫ כבוש‬are ‫ כמבושל‬even though in both of these
cases there are ‫ בליעות‬w/o liquid medium?

92
The ‫ גמרא‬quotes a case of thighs attached to the ‫ גיד הנשה‬that were salted together:
Ravina- said it was ‫ אסור‬and R’ Acha- said it was ‫מותר‬.
A) The ‫ גמרא‬says that roseach can’t mean ‫ כמבושל‬from the fact that Shmuel split b/t ‫מליח‬
and ‫כבוש‬, where ‫ כבוש‬is ‫ כמבושל‬and ‫ רותח‬means ‫ צלי‬and not cooking with a liquid medium.

II) ‫( חולין‬112a)(p2)- there was a bird that fell into salty milk (yogurt) which was cold: the
psak was that the ‫ תערובת‬was ‫ מותר‬even though the yogurt was salty. The reason was that
only time that the salt does “‫ ”מליח כרותח‬is when the food is salty to the degree of" ‫אינו‬
‫נאכל מחמת מלחו‬," that it is not able to be eaten b/c of the salt.

III) ‫( חולין‬96b)(p3)- how much is the ‫ בליעה‬into the ‫?איסור‬

‘‫ תוס‬says that it is in the ‫(קליפה הסמוכה לו‬if you hold of CNN and if there is some ‫טעם‬, the
‫ היתר‬can become a cheftzah of ‫ איסור‬and then you would need 60 against the kelipah and
the rest of the animal.) ‫ כדי קליפה‬is the ‫ שיעור‬when the piece of meat is NOT FATTY with
a salty piece of food.
[K’‫ צלי‬doesn’t mean like ‫ צלי‬mamush, b/c ‫ צלי‬is always a ‫כדי נטילה‬, but salting can be ‫כדי‬
‫קליפה‬.]

IV) ‫( חולין‬113a)(p4)- kosher fish with tref fish salted: ‫ מליח כרותח‬only applies when the
davar ha’‫ אסור‬is the salted part, but if the ‫ דבר הכשר‬is the salted part, then we don’t say
that the salt takes the ‫ טעם‬of the tref fish into the kosher fish.
Psak: The salt will immediately give ‫ בליעות‬as long as the item reached the state of" ‫אינו‬
‫נאכל מחמת מלחו‬."

‘‫( תוס‬113a)- I) if the tref is the davar maluch it will ‫ אסור‬whether it is on the top or on the
bottom. The halachos of ‫ עילאה‬or ‫ תתאה גבר‬don’t apply here. You only have to ask one
question: which is salted? [We don’t hold like this point in ‘‫תוס‬.]
II) They used to have kelim that were used to shape the cheese into forms. Q) Can you
borrow the ‫’גוי‬s cheese forms which are ‫ בן יומו‬even though, apparently there was salt put
into the tref cheese when it was made. Do we say that these forms will tref up the kosher
cheese?
A) ‘‫ תוס‬says that you can borrow the ‫’גוי‬s forms even if you salt the kosher cheese when
its being made, b/c the davar ‫ אסור‬is the kli and the davar ‫ אסור‬must be salted, and the kli
wasn’t salted only the tref cheese (“‫ )”אין מליחה בכלים‬and the food will remain ‫כשר‬. He
says that this is like the case of ‫ טהור שמליח‬and ‫טמא תפל‬.
)91,5( ‫( רמ"א‬p15)- says that ‫ אין מליחה בכלים‬is only by ‫פולט‬, but it will be ‫בולע‬. We said
that zir is ‫( אסור‬b/c of dam) and that salty liquid will go into the kli w/o holes and will
require ‫ הגעלה‬even though the ‫ בליעה‬is machmas ‫מליח‬.

‫ רשב”א‬vs. ‘‫ תוס‬concerning ‫עילאה גבר‬

‫( רשב”א‬p5)- says that the ‫ דבר טמא‬must be the salted one to create ‫איסור‬, b/c the salt in the
kosher food doesn’t have the power to pull the ‫ טעם‬out of the tref food.
‫( רשב”א‬p6) Bais HaKatzar- disagrees with ‘‫תוס‬: he argues that if the tref salty piece is
‫ תתאה‬then there are ‫ בליעות‬transferred, but if the tref piece is on top, then the ‫איסור‬
doesn’t go down and there is only a ‫ כדי קליפה‬of ‫איסור‬.

93
N”M- is when the tref food is fatty and it would’ve gone through the whole kosher item
if it was on the bottom, but ‘‫ תוס‬would say that it is like ‫ צלי‬even if it is on the top.
[Avichai: is it so clear that ‘‫ תוס‬would say that a salty tref ilaha would extend further than
‫ צלי‬and make the bottom kosher piece, ‫ אסור‬kdei kulloh?]

)105,11( ‫(ש”ע‬p13)- holds like the ‫ רשב”א‬concerning tatuay gavar

Remah (105,11)- quotes the ‘‫ תוס‬as yesh cholkim, and that we are noheg like ‘‫ תוס‬that it
doesn’t matter where it is positioned and we are ‫ מחמיר‬in any event.

)105,12( ‫ש”ע‬- he is matir by the ‫גוי‬ish cheese pots.

Remah- says that ‫גוי‬ish pots is only ‫ מותר‬b’de’eved.

Fatty ‫מליח‬
)105,9( ‫(ש”ע‬p9)- the regular ‫ דין מליח‬is kdei kelipah is only w/o fat, but the shuman ha‫גיד‬
we should be ‫ מחמיר‬and take off “kdei makom” and real fat goes through the whole
kosher piece. See ‫ ש”ע‬for full explanation.
Remah (p11)- says that some say that salting always says it is kdei kelipah (Ra’aviah)
B/c we aren’t expert we always are m’sha’ar against 60 like by bishul. If there is an ‫איסור‬
davuk then the ‫ איסור‬davuk must be 60 against the ‫ איסור‬or else it too is ‫ אסור‬and either
way a kdei kelipah must be removed.

‫ איסור‬Davuk
If you have a davar ‫ איסור‬in the pot, we are generally ‫ משער‬against 60 of all the other
things in the pot. But, what if the davar ‫ איסור‬is attached to another piece of meat in the
)1+1( ‫ תערובת‬and there are 90 other pieces of meat? In this case there is 60 against the
‫חלב‬, but not against the ‫ איסור‬plus the davuk. Do we see this attached piece of meat as
‫ איסור‬and a separate entity of ‫?איסור‬
Ex: the heart of the animal-the heart is blood and if you cook the whole chicken with 60
against it then it’s ‫מותר‬, or else it’s ‫אסור‬.
Remah (p18)- b/c the heart is connected to other meat there is an ‫איסור‬.
This sugya requires the Remah’s shittah of CNN by ‫( שאר איסורים‬the ‫ מחבר‬would not
hold of ‫ איסור‬davuk, b/c he only holds of CNN by B”B!!).
‫ר"ת‬-there is CNN by )‫שאר איסורים (רמ"א‬
‫רבינו אפרים‬-CNN is only by B”B (‫)מחבר‬

Reasons for ‫ איסור‬davuk

Q) What is the reason for this ‫ דין‬and that this piece of meat is different and it is
considered ‫?אסור‬

1) )72,18( ‫( ש”ך‬p18)- normally the reason why we use 60 is b/c the ‫ טעם‬dissipates
through the mixture, but by an ‫ איסור‬davuk, then there will be one spot that the ‫ טעם‬will
be more concentrated in the piece that it is davuk to, and that is why we have to be
‫ מחמיר‬by an ‫ איסור‬davuk. 60 is b/c of equal dissipation.
You can win if the ‫ איסור‬hadavuk is 60 against the ‫ איסור‬itself: ie mishna in ‫( חולין‬96b).

94
2) ‫ ט”ז‬quotes the ‫ איסור והיתר‬and says that there is another reason: ‫ איסור‬davuk is a
chashash that the ‫ חלב‬and the basar ha’davuk were together outside the pot w/o the
other pieces of meat and there was no 60 even though there is now 60 in the pot.

)‫( פרי מגדים (משבצות זהב‬p20)-

Q1) What about an ‫ איסור‬davuk that is only an ‫?איסור דרבנן‬
Q2) Does ‫ איסור‬davuk only apply to something that was naturally connected or even
something that is not naturally connected (like a worm embedded in a fish/ stuffing in the
turkey)?
A1) If the whole thing is from a chashash (‫ )ט”ז‬then it would only apply to an ‫איסור‬
‫ דאורייתא‬and not ‫דרבנן‬, but the first reason (‫ )ש”ך‬would also apply by an ‫איסור דרבנן‬.
A2) The ‫’ש”ך‬s shittah would only apply to a natural connection, while the ‫’ט”ז‬s would
even apply to a non-natural one.

Therefore, the ‫פרי מגדים‬says by an ‫ איסור דרבנן‬w/o a natural connection that neither svara
should apply. (‫ ט”ז‬is ‫ ספק דרבנן לקולא‬and ‫ ש”ך‬would hold an ‫ איסור‬if the connection
wasn’t natural).
Ex: On thanksgiving where there is tref stuffing ‫ מדרבנן‬then he’d be matir.
‫(פרי מגדים‬p22)- handbook for Rabbis [O”C (chelek 1)]- also quotes this halachah.

‫חוות דעת‬- says that it has to be “davuk b’toldah” (naturally) [the important factor] so the
‫ איסור‬would only apply to the heart or ‫ חלב‬and not to non-natural connections.
‫( איסור והיתר‬p24)/‫מהרי"ל‬- discuss an apple that had a worm in it which is an ‫איסור דאורייתא‬.

‫ריחא וזיעה‬
32 ‫שיעור‬/ Jan 11- (W) P32 YD 105

‫ריחא מילתא‬
Pesachim (76a-b)(p1-2)- you are roasting two items in the oven simultaneously, the
kosher is shamen and the tref is lean.
Rav (R”Y) says that the kosher one is ‫אסור‬. In this case, the kosher fat will go over to the
tref meat and then it will go back to the kosher and ‫ אסור‬it.
[vs. last ‫ שיעור‬where we said that the tref piece must be the fatty one b/c a fatty kosher
piece of meat won’t be able to get ‫ טעם‬from ‫מליחה‬.]
Levi disagreed and said that even lean kosher meat roasted with fatty tref meat is not a
problem, b/c ‫ ריחא לאו מילתא‬w/o a conduit of water and Levi paskined this way l’halachah
(see ‫)רש”י‬.

Erev Pesach: each ‫ קרבן‬Pesach has a group and the halacha is that the ‫קרבן‬os can’t be
‫צלי‬-ed together.
Q) Isn’t this against Levi and the fear is that the ‫קרבן‬os are going to give ‫ טעם‬to each
other?
A) No, we are afraid that one group will take the ‫ קרבן‬of another group and that is the
fear. This is not specifically against Levi.
Q) The ‫ גמרא‬then says that “even if the ‫קרבן‬os are a gdi and t’le we still don’t allow them
to be cooked together.” This implies that we would’ve thought that we could cook them

95
together and this would meant that the initial problem wasn’t reichah, but was fear that
one group would take the other group’s pesach and this is against Rav?
A) He says that each pesach is in a pot, so there is no fear of ‫טעם‬: even though there is
still a fear of inadvertent taking even in this case.
Q) That’s not tzoleh?
A) Rav meant that it is like each pesach is in its own pot where even According to Rav
there is no ‫טעם‬. [But, how far is this?]
[Malbim- kol ditzrich- how can all people eat from the seder, not everyone can eat from
the ‫ קרבן‬pesach b/c you have to be signed up from before?]

If there is no fat in the meat, but only liquid, then it doesn’t create ‫איסור‬.

What about the ‫ שיעור‬of 60 with this halachah?

Rif says that Rav is Rav l’shitaso that ‫מין במינו‬isn’t ‫ בטל‬and we don’t paskin like this Rav.
I’m not sure what the answer to the question was.

A”Z (66b)- a barrel of wine with a hole in it, can you smell the aroma of the tref wine? Is
this considered as if you drank the wine or not? What about if a ‫ גוי‬smelled the Jew’s
wine?
By a ‫ גוי‬smelling the kosher wine, all agree it is ‫מותר‬.
By a Jew smelling the ‫גוי‬ish wine there is a ‫מחלוקת‬:
‫ ריחא לאו מילתא‬,‫ מותר‬-‫רבא‬.
‫ אסור‬-‫אביי‬, reichah milsa.
We paskin like ‫ רבא‬except for yaal k’gam

‫ רש”י‬Pesachim (76b)- says the halachah is like Levi, b/c he is like ‫ רבא‬and we hold like
‫רבא‬.
‘‫ תוס‬A”Z [‫( ]רבא‬p3)- says that R”T holds like Rav, but what about hol‫דין‬g like ‫ ?רבא‬R”T
says that these sugyos don’t need to be consistent (vs. ‫)רש”י‬. ‘‫ תוס‬explains that these two
sugyos aren’t connected b/c ‫ רבא‬can say like Rav as well, b/c here in A”Z the smell is a
mazik and in Pesachim it isn’t so we say that reichah is milsah and it’s ‫ אסור‬like Rav.
He also says that the halacha is like Rav only by a small oven, but with a big oven then
we don’t have to worry about reichah if it is big as long as it’s not closed up.

{A”Z (67a)(p5)- another application of reiach- if you have ‫ יין נסך‬wine that a piece of
bread was put on top: will the wine make the bread ‫[ אסור‬the factors are the heat of the
bread and whether the barrel is open or not]?}

Rif- says that poskim hold like Levi and this memrah of Rav has to do with ‫מין במינו‬isn’t
‫ בטל‬and we are against R”Y of ‫מין במינו‬aino ‫בטל‬.
‫חידוש‬e Anshe Shem- is ‫ מחמיר‬in both places.

Summary: We need 1) fat and 2) bas achas (that the pieces are there together) with
roasting and even with all this perhaps we still hold like Levi!

‫( רמב"ם‬p7)- seems to hold like Rav ‫לכתחילה‬, but b’de’eved it’s ‫ מותר‬like Levi.

96
[Q) Is it a problem or not? Is he really hol‫דין‬g ma’ikkar ha’‫ דין‬like Levi?]

‫רשב”א‬/Tur- rehashes the sugyah.

‫ש”ע‬- quotes the Rambam about ‫ לכתחילה‬b’de’eved and if it is a big tanur then he can
even roast them ‫ לכתחילה‬or even if you cover one of the pieces they’ll both be ‫מותר‬.

Tur/B”Y (p11)- gets involved in the issue of smelling things that are ‫אסור‬. If hot bread
touches the ‫ יין נסך‬then that’s more problematic.
B”Y [from Orchos Chaim]- can you smell pepper in the tref wine? You are getting the
‫ הנאה‬from the kosher ‫ תבלין‬and not from the wine, what’s the ‫?דין‬
Don’t use this for havdalah b/c of hakrivenu nuh l’fechusechah, but the psak is: if
something is meant for the smell it is ‫ אסור‬to smell, but if it would be mainly used for
‫אכילה‬, then it would be ‫מותר‬. And the pepper wine would be ‫ מותר‬to smell.
‫ש”ע‬- brings down this B”Y.
RZN”G- what about ‫ היתר‬and ‫ אסור‬b’samim? It would seem to be ‫אסור‬.

Based upon the B”Y and Orchos Chaim maybe you could smell the smell from a tref
restaurant b/c it is omed l’‫ אכילה‬even when dealing with ‫בשר בחלב‬.

‫זיעה‬
Steam from tref soup and you put something kosher on top into the steam. If it’s ‫יד סולדת‬
‫ בו‬at the time it hits the thing on top, then it could be a ‫ שאלה‬of ‫בשר בחלב‬.

‫משנה במכשירין‬- for an ochel to be m’kabel tumah it must come into contact with one of the
7 mashkim (yad ‫ש”ך‬at dam) that were detached from the ground.
If you have a bath of water and an apple on top, is it considered as if the apple fell into
the water?
Yes, and the mishna says that if the bathhouse water is ‫טמא‬, then the ability to become
‫ טמא‬and the tumah come at once.

[Or Yerushalaim Torah Journal: Yad ‫ש”ך‬at dam: for the holidays. Yayin- purim, dam-
yom kippur, shemen- Chanukah, chalav-shevuos, tal-pesach, dvash- r”h, mayim- sukkos.]

‫רא”ש‬- co-opts this mishna from tumah to yoreh deah (‫)חידוש‬.

Q) If you have a milchik pot can you put it under a meat pot?
A) He thinks that it should be ‫ אסור‬even ‫ בדיעבד‬b/c ‫ זיעה‬is worse than ‫ריחא‬. The ‫ דיעה‬is like
‫בעין‬.
‫תרומת הדשן‬- how high up can the ‫ היתר‬be and still get ‫ זיעה‬to become ‫ ?אסור‬A) Yad
soledes bo (ys”b). Therefore, people who would hang their salamis from the ceiling under
milk pots and the ‫ זיעה‬isn’t ys”b at that point, the salamis are ‫מותר‬.
‫( מחבר‬p20)- quotes the ‫ רא”ש‬Shut.
Remah (p22)- quotes the Th”d.

‫( פרי מגדים‬handbook for Rabbi)- only wants to say ‫ זיעה‬for mashkim and not for ochlim
because it isn’t significant [from a Rambam.]

97
What about with fat? He says that ‫ זיעה‬of ochlim isn’t like a liquid. Even if it makes ‫זיעה‬
it is still not a problem.
‫ רמב"ם‬Tumas Ochlim (7,4)- about a flow of water (netzok) and there is a ‫ שרץ‬on the top
of the stream and a kli ‫ טהור‬on the bottom, is it as if the ‫ שרץ‬is touching the stream?
He says that netzok isn’t chibur (a connection) and there is a difference b/t a liquid and
thicker solid.
R’ Moshe- says that if you see ‫ זיעה‬then don’t rely on the ‫פרי מגדים‬but if not then maybe
you can b’de’eved.
Mishkenos Yaakov- said that the ‫ רא”ש‬might have overstepped his bounds. He claims
that the SHUT Rivash said that you can’t bring ‫ זיעה‬into yoreh deah. According to the
Rivash as well there might be a side to say that ‫ חמץ שעבר עליו הפסח‬could be ‫ מותר‬because
he feels that it’s ‫דרבנן‬. Once something is ‫ אסור בהנאה‬it stays ‫אסור‬.
‫ריב”ש‬- says that ‫ זיעה‬is only ‫ אסור‬when, if the food item that the ‫ זיעה‬came from is
nishtanen l’gamre (that it is totally changed and destroyed: ie to burn a ‫)שרץ‬, that the food
is still ‫אסור‬. You can only bring ‫ זיעה‬into maachalos asuros only if the ‫ זיעה‬was
nishtaneh that it would still be ‫!אסור‬
Ex: The ashes of a burnt ‫ שרץ‬isn’t ‫אסור‬, therefore the ‫ זיעה‬of a ‫ שרץ‬doesn’t have an ‫איסור‬
even in a ‫ זיעה‬state. [But the ‫ ש”ע‬went with the ‫רא”ש‬.]

‫ זיעה‬and tanur
How can you use the oven for milk and meat acc. to the ‫ ש”ע‬and ‫?]רא”ש‬

R’ Moshe- R’ Moshe Shloss wanted to give ‫היתר‬im for ovens (far away, vents).
R’ Moshe concluded that we should be nervous about cooking a liquid of milk in an
oven, but not a davar ochel (based upon the Pr”M) and if you would actually see ‫ זיעה‬then
you have to be nervous even in a solid.

R’ Shlomo Kluger- discusses ‫ זיעה‬l’‫ – זיעה‬the 2nd ‫ זיעה‬is going to bring down the first ‫זיעה‬
and maflit previous ‫זיעה‬.
It could be that the ‫ רא”ש‬only meant- ‫ זיעה‬going straight into the food item, and
therefore there is no ‫ איסור‬of ‫ זיעה‬l’‫ זיעה‬and our chumros aren’t even necessary [in terms
of koshering an oven.]
Secondly, there is only a source that ‫ זיעה‬is ‫ מבליע‬into the other food item, but no
source says that it would be maflit, so that is another tzad l’hakel.

‫רב שכטר‬- there is a difference b/t ‫ זיעה‬and hevel, and we don’t have thick steam in our
ovens. Also, according to Rav Abade there is no problem with ‫ זיעה‬in ovens today
(which Rav Moshe didn’t accept). Rav Abade goes as far as saying that ‫ מעיקר הדין‬it is
okay to put both meat and milk in at the same time, but it is important to ‫ מחמיר‬on this
because otherwise people would be ‫נכשל‬. He thinks there is no ‫ זיעה‬by pizza. The minhag
people usually have with microwaves is that wither milk or meat should be covered.
However, according to Rav Abade in order to have a problem, ti would have to be
something very liquidy and in for a while. Rav Gifter was also ‫ מקיל‬on ovens.
R’ Ben-Tzion Wosner (Sefer Or Yisrael)- that minhag Yisrael was never to worry about
‫זיעה‬. By microwaves he is more worried.

98
R’ Simon- says that today with vents it is like a tanur pasuach and we don’t have to be
worried about the ‫זיעה‬. Says that ‫ בליעות‬are easier to create then being maflit, so we can’t
automatically extend the ‫ חומרא‬of the ‫רא”ש‬.
R’ Reuven Feinstein- said that a double covering is merely practical- “a backup.” Rabbi
Saur suggested that the first wrapping turns into a ‫ בעין‬and therefore, you need the other
wrapping.

Gra (Mishlei): you can’t just read the halachah or you won’t remember it.
R’ Moshe said that you should learn ‫“ גמרא‬ad hasof” which means ‫ גמרא‬until you get to
the halacha. We need to learn the gemaros alebah d’hilchesah.

99