תערובתביטול ברוב

1 שיעור - Packet 1 – YD 109

:is when you have תערובת always says that a רב שכטרהיתר רוב (1 איסורמיעוט (2 3) The איסור can’t be ניכר to 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 בלח (physically mixed together) b) יבש ביבש (physically separate). It doesn’t matter where the pieces of meat are, as long as they create a ספק (even in my three different homes- under the umbrella of my ספק).

אחרי רבים להטותאחרי רבים להטות" שמות כג:ב-: ביטול ברוב for מקור "The פשוט פשט is that you shouldn’t follow the majority to do wrong, but the ראשונים understand the פסוק to mean that you DO follow the רבים in other contexts.

I find meat in the street -”אזלינן בתר רובא“ for the idea of פסוק uses the -(p4) . יאחוליןwhere there are 9 kosher butchers and one tref butcher and the דין is that it’s מותר. (This is different from ביטול ברוב which is a mixture.)

(חולין צח:) רש"י - (p3)- says that we use אחרי רבים להטות to teach that we follow the majority even with רש"י. ביטול ברוב is a חידוש to use this פסוק to deal with ביטול ברוב.

the 9 butcher shops and 1 tref, )all the shops are in tangible -רובא דאיתא קמןexistence( so I can say the piece is seen as רוב and is מותר. someone kills another person and the B”D asks whether the person -רובא דליתא קמןkilled was a טריפה in 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.

"ירש explain how - שקאפר’ שמעון and (P8) *רב חיים can use this פסוק. B”D is the source of both דינים and there are two steps in the B”D process- 2:1- מברר ומכריע את הספק (1 , 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 רוב to 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 רובא and then 2) they use רוב and 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"י is an explanation for the many 'גמראs that assume that רוב ביטול applies by תערובת.

One person eating the ביטול ברובI) רא”ש (דף ק(חוליןב (p5) – you can eat all 3 pieces of the תערובת together b/c the 3rd piece of meat is “changed to נתהפך להיות היתר"”- [מותר"[ .

after the animal was counted) מעשר בהמה by תקפה כהן by -(p7): בבא מציעא ושטמ”ק then the animal jumped back in and now they are all תוס‘ .(פטור asks- why doesn’t בטל to count the חיוב and there should still be a (בטל ברוב s definition of’רא”ש the) apply ברובrest? The שטמ”ק quotes the רא”ש- it is unclear what the רא”ש would say here. the D”A made a famous comment :רא”ש is a possible answer for the-דבר אברהםregarding ספירה that the reason why we don’t count each day of ספירה as a ספק יום is b/c a count must be דאותובו . By תקפה כהן as well, each animal will not be ודאי the 10th one.

נהפך was איסור the רא”ש Shaare Yosher (p10-11)- based upon the - שקאפר’ שמעון but not by ביטול ברוב only applies by a case of נהפך להיות היתר RS”S felt that .להיות היתר רוב was done! The fact that you used עבירה בשוגג where he says that an אזלינן בתר רובאdoesn’t undermine the fact that you did an עבירה and you need כפרה. [But doesn’t the Torah say that it is מותר? - The food can be אסור, but מותר to eat]

II) רשב”א (p12) 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 מדרבנן to eat them all together. Therefore, one would need ששים just like in the case of לח בלח in order to eat all of the pieces together. This is also an incredible קולא because as long as the pieces are eaten separately, they are all considered to be kosher.

The ש"ע סימן קט paskins like this רשב"א.

he ate the piece“ למסקנא b/c סברה s’רשב”א p12)- argues with the( בדק הבית in the רא”הof 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) תוס‘ריד (p16)- 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

)רא”העיין ב (בוודאות איסור . He therefore disagrees with the רשב”א. He says that if one person eats it then he is חייב to bring a קרבן.

Proofs for תוס’ רידA) :2-בבא בתרא לא groups 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 תורה b/c both groups are פסוליםספק , 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

.on חזקה you cannot let either testify to remove money that someone has a -רב חסדא (2

B) פסחים י. (p15)- 2 streets- one is טהור and one is טמא and 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 טמא) if both come to ask the Rabbi if they are טהור at 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 טמא from a ספק.

ודאי s prove that this person is’גמרא says that if a person ate all three pieces these תוס' רידeating the איסור and therefore the Torah can’t be permitting this scenario. He therefore argues with the רשב”א- and feels this is מדאורייתא.

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

taking out one piece for the kohen -הרמה piece” to give אסור“ says you need to take one of them away as the (p19-21) -משנה ערלהto the kohen in the event that you weren’t sure which piece was put aside. תערובת מותר the reason to remove one of the fruits of the -(p22) ירושלמי is not because the food belongs to the , תרומהrequires the “attribution to something else.” By ביטולkohen and they deserve their money and you can’t do ביטול on the money of someone else, so you must repay the kohen. But, by a תערובת of איסור there would not need ,therefore ;תרומה in this case is the kohen losing some of his ביטול of נפק"מ The .הרמהwe take one piece out of the mixture and give it to the kohen.

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

would apply beyond a case of gezel הרמה says he doesn’t know where -(p24/5) רא”שhashevet (from the kohen).

סמ”ג/ 'תוס and throw one piece away, like מחמיר you don’t need to be (p26)-שערי דורא-- , but not the רש"י. -- סמ”ג/'תוס, רשב”א quotes -(p27-29) סימן קטש”ע .)חומראל (מהר”ם and quotes the 'תוס says do like רמ"א-- .

Is this רשב”א/רא”ש [מחלוקת[ on a דאורייתא or דרבנן level?ג”פמ (1 (p13)- רשב”א agrees with the מדאורייתא רא”ש and this is only a מדרבנן מחלוקת . This is the פשוט פשט in the מחלוקת..level דאורייתא made his statement on a רשב”א felt that the -[(perhaps( רא”ה]/תוס’ ריד (2

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

3

Today, everyone uses the קולות of רוב by milk: that most cows aren’t treif. [According to [.רא”ש using the /עבירה you didn’t do an רב שמעון שקאפ

that a person who says “I just won’t eat it” is מסכת ברכות in 'גמ quotes a -(p30) -של”הlesser than a person who goes through the area and finds a reliable היתר and then eats it. He says you aren’t a מורה הוראה to be a מחמיר. You shouldn’t just stam be מחמיר . and תערובת and says that a person can eat the ביטול to של”ה extends the (p31)-בני יששכרit helps in עולם הבאה (to fix the קליפות). You shouldn’t be מחמיר . Q) What about the גמרא in חולין which says not to eat an animal that the Rabbis had to paskin on?A) He says that this גמרא is talking about when a סברא was used, but not one that there was a היתר on them.

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

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

when he was younger he used -(p34) -שו"ת מהר"ם מרוטנברג ס' תרטו (הובא בתורת חטאת(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 .

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

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

sardines: some are packaged by machine and some are packaged by hand. The -רב שכטרones 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 חד בתריבטל . 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 התערובת2 שיעור / Sept 12- (M) Packet 2

4

or else בטל in order for something to be ידיעת התערובת you need to have -ביטול ברובthere is no ביטול דין . Otherwise if you ate and didn’t know, then you did an עבירה בשוגג. There is a discussion in the ירושלמי whether or not the ידיעה is dependant on the one eating the meat or it could also be on someone else.

תרומה- משנה תרומות (ה:ח( falls into 100 חולין and you were not able to take one random piece out of the mixture to give to the Kohen (gezel hashevet) when another piece of .fell into the mixture, so now you have 2:100 תרומהQ) Is there a ביטולדין and what happens to the תרומה איסור (i.e. does it turn into היתר)?A) ת”ק- The first isn’t בטל and surely not the second piece.A2) ר' שמעון permits the two pieces.

What is the מחלוקת b/t ת"ק and ר' שמעון?

ברטנורארב מ )p1)- says that ר’ שמעון’s היתר is only when there is התערובתת ידיע (YT), 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 מחלוקת is whether the ביטול is completed if you didn’t do הרמה (taking 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 מחלוקת and 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.

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

.is discussed ידיעה of דין Orlah- (11a-11b) (5-6) Halacha 1- this -ירושלמי

This means that the same metzios can be treif w/o ידיעה and kosher w/ ידיעה. Perhaps this is a special דין by תרומה b/c you need הרמה and the only way to get to הרמה is to have then there would be ,הרמה of דין where there is no איסור but in the other areas of ,ידיעהan automatic ביטול.

Extension of ידיעה beyond תרומה.איסורים to the rest of the תרומה beyond ידיעה p7) is the first to extend( -רא”שWhat is the svara of the רא”ש?

is a clash but the clash is only if it is ביטול -Schkup (Sha’arei Yosher) (p9) ר’ שמעוןrelevant to the person. A תערובת needs to be 1) mixed together )2 ,(מעורב) ladas ha- is there, then there is no איסור Perhaps until you know that the .איסור and 3) miut ספק of the individual, so before he has a ספק is formed by the תערובת yet b/c a תערובתיבש This would only be by .בטל and therefore it can’t become תערובת there is no ידיעה.ביבש

5

By לח בלח this would NOT be true, b/c you don’t need a ידיעה to create this תערובת. Here, the physical תערובת exists before the ידיעה.

Rav Solovechick- the ידיעה creates the ספק) הספקלידת about what to do now, and after it is done then there is no ספק). The Jew has to know about it to create a הספקלידת for the ביטול to take affect.

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

What if there is a יבש ביבש ביטול and then the תערובת is cooked?

Shulchan Aruch (109,2) (p13) says that if you want to cook the תערובת after the איסור is then you need 60, even if you’ll eat them separately, because now it’s a case of בטלnesinas 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”ש’s 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”א before ידיעה)109,12- (ש”ך says that once you have ידיעה, the תערובת is מדאורייתא מותר and after the

then ידיעה was cooked before תערובת in 2 pots. If the תערובת you can cook the ידיעהthere is a דאורייתא ספק and we are מחמיר even According to the רשב”א. Bach- (p12) [d”h p’sak] permits a person to cook the תערובת in 2 pots even before there was ידיעה. You need ידיעה, but you don’t need the ידיעה to come before the bishul. [דאורייתא חיוב can’t be a ידיעה or else the cooking would undermine any subsequent [.ביטולדרבנן דין is only a ידיעה Shick- says that perhaps the Bach holds that מהר”ם [or that ידיעה isn’t needed by תערובת.]R’ Simon- doesn’t know if this מהר”ם Shick is correct.

Is ידיעה a דאורייתא דין or דרבנן?דרבנן חומרא or a) דאורייתא is דין says this ש”ך in the רשב”א-?)Bach says it is דרבנן. Minchat Yaakov/Shulchan Aruch Harav (p15) explicitly says that ידיעה is a דרבנן דין [b/c if it was a דאורייתא then the requirement of ידיעה would be a necessity before ביטול.]

-quotes R’ Shlomo Kluger (Shut) from Tuv Tam L’Daas- (p18-19) דרכי תשובהShochtim get hungry and they cut off a part of meat for themselves and they figure that there will probably be a few טריפות with 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 ידיעה beforehand, 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 but here the shochtim did a ,ידיעה If you have no clue, then there is a lack of .ידיעה

6

maaseh of throwing away some pieces in case there should be some trefah, then it is as if there 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)- חמץ is an איסור מהשהו (any part) ON PESACH, but if it was mixed before Pesach then it is considered בטל. The תערובת happened before Pesach, but the actual ידיעה didn’t happen until Pesach itself. What happens in this case?He has a ספק about this. He says for this maybe we don’t need ידיעה.

האיסור ניכר3 שיעור / Sept 14- (W) Packet 3

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

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

)98,4 (רמ”א (p5)- if איסור כרת (חלב( fell into a dish of 60: The רמ”א says you must add cold water to chill the dish and get the חלב out 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 טעם extends throughout.]

Is the requirement a דרבנן, דאורייתאחיוב or בעלמאחומרא ? fell into a pot then one חלב in the name of the Rokeach- (p1)- if מרדכי quotes the רמ”אshould 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 מעשה” who will pour in cold water and get it out. This is definitely not a חיוב! It’s משמע מזה שזה רק חומרא לנהג ככה. ,and says that it is a “mitzvah” to pour in cold water ראב"ן quotes the (p3)-איסור והיתרbut 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"ח (p4)- says that this can help the mixture even when there is NOT 1:60.)98,16- (ש”ך asks how the removal of the חלב can help the ratio get to 1:60 and he

disagrees with the .ב"ח

Rav Moshe says that by לח, the טעם and ממשות are the same. Whatever liquid (ie חלב) you take out of the pot, we assume you have taken out that amount of טעם as well.Imrei Baruch/ A”Hashulchan- (p7)- generally we are מחמיר, but by liquids: the טעם and the ממשות are the same thing and therefore should you be able to get out the actual

7

liquid then you are also getting the טעם as well and then the שיעור of 1:60 is less. Therefore he holds that even less than 60 is enough for ביטול.

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

דרבנן or דאורייתאI) 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).דאורייתא דין if it is a -בדי השלחן then you must pour in the water, but if it will be ruined then you don’t have to. This seems to be a דרבנן דין .

II) Gileon Maharsha- (p5)- ניכר is a דאורייתא דין . 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 meבטל the tree branches.Q) It is ניכר ha-איסור and this is a דאורייתא דין that it is not בטל!!Ran says that this isn’t a real ביטול, but it is a special דין by schach b/c you only need a ratio of 50% kasher schach to bad schach. This has nothing to do with the general ביטול of the rest of the Torah [where there is a דין of ניכר] b/c here is nikar ha-איסור. The Ran’s question is by a דאורייתא דין and he feels that ניכר would be a problem.

לבוש- לבוש is angry at the ט”ז asked a question about the ביטול דין in sukkah and he said that nikar is only מדרבנן אסור . The ט”ז said that this is not worthy of being written and it is definately דאורייתא.Avichai: The מחלוקת can be what the level of “ניכר” is needed to create a חיוב to remove the איסור on a דאורייתא level.

by utensils דבר שיש לו מתיריםEX: If the cleaning lady took a tref spoon and put it back into the regular spoons

I) Hefsed removes kelim from דשל”מ status.בטל ברוב so it’s , חד בתריand יבש ביבש Bais HaKatzar (p12-3) this is -רשב”אBUT, this is a דשל”מ b/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"מ is something that you don’t pay anything to finish and perhaps you don’t need to do the הגעלה either b/c of the איסור nikar (פלתי above).

)102,3- (ש”ע - paskins like the רשב”א.

If a tref spoon gets mixed in to other .[רשב”א argues with] -Bedek Habais- (p13) -רא”הspoons (even if it’s not a דשל”מ) it is considered “ניכר ha’איסור” b/c הגעלה can remove the איסור and therefore this is a דאורייתא question b/c “you can take the איסור out by kashering every one of the spoons.”

8

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.Q) After the first coin was spent, there should be a ביטול chad b’trei and the coins should be דאורייתא בטל ! B/C:1) Hekdesh is a דשל”מ (being podeh)- but here it is a דין דאורייתא and דשל”מ isn’t an

דאורייתא איסור2) The coin can be davar chashuv- that is also not a דאורייתאA1) Boaz says the lack of ביטול must be only מדרבנן or else he can’t understand it.A2) חדש’ תוס im (p. 19)- it’s possible that this mishna is like R”Y about מין במינו and therefore he holds that מין במינו אינו בטל.Problem: the רמב"ם quotes 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”ה that removing an ניכר איסור is a דין דאורייתא ! Problem: we hold like the רשב”א.

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

II) Hefsed muat is דשל”מ.דשל”מ and says a hefsed muat is still a רשב”א argues with (ש”ך in) שו"ת מהרי"לHe also says that this case IS a דאורייתאמ דשל”מ , b/c waiting 24 hours also creates .מדרבנן automatically, and you then come to a question only ביטולR’ 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 היתר must come ממילא)102,8- (ש”ך quotes the מהרש”ל- says that this case is NOT a דשל”מ case anyway b/c

you need to do an action. In this case where the הגעלה and by ממילא must come דשל”מhefsed is small a person must do הגעלה b/c of ניכר.

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

(1(כעיקר טעם4 שיעור / Sept 19- (M) Packet 4

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

I: משרתBamidbar )6, 1-3) (p1-2)- a Nazir can’t have grape products or “mishras anavim.”

9

Mishras” means- anything that grapes are soaked in for a certain amount of time“ -רש”יb/c of the grape taste in the water.

Pesachim 43b-44a (p3) Mishras- is one of the sources of כעיקרטעם b/c you aren’t consuming the actual grape, only the טעם of the grape. This is considered as if you are eating the actual איסור. The גמרא says that this דין is not only by nazir, but is applied to all איסורים from a kal v’chomer with ערלה andכלאים (b/c you could’ve said that mishras is only applied to nazir where mishras is אסור b/c of grapes and that it’s a special דין only by nazir).

43b- some say mishras is NOT used to learn the דין of כעיקרטעם , but מצטרף היתר l’איסור כזית but if you eat half ,איסור of כזית if you eat a מכות you only get) איסור plus half to make the eater obligated to איסור food connects with the היתר of kosher food, the כזיתlashes… 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 בחלב44b- (p5) Those opinions (like R”Ak) that learn היתר haמצטרף from mishras, have to learn טעם כעיקר from a different place, perhaps this is from בשר בחלב. The milk goes inside the meat and is not b’ein so it assumed טעם כעיקר or else there would be no דין of B”B.

Question: Why didn’t the חכמים learn out כעיקר טעם from mishras and not b”b? Answer: B/c B”B is a חידוש that two kosher ingredients cause tref and perhaps you can’t learn to the rest of the Torah.Question: By Kelaim we have the same חידוש and we teach from it. [‘תוס A”Z]Answer: B”B- you need milk in the meat only when there is derech bishul. This is NOT just a דין in טעם, but only טעם by bishul. B”B is then a חידוש and כעיקר טעם can’t be prohibited from this.Question: Therefore, R”Ak can’t learn from mishras or B”B, so how does he learn that

כעיקר טעם is מדאורייתא אסור ? III: Giuli Midian

Reply: R”Ak will learn from the “giuli midian”- הכשר kalim shows that the טעם in the pot will be m’אסור kalim/food. So why don’t others learn from giuli midian?Answer: טעם must add a positive taste to the food and not a פגום טעם and after 24 hours the טעם is not good. Even w/in 24 hours there is some פגום and still the Torah was m’.דינים to other איסור so perhaps we can’t extend this ,אסורR”A- says it isn’t פגום

IV: ChatasVayikra )6,11)– “kol asher yigah bahem yikdash”- this only applies when there is a heat element. The טעם of the קרבן goes into the other food and you must do to the other food item whatever the דין of the קרבן is.Zevachim 97b- (p8)- quotes this פסוק. The טעם gives it status.

10

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

98 חולין a- the z’roah goes to the kohen, but first you cook it with the rest of the ram and then the טעם will go into the food of the nazir. The גמרא learns that the טעם is not tref b/c the טעם is בטל in the volume of the rest of the ram, there is a מחלוקת whether or not it is בטל in 1:60 or 1:100.

Example: if ערלה (orange juice) falls into water- we have a רוב, but כעיקר טעם says that we still will taste the ערלה in the mixture. We say that until there is 60 times the איסור, we assume that you will taste the טעם even with the רוב ביטול .

98 חולין b- both 60 ביטול and 100 are from zroah b’shaela. of 60 is a kabalah and Z”B is only an דין says that z’roah b’shela and the -תוס‘ashmachta. The חכמים had a mesorah that most foods lose there taste in 60.

Is כעיקר טעם a דרבנן or a d’eoritta?דרבנן

כעיקר טעם- רש”י is a דרבנן: by טעם) רבא (קדשים is אסור even 1000:1 מדאורייתא, but by says that all the רש”י .because it’s all an asmachta מדרבנן and z’roah it is 60:1 חוליןsources of כעיקר טעם are only an asmachta. You are only liable for the דאורייתא if you eat the real thing and not the טעם.60 is also meדרבנן- b/c the טעם is only דרבנן by even min b’sheano mino. The דאורייתאs are by nazir and kudshim. (It is possible that 60 is דאורייתא.)Shitah Mekubetzes- says that רש”י doesn’t hold that the 60 שיעור is דאורייתא. Rabbi Maybruch- wanted to say that רש”י could say that 60 is a דאורייתא According to טעם so ,ביטול of שיעור but of a separate ,טעם of שיעור doesn’t use 60 as a רש”י b/c רש”י.דאורייתא and 60 can be a דרבנן can be a כעיקר

:shitahs that are m’chalek דאורייתאכעיקר טעם who say שיטות quotes many (p13-4) רא”ש is דאורייתא like R”T.

Nafka Mina b/t רש”י and R”T and his colleagues- in תורת הבית רשב”א (p15)- if I am going to measure a pot and I go to measure it and it spills. The question is whether 60 is a 60 ספק If there is a .דרבנן or a דאורייתא , this מחלוקת is 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 כעיקר טעם is a דאורייתא דין and then 60 is דאורייתא and 60 ספק is .חומראle דאורייתא

Chicken and Milk Nishapech

11

רא”ה- איסור והיתר Toras Chatas (quoting from רמ”א )- chicken and milk mixed and nishpach: we have a ספק about 60. It would seem to be a דרבנן and should be l’kulah, but the רא”ה says should be treated as a דאורייתא. so how can we say that we should be דרבנן is only a איסור says that the whole - ש”ךש”ך? דאורייתא and treat it like a מחמיר says that in the איסור והיתר he says that chicken is really a דאורייתא and therefore chicken is a דאורייתא ספק (and that is what the רא”ה must hold).

)98,6- (ט”ז (p22)- quotes the רמ”א and says that he won’t throw away this shittah. He says that the חכמים were giving chizuk to their words, where in many areas the חכמים gave many extra chumros to chicken as if it was a דאורייתא. Badei HaShulchan- holds like the ש”ך, but if you want to be מחמיר like the ט”ז then 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 ספק and we are מחמיר.)98,6 (ט”ז calls this a “daas shotim” from the מרדכי.

v. R”T l’ma’aseh רש”יAfikei Yam- (p23) quotes the רא”ש (Yomah)- 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) איסורים are hutar on shabbas for the choleh (the koach of the היתר for eating treif is only דחויה while for performing מלאכה is actually הותרה; so we slaughter because it’s better to go with the הותרה than the דחויה) and 2) the ר"ן explains that shechita is only one לאו but eating nevelah is many איסורים.

What about Shabbas vs. tref or kosher Chicken soup? Here the question is only טעם which is a דרבנן According to רש”י, so he relied upon רש”י. Q) But don’t we hold that כעיקר טעם is a דאורייתא? so he went to R’ Simcha Zelig. R’ Chayim Solovechik said that it was מותר to 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”י is the more .רש”י opinion then we should hold like מחמיר

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

.says that we paskin like R”T in vadaos, we will even use it l’kulah -(p24)פמ”ג and perhaps חומראin Shaar Ta’aruvos- asks the question about whether it is le (p26)פמ”גthis is what the רשב”א is saying. Darkei Moshe- the minhag is like R”T (l’חומרא).We generally hold like R”T even l’קולא.

(2(כעיקר טעם5 שיעור / Sept 22- (W) Packet 5

12

(like matzoh on pesach) -כזית בכדי אכילת פרס -(67a) ע”זPras- 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=כזית egg]. This means on Pesach to be yotzeh the mitzvah of matzoh, one would need to eat one כזית (1/2 an egg) in the amount of time that a person can eat 3 eggs worth.

The גמרא will say in addition to 1:2 (רוב) and 1:60 (ששים), there is also a middle category/שיעור of 1:1-6 is KBAP and 1:7-59 is NOT KBAP. In every 3/4 eggs worth you’ll get a כזית of חלב. ”umamasho טעם“ it is called תערובת h (67a-b) says if it is KBAP and you eat theע”זand you get malkut. Greater than that, it is אסור but you do NOT get malkut. What does this mean?[Avichai: Where is the דאורייתא source 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 שיעורים of ביטול of תערובת:1) רוב -1:22) 2-6 is also a שיעור of ביטול, KBAP. 3) 60

There is a different halacha depenדיןg on the category that you are in.

-Maachalos Asuros (15, 1-6) (p7) -רמב"ם (1a) 1:2- רוב ביטול by all cases except מין בשאינו מינו ולח בלח.b) 1:6- by מין בשאינו מינו ולח בלח the “רוב” is 6 or else the mixture is not מדאורייתא (בטל( and if a person eats a whole pras then he gets מלקות. (This can be an איסור b’ain or טעם .(כעיקרc) 1:60- up to 60 from 6 is an דרבנן איסור and you can’t get מלקות.The גמרא in ע”זh means that if you eat the שיעור than you get malkut but in the second case you do not eat the שיעור so 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 תערובת you aren’t eating a pure כזית of איסור. According to the רמב"ם there is never היתר נהפך לאיסור.

2) R’ Chaim Kohen in חולין רא”ש (Perek 7) (p11)- There are 3 categories, but all are דאורייתא until 60 and any ספק is a דאורייתא ספק . a) 1:2- מין במינו chad b’trei works, but not by מין בשאינו מינו ולח בלח.b) 1:6- if the איסור’s density is up to 1:6 all you need to eat is one כזית to get מלקות by ’is “nishapech l היתר and therefore the אסור b/c it is so densely מין בשאינו מינו ולח בלח.(who says that you must eat the whole pras רמב"ם .vs) ”איסורc) 1:60- is a דאורייתא, but the היתר isn’t nishapech therefore there is no מלקות (vs. .(דרבנן only -רמב"ם

13

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 אסור but you don’t get malkut.

3) R’ טעם in רא”ש (p11)- טעם כעיקר is דאורייתא and all cases are היתר נתהפך להיות.איסורa) 1:2- מין במינו chad b’trei works.b) 1:6- see 1:60 c) 1:60- מין בשאינו מינו ולח בלח: even at this stage היתר נתהפך להיות איסור and not only “not בטל!” Therefore, if one eats one כזית they get מלקות at any point and it is always a

דאורייתא ספק . (R’ Chaim said that you must eat a כזית at less than 1:6.)

A”Z is discussing מין במינוb’ain (so there is no ביטול) and you must eat a כזית to get has nothing to do with גמרא This .מלקות to get איסור or else you didn’t eat enough מלקות.מין במינו b/c it is a case of טעם כעיקרR”T says that A”Z is talking about מין במינו in a case where tref meat mixes with the other meat, but you see the tref meat and there is no ביטול דין . R’ Yochanan is saying that you must eat a כזית to get מלקות. If you eat the mixture by scooping out and eating the תערובת you won’t get a lot of the איסור (jellybeans) and therefore you won’t be able to eat a כזית of the איסור in k’dai achilas pras. This גמרא has nothing to do with כעיקר טעם and it is מין במינו.[Avichai: Why only a כזית and not the whole pras? B/c the היתר is nishapech.]

מדאורייתא רוב you only need a -רש”י (4 and the rest is an asmachta (טעם כעיקר is a and therefore he’ll learn A”Z as a case of b’ain. The question is whether you can (דרבנןeat the requisite amount of איסור in the time required to create a מלקות חיוב . The רמב"ם’s דרבנן is 6-60 and רש”י’s is from 2-60. He will learn the ע”ז גמרא h similar to R’ Tam.

but still don’t get מן התורה is טעם כעיקר -quotes R’ Yosef M’Orlians -(p3) תוס‘ (5 Sometimes the Torah makes a prohibition but expresses it a .כזית for eating a מלקותpositive way (for example, the mitzvah of תשביתו- the real איסור is to have חמץ). If you hold that the עיקר commandment of טעם כעיקר is from געולי מדין then there is no לאו there and there wouldn’t be any מלקות. Therefore, even on a כזית there won’t be any .מלקותReally 2:1 דאורייתא is טעם כעיקר. בטל is אסור from giluy midyan (“taaveru bu’aish”), so if you eat the תערובת then you are o’ver on an assay and you will NEVER get מלקות b/c it is an איסור assey.R”T- argues with the R’ Yosef b/c: the assay is saying, if you delete ‘רוב’ based upon .of nevelah איסור then you have an טעםLike pisulei mikdashim- see ‘ חולין תוס . 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 קרבן and it has the דינים of a קרבן, the animal got a mum and couldn’t be used for a קרבן anymore, then the פסוק says that you can “eat it.” In this case the original איסור of gizah and avodah still apply even though

14

“tizbach” doesn’t apply anymore. This is a case of a lav with a היתר and then the original lav still stays and you can get מלקות for that.]

Baal HaMaor (p28)- the גמרא in Pesachim (44b) says that we learn דאורייתא טעם כעיקר to kol haTorah from a kal v’chomer from nazir, if nazir that has an איסור that is not an הנאה איסור olam or an איסור that it has טעם כעיקר, then all the rest of the איסורים which are l’olam would also have the דין of טעם כעיקר. BUT, you can’t get מלקות from a kal v’chomer, “ein onshim,” therefore you can’t get .טעם כעיקר for מלקות.has a different way to understand this -רשב”א

is Rambam רש”י

Beis Yosef (98) (p4)- claims that רש"י and the רמב"ם are the same. This means that רש"י would also say לח בלח מין בשאינו מינו is an דאורייתא איסור up to כזית בכדי אכילת פרס.Minchas Kohen (p5)- quotes B”Y and argued like we originally said. רש"י would hold that even לח בלח מין בשאינו מינו by b’ain it is בטל bרוב.

Rabbenu Tam is R’ Chaim Kohen

Tur (98) (p12)- quotes the shittah of R’ Chaim Kohen and says that Rabbenu טעם said 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”ש says. 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 Zaisמצטרף היתר l’איסור: if a person eats a half כזית he is not given מלקות. If this fell into a

אסור כזית make the rest of the כזית w/o 60 times its status, does the half תערובת acc. to R”T?According to R”T who holds that היתר is nishapech l’איסור even up to 60:1, is there a svara to say that the היתר is only nishapech if there is 1 כזית of איסור, or will it even be nishapech by ½ zais?

R”T would say that the half כזית can generate an איסור in the rest of the mixture b/c what is the difference b/t eating one כזית stam or based upon היתר nishapech.

said you willמר בר רב אשי ,of meat תערובת a ½ zais of fat fell into a -(p18) (98a) חוליןonly need 30 half zaisim to be מבטל it. His father answered him and said: 1) that is zilzul

דרבנן שיעורים and 2) chatzi שיעורים are דאורייתא.

Chazon Ish (p19) - how can the גמרא call the איסור a chatzi שיעור if R”T would say it is nishapech b/c then there would be a שיעור shalem!! The fact that the גמרא calls the ½

15

zais a chatzi שיעור even though it was in a תערובת, means that it does NOT create a מצטרף היתר zais from nishapech [therefore there is no שיעור l’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 גמרא of חולין.{He says that R”T doesn’t hold of nishapech l’היתר up to 60 and R”T is really R’ Chaim K. like B”Y said.}

Pesachim (44b) (p20)- brings a מחלוקת b/t the חכמים and R”A in a case where kosher bread is dipped in thick wine where some of the chatzi שיעור of wine remains b’ain on top of the bread. R”A says that היתר is מצטרף l’איסור even in this case. says that if the wine would’ve seeped into the bread then all would agree that the -רש”ימצטרף היתר of דין would apply, b/c טעם כעיקר is a דאורייתא by nazir. R’ Akiva Eiger (p21)- asks the same question that the C”I asked on רש”י, that it seems from the חולין גמרא that you can NOT say היתר נתהפך להיות איסור by a ½ שיעור.

Answer for R”T?מין בשאינו מינו orמין במינו -and Chuluv )milk) and meat חלב

Vilna Goan says that the חלב and the meat are called מין במינו.Ran (p23)- says that חלב is מין במינוwith basar. R”T is talking about min b’sheano mino!!, therefore 1) R”T says that היתר is nishapech in a case of mbשטמ”קand chatzi שיעור and 2) the גמרא in חולין is discussing a case of מין.falling into basar חלב because it is about ½ zais ofבמינו

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

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

Like C”IR’ Willig- wanted to give a svara that טעם כעיקר would only be said by a כזית שיעור so every piece eaten is a carbon copy of that original piece. Chatzi שיעור can’t exceed its Therefore, anything that you would eat from this mixture would be a copy of .שיעורchatzi שיעור. This idea is also found in the Pleisi. only works to be nishapech if it is 1) b’ain and שיעור chatzei -(T’vul Yom) ר”ש it תערובת therefore, perhaps in a ,(you feel that the piece is chashuv to you) אחשביה (2would not be nishapech..can never be exceeded (the ½ zais quantity) איסור says that the initial -(p26) פלתי

Like R”TR’ Soloveitchik- said that the chidush of the Torah is that you have to eat a kezayit with

איסור טעם in 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!!

16

R’ Simon- the גמרא is trying to understand how much היתר is necessary to be מבטל a ½ zais, 60x. This doesn’t mean that the half zais can’t be מצטרף l’היתר!! The discussion of “chatzi אסור שיעור ” is just an additional statement of the גמרא about chatzi שיעור and doesn’t undermine the potency of chatzi שיעור making שיעור shalem.Therefore, the גמרא does not impose a difficulty on R’ Tam.

שיעור and make it a ”היתר’can cause a “nishapech l שיעור says that chatzei -(p27)פמ”גshalem.R’ Simon- You get מלקות for the טעם of tref and not the tref itself, so why should it matter what causes it.

(3( כעיקרטעם 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 שועל is oats.) Rav Shlomo Zalman said that שיבולת שועל probably is considered to be one of the .חמשת מיני דגן .both bread and cake/cookies are the same דאורייתא explains that on aרב שכטר]Therefore, if you are קובע סעודה on cake you should make חז"ל. המוציא came and changed this for ברכות נהנין but that was only in terms of defining סעודה for 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 חיוב matzoh 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 חמץ itself.

Mishna 3,7 (חלה( (p1-2)- 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 טעםנתינת of 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 כעיקר must be דאורייתא from matzoh and therefore any food that has the טעם of the עיקר (wheat) is sufficient to make a דין matzoh as well. Q) On any shitos that say טעם כעיקר is דרבנן (רש”י/Rambam)? A) The mishna must be saying that you achieve the level necessary to be yotzeh matzoh w/only טעם of wheat, even though טעם isn’t k’ikkar. It must be that not only the actual wheat, but even טעם of wheat would be enough for matzoh.(--?--)

II. Grerahחלה ירושלמי - Perek Rishon (p7)- rice can’t become חמץ for matzoh, but the rice, when it

is are baked together w/ wheat (which can become חמץ) causes the rice to be able to become חמץ as well and the תערובת is 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 ( טעםנותן ) then it can’t convert the rice into wheat.

17

If this is true then you don’t have to come to דאורייתאכעיקרטעם .

Q) What is the relationship of the Bavli and ירושלמי? AND Is it only wheat or any of the 5 minei dagan?

learns from grerah, therefore only limited combinations (using wheat -ירושלמיexclusively) would be able to chemically change the rice to a חמץ producing entity

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

תערובת dagan in the טעם quotes the mishna that if there is -(U’Matzoh 6,5 חמץ) רמב"ם(less than 60:1) you are yotzeh. The רמב"ם holds like the ירושלמי (grerah) and requires nesinas טעם. The רמב"ם has to hold like the ירושלמי b/c he doesn’t hold of טעם כעיקר.

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

R’ Chaim (Hilchos חמץ B’Matzoh)- Bavli and ירושלמי are complementing each other. of wheat in the rice, but it’s still not “lechem” until you have טעם gives the טעם כעיקרgrerah. 2 טעם) 1- דינים plus a 2) דין lechem based upon grerah.Can you make a bracha of ‘al achilas matzoh’ on an apple cooked with matzoh, therefore you need a דין of grerah as well!Q) R’ Simon- there is no כזית of matzoh in the apple, we assume l’חומרא that the whole apple was full of the matzoh, but we don’t assume that l’קולא!

)3,5 (חלה ירושלמי (p5)- If you have a rice and wheat תערובת, does the חלה need to have 43 eggs worth of wheat ‘exclusively’ to be חייב in חלה or do you only need 43 eggs after grerah with the rice (ie 42 wheat + 2 rice eggs)?

and says that you need both חלה discusses the Mishna in -(p10-13) (חלה Hilchos) רמב"ןtogether. .but you don’t have matzoh with it בטל says that the wheat is not טעם כעיקר (12) Once the wheat is not בטל (whatever that שיעור is 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 שיעור of 43 eggs of wheat to be michayev the rice.

can’t שיעור of the wheat (ie if the שיעור on the Ramban- You can’t exceed the ר’ שמעוןbe michayev then the תערובת with the wheat can’t be yotzeh in matzoh). W/o a שיעור of

חלה חיוב it won’t help to michayev the rice.

Specific or abstract חמץ quality

There are 5 types of dagan: is their ability to become חמץ b/c they can potentially become חמץ or are they only able to become חמץ if the תערובת includes the 5 types of

18

dagan plus water? Does this particular dough need to be able to be חמץ or only that the dough in abstract can become חמץ should we have HAD water in THIS SPECIFIC MIXTURE?

What is the דין about using mei peros for matzoh?Some say that it becomes חמץ too fast and you won’t be able to stop it from becoming .חמץPesachim (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 מחלוקת b/t the B”HaM and Ramban is whether this type of must be rayui leday chimutz (B”HaM and therefore as long as it’s (of wheat) תערובתpossible for it to become חמץ that is okay) or this particular dough must be able to become חמץ and you would need grerah (Ramban). He quotes the רא”ש.

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

If there is a מחלוקת b/t the Bavli and the ירושלמי there 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( כעיקרטעם 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 ספק and it is ספק דרבנן לקולא by 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 חומראל in this case b/c the non-kosher meat was not salted, so not only is it tref, but it also has an איסור of blood (an איסור kares). The blood is min b’sheano mino which is דאורייתא כעיקרטעם and you have to go חומראל . (Yotzeh min ha’אסור (YMI) is מדאורייתא אסור .)

19

-- But, the halacha is that blood which was cooked is only מדרבנן and therefore it should be a מדרבנן 60 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 דרבנן by the bishul, but it is also an איסור of trefah on it and therefore an איסור of trefuss remains on the blood and therefore it remains an דאורייתא איסור . The blood from a trefah is no different from milk from a trefah.

says that an animal that dies w/o shechita- there is only an -(p3) (Pesachim 22a) תוס‘.on the dam נבלה of איסור of nivelah on the meat and there is no איסור

R’ Chaim’s חידוש is that תוס’ case 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 איסור of YMI. After death there is no איסור of YMI.

Pesachim (22a)- Chizkiah and R’ Abahu- R’ Abahu says every time it says “לא תאכל” it is also an איסור of הנאה. What about nivelah? b/c it is from a nivelah and nivelah is הנאה for מותר says “lo tochal,” but it is -גיד הנשה .הנאה’b מותרBlood- it uses “es ha’aretz tishpechnu kamayim”- which is a passuk that says that blood is like water. Just as water is מותר b’הנאה so too blood should be מותר.

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

Sources for איסור Yotzeh1) 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 אסור and the second is for the milk of the camel.

2) Vayikra (11,15)- “בת היענה” the daughter of the ostrich-why? is the egg of the ostrich even when it is edible and it didn’t become ”בת“ the -(64b) חוליןan animal and just like the ostrich is אסור, also the egg is אסור.

3) Vayikra (11,31)- “אלה הטמאים לכם”- of the treff animal (ie. the stuff ”ציר, רוטב, קיפה“ this comes to add the -(p14) (112b) חוליןthat oozes out of the animal).These three פסוקים show us that איסור יוצא is דאורייתא, but all the פסוקים are from . איסורי עשה

Is it like the original איסור or a separate איסור- is there מלקות or an איסור asseh for these דאורייתאs?

if not then you don’t , מלקותan embryo then you get (רקמה) if the egg forms -(64a) חוליןget מלקות.

20

אסור’why does it need to be an embryo, it is still yozeh min ha -אסור Q) Yozeh min -תוס‘even if it doesn’t become an embryo? [From ‘תוס’ question it seems that the איסור yozeh seems to be the same as the animal itself and there would be מלקות generally by anything that is yozeh…]A) The halacha is that a שרץ can’t be eaten and it is also m’טמא. By tumah of שרץ it needs רקמה; therefore the גמרא is saying here, that this is why שרץ requires רקמה to get .in this case מלקות

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

- (הנתיבות(חוות דעתQ1) Why do you need a special limud of “הטמאים” to show that a “יוצא מן האסור” is

דאורייתאאסור , why don’t we use טעם כעיקר?2) What do those who say דרבנן טעם כעיקר do with these pesukim? Do we consider them ?אסמכתותA) טעם כעיקר and יוצאי מן האסור are different (perhaps some YMI can be w/o taste) and therefore טעם כעיקר can’t be used to teach me YMI. A2) YMI seems to be worse that טעם כעיקר, so the פסוק by 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 בחלב is אסור implies that chalav is מותר.-- No, perhaps בשר בחלב adds on the הנאה איסור .

Human milk but ”,לא תאכל“ from מלקות human flesh: eating the meat of a person doesn’t get -רמב"םwe know it from “זאת החיה אשר תאכלו” that it is anאיסור עשה . This פסוק implies that you can only eat these animals and not other animals (or humans). perhaps this is why you can have milk from a woman, b/c it is not an -(p17) מגיד משנה

לאו איסור , but only an איסור עשה . The איסור עשה is only on the flesh and not onיוצא . ( מותרto say that human milk is פסוקThat would be why you wouldn’t need a separate :אב.)

Not everyone agrees with R’ ChaimR’ Chaim-by a treif animal the blood is an איסור יוצא, but NOT a nevala.

that is איסור of blood, but not the other איסור says that bishul will take off the -(p20) פמ”גon the blood (like R’ Chaim).

b/c מלקות if you cook meat with chalav of a dead animal, you don’t get -(p18) רמב"םyou are only o’ver if it is milked when it was alive. Milk that was in the animal when shechted is only a דרבנן.

21

איסור paskins that it is not an רמב"ם even though the - (intro to Melicha) (p21)פמ”ג רמב"ם he says that it is nivelah and it is against the R’ Chaim. The ,בשר בחלב of דאורייתאis only saying that you are patur on the איסור of 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 מלקות from בשר בחלב, but from nivelah. (v. R’ Chaim).

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 (נבלה) it can’t create an איסור- supports R’ Chaim.] תוס‘ 6 ביצה b] (p24)- if there are eggs in the rooster which is a trefah, the reason that the eggs are אסור is b/c the chicken is a trefah and not b/c of נבלה (R’ Chaim bases himself on this).R’ Chaim Ozer- is against R’ Chaim

Shnapps on PesachNodeh B’Yehuda )- had a question about importing shnapps on Pesach (kosher l’pesach) w/o חמץ. They would ship it in from Amsterdam and גויים would sell it to the Jews. The ?דאורייתא of ספק only wanted to put on one seal on it instead of two. Is a גויים-- The חמץ shnapps and the non-חמץ shnapps tasted differently, so it would never be רוב was איסור Therefore, if the .רוב and not חמץ but perhaps they would put in some ,חמץonly דרבנן then we can rely b’ספק on 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 גויים won’t mix a lot of it into the mixture. If the issue is דרבנן then one seal would be fine.[Avichai: How can we tell the difference b/t the milk )trefah and regular)?]

Who says it’s a דרבנן? Maybe 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 דאורייתא דין . {Perhaps by shnapps as well it would be fine to only have one seal…?}

B) Possibility II: Rambam- says there is no מלקות by milk. דאורייתא טעם כעיקר is only said by maachalot asurot if there is an איסור lav. But, by milk perhaps you don’t say טעם

דאורייתא כעיקר b/c milk is not a lav, but an איסור yozeh. (This would be b/c all the sources of כעיקר טעם are by laavim.) This is why you can only have one seal (by an .(yozeh איסורConclusion of Rambam: That is by milk, however, by חמץ we say טעם כעיקר is and therefore by the shnapps it is no good! Therefore, you can’t bring a proof דאורייתאto חמץ from milk b/c it is an איסור lav and not yozeh and therefore one seal is not enough.

22

Chasam Sofer (p29)- perhaps there is an איסור for גויים to eat eggs or milk b/c of aver min hachai. Who says the היתר of “ארץ זובת חלב ודבש’ is for גויים and perhaps it should be אסור for them? (This is the היתר for 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 איסור of .אבר מן החי for יוצא-- The Chasam Sofer says that “הטמאים” was only said by Jews and not by גויים, so it should be מותר.

.איסור because there was never an גויים for מותר says that dairy products are מנחת חינוך

.גויים was only written for Jews and not ”הטמאים“ says that -(p32) פלתיQ) What about Avraham giving “milk and meat” to the angels and he gave them אבר מן?החיA) Therefore it must be that it is not אבר מן החי and they don’t have the איסור of yozeh.

יבש ביבשביטול8 שיעור / Oct 10- (M) Packet 8

Oneg יו”ט (p1)- Q) If you have tzitzis with רוב being 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 דאורייתא ספק and אסור or is it בטל? This seems to be a case of יבש ביבש חד בתרי בטל.A) ביטול is only to take off an איסור, but ביטול can’t be used to give an object a positive attribute (like l’shma) when that positive attribute is needed.

Raayot used by Oneg יו”ט to prove this:

I. רוב מיתות בי"ד R”T) asked a question- there are 4 misos b”d (and we are( תוס‘ -(p4) (11a) חוליןassuming that שריפה is the harshest in this case) and we have in front of us 3 שריפה and 2 people and we don’t know who is supposed to get which punishment. (To give סקילהeveryone שריפה it’s not fair to the סקילה people and vice versa)Q) Why don’t you follow the רוב and give everyone שריפה even though it is the more?opinion חמורA) When we follow רוב in דיני נפשות it is only to be מחייב people in the death penalty. We useרוב to say that the person he killed wasn’t a trefah, but here we know already he’s .(a more positive attribute) חייבhe’s מיתה can’t say WHICH רוב therefore חייב מיתה

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

.in the Torah עדים and רוב ANSWER FOR R”T- we have a concept of -(p5-6) עץ ארזYou need עדים on the מעשה that happened (the details); the רוב will only tell me that the

23

person who was shot was a real bar kayamah. By סקילה and שריפה- we are using the רוב to define theמעשה that was done (i.e. did this person do חילול שבת orבת כהן שזנתה ) and that requires רוב. עדים can only be used to define the facts that are clear.

Oneg יו”ט- this individual needs a gmar דין for שריפה to get שריפה, and רוב doesn’t give him the “גמר דין” for the ‘worse punishment’ so the בי"ד can only give the lesser punishment.

II. קרבן פסחPesachim (88b) (p7)- 5 animals were brought as a קרבן pesach and the skin is separated from the meat and the skins are put in one place and the animal meat in another place. 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 ספק trefah and still all the people are patur from pesach sheni (if the pasul came after the זריקת הדם b/c at that point it was מותר to 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 ביטול can’t make something a kosher קרבן and shechted l’shem קרבן. (Chavas Da’as (p8) is also sensitive to this question).

This may be a מחלוקת b/t תוס’/רש”י in ZevachimZevachim (78a) (p9)- If a person chews piggul, טמא and noser together then he isn’t chayev b/c while you are chewing it becomes ‘aino ניכר’ and we don’t know which איסור is בטל in the other איסור. The problem will be that we can’t give a התראה b/c the smaller part (i.e. piggul) will take on the ‘name’ of the larger איסור (ie noser) and will be called noser (and you ate a 3/4 [כזית noser and ¼ piggul[), but b/c we don’t know which item was בטל, we can’t be m’chayev at all.

explains this is because when you are chewing the meat, at any given time you רש”יwon’t be chewing equal pieces and one will be בטל. You are definetly eating a כזית of one the איסורים and would be chayev, but you don’t know which one you are חייב. and it is NOT שם איסור at all? Each piece will lose its חייב says how are you ’תוסmiztareph to the other איסור. or can it actually do איסור simply takes off the ביטול are arguing whether ’תוס and רש”יsomething positive and make it into another איסור.

YB”Y דאורייתא and Derbanan if you recognize it you must) גידים are cooked together with other גידים -(p10) (96b) חוליןtake it out or else it is אסור).בריה? רוב what about -(p11) (99b-100a) חולין is different. The ראשונים say from here that all you need is רוב..(מין במינו yb”y) מדרבנן is all you need even רוב says that תוס‘is wrong as the ראב"ד and the מדרבנן even רוב YB”Y only requiresמין במינו -(p12) ר"ןimplies (see B”Y 109,1) חולין in גמרא

24

it ”בטל ברוב“ says גמרא When the .מין במינו even for מדרבנן says that you need 60 -ראב"דmeans “60,” even though this is not the פשוט פשט. The גמרא wasn’t discussing the actual .in this case שיעור

YB”Y מין בשאינו מינוNormally it will be האיסור ניכר , but this is a case where it is not clear.

)109,8( ש”ך (p19)- Defines possible cases of yb”y מין בשאינו מינו- and פגום shechted three animals and one of the three knifes that were used was שוחט (1the שוחט doesn’t know which animal he used the פגום knife on. 2) Ground up and we can’t see it3) Looks the same and has a different taste

.requires 60, surely by this caseמין במינו says even -ראב”דSefer Haתרומה- says that we require 60 b/c you may come to cook the mixture and then you’ll have an לח בלחאיסור . You can taste each .תרומהis not happy with the reasoning of the Sefer Ha -איסור והיתרone and taste the difference and STILL not know which is אסור, so it is like ניכר ha’.מותר But, when there is 60 it would be too hard to find so it’s .איסור.saying that it requires 60 תרומה brings down the Baal -(p19) ש”ע

YB”Y by an דרבנן איסור:based on his 2 comments שערי דורא Stirah in the -(p16) שערי דורא1) By an דרבנן איסור all you need is 1:1 to be able to eat it, but it should be given to two people..גוי give to two people, a Jew and a -חד בתרי (2The 109,9( ש”ך( brings down the stirah in the 1:1) 1: שערי דורא vs. 1:2 and 2) 2 Jews vs. Jew and גוי.1) is discussing מין במינוyb”y 2) is discussing מין בשאינו מינו and we don’t want the Jews to know that there was a different taste and perhaps the גוי will eat the tref.

Additional on the רא”ה/ רשב”א מחלוקת of a tref kli that was placed back into the drawer before דין What is the :פרי חדש?הגעלה

בטל -רשב”א איסור’and nikar ha בטל not -רא”ה

What about by a case of בשר בחלב where the meat kli mixed into milk utensils? says that there is a chiluk b/t a treff knife and with a milk knife that fell into the פרי חדשmeat knives. The רשב”א wouldn’t say that the knife was בטל when it comes to B”B. In this case it is ניכר ha’איסור b/c you are going to serve string beans and they are going to taste like milk so it is האיסור ניכר and 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

25

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

מין בשאינו מינו ish chef in a case ofגוי the cases where we rely upon a -(TK) טעימת קפילאto determine the taste of the food.

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

)שפתי דעת( פמ”ג (P20)- says that there are 4 shitos that explain the dichotomy:A) ) רש"י 97 חולין a) (P2)- קפילא is a ‘חומרא’ that is required beyond the standard of

to קפילא and then also requires a מבוטל בששים be איסור required that the רש"י .60taste the mixture in any case where it is possible. ( קפילאis an added component)

B) ) תוס‘ 98 חולין a)- says that קפילא can be used as an additional avenue to 60, the Jew can either use 60 or קפילא.

C) is utilized in a case קפילא says that 60 is generally required, but -(P7) רמב"ןwhere the piece of tref was removed from the pot and we have a ספק how much of the איסור actually was spread into the kosher mixture which is NOT 60 times the actual איסור. In this case, the רמב"ן allows a קפילא to clarify whether in this case the טעם that was emitted was בטל.

D) and חומרא’is always used (l קפילא as explained by the B”Y (p6)- a (p5) רמב"םl’kulah), and only when a קפילא CAN’T be used is 60 used. This is why the “ uses only the language of רמב"ם טעםנותן ,” and not 60.

.רמב"ם holds like the מחבר says that theפמ”ג .תערובת to taste the food today in cases of גויים says that we do not ask -רמ”א

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

There are 2 possible reasons to specifically require a גוי chef and not a regular גוי:1) The chef is less likely to lie and has more at stake if he would lie2) The chef’s palate is what we require and therefore only a chef will do.

A) )(בדק הבית רא”ה (p8)- only a קפילא can be used even w/o להלן: ( מסיח לפי תומו)מסל"ת .

the chef can be believed b/c he will fear his job if he lies in - תוס‘ (ד"ה סמכינן(food matters, “d’lo merah chezkaso.” [He does not discuss a regular גוי.]

B) can be גוי SHITTAH I: says that a regular -(p8-9) ([4,1,16a] תורת הבית) רשב”אused by ml”t, but a קפילא can be told why he’s being asked. [גוי doesn’t need culinary school.]

C) .and ml”t קפילא requires a -(p3) רא”ש :SHITTAH II -רשב”אD) .(רא”ש opposite of)מסל"ת OR קפילא doesn’t require -ב"י According to רמב"ם

Any גוי can be used and he can be told why he is being asked. [קפילא means “doing a maaseh קפילא.”]

I רשב”א is like -ש”ע

26

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 טעם is the same as sight using the רשב”א’s first opinion here.

is being used b/c of “d’lo merah,” then the Jew קפילא if a -(p17) ש”ך inרבינו גרשום 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 איסור טעם when he is being asked מסל"ת and not as “the chef.” [IE רשב”א I]Therefore, anyone who requires מסל"ת and קפילא must hold that the reason we require the chef is for his “taste expertise” and we are afraid that he is going to lie.

:s pshat’רבינו גרשום using רמ”א tries to give an explanation of the -רע”אWe generally try to be follow all שיטות, but in these cases of תערובת, using קפילא and ”.b/c then we can’t hold of “d’lo merahרבינו גרשום According to קולא is a מסל"תTherefore, the רמ”א does not hold of קפילא at all.[Perhaps there can be “d’lo merah” even by ml”t by a קפילא. This is also a חומרא and a [.חומרא’bein l קולא’who says to use the kefeilah bein l רמב"ם According to the קולא

3) Why do we give a גוי “ne’emanus” in a case of testimony in the area of איסור Bechoros- says that a person who is “chashud” in a certain area can’t] ?והיתרtestify in that area, so how can a גוי be used for kashrus?]

from a Jew טלית says if you buy a גמרא The .חזקתו אומנתו is a source of (p23) .מנחות מגthen 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 הדיוט then it is אסור. .קפילא take this idea to explain ראשונים Our .חזקתו אומנתו is תגר explains the רש"י is OK תגר but rather that a חזקתו אומנתו NOT based on גמרא explains thisרבינו גרשום because the likelihood is that he bought it from a Jew, while a regular גוי could’ve made the טלית himself.

[R’ Moshe- the אומן might NOT be believed b/c of “lo merah” b/c R’ Moshe says that some ראשונים don’t hold of the idea of חזקתו אומנתו or the concept of “lo merah” (According to רבינו גרשום)! Therefore, perhaps the רמב"ם might not hold of “lo merah” ( and there can be a problem by stores that print their ingredients and we (חזקתו אומנתוhave no right to trust them. -רמ”א /(Siman 20-Hilchos Tzitzis) ט”ז

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 חזקה g’murah from מנחות and ‘ חולין תוס on a דאורייתא level.R’ Yitzchak Elchanan- also used government records are ne’emanus for agunos. (This is like the רא”ה and not רשב”א I) ??]

27

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 נאמן about דיןei mamanos?Q) Are women and children “בני עדות?”A) The עדות that we are talking about is when the women/children were talking (מסל"ת) and they said where the bees came from. מסל"ת is used by people who aren’t usuallyנאמן

מסל"ת. only works for eidut isha for aguna. What about the bees case? It’s different because it’s only a kinian דרבנן. So, מסל"ת only works by דרבנן and עדות אשה.

How can מסל"ת work by a regular גוי where it’s a דאורייתא According to the !?רשב”א

I) תרומת הדשן (p16)- Q) According to the ראשונים that say that 1) any גוי can be used + 2) מסל"ת – here the question is a דאורייתא issue so how can they be believed in this case?A) An egg that was born on יו:ט can’t be eaten 1) b/c it is 3, נולד) 2, מוקצה ) is an איסור b/c it was finished on מדאורייתאאסור Sunday the egg is יו"ט If the egg was born on .דרבנןShabbas and the הכנה is from Shabbas for יו"ט. --) Eggs that are purchased from גויים on Sunday יו”ט have this problem as well. The גוי is believed to say that the egg was not born on יו”ט. This is also מסל"ת about a דין דאורייתא !Q) We should also trust גויים in the גמרא BB”K (bees)?A) קפילא is different b/c he is an אומן, so he can be used even on a דאורייתא level.Q) What about the רשב”א who says that even a regular גוי can be used?A) TH”D says that the רשב”א must hold that כעיקר טעם is a דרבנן and therefore the regular גוי can be used.Q) But we know that the רשב”א does not hold that כעיקר טעם is a דרבנן?

II) ש”ך (p17/19)- quotes TH”D- the גמרא in BB”K says that we can only use גויים by and מחבר but the ,(?-for a special reason) (level דאורייתא on a) עגונות and by איסורי דרבנןכעיקר טעם definitely hold that רשב”א is a דאורייתא like R”T, so how can we allow a stam גוי to do עדות?A) A גוי can be believed when it is a “milsa d’avidah l’igluei” (a circumstance where the Jew will be able to determine whether the גוי was lying when he tastes the mixture after the גוי tells him whether he tasted the איסור.) This is different from other cases where the .can’t be caught lying right away גוי-- Agunos issues are also a “milsa d’avidah l’igluei.”

III) ט”ז (p17)- the area of תערובת doesn’t require עדות גמורה therefore מסל"ת will help.

IV) חוות דעת-This case is עדיף over עדות אשה because it’s מתברר מיד.

טעימה באיסורין10 שיעור / Nov 2- (W) Packet 10

גוי means that you put something in your mouth and you spit it out, why does a -טעימהneed to do it, perhaps a Jew should be able to do it. Is it הנאה when the food is it your

28

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 אסור even though it would be a useful test.There are 2 types of טעימה: you just put it on your tongue for a quick taste-טעימה בלשון (1 you do more than this even (chewing is involved)-טעימה בפה (2Which טעימה would be אסור? Also, why is טעימה אסור?גזירה שמא יאכל יותר ממה שמותר (1 However, there is also an idea of .כמות in דין usually this is a-חצי שעור אסור מן התורה (2)קרבה בחיבוק ונישוק לאשה שאסורה וגם חמץ נוקשה בפסח (איכות in חצי שעור אסור .

if you have a pot where meat was salted, the problem is that the blood -(p1) : קיאחוליןthat 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 רותח [heat/roasting]; liquid איסור [blood] where היתר is soaked in it, 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 חרס that can’t be kashered. a) Salting- is like heatb) Soaking- היתר in an איסור liquid makes it אסור like cooking.c) דבר חריף- a food with a sharp taste (radish) cut with a knife of איסור can 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 איסור you can give the radish to a קפילא to taste the radish and determine whether it had the taste of the איסור )i.e. blood), but the Jew is not allowed to taste the food b/c it is a ספק davar אסור.

)96,1- (ד"ה אסיקנא)ב"ח ( (p2)- 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 גמרא in חולין and says that this גמרא also applies to the taste of the ספק bloody meat and a Jew can’t taste the איסור or ספק איסור (like the ב"ח).

The מ"א brings the ברכות (של"ה( - 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) if the gallbladder was removed while the animal was alive or if it -(p4-5) (Y”D 42,2) טורwas not there, the animal is a טרפה.

(42,3) The בה"ג says 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. says that if you can’t taste the bitterness when the animal was raw, roast the liver ראב"ןand then see if you can taste the gallbladder.

29

Y”D 42,3)- says that the Jew can taste the liver for the bitter taste and he quotes( ש"עthe טור verbatim. says that even though today when we are not big tasting people, you can taste the -רמ”אliver 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”ז( (p8)- in the case of מרה all you have to do is stick out your tongue and you don’t have to put the food into your mouth. By a תערובת the Jew would have to put the food in his mouth and taste, and that a Jew can’t do. The ט”ז would permit a Jew to taste meat to determine whether it is salted or not.

דאורייתאמ the איסור is in the throat and מדרבנן the איסור is in the mouth, but According to him for ותאסורספק מאכלות it is fine to use your tongue. We seem to be talking about different levels of יםאיסור דרבנן : sticking out your tongue is a lesser איסור than putting something in your mouth.]The ש"ך looks at the chances of there actually being איסור while the ט"ז looks at the quality of the tasting.[

)משצות זהב(פמ”ג (p9)- 1) Says that sticking food in your mouth is an “ דאורייתאאיסור ” and there is a דין of

‘chatzi שיעור b’aechus’ with putting the food in your mouth and is a lesser שיעור of ‘eating.’

2) Licking is only a דרבנן.חומראספק דאורייתא so you can lick the food, but ספק דרבנן לקולא so you can’t taste the food in your mouth.

.טעימה for גוים Today, we don’t use -רמ"א some) שיטות we won’t to fulfill all of the-רמ"א explains the reasoning behind the רע"אsay you need an אומן while some say that you need מסל"ת) and this will never be possible. With a דרבנן we only need מסל"ת.

)98,5 (ש”ך (p10/12)- the ש”ך says that the רמ”א means that we don’t use a גוי b/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). or on a Jew According to גוי says that we don’t rely on a -ש”ך in the (לבוש the)עטרת זהב the רמ”א..עטרת זהב quotes the -(p13) -חוות דעת

why does ,מותר asks whether a Jew can taste non-kosher food? If tasting is -שו"ת ריב"שthe גמרא say to get a Non-Jew? and ,מותר is טעימה suggests a revolutionary p’shat and then rejects it: perhaps ריב”ש (1the reason why the גמרא requires a קפילא is b/c the גוי chews it and swallows it and not only tastes it. This means that the גוי must swallow it before we rely on him. However, just tasting it (without swallowing) is fully OK and would be מותר for even a Jew.טעימה. אסור מדרבנן is טעימה then says that actual ריב"ש (2 is only מותר by a תענית. Some people only quote the first part of the ריב”ש and not the rejection of the answer.

30

because you might come to eat אסור quotes Tzemach Tzedek that tasting is משבצות זהבit. This only applies to a דאורייתא and NOT a דרבנן. [[You can’t eat before you do a mitzvah, but טעימה is fine (not a meal/ less than). [[.is a problem before doing mitzvos טעימה says that even תרומת הדשן.on (p9) using the first opinion in the teshuva ריב”ש quotes the -(p16)פרי מגדים

מחבר)- 108,5 (ש”ע brings down the ריב”ש- you can inhale the .doesn’t allow tasting ריב”ש says that the -ש”ך

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

רשב”א TH”D asked on the -(p19) ([פלתי more action in] R’ Yonasan Eibeshitz) כרתיabout how to use a גוי on a דאורייתא by ml”t and ש”ך and ט”ז give their answers [see

9 שיעור ]. You are reling on a גוי for an איסור דאורייתא, and מסל"ת is only מותר on a !דרבנןYou had a ספק and the גוי said 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 דרבנן and when you are swallowing it, you are really relying upon your own “נאמנות.”

קפילא? קפילא g aדיןWhat is the idea of nee -(p18) כתב סופר has 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 “טעם kalush” (weaker taste) and the קפילא can tell whether that טעם will become a real טעם when it is swallowed.[A Jewish קפילא won’t know about איסור טעם .]

If someone eats the food by mistakeמהרש”םשו"ת (p20)- איסור falls 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 “מילתא דלא רמיא אנשי, לאו אדעתיה,” when people do not have things on their mind when they eat the food, they don’t know about it.רכעיקטעם says that -(p21) שו"ת מהרש"ג can only be אסור if 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”א (p23)- since the טעם is ניכר that is the הכרה ,

ניכר.” תו זו היא הכרתוטעימ“ means “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 טעמא11 שיעור / Nov 7- (M) P11 YD 98

31

What is מין במינו and מין בשאינו מינו? We thought that the נפק"מ b/t the 2 cases was that ומין במינ had the same “טעם” and מין בשאינו מינו had a different “טעם.”

משהו. מין במינו is generally by חמץ בפסח and יין נסך like by מהשהואיסור -רה סו.זבודה ע is clearly a דרבנן איסור b/c רוב or ששים should really work.How do you know whether something is מינו or אינו מינו?

שמא- רבאמאטע- אביי

We should paskin like רבא based upon the יע"ל קג"מ principle.

אור זרוע and the מרדכי as do the רבא paskins like -(p3) רמ”א should beמין במינו so ,טעם כעיקר b/c the reason for 60 would be רמ”א attacks the -ש”ךb/c of טעם not שם. How can something that has a different שם be מן התורה אסור . --) What about the רמ”א’s גמרא? The ש”ך says that it is not relevant b/c that גמרא is talking about an מהשהואיסור after we already have 60. If we already have 60 then טעם 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 טעם and not the שם should be followed. chicken and meat, he says have similar tastes and different names and we go -(p4) מרדכי.מין בשאינו מינו so they are בתר שמא

Answering for רמ”א .הלכה למשה מסיני of 60 is a שיעור The .רמ”א attempts to answer for the -(p6) חוות דעתWhen it is מין בשאינו מינו, the Torah requires a stronger ביטול and the שיעור of 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 טעם is there or not you still need 60 טעם כעיקר. מדאורייתא makes it stronger that the היתר is nishapech to איסור. The שיעור of 60 is a שיעור of ביטול by mbשטמ”קby shem alone. This is a ביטול שיעור irrespective of טעם.

Imrei Baruch (p6)- the ש”ע quotes the Rambam’s shittah that ת”ק will always help (even w/o 60). The ש”ע and the רמ”א seem to agree to this Rambam. If you need 60 irrespective of טעם, then how can קפילא help? He doesn’t like the R’ Soloveichik b/c .is important טעם

The AH”S says the .טעם wine and grapes have different name and same -(p8)ערוך שלחן that if you have something with a different name then if they חומרא wants to add a רמ"אtaste the same then maybe they have a little different taste and treat it as מין בשאינו would agree you רמ"א then the שם Of course, if the taste was different w/ the same .מינוneed 60. [The רמ”א holds of both שם and טעם.] and shem ,טעם in principle is like basar רמ”א like the AH”S- says that the -מעדני השלחןis a giluei on the טעם (red flag).

asks why פלתי The .חומרא’you have to go l נשפך says that if something is מחבר the -פלתיyou don’t get a קפילא. (Perhaps you do get a קפילא and the question is no question.)

32

If you have 59 כזית of 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 טעםנתינת of בשר in the mixture, so perhaps you need to undermine the טעם of בשר so you might need 120 against the kosher and tref piece of meat to undermine בשר taste. רשב”א- perhaps a בשר taste is like הוכר.He says this is fine .האיסורIn this case the קפילא won’t be able to do anything for you, b/c he will tell you that there is a meat taste. In a case of נשפך it won’t help for the גוי to eat it b/c the טעם that he tastes can be היתר.

in this case in his Introduction. If you ספק and says that he had a פלתי quotes this -פמ"גhave 60 against the tref and not against the kosher meat.

and the (spices) תבלין of כלאי הכרם and תרומה in a case where there is-משנה ערלה ב:טזkohen can eat the תרומה and not the כלאי הכרם and the כלאי הכרם should be אסור. By a sefek דאורייתא can I rely on the meat being kosher. The פרי מגדיםlearns from this mishna that you are tasting תבלין in this case and the תבלין of איסור is בטל. The פרי מגדים says he is b’ספק whether you should have no טעם basar.

are shechted and the bloods are put שעיר and the פר by Yom Kippur the-ויקרא טז:יחtogether. In this case the blood of the שעיר should be בטל in the blood of the פר.

(B ,מזבח by things brought on the דין the issue is whether A) there is a special -. כבחוליןR”Y says that מין במינו is not בטל.

tref and kosher milk- it won’t work, but if there is -מין במינו if you have -(p24) . כגחוליןalso an אינו מינו there is rice, can we say that the tref milk links up with the corn and then there will be ביטול or will the מין במינו not be בטל.R”Y- says in חולין (100b) we say “סלק את מינו כאילו אינו” and the mbשטמ”קlink first to help the מינו and be מבטל טעם and fix the problem of אינו בטלמין במינו !!

connects מין במינו and then the סלק את אינו מינו can you say -(p26) - בתורת הביתרשב”אare creates a רוב ביטול and then it would only be a דרבנן ספק . This is the other side of R”Y’s case. ט”ז quotes the רשב”א and this is how the מחבר paskins. which is גמרא he doesn’t think that the extension of the -(p3) רשב”א challenges the ש”ךin the ביטול שיעור can be extended to a mitzeus question about whether there is טעם and we should go l’חומרא.

R’ Solevechik- (p28)- connects the ש”ך on the רמ”א and on the רשב”א- it is all about in דין is טעם and therefore you can’t say salek. {Perhaps שיעור and not about טעםmetzius (Imrei Baruch).}

כיצד משערים12 שיעור / Nov 9- (W) P12 YD 98

What does it mean to have ששים? How do you calculate the 60? Do we assume that the “whole איסור” went into the היתר even when the איסור is still בעין?

33

If the whole כזית of 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 משערינן” (you need 60 times the איסור that fell into the היתר), B) the other svara is “מאי דנפק מיניה משערינן” (you evaluate how much of the (.איסור you think you went into the איסורThe מסקנא is “בדידיה משערינן,” even though this is not probable.

”בדידיה משערינן“ you need 60:1, by the utter you need 59:1 and the תערובת in a regular -(p1) : צזחולין

k’chal is included in the היתר to be מבטל the איסור. 1) The milk of a shechted animal is only אסור מדרבנן.2) If you cooked the כחל with its milk, the meat of the כחל can’t be eaten b/c we

assume that the milk becomes embedded in the כחל and can’t be removed and the .can’t be o’ser other mixtures כחל

3) The volume of the כחל can be used with the rest of the תערובת to be מבטל the milk volume.

4) How much milk is in the כחל? We assume that the whole volume of the כחל is full with milk (so we are using the volume of the כחל twice, once for היתר and once for איסור).

We assume that there is milk in the pocket of the כחל and we use the כחל towards 60.

)חנ"ן (חתיכת נעשית נבילהIf you have 10 כזית sized potato that was cooked with a piece of חלב the size of a כזית. Obviously the potato is נאסר because there is no ששים. If I take the potato and put it in a big pot of rice and cook it is that pot אסור? It depends if there is ששים. In order to משער this do I need ששים against the כזית of חלב or do I need ששים against all of the potato as well. If you say חנ"ן then you would need ששים against the 11 כזיתים.Everyone agrees on חנ"ן by בשר בחלב but there is a מח' between the (מחמיר) ר"ת and .שאר איסורים on רבינו אפרים (מקיל)

מחלוקת מחבר רמ"א על חנ"ןכמו (בשר בחלב only by ,חנ"ן does not have the concept of שאר איסורים says that -מחבר)הרבינו אפרים . Therefore חנ"ן doesn’t apply by blood.

.שאר איסורים also applies by חנ"ן says that -רמ”א

This question is really relevant to every single situation. Why does the גמרא only ask it by a case of כחל?

against the whole משער to ALL cases and we are כחל says that we learn from -רשב”אitem (בדידיה). Even though our case is only a דרבנן, yet we learn to all cases, even byשאר .איסורים and אסור will always be כחל .that you can’t kasher איסור it depends on an -ראב”דtherefore 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

34

you can use “מאי דנפיק.” The only time that we use “בדידיה” is when that object can’t become kosher later. Anything that can eventually become מותר can use “מאי דנפיק.”Others disagree and say that we are always “משער דידיה” (unless you know that there was no איסור ie כף חדשה).

If you know how much left the spoon is left the spoon, for example, if you took a איסור says it if you know how much -רשב”אnew spoon and only stirred one כזית of 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 כזית vegetable and 1 כזית milk and then you put it into meat, how much איסור do you have?Some say 1 כזית and there is a shittah that says 5 כזית of איסור.

Do you says חנ"ן by “בליעה”If a spoon gets איסור in it, do you measure against the amount of איסור that went in or against EVERYTHING that is in the spoon? .says you measure against the whole spoon -רשב”א .איסור but you only measure the בלועה by חנ"ן says that you do NOT, says -רמב"ן

What about if you didn’t stick the whole spoon in the תערובת, do you have to be only that part of the spoon that went in or the whole spoon based upon the משער

heat? קרבן the pesach was roasted on a wooden spit b/c the :קרבן פסח discussing -:פסחים צדmust be cooked by the fire itself (“צלי אש”) and NOT by a metal spit (which is “ צלי which is far away from the fire will be roasted by קרבן The part of the .(”מחמת דבר אחרthe hot metal and NOT by the fire. This is known as חם מקצתו חם כולו.

says that we learn from -(סמ"ק on the bottom of the רבינו פרץ the) -(p15) הגהות הסמ"קמשנה פסחים that metal is חם מקצתו חם כולו so 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 (הגעלה) or not (like the ך”רשבא/ש ). 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 בדידיה by metal.)

There are 2 issues: 1) בדידיה and 2) whether we say חנ"ן by kalim or not.

.בלועה by חנ"ן says that we don’t say -רמב"ןIf you know how much the איסור went into the utensil than you only do against that amount (רשב”א). .by utensils חנ"ן there is ,רשב”א says we hold like the רמ"א

35

but other חנ:ן you have (which you can’t kasher) כלי חרס says some hold ONLY רמ"אutensils you don’t. Some say this Rema is the shita of the ראב"ד. .(Rabbenu Peretz) חומרא for the מחמיר it’s good to be רמ"א

by kalim חנ"ן thinks people mix this up with the ש”ך) כזית if you have a cheres pot that is 10 -מרדכי or איסור and this is the opinion in the Rema). Do you view the whole cheres as the ראב"דis it only if it had a b’lea? He is מחלק b/t cheres and other kalim and he says that you are b/c you can’t kasher it, but all other kalim that can be כלי חרס against the whole משערkoshered we are משער against the amount that is in the kli.R’ Feivel Kohen- the כלי חרס becomes a davar h’אסור and you are משער the whole thing.

)21 (ש”ך - in the old ש”ע they said it was the Raavad, but the Raavad is not about CNN and you can’t have בדידיה w/o הגעלה, but this shittah is the מרדכי that you say CNN by a .כלי חרס

Solid vs. Liquid by bedidayR’ Moshe/ Neziv- says that בדידיה is used only by a solid because by a liquid the טעם and ממשות are the same thing. If there is ממשות left, then the טעם did not go in. However, by a solid the טעם has power beyond the food itself. Even if afterwards you see how much the solid was, it doesn’t matter b/c the טעם might 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 טעם spread out.The גמרא asked by כחל because that is a davar מותר. By איסורים, even if we could measure how much left the meatball, we would still measure the whole meatball. טעם can spread up to 60 times its amount.

שיעורי ביטול באיסורין שונים (בנוסף לרוב וס'(13 שיעור / Nov 14- (M) P13 YD 98

you need a 1:100 ratio for חולין and תרומה of תערובת to eat a זר for a -(p1-3) ערלה ב:אדמאי, תרומת מעשר this includes) ביטול and ערלה .(ביכורים and כלאי הכרםneed 200:1. These איסורים are מצטרף to 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 שיעורים aren’t needed---[Av: is this true?]

אכילה איסור are כלאי הכרם and ערלה says that -ברטנורא and הנאה (above the איסור of שיעור took the Torah’s lead and they extended the חכמים etc.), so the תרומה for אכילהfrom 100 to 200. even apply שיעורים l’halacha. These שיעורים brings down these -(p6-8) (15,13ff) רמב"םto a דבר יבש..חו”ל of ערלה this even applies to -ש”ך

36

(the utter( כחלOnce the animal is נשחט there is usually still going to be milk left inside of it-this milk is .בשר וחלב מדרבנן so if you took this milk and cooked it with meat it would only be מדרבנןWhat is the שיעור of ביטול we need to be מבטל this דרבנן milk?

)15,18( רמב"ם has a חידוש about כחל. We said that you need 59+the כחל against the milk. The רמב"ם also says that you need 59 against the milk. Because the כחל is only a .שיעורים so we are makil with their ,דרבנןSome learn: this רמב"ם to mean that ANY CASES OF דרבנן require only 59, but most .disagree with this ראשונים is NOT כחל only requires 59 is b/c the meat of the כחל the reason why -(p9) תורת הביתדרבנן איסורי and not that we are giving a principle that can apply to all( אסור ). 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.

continues to list other things which don’t טור you need 59. Here the מבטל In order to-טורneed 60 and one of them is ערלה. [In חו"ל it is a ספק what to do with ערלה and therefore it isn’t a problem.]

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 שיעור is for these foods if they are אסור (salt/ pepper). the מבטל we can assume that 60 is “stam” going to be -(p10-11) איסור והיתר in רבינו יונה by foods, but these food items can’t rely on this kulah of assuming 60. He says that טעםthe fear of Aveda L’טעםah is only a דרבנן (ie to assume that there is טעם even after 60.)דאורייתא איסור even up to 1000, is an ,טעם says that if something gives off -(p13) ר"ן . beyond 60. One is when you put an additive in נתינת טעם There are 2 types of-יד יהודה(could be דאורייתא) and this is what the ר"ן was talking about. However, when you put .(דרבנן) itself but additional to enhance the food טעם that is not the תבלין and איסור והיתר b/t the מחלוקת wants to say that there is a -[פתיחה In the] (p12)פרי מגדיםthe ר"ן in this issue.דרבנן ספק b/t I”V and Ran. N”M- is מחלוקת and says it is a איסור והיתר quotes the -ש”ך l’קולא. b/t the מחלוקת says that he is not sure whether there is a -(R’ Feivel Kohen)בדי השלחןRan and the איסור והיתר. He says that he Ran is not talking about תבלין at all, but about other food items. He says that the taste is a דאורייתא when 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 טעם kalush Therefore, in the case of תבלין, the איסור may really be דרבנן. He does not think that the ש”ך holds of this distinction.

אסור not that it itself is ,איסור of another בליעה that has a תבלין‘ 108 חולין תוס b (p16)- What happens if the salt has a בליעה of blood in it? Is it considered avidah l’tamah or does it get the regular דין of 60 ביטול ? A) B/c the whole gorem is something that is מבטל in 60, the salt won’t be more מחמיר than the איסור itself.

37

Sefer Haתרומה (p17)- agrees to the answer of ‘תוס, that the איסור on salt can’t exceed the איסור it came from.

דרבנןי איסור that all רמב"ם in 59 (against the בטל is כחל -(p20) ש”ע are in 59). He says that all איסורים today are בטל in 60, besides חמץ.He says that the איסור by תבלין to make it אסור in more than 60, must be אסור machmas atzmo and NOT b/c of the בליעה.Also, he says that

and the רשב”א says that all things that are noheg today are 60:1. (He quotes the -רמ”א.(is 59:1 דרבנן who says that all רמב"ם and not like the טורערלה? ערלה what about -ש”ך applies today and it is not 60:1, so how can the ש”ע say that everything else is 60:1? A) In Krakow the רמ”א didn’t have to worry about תרומה, but ערלה is 200:1 and it does apply by 1? חו”ל ) Perhaps it has a lesser שיעור in 2.. חו”ל ) or perhaps the רמ”א is not giving an exhaustive list and really the שיעור is 200:1 by מין במינו.

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

)98,11 (ט”ז (p20)- he thought that perhaps even shuman is a milsa d’avidah, but he then quoted the איסור והיתר who says that a milsa avidah is like salt, only a דבר חריף. He says that a person .איסור והיתר disagrees with the -ערלה in Perush Mishnaos רמב"םshould be zahir and not only think that תבלין are sharp things, but really anything that you put into food to give a taste.Some say based on this רמב"ם that we should be מחמיר.

Egg with chick inside:if you have an egg that has a chick inside -(p18) חולין שיעור that the אפרוח by חומרא has a גמרא in the egg. The שרץ we treat it like a מדרבנן.is 61 ביטול says that you need 61 b/c there are different sizes of eggs. You might think that you -טורhave 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.]

עצמות14 שיעור / Nov 16- (W) P14 YD 99

1) Do you have to be מבטל the bones in a tref animal?2) How are you מבטל them?3) Can you eat the bones if there is no ביטול?

of z’roah bishaela where the kohen’s zroah is גמרא 1st opinion: there is a -(p2) (98b) חוליןbeing cooked with the rest of the animal that there is a ביטול of the zroah.

38

The opinion that says 60 says that the ביטול includes the bones and the meat and the opinion that says that you include only the meat means that the שיעור is 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 תערובת and tref bones require 60x to be מבטל them like the tref meat.מין of 60 comes from here. Tos. says it’s only an asmachta b/c zroah is a שיעור] [.caseבמינו

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

Therefore, there are 2 מחלוקת b/t 60 and 100:1) Do we count the soft tref bones for the איסור element of the תערובת? The opinion of 60 says that the tref bones in the animal are soft and therefore they are counted as part of the איסור element of the 100. תערובת says they aren’t counted to the איסור or the היתר.2) Do the kosher bone “mater” (help towards the ביטול)? The opinion of 60 says that the hard kosher bones help to be counted against the איסור b/c the איסור will 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).

ערלה ירושלמי (p4)- 2nd opinion: maybe the איסור bones can be counted against the ירושלמי and the תרומה is discussing the peel/shell of ירושלמי if they are hard. The איסורsays that the shells aren’t tref and the help AGAINST the איסור.

works with the ירושלמי Trumot (5,9) (perush on the Mishna) (p5)- asks how the ר”ש?חולין in גמרא1) Perhaps the ירושלמי is discussing klepos (shells) and they are different from bones which may be more wet (b/c klepos have no טעם while עצמות do).2) He says that the גמרא of חולין is an ashmachta and you can’t learn anything about bones from that גמרא and really עצמות of איסור can be counted for היתר.

Or Zaruah )p8)- 3rd opinion: the עצמות of איסור won’t count for איסור, but they also won’t help for היתר either. The bones of היתר are מצטרף to the היתר element of the mixture.Shaare Durah- quotes the Or Zaruah.

can be used for the איסור of the עצמות that even the ירושלמי says like the -(p12) ש”עkosher element of the תערובת. is the ikkar ירושלמי but he says that the ,חומרא’quotes the Or Zaruah l -(p14) רמ”אshittah..side איסור If there is MOACH (marrow) in the tref bones, then the moach helps the -ש”ע .distinguishes between bones which are lach and Yavesh (like the Ran) ש”ךBeit Yosef quotes the Bedek Habayit quotes R’ Yerucham that by bones you only use .טעם ones if it’s MM or MAM when there is not היתר

39

What about the O”Z- if the bones don’t count for איסור why don’t they count for ?היתר

1) Some say that he did it as a גזירה or as a chashash not to include the bones of איסור. bones which are איסור says that there is wetness (lachluchis) in the -(p21) חוות דעת (2 ?היתר and if not it should count for ,איסור It should count for .אסורA) There is lachluchis that comes from איסור bones, but they don’t have the ability to give effect to other things in the תערובת, even though there is טעם basar. This is why the bones aren’t מבטל the rest of the תערובת (either for the איסור or the היתר b/c there is טעם איסור טעם already in the bones). Over here the איסור will not become neutralized in the bones b/c the bones have the same איסור טעם where the bones can only be michazek the איסור טעם bones won’t spread איסור The .טעם the מבטל and not be טעם but also can’t neutralize איסור טעם either.

R’ Koenigsberg on the Rav- maybe the whole idea of being m’sha’ar the עצמות may be like CNN (where you have to be מבטל the whole piece even if the איסור is only in one part). Maybe עצמות are really מותר, but the איסור (the נבלה) makes them אסור (even if it is only one part), so you have to be מבטל the bones of the איסור (like the גמרא in 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 מבטל the איסור and m’sha’ar to the היתר?97 חולין b (p1)- the pot can be seen in one of two ways: 1) you use the “whole” קדירא or

2) the amount of היתר bleios that were in the pot walls w/in 24 hours. 98 חולין a (p1)- the גמרא there says that the walls of the pot can’t be used b/c the walls of

the pot swallowed up היתר food AND איסור food, so how can you accept only the היתר part to be added to the היתר in the pot.

How do you learn these 2 gemaros? 97b) holds that the whole shittah of “kedairah” was negated by 98a and we only( רש”י (1look at the food inside of the pot. The גמרא on 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 איסור that was swallowed up from the beleos of the kedairah.

)תורת הבית (רשב”א (p6) says that we are not m’sha’ar “kedairah atzmah” b/c this is a ”question. We should only be m’sha’ar “what comes in front of us- l’funaenu דאורייתא(what is inside the pot). He is afraid of beleos b/c of the איסור that is also in the wall.Therefore, if you see that the איסור didn’t shrink and the היתר did, then you can be ,and the Rambam can be saying the same thing רש”י the pot walls and therefore מצטרףperhaps.

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.

40

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.]

he says that in cases of ,מין בשאינו מינו andמין במינו makes a distinction b/t -(p7) רשב”א the pot walls can’t be used b/c it is aשטמ”קthe pot walls can be used, but in mbמין במינוquestion of a דאורייתא..רשב”א quotes the -(p15/6) ש”ע

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

What about eating the איסור עצמות themselves?Unless the pshat is like the חוות דעתor there is moch, we should be able to eat the bones of איסור themselves.

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 ראוי l’אכילה,” but the bones ect. are really אסור (even though they aren’t מצטרף to איסור)! They are still a davar אסור!

Would this Rambam be against the מחבר who said like ערלה ירושלמי - that the איסור bones are seen as מצטרף l’היתר?

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 .by wet bones, if they are dried out then they are not lach anymore מחמיר Ran are/ש”ךThe Rambam is also not a problem b/c he too is talking about wet bones.Maadanei Asher– says then the wet bones should be מצטרף to the איסור!!

R’ Ahron Kotler (p20)- was the מחמיר shittah on gelatin b/c of “אחשביה” (if something is אסור (נפסל( and you eat it and consider it chashuv to you and this is an דרבנן איסור ). The מחבר seems to be against the Rambam [b/c the מחבר says that eating bones is מותר] (even though nobody quotes this מחלוקת). The Rambam holds of אחשביה if you eat the piece of food, even though there is no טעם in 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

מדרבנן אסור (and gelatin might be an דרבנן איסור ).[R’ Simon said it might be a דאורייתא.]

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

Medicine and VitaminsR’ 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

41

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.

אין מבטלין איסור לכתחילה (להלן: אמא"ל(15 שיעור / Nov 21- (M) Packet 15

We poskin that if you are מבטל an איסור with complete לכתחילה knowledge, then the דאורייתא איסור Is this an .חל isn’t ביטול or דרבנן?

דאורייתאI) ספר איסור מהשהו: ראב”ד (p3)- דאורייתא, the penalties are only דרבנן. (It’s not even a letter of the law/not letter of the law difference rather doing it לכתחילה is actually אסור This is not the normative psak, because usually the poskim assume that this .מעיקר הדין .דרבנן is only איסורIIA) חולין (98a-99a)- isn’t the case of זרוע בשלה a case of אמא”ל? The גמרא says that the case of ZB is a חידוש and therefore you can’t learn out from ZB that מין במינו is בטל.IIB) רש"י (p2)- says that the חידוש by ZB is אמא”ל. We learn from here that רש"י holds that אמא”ל is a דאורייתא, b/c the גמרא is talking about a חידוש on a Torah level.

דרבנןתורת הבית: רשב”א - quotes ‘תוס that the גמרא in חולין by ZB means that it is a mitzvah to

be מבטל לכתחילה. By all other cases you can be לכתחילה איסור מבטל . So אמא”ל is a .מבטל We don’t find anywhere else that it is a mitzvah to be .דרבנןMost ראשונים say it is Drabanan and that is the normative view.

R’ Akiva Eger (Os 2) SHUT- brings a NM b/t the דרבנן (רשב”א( and the other ראב”ד )דאורייתא( :

N”M- According to the Raavid even shogeg would be אסור, but if it’s only an דרבנן איסור then shogeg would be מותר.We pasken that if it’s מזיד it’s אסור but if it is shogeg it’s מותר

ChilukNodah B’Yehudah SHUT (Question 45) (p7-8)- אמא”ל is a דרבנן by לח בלח, but by יבשאיסור מבטלכ where you mix a tref meat and kosher meat and being ביבש means that you are eating the בעיןאיסור b/c there is no עירוב (mixture); this איסור ביטול is an איסור .mixture לח בלח ZB is therefore a .דאורייתאThis can explain a גמרא in 140 (חולין( (p9), by the case of the מצורע birds, 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?המצורעA) The גמרא says that he can’t use them.Q) Is the איסור of using the עיר הנדחת bird only about the bird that is being shechted or even the one that is being sent away?

42

It is clear that I can’t send out the bird from an עיר הנדחת b/c it is אסור בהנאה and here it will be a מכשל for 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 הנדחת bird?A) No, you have ביטול. And, if you would send out the bird then it will be being מבטל the

לכתחילה איסור . The N”B says that this proves that there is no ביטול by יבש ביבשand אמא”ל is a דאורייתא.

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

Being מבטל an דרבנן איסור into your oven and you put wood that יו”ט wood that falls from a tree on -(p13) : דביצה

was prepared before יו”ט on top of this wood that fell on יו”ט (which is מוקצה). The גמרא says that אמא”ל only applies by an דאורייתא איסור and not for an דרבנן איסור .)דשל”מ (דבר שיש לו מתירים says that this is a -רש”י , so how is it מותר now?A) Since the איסור is getting burnt, in this case we don’t have the דין of דשל”מ.

is being burnt, therefore איסור only when the דשל”מ just as you don’t have -(p14) רא”שthe only time that you can be לכתחילה איסור מבטל by an דרבנן איסור is when the איסור is getting burnt up.

-תורת הבית :(p5) רשב”אI) If the דרבנן איסור is right in front of me I can NOT put it into the היתר, even by an

דרבנן איסור . But the case where I can be מבטל is a case where the היתר and איסור are already mixed, but not in a proper amount, then you can add more היתר to achieve the .איסורII) There can be 2 types of דרבנןs based on the Badei HaShulchan:a) Ikkar דאורייתא: Basar Oaf B’chalav (chicken)- the roots of the דרבנן are 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 דרבנן that doesn’t have its source in the Torah, but those דרבנןs that have there source in the Torah you can’t//OR PERHAPS// a דרבנן that has ikkar from the Torah you can be mosif, but a דרבנן that doesn’t have its source in the Torah you can even throw into a היתר that has the שיעור .ביטול

דרבנן איסור by an -(p24-5) ש”ע : you can’t throw it into the היתר that has the שיעור .(רשב”א Original) תערובת in a היתר and איסור to היתר but you can add ,ביטול unless it’s getting burnt up and you מבטל that you shouldn’t be רא”ש quotes -רמ”אshouldn’t be MIL by even a דרבנן.

)99,19 (ש”ך (p25)- 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”ך also says “yesh me sheomer”]

43

איסור Beis HaLevi (al HaTorah on Chanukah)- says there is a difference b/t an /חוות דעתאכילה איסור and the הנאה . The ma’aseh ביטול gives you הנאה (now you have more shemen) and that is אסור.

Penalty if you are MILMishna Terumos )פרק ה) (p10)- if תרומה fell into less than 100 and then more היתר was added, if it was מזידב then you can’t eat it, if it fell בשוגג then it is מותר.

.on this issue מח' תנאים quotes a -(p11) : נדגיטין--We paskin that we don’t have a קנס on שוגג אטו מזיד.

Is the איסור only on the person who did this איסור ביטול or even for others?דאורייתאמבטל איסור מ says that you can be -(p12) רמב"ם . He says that there is a קנס He also says that this is only on the person that did the averah and not on .דרבנןsomeone else (The רמב"ם prefaces this by saying "ויראה לי" which is what he says whenever he brings a חידוש). is not only on the איסור disagrees, and says that the -תורת הבית (p5arrow2) :רשב”אperson who did the ביטול, but also for anyone who the מבטל did the איסור for. We don’t want the person who he had in mind to get benefit from it, b/c then the person who did the ביטול is getting הנאה from it. for their customers or that the ingredients don’t write מבטל factories that are :נפק"מanything that אסור on the ingredients, can we ‘assume’ that it is kosher?

.as the halacha רשב”א assumes this -(p15) ש”ע.to a Jew לכתחילהביטול says that you can’t sell the -רמ”א says that you can take a lesser price, but not the kosher price so that you don’t gain -ש”ךfrom the איסור. He thinks that the איסור והיתר’s statement that you have to give away the

לכתחילה ביטול “b’chinum” (free) is לאו דוקא and it really means, take the lesser price. is ביטול it for, knows that the מבטל this is only if the person that the owner is being -ט”זbeing done for him. (AV: when he eats it, or only during the ביטול.)

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

What happens if the person who is מבטל is a גוי who is not commanded about תערובת ?איסור

Perhaps the גוי is being מבטל the product for all the גויים and there was no order from the Jew to the גוי to do the ביטול for him. you have created ,גוי once you are buying from the :חומרא has a big -(p27-8) רדב"ז You are putting yourself in a situation where you .איסור b/c you purchased the אמא”לrely 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.] is only on קנס is the normative psak. The רדב”ז doesn’t think that this -(p29) בדי השלחןthe person who did the ביטול and the person he did it for. He thinks that you can give a

44

He says .בטל is איסור on a food item that has non-kosher ingredients in it, if the הכשרthat the רדב”ז would mean that every product is אמא”ל because people have relied on this for MANY years! ,רדב”ז that argue with the (מהר"ם לובלין like the) he quotes poskim -(p35-6) דרכי תשובהbut he says that perhaps once you give a הכשר it is WORSE b/c then you are commanדיןg him to do the ביטול.בין b/c of) ביטול if they are relying on הכשר doesn’t think it is correct to give a -רב שכטר.and this is the policy of the OU (אדם לחבירו

What about אמא"ל with דרבנן? On יו"ט it is מותר to do הבערה and it is only branches that fell on יו"ט and weren’t set aside which are מוקצה. The גמ' brings a case where branches fell into an oven on יו"ט and the solution is to add מותר עצים to the oven in order to be and answers that it’s because this is מותר asks why this is 'גמ The .אסור עצים the מבטלonly and איסור דרבנן and there’s no problem of it being a דבר שיש לו מתירין because it is being burnt. דרבנן by a דבר שיש לו מתירין when it comes to a קולא usually there is no-ביצה in רא"שissue. ,במזיד and if one did it מבטל to mix in with one’s hand in order to איסור דרבנן it’s an-ש"עthen it’s אסור.The ש"ך has a famous קשיא: According to the ש"ע, if someone took חנוכה שמן and mixed it with normal שמן, it is okay to use it again even if there in ביטול בששים even 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 מיישב all of the סתירות בדברי מחבר (maybe one opinion is a חומרא and isn’t really מעיקר הדין).

מעשה שבת :bishul b’shabbas (ma’aseh shabbas) -(Hilchos Shabbas End of S”K 2) מגן אברהםcooking done במזיד on Shabbas is אסור to 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 איסור should also be the דין for other people.By shabbas, it is a קנס on that person himself and not on others. The קנס by ביטול would be more expansive and include more people than bishul which may only apply to the .himself מבטל in a case of bishul (?) as well and מבטל on the קנס says that it seems to be a -רב שכטרtherefore perhaps it too should apply to others.

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

45

Goyish wine that was kept in barrels (not cooked) for a long time, we assume that -.ע"ז לגthe טעם went into walls of the barrel. The גמ' distinguishes 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 בליעה was צונן. Most of the time you don’t have to do anything with a בליעה of צונן. After you finish kashering with the water the גמרא assumed that the water which was used in the barrel could be drunk after the 24 hour period. The reason is that the טעם in the barrel will be negligible (פגום) and that would be why you can drink the water. After 3 times all the טעם will come out, but each day’s water has very little טעם.The strongest way of transferring taste is with fire and therefore one nees ליבון to 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 טעם will 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 טעם of the pot will come in the water and then go right back in and it’s going to be פגום already. 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 התורה) then put in hot water and the טעם will come out because any additional טעם that would come would be .פגם on this case). The reason is that it is coming in with גוזר weren’t רבנן and the פגוםTherefore, if there is ששים then 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 beמכשיר .when one doesn’t have 24 hours to wait פגום to create כלים

Q) Isn’t that an issue of אמא”ל?I) ר"ן יב: (p3)- חידוש- he says that אמא”ל means: 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 הנאה of the איסור, THAT IS אמא”ל. But in the case of the water, the Jew is not interested in the טעם of the wine, but the Jew only wants the water itself. In such a case, this is not called אמא”ל b/c I am using the water to drink and not for the טעם of 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

יניםד of הכשר כלים.In this case you created the איסור of the water and the איסור טעם , so it should be a problem of אמא”ל. The ר"ן says that these people didn’t get direct הנאה from the ביטול and that was why it was מותר to permit הגעלת כלים. Therefore the ר"ן fels he is correct. Here there is no הנאה from the איסור.[ says that he must be ר"ן The .דאורייתא is a אמא”ל say that - מהשהואיסור/ראב"ד/רש”יcorrect According to these opinions.]

He .ר"ן also brings down this yesod of the -(R’ Yosef Chaim M’Lunil) (p5) אורחות חייםbrings down the story of a person who found his honey full of bugs. He was told by the

46

to warm up the honey until the bugs disintegrate and then filter out the honey and חכמיםthe 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 פגום)? The א"ח answers that here you are only interested in the honey and not in having the טעם of the bugs in your honey.

)84,13 (ש”ע (p6)- quotes this case of honey and bugs.)38, 84( ש”ך - quotes the א"ח

.had this ma’aseh א"ח quotes that the -באר הגולה

in KSLB אמא”לתורת 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 טעם of the tref will be בטל in the next meal b/c it is so minimal. Also, is it allowed to drink the water that was used for koshering? The טעם that comes out is בטל in the water. He could’ve answered like the then it is okay. However, he tells us הנאה מהמים that if you aren’t interested in ר"ן וא"חthat reason is that whenever you have a kli that is used בשפע and you have a small איסור then you can even use it לכ' and 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 בטל so it is NOT בטל.The רשב”א brings a בע"זגמ ' as a source for his חידוש. With barrels used for ע"ז (wine) the טעם that the wine will give is in a minute amount; therefore, the טעם that will come out is like a (להלן: כשל"ב) כלי שדרכו להשתמש בשפע. BUT, a non industrial pot is אסור to use b/c of a גזירה b/c of טעםנתינת and it must be koshered.

.and that you don’t need to kasher it כשל"ב of דין quotes the (רשב”א like the) -I (p13) טורIn 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"ב from a [.היתר by using the pot for too little מכשול that he might fall into a גזירה if it is a small kli he says you ,בטל he says that a big kli is always :(הכשר כלים) II טורcan’t use it b/c of אמא”ל and does not say it is b/c of the גזירה. 1) We see from here that אמא”ל applies even if you’re NOT getting הנאה from the איסור (against the ר"ן)!2) If the problem is אמא”ל then it should be a problem even in a case of כשל"ב b/c you are still being מבטל לכ'?

[R’ Zalman Nechemiah- Kli that’s not כשל"ב - why is that אסור because of אמא”ל or a .(Question on Bechina) ?*גזירהDifference b/t the Turs- A kli that is not כשל"ב why is it אסור, b/c of אמא”ל or a gezara?]Isn’t the רשב”א arguing with the Ran and if it is כשל"ב]

הכשר is the problem of אמא”ל in two places as well. He says that הלכה quotes the -מחבר אמא”ל says that א"ח earlier and the א"ח quoted the מחבר This is a problem b/c the .כליםdoesn’t apply if you’re not getting הנאה from the איסור!

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

47

you are surely not interested in ר"ן According to the ?אמא”ל isn’t NTL an issue of -רא”הthe טעם. [He argues with the רשב”א and holds אמא”ל across the board.] Mishmeres HaBais- asks what the difference b/t a kederah that is aino bas yoma :רשב”אand אמא”ל? The רא”ה and רשב”א? hold of אמא”ל at all times that a person is איסור מבטל even if he is NOT getting הנאה from the איסור itself. like the ”טעם they don’t say the simple answer “that they are not interested in the -אמא”ל.would say ר"ן/א"ח

What about the ר"ן’s proof from הכשר כלים? (1) The proof is only if you hold אמא”ל is a דאורייתא.(2) R’ Simon said that הכשל כלים could also be different b/c by הכשר kalim you are throwing out the water and you are not getting הנאה from the water. The רשב”א can still make a distinction b/t הגעלה and drinking the water afterward.

Q) If אמא”ל is the pshat, then why is מותרכשל"ב ?A) מעדני אשר (p21)- the רא"ה argues on the רשב”א, he is a purist and says that אמא”ל is always a problem and it is always אסור and he argues with כשל"ב!

The problem is the רשב”א. If you hold like the רא"ה all should be אסור and like the then it should be a problem by אמא”ל Is it a problem of ?מותר all should be ר"ן/א"ח?כשל"ב

M”Asher- says that the רשב”א might say אמא”ל is a גזירה that you might not do a correct ביטול. That is why if it is כשל"ב we are not worried about that b/c we are sure that you’ll do a good ביטול.Where is this new גזירה? This new גזירה is אמא”ל (the new גזירה is that you won’t do a good ביטול.) This answers up both for the Tur and the מחבר that it is the same thing!

-(p19) שו"ת נודע ביהודהQ) 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 טעםנותן , but it’s בטל. Are you allowed to do this?1) The fish is dried and has no טעם. 2) Perhaps אמא”ל is 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 ר"ן/א"ח should say it is מותר, the רא”ה should say it’s אסור and the רשב”א would say that this case is different according to the נודע ביהודה b/c in the other cases we are adding היתר into איסור to be מתיר, but in this case we are adding the איסור into the to be היתר you can use נתערב to fix it. His yesod is that something that was already היתר and you can use the water you איסור from the הנאה when you are not getting any מבטלwere מבטל with (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 הנאה from it and be מבטל.'לכ

48

( מהשהואיסור (בריה )I)17 שיעור / Nov 28- (M) P17 YD 100

בטל will not be בריה A .(is a natural creation גיד הנשה :ex) :a whole unit of creation -בריהin a בריה .תערובת exists in other places in the מדאורייתא and this principle was brought from those other areas to תערובת to create an איסור דרבנן.

דאורייתא איסור is an טבל eating -. יגמכות , but what is the שיעור? 1) R’Shimon says that all you need to be חייב is a kol shehu. .כזית say חכמים (2R”S says that it is a כל שהוא b/c of שרץ. A שרץ is not always a כזית, but b/c it is one full unit of creation, you are liable to מלקות if you eat the whole unit even if it is less than a R”S compares one bug to one kernel. This “unit of creation” has its own chashivus .כזיתand therefore it should be חייב for מלקות even for less than a כזית..חיטה but that is no rayah to ,בריה b/c it is a אסור said that the bug is only -חכמיםR”S- answered that just as nemalah (bug) is an איסור, so too is a חיטה.

:finished the conversation -(17a) מכות needs to have been alive at one point to be given the extra chashivus of בריה a -חכמים.and a kernel was never alive ,בריהPRINCIPLE 1: בריה REQUIRES A UNIT OF CREATION THAT WAS ALIVE.

אבר מן b/c of מלקות if you eat a whole kosher bird while it is alive you get -(p3) : קבחולין is removed and בריה of דין but once the bird is dead, then the ,(כזית even less than a) החיyou only get מלקות if you eat a כזית of the kosher bird (ie: if it had incorrect שחיטה).If the bird is a non-kosher bird, then it has the “ בריהשם ” whether it is alive or dead. Therefore, you can get מלקות for eating less than a כזית of a non-kosher bird even after death. from its איסור is that the item must have had the בריה one of the requirements of -רש”יbirth (onset). (Ex: a non-kosher bird was always a non-kosher bird and will always be one, but a להינב was not always a להינב .)PRINCIPLE 2: THE OBJECT MUST ALWAYS HAVE HAD THE מתחילת (איסור")בריאתו" .

When a בריה is in a תערובת is it בטל? is בריה“ b/c בטל isn’t גידים that was cooked with other גיד הנשה says that a -: צטחולין

different.” the ,(איסורים by other) מלקות is chashuv by בריה says that the fact that the -(p5) ריטב”א.(בטל is not בריה and a) תערובת extended this chashivus to גמרא This is an .(ריטב”א like the) תערובת by מחמיר were חכמים says that the -(p17) ט”זextension.דאורייתא תערובת in a בטל might not be בריה says that a -שו"ת מהרי"ל !!

49

the איסורים are b/c he tries to find out which ים חידוש says that many of his -רב שכטרchamimim used to extend to the דרבנן (which איסורים they patterned the דרבנן איסור after).

there are 3 conditions for the food to fulfill before they are to be - לו. בדפי הרי"ףחולין בר"ןcalled a בריה: 1) It must be intrinsic in the thing. Many איסורים aren’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 חלב a בריה?I) ר"ן- says that חלב isn’t called a בריה b/c: IT ISN’T ALL IN ONE PLACE AND IT ISN’T A בריה IF IT IS SPREAD OUT IN MANY PLACES.

II) רא”ש (p10)- has another svara- he is against the ר"ן’s svara- he says that if you got “all the חלב on the קרב” then you have one בריה and another piece of חלב is another בריה.PRINCIPLE OF בריה- רא”ש is something that is called its name only when it is a whole unit. If the name remains even after the איסור is cut up, then it is NOT a חלב. בריה is called חלב even in a small amount (not as part of the animal when it is whole), so that is a when it is גיד when it is whole, but it is not called a גיד is only called a גיד הנשה The .בריהcut up. נבלה is not only called נבלה “as a whole unit” but it is even called a נבלה “when it is cut up.”

בריה if you grind up 9 bugs and mix them with one complete bug. For the -: טזמכות(whole bug) you get 5 איסורים and for the other 9 you only get מלקות when the aggregate amount equals a כזית of נבלה. The גמרא says that you only get 6 מלקות and not 51 מלקות, therefore you see that it must be complete to get מלקות on a בריה.

960 .or 60 רוב in בטל and not be מהשהואיסור would seem to be an בריה Terumos)- the( ר"שThe ר"ש says this is not true b/c a בריה is בטל in 960, based upon a Mishna and a .ירושלמיMishnah Terumos (10,5)- טמאדג that is mixed into other fish, if you have 960 kosher to non-kosher it is מותר OR 10 zuz in a גרב then it is מותר.2= גרב (1 sa’ah,2) Sa’ah= 24 lug, (48)3) Lug= 2 litrin, (96)4) Liter=100 zuz (9600)

תורת הבית: רשב”א (p12/3)- quotes the ר”ש and says that בריה is different from other .in 960 בטל is בריה b/c a ,מהשהו of איסוריםThe ערוך השלחן used this to be מלמד זכות to be people that would eat bread in the summer with flour that was assumed to contain bugs.

50

Most other ראשונים don’t learn the mishna the way the ר”ש learned the mishna. They don’t read the mishna as discussing a יבש ביבשcase. They learn that “kevishah” has a potent טעם until 960. The ר”ש learns the mishna differently. He says that the line that begins “kol grav” is a new line about בריה that has nothing to do with nesinas טעם line (the first line of the mishna). The פשוט פשט in the mishna is like the other mefurshim and discussing nesinas .חידוש is a little bit of a ר”ש so this ,טעםNobody brings down this חידוש l’halacha, but perhaps it can be used to be matir the water and the bugs.

BUGS IN FRUIT there are bugs that form in fruit, he says that he can -(R’ Yonasan Eibeshitz) (p25) פלתיbe matir “if you don’t see the bugs.” He says that the bugs are only אסור “once they are and therefore these bugs are just like (once they leave the fruit and come outside) ”פרוש until they leave the fruit. (The fact אסור This is b/c they aren’t .בריה and can’t be a נבלהthat the bugs must be פרוש is a גזירת הכתוב from “ .( השורץ על הארץשרץ.פלתי quotes the -פתחי תשובה

In the summer there are probably bugs in the grain that are “visible with the eye” so why is it מותר based upon בריה? Use R’ Eibeshitz’s קולא and some disagree.

Badei HaShulchan/ Sefer HaEshkol (p24)- says that the requirement of בריה is that there is an איסור that is present “תחילת בריאתו” and those איסורים that 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 תערובת is not called a בריה and can become בטל b/c it wasn’t born a shor ha’niskal and it isn’t a natural thing.The svara of the S”H is NOT that the animal was born with the איסור, but an animal can be considered a בריה of איסור if it will naturally form a איסור in its natural life-cycle, even if the animal was מותר when 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 [?according to the svara of the S”E בריה

.פלתי comes to argue with the -חוות דעתWhy isn’t נבלה a בריה? What about “aino zevuchah”- an animal needs to be sheched, this is an “ of ” עשהאיסורrequiring שחיטה? We don’t say that something is a בריה even though there is an עשהאיסור of “aino zevuchah” even though the עשהאיסור is always there.Is the איסור intrinsic (בריה) or did it come from a davar acher (not a בריה)? The case of the שרץ is the normal way of the איסור that 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 comes from something internal or externally created. If something unnatural איסורhappened then it’s not a בריה.[What about להינב - would be considered a דבר אחר גורם לו.]

51

Egg and ephroach an egg that has an ephroach- what happens if it gets mixed up in others -(p17/9) ש”ע(quotes the רא”ש).

)100,2 (ש”ך (p19)- what about an egg that has blood in it, which means it was fertilized and then it didn’t form. He says that מהר”ם Ibn Chabib says it is a בריה, but the ש”ך says that there was no נשמה and it’s not a בריה. A בריה needs 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 בריה b/c it wasn’t a trefah forever.Q) Why does the ש”ך say “כל שכן” a trefeah?A) ר' שלמה עיגר בן ר' עקיבא עיגר (גליון מהרש"א( - 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 “אסור from the beginning” but the נבלה is not from the beginning. [This implies that aino zavauch doesn’t count to create a בריה.]

Brachah Acharonah .ברכה אחרונה then you don’t make a בריה that if you eat a ירושלמי quotes the תוס' בסוכהThese aren’t the normal criteria of בריה, b/c a grape isn’t a berias neshamah. said that you make a bracha חכמים but perhaps the ,בריה a piece of grain isn’t a -פמ”גacharonah by a “בריה” Berachos- says that R’ Yochanan said a bracha acharonah even though he didn’t eat תוס‘a כזית (b/c he left out the pit) .so it is not right to eat one grape ,(ספק’Tos. is b) ספק there is a -(p30) ש”ע

)איסור מהשהו (בריה )II)18 שיעור / Nov 30- (W) P18 YD 100

that טעם has a גיד says that the משנה The .גיד הנשה to eat the איסור there is an - : צוחוליןwould have to be מבטל in a תערובת.

“ R’ Yochanan ben Brokah says - : צטחולין טעםאין בגידים בנותן ”“ whether there g”h has a תנאיםמחלוקת is a -גיד הנשה טעםנותן .” 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 תערובת and it then disintegrated/melted into the pot assuming "אין טעםבגידים בנותן " (the way we paskin)?

I) רשב”א Bais HaKatzar- even though we hold “אין בגידים” we need 60 if the גיד liquefied.One could argue that you don’t require 60 דרבנן b/c if it can’t come to טעם איסור then there should never be the requirement of 60 b/c the חכמים wouldn’t have created the .איסורThe רשב"א in the בית הארוך (p. 4) says that even if it disintegrated you need 60.The רשב"א in the תורת הבית (p. 7, 8) says that when the actual איסור is disintegrated into the kosher food we don’t rely on a קפילא and there is a need for 60. Tur (p5)- says that you need 60 against it.

60- רמב"ן is required l’חומרא

52

II) מנחת כהן- doesn’t think that this should be true. He thinks that the only reason why the חכמים extended past בטל b’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 להטות” applied and you don’t require 60 מדאורייתא b/c there is no טעם.

The מנחת כהן says that this shittah of the רשב”א might be the לשיטתורשב”א - the רשב”א discusses when קפילאתטעימ is needed. He says that you can use a קפילא only if the תערובת was in the איסור was cooked and then removed, but he says that when the איסורwe feel that the קפילא might have “missed” the טעם in the תערובת. Perhaps this is the extension of this רשב”א by g”h. If the g”h is in the תערובת then you still require 60.

.so why would it be different here קפילא with a מותר holds that it is מחבר the-?פרי חדש

Perhaps g’h has a קלושטעם )100,4(חוות דעת (p14)- shittah of the Or Zaruah by bones was that they don’t count for

but that ”,טעם says that he doesn’t think that the g”h has “no חוות דעת The .היתר or איסור kalush can’t טעם kalush. He says that the טעם has a איסור means that the ”אין בגידים“come out of the גיד during cooking, but if you eat the גיד itself, then you are eating the

טעםמקור של ה (b/c you are eating the גיד itself) therefore it will אסור the תערובת.R’ Ahron Soloveichik- says that all מחלוקת in metzius should be made into a מחלוקת of halacha. The issue here would be that is agreed that the גיד has some טעם, but does this .is what they are arguing about ”טעם“ reach the status of טעם

Bugs in the vegtables if you have a bowl of soup and a bug fell in and you can’t find it, then the - ס' קש”ע

whole bowl is אסור as the בדי השלחן says- b/c it isn’t בטל. if you see that there are 3 bugs in the cooked vegetables (3: based upon -ירקות מבושלותthe creation of a חזקה) then it is okay to use the מי שלקות if you strain it. (רשב"א- Once something is מוחזק the only way to get out of it is to do a בדיקה).

)100,46(בדי השלחן (p21)-gives an overview of 4 halachos by bugs in a mixture: of the Torah דין you don’t need to check for bugs. There is a 'לכ even -מיעוט שאינו מצוי (1of רוב and מן התורה. חזקה we can follow רוב and even מדרבנן we 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 שחיטה we also follow רוב and 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 שכיח (it is מצוי) and it requires מדרבנןבדיקה . If you lost the lungs before the בדיקה then it is a דרבנן ספק . .only permits the cow when the lungs were lost if there is a hefsed m’rubah -רמ”אThis is also relevant for checking for shatnez. If you can’t check it, and it is a מיעוט שאינו .to use מותר then it is מצוי

53

מדרבנן חיוב there is a -מיעוט המצוי (2 to 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 ספק you must go l’חומרא.דאורייתא חיוב there is a - השקולספק (3 to check the bugs. But, once the vegetables were cooked then they are מותר to eat from a 1: ספק ספיקא ) perhaps this one didn’t have the bugs (of the good 50%) and 2) perhaps the bugs broke apart and then they wouldn’t be .בטל and would be בריה ,if you saw three bugs in your vegetables, even if you will wash them -מוחזק בתולעים (4you 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 בדיקה checking each leaf before using it.

Mekoros for this Halachah”they are assumed to be a “mumcheh שחיטה If someone is doing -: גחולין

if someone says he knows how to shecht I don’t need to give him a bechinah. This -רא”שis only if the שוחט is 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 המצוי of shochtim that shecht w/o knowing how to shecht..quotes the halacha that you need to test him if he is still around -ש”ע

-if you rent a house on the 14th of Nissan you can assume that the home -(p27) .פסחים דowner that you are renting from did בדיקה. The גמרא says 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 מצוי and 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:

ריב”ששו"ת - it is karuv to 50%, if it is 50% then it is shakul. This is a huge קולא and we are generally more מחמיר, “he says “karuv l’mechtzah”says 10% is a miut hamatzuy and you can use it. The Source is in -שו"ת משכנת יעקב גיטין taken from it if תרומה says that you can eat fruit which didn’t have גמרא where the .לאthe rest of the fruit is in another location. You can prevent the תרומה from being אסור by verbally placing the תרומה איסור on some of the grain in your house.The גמרא says that there is a בדיקהחיוב in 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 חזקה that 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 .means there is a miut hamatzuy (Also by wine) בדיקה is 10% b/c the chovas שיעורRav Soloveichik- says 12.5% of animals have טריפות in the lungs and you must check the lungs.

Why three bugs? if a couple is married for 10 years and they have no children, the -(p18) .משנה ביבמות סדhusband can either take another wife or divorce her (in order to מקיים מצוות פרו ורבו).

54

She is able to remarry and stay with her new husband for 10 years. The גמרא says 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 חזקה according to תרי זמנין (רבי )לחזקה . This is also רבי’s shittah by children dying by the bris milah. רשב"ג says 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? except by milah and nesuin (husband ,וסתות says that we hold 3 times for -(p20) רא”שkept dying). We say 2 times creates a חזקה by cases of ספק nefashos..says that you need 3 bugs -(p22) ש”ע.and says that this isn’t a nefashos case so you need 3 bugs רא”ש brings the -ט”ז

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 להתכבד19 שיעור / Dec 5- (M) Packet 19 101 ש”ע

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

if you have a chaticha of nevilah and you remove it then you can eat the other -: צוחוליןpieces, but if you don’t know which is the איסור, all are אסור.

.The mishna is talking about CH”L ?בטל ברוב Shouldn’t the piece be -. קחולין enough not to be חשוב only things that are ALWAYS counted are -”את שדרכרו למנות“.בטל.בטל even things that are sometimes counted aren’t -”כל שדרכו למנות“

which says that there are certain things .ע"ז עד doesn’t quote CH”L from mishna -רי"ףthat are not בטל, and it left out נבלה and חמץ בפסח. This mishna requires דבר שבמנין and and seems to מבטל This mishna implies that only these things aren’t .אסור בהנאהcontradict the mishna which doesn’t require both things. איסורים and he says that we only say that the ע"ז quotes the mishna of -(p6) רי"ףenumerated in the mishna aren’t בטל. The ר"ן says that the רי"ף learns like the רמב"ם that there is a מח' between the 2 משניות. .holds of CH”L -ש”ע

:discussion of ch”l matters -(p8) רא”ש

55

not that it ,אסור it must be a piece of meat that is intrinsically) אסורה מחמת עצמהswallowed איסור) not מחמת בליעה.The exception to the rule is בשר בחלב which is a בליעה, but is considered an עצמהאיסורb/c the meat turns into איסור of B”B. The רא"ש is the מחמיר שיטה.. מחמת עצמהאסור it must be -(p19) ש”ע.בליעה and is Ch”l even through a איסור says that this is the new form of the -ש”ך

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 להתכבד? Does 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? quotes I) “some gedolim” who say that you have to buy a “cooked piece” but the -רא”שII) רא”ש says they are “דברי הבל” and 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”ש would say that it is CH”L in this case. This is a דין of 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 בטל so you don’t have shailos.

This מחלוקת b/t the רא”ש and gedolim is in the רשב”א as well and he may also be one of these gedolim. .and says that the piece of meat can’t be too big or too small רא”ש argues with the רשב”א(It must be ראוי to give at that time—Av.)

says that he can סמ”ק .if the animal still has its feathers on it, it is not ch”l -(p13) סמ”קbe 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. brings down a story from R”T (called R’ Yaakov) that one tref got -(p15) שערי דוראmixed 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? .inside בלועה says I) that a piece of meat that wasn’t salted isn’t ch”l, b/c of -(p21) ש”עII) כדי קליפה (then the קליפה is אסור), but that piece of meat isn’t ch”l.(101,3) the מחבר says 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). says that if the animal is רמ”א The .בטל says l’chain nohagin: that the animal is -רמ”אmissing 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 זמן and מקום.

56

.is based upon that time period and that place חשיבות says that -רמב"ם if it’s whole, and not if it is cut up (unless it is done בטל ch”l only isn’t -(p25) ש”ע(.במזיד

one woman asked her friend for two metal trays for baking. She -(p26) שו"ת נודע ביהודהforgot 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 מחמת בליעהאסור , but perhaps B”B is different. To אסור he 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 איסור baluah. The עיקר חתיכה is the היתרדבר of the dough. In the dough there will be chalav and basar- when it is אינה ראויה להתכבד. But here the עיקר is not the meat, but the dough. You aren’t mischabed someone with בליעות of בשר בחלב, only the בעין (real איסורים).

,תערובת an animal had a hole in it, so it was tref, and it fell into a -(p28) שו"ת נודע ביהודהso 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 מעשה and a טרחה גדולה), but to do a small thing, it isn’t a problem. To remove the גיד and 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 ראוי for a Jew to eat or is it enough for it is ראוי for a גוי? He says that it must be ראוי for a Jew to eat and not a גוי.

(and II) C חולין(B/תרומה(there are 2 boxes of food with 2 sections per box: I) A -פסחים we can be makil and דרבנן C fell into A or B, and D fell into A or B. By -חולין(D/תרומהassume תרומה intoתרומה and חולין into חולין.

can I assume that that , בשוגגתערובת if someone ate one piece of a -(p34) ס' קי, סע' וש”עperson ate the tref piece?דרבנן דין says that by a רשב”א we can assume that the one that fell was the אסור piece. 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 אסור and therefore the rest of the תערובת it fell from would be אסור. is not allowed to exist or else פחות מכזית says that it must be gone, but even a -מהרש”םwe have to make a judgment on that piece, so the תערובת won’t be מותר.

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

.ריבית he wants to put together ch”l and -חלקת יואב a person wants to give money to buy future harvested grapes. He wants to give -.ב"מ עדthe 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

57

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 גמרא discussed what is too far in advance: if two מלאכות are 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 יואב quotes the רמ”א that a חתיכה גדולה is 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 ריבית he shows that missing 3 melachos are a different realm of “ אין therefore by the animal, if it is missing 3 melachos then it can’t be ch”l, but ,ריבית by ”לו2 or less is ch”l. He says that feathers require removing feathers, מליחה and בישול so 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 so then it ,מליחה then it is only missing 2 steps and you don’t need ,מליחה and not צליWOULD be a ch”l and not בטל.

(1 (דבר שיש לו מתירים 20 שיעור / Dec 7- (W) P20 YD 102

)דשל”מ (דבר שיש לו מתירים - classic case: ביצה שנולדה ביו"ט. There are 4 opinions about why it is מוקצה (אסור( . This ביצה is a דשל”מ and is not בטל in a תערובת.I) דשל”מ defies the rule of ביטול II) דשל”מ also defies the rule of דרבנןספק לקולא

with the N”M רש”י Ran and מחלוקתWhat is the svara about why we are מחמיר by a דשל”מ?I) גביצה רש”י : (p1)- says that דשל”מ is only a דרבנן דין . He also explains that the reason for דשל”מ is that you shouldn’t eat it b’איסור when you can eat it b’היתר. shows that there is a reason דשל”מ He says that ?היתר a ביטול of דין isn’t the -מהרש”םNOT to hold of ביטול and there is some b’dieved.

If ביטול is a לכתחילה, why should there be a reason to be מחמיר on the ביטול? b/c it will lead to ביטול not to allow חומרא should’ve made a חז”ל maybe -(p7)בדי השלחן

איסוריםזלזול , but they didn’t b/c they were more afraid of הפסד ממון ישראל. In a case of because it woud be okay the next day according to everyone הפסד ממון there is no דשל”מand therefore the חכמים would’ve made a תקנה in this area (slippery slope theory).This helps to explain how רש”י isn’t saying that ביטול is a בדיעבד.

(מקור??( ט"ז -Something that is מפורש מותר the חכמים can’t come and make אסור (Rav Dovid Cohen has a whole קונטרס on this ט"ז included in the ספר קול יעב"ץ).

II) Ran נדרים (52a) [Telzer Ran- too much philosophy]- [the ש”ך/ש”ע don’t quote the Ran]- there is a fundamental difference b/t בריה/ ch”l and דשל”מ. Although בריה/ch”l are NOT בטל in mbm and mbsm, דשל”מ is at least בטל in mbsm ..of chashivus so there is no difference b/t mbm and mbsm דינים CH”L are/בריהThe Ran comes to explain what the difference is b/t the דינים of בריה and ch”l vs. דשל”מ.

1) The dam par (greater) and dam sair (smaller) and the sair isn’t בטל in the טעם.

58

The concept of ביטול is that there is a clash b/t איסור and היתר and the היתר wins if it is .רוב2) The opinion of R”Y who says mbm isn’t ביטול is b/c things are too similar and there is NO clash. According to the Rabanan- the fact that one dam is מותר and 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 חכמים say they only need a halachik clash the next day ultimately that is מותר is going to become איסור when the ,(היתר and אסור)not as much of a clash. This clash is only needed by mbm where the טעם isn’t a clash, but by mbשטמ”קthere is already a טעם clash 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 תערובת ביטול , but the issue is why you don’t say דרבנן ספק l’קולא. [Ran must agree to רש”י that there is no ספק l’קולא b/c of “ad she’tichlena b’איסור tichlena b’היתר.”]

Nafkah Minah b/t רש”י and Ran

Tzamach Tzedek (not the Lubavitch sefer)- if you have a tref bird that laid an egg on .תערובת and then this egg fell into a (יו”ט tref and) it has 2 problems ,יו”טFrom the perspective of דשל”מ: the איסור יו”ט is YLM, but not the tref part. Do we say that we should wait until tomorrow and be מבטל the איסור of יו”ט, or b/c

the איסור trefah will never be בטל, we can eat the תערובת on יו”ט?

:(p3)פמ”גA) If you hold like רש”י it 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 .can be eaten תערובת and the יו”ט on ביטול therefore there should be ,יו”ט

Differences b/t בריה/CH”L and דשל”מ :is sometimes more chamur דשל”מ he says that -(p4)פרי מגדיםa) דשל”מ does not need to be shalem, b) defies the rule of ספק l’חומרא.

בטל: קולות by mbsm (טעם).

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

Sfaik SfaikahWe use SS to matir even דאורייתא איסורי . The question is about a דשל”מ SS where we don’t have the regular rules of ביטול and דרבנן ספק . What is the דין by SS דשל”מ? We don’t rely on ספק דרבנן לקולא by דשל”מ, but can we rely on SS?

59

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”מ (b/c after Pesach it will be מותר)? Why rely on it now if it will ?apply דשל”מSS- perhaps it is yashan and not חדש and 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).

ראשונים מחלוקת based upon ביצה גמרא?an egg is mixed into 1000. The question is what type of egg got mixed (tref) -(3b) ביצהI) Rabbenu טעם (R’ Yaacov)- says that it is ודאי noldah on יו”ט and is only one ספק therefore דשל”מ applies, but if it was a ספק noldah then it will be a sfaik sfaikah and all SSs are מותר even by דשל”מ.II) מרדכי (pg 10) disagrees and says that the ביצה being discussed is a איסור ספק and STILL the גמרא said that דשל”מ applies. This means that SS does NOT apply to a case of .דשל”מ

III) רא”ש SHUT- when we drink חדש beer and we don’t wait until pesach for the zman of yashan- we have a ספק yashan/חדש and they were treating this as a SS (ספק yashan and even if ספק, חדש whether it rooted in the previous year)? Mahram (?)- says SS דשל”מ is מותר. says that ביצה in גמרא and the reason why the מותר is really דשל”מ says that SS -רא”שthe ספק egg was not בטל was b/c ביצה is an exceptional case [R”T said the גמרא is talking about a ודאי egg]. The רא”ש says that it can still be the ספק egg (and SS is מותר). SO why isn’t it אסור?

unit fell into 100 units and איסור in order to have a SS, it may need that one -(p12) ש”ךfrom 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 ספק b’guf and a SS by a ספק b’ about the ספק is not a real SS b/c there is one ביצה says that the case of ש”ך The .תערובתguf of the איסור (whether it is a יו”ט egg) and another about the תערובת (whether the egg you chose was the איסור). We can’t use one ספק about the guf and another on the .This is not a good SS or else it would’ve been good .תערובת[ ש”ך/רא”ש is like the R”T for the Halacha and the מרדכי when explaining the גמרא in [.ביצה

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

He says that we only say SS l’קולא by a דאורייתא when a) Teshuvas רשב”א- it is a beirur (clear): using the רוב principle, b) פמ”ג- if דאורייתא ספק l’חומרא is a rabanan, then all דאורייתא ספק s are דרבנן, then SS is a דרבנן.

The רא”ה does not agree with the svara of the P”M and he says that a דאורייתא ספק l’דאורייתא דין is a חומרא . The only time that a SS can work is when the first ספק is based

60

upon a דרבנן דין . If the first ספק is a דאורייתא דין then the second ספק is only a ספק on a דרבנן ספק and not דאורייתא l’קולא. EX: If the egg falls into one תערובת and then into a 2nd תערובת then it is a דרבנן ספק and SS can be said.EX2: If the egg is a דאורייתא ספק (b/c of hachana d’rabbah [preparing from Shabbas to דאורייתא איסור an -יו”ט ]) then we can’t say SS b/c the second ספק is on a דאורייתא!!

חמץ בפסח.(Ran) בטל only is a case of mbm, but in a mbsm case it is בטל isn’t דשל”מRambam (p15)- writes that דשל”מ is not בטל by mbsm. He says that חמץ בפסח is isn’t even in a mbsm case b/c of the בטל is not חמץ is that חידוש His ?דשל”מ b/c it is a בטל is different by mbsm and he seems חמץ kol machmetzes lo tocheilu.” He says that“ פסוקto be saying a חידוש about other איסורים that they are בטל by mbsm!Raavad- says that it is a mishna shlaima, so what is Rambam’s חידוש.

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

1) Is this is a דשל”מ b/c it can be undone and the neder is retroactively undone.A neder is not a דשל”מ b/c they are retroactively undone. A דשל”מ means that something that was אסור is 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

.is YLM נדרים brings a list of YLM and Ain LM and it decides that-(p16) ירושלמיPnei Moshe- thinks that this depends upon the nature of the hataras chacham, whether it is ikar m’ikarah or m’kan ulhabah. דשל”מ means that once it was אסור and now it is ha’neder would not have a clash and ביטול The Ran would say that a retroactive] .מותרtherefore it would NOT be בטל.]

Why is דשל”מ only be מין במינו?I) Ran- clashII) Toras Chatas- quotes the איסור והיתר that בריה is בטל by 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 תערובת is “nikrah al shem היתר” it is מותר. By mbsm the so it איסור but by mbm it is called by shem ,מותר so it is היתר is called by shem תערובתis אסור. Rabbi Simon thought this sounded like the Badei HaShulchan.

When the ש”ך (p20) quotes this דין- he doesn’t mention the Ran, but he quotes the TC..doesn’t apply to mbsm דשל”מ says that ש”ע

61

that egg white if it is used l’chazusa (for whitening of the food) is מרדכי quotes the -רמ”אnot בטל.

Shem and טעםרמ”א מחלוקת -(102,3) (p19) ש”ך (shemah) and ש”ך (טעםah 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 .is after 60 רבא and אביי b/t מחלוקת and the טעם

Rav- chl/ בריה is a davar chashuv which deals with hukar ha’איסור and דשל”מ which is not machria l’קולא. By SS there is no laidas haספק so don’t need hachriah and therefore it is מותר before we even enter into the דשל”מ discussion. A) doesn’t make it as if .ספק’is a SS a laidas ha -חומרא’you can’t be machriah l -דשל”מthere is a laidas haספק or B) there is no laidas haספק at all and דשל”מ would be מותר (for RT and the מרדכי)

(2 (ןדבר שיש לו מתירי21 שיעור / Dec 12- (M) P21 YD 102

טבל: דשל”מ talks about things that are -: נזנדרים (where you can giveתרומה even verbally) or מעשר שני (to פודה the מעשר), חדש (מותר on the 2nd day of pesach) or הקדש.NON כלאי הכרם- דשל”מ and ערלה.

Limitations of דשל”מ)תורת הבית (רשב”א - has yesodos about דשל”מ:

”The question is whether “later .תערובת trefah (during the week) fell into a ספק of ביצהwe 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 ספק trefah is NOT a דשל”מ and is בטל. a) ודאי yavoh- He says that this is NOT a דשל”מ b/c it is not ודאיב going to be מותר at any point. This egg may become אסור b/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 היתר which 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.

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

מותר c) Miskalkel- if the food will be ruined or will have spoiled, then it is -מרדכיtoday. This is b/c דשל”מ is a דרבנן.(RE: B”HaShulchan said, the חכמים wanted 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 והיתר (p4)- you didn’t know the halacha of דשל”מ and 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 טעם also a דשל”מ even though there is ביטול?

62

A) The טעם of בריה is בטל in 60, and the טעם of דשל”מ is also בטל as well.

famous case: mashkin shezavu (oozed juice on Shabbas). The -(p12) (Shabbas) מרדכיjuice 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”מ so 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 .weren’t m’taken on such an object חכמים the ,תערובת

באופן אחרהיתר must take מליחה is to get out the blood. They said that מליחה the point of -תקנת גאוניםplace w/in 72 hours of the שחיטה and 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 before salting. (Some poskim say freezing stops the 72 hour process.) היתר

:then you don’t need to salt the meat צלי if you plan to do -תרומת הדשןQ) What if you held meat for 3 days w/o salting? If this piece of meat fell into a תערובת is this like a tref piece of meat that fell in and would be tref, or is this a דשל”מ (b/c the meat can be fixed through צלי)? היתר that it has, not that it can become איסור means “the removability of the דשל”מin another manner ) even if אסור b/c bishul remains מותר This is not ”.( באופן אחרהיתרit can be salted. Thus, צלי will not take it out of that איסור of bishul, it just changes the situation.

Rif says that the animal was never אסור (b/c it could’ve been roasted)The תרומת הדשן feels the ראבי"ה is the ikkar. The ראבי"ה argues that “ ” באופן אחרהיתרis 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 מילתא” and 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 מילתא (Levi), still he can’t eat the bread with כותח (dairy) b/c the bread is a דשל”מ that could be eaten w/o dairy (he can’t rely rely on the According to the Rif .דשל"מ (היתר באופן אחר) of particles). This is a ביטול of היתר but even that the ,מותר is going to become איסור doesn’t only mean that the direct דשל”מfood 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.

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

חמץ בפסח

63

even mbsm. People try to buy milk before pesach so there is no “ze v’ze בטל isn’t חמץgorem” of the chamtz eaten before pesach that causes the milk that was produced.

I) רמב"ם (p13)- Why is אסור במשהוחמץ ? It is a דשל”מ therefore it is אסור. This is a חידוש b/c דשל”מ usually is not בטל by mbm, but for חמץ the חכמים were gozer for mbsm from “kol machmetzes lo tochailu.”

II) מרדכי (Pesachim) (p3)- if the איסור will return some time in the future, it is not a אסור which will become -חמץ for a period of time (ie מותר even if it will become ,דשל”מnext year on Pesach.) The reason why חמץ isn’t בטל is b/c of the חומרא b’חמץ as an איסור kares, therefore we are מחמיר by חמץ (“baal yeraeh” etc.).

NM) רא”ש (Pesachim)- חמץ on erev pesach after 6 hours (on the 14th of Nissan). What happens if the חמץ falls into a תערובת at this juncture? Is it like Pesach (and is an איסור or is it considered like before Pesach ,בטל and the chametz isn’t (דשל”מ b/c it is מהשהוand בטל b’60 (b/c there is not yet an איסור kares)?The רא”ש says it is בטל (even though eating the חמץ would be a חיוב מלקות) b/c the .on Pesach מותר would be תערובת before Pesach and this בטל was איסורThe רא”ש seems to say that it is בטל b/c “there is no איסור kares” on the חמץ yet. [This seems like the מרדכי b/c the חומרא of חמץ didn’t yet apply therefore it should be בטל, but the חמץ is still אסור and a דשל”מ.]-- Many only make erev pesach matzos when it is being cooked (and make a bracha and say halel). If there is חמץ then 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 איסור of “ שעבר חמץ“ even after Pesach? He says that ”עליו הפסח and תערובת in a מותר is ” שעבר עליוחמץtherefore it would still be a דשל”מ. (.דשל”מ again in the next year so it can’t be a איסור It becomes-מרדכי)

רמ”א The .(רמב"ם) and there are cholkim (דשל”מ not a) מרדכי quotes the -(p27) רמ”אadds that the food item must be מותר to the person who we are saying it is not בטל for (which is a NM by a person who was מזיד and cooked food on Shabbas.)

חדשThe גמרא says that חדש is a דשל”מ by נדרים b/c it will be מותר on the 2nd day of יו”ט. By .בטל and it should not be ספק דרבנן לקולא we don’t say דשל”מ

the 1st day of pesach is 15 and 2nd is 16 and it could be that 16 is the -(68b-69a) מנחותfirst day. When can you eat the חדש- can you eat it after 15 or 16 (ספק יום)? The חכמים were eating end of 16 early 17, which is the day before the omer on the 17th (בספק). They said that חדש in חו"ל is דרבנן and therefore they don’t need to wait and therefore they didn’t wait to the end of the 17th. Q) חדש is a דשל”מ and why do they say ספק לקולא? Shouldn’t they have waited the extra day?

64

:(p20) מרדכי1) 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 איסור is going to come back next year so it’s not a דשל”מ.

the next year, the next year NEW איסור there is no new חדש says that by -(p21)פרי חדש PRODUCE has the איסור, not the old produce!! So he doesn’t understand the מרדכי’s 2nd answer. (Rav Zalman Nechemia asks about this מרדכי and the difficulty in it)

-(p22) ש”ע.רשב”א -102,2102,4- kilkul- מרדכי..איסור והיתר brings down the -רמ”א

בטל therefore the TH”D’s case is ,בטל isn’t machmas atzmoh then it is איסור if the-רמ”אb/c it is NOT “איסור machmas atzmoh.” Since the whole איסור is from the dam in the meat, then it isn’t a machmas atzmoh. This is a kosher piece of meat with a היתר. case was צלי in the בטל and says that the reason why the meat was רמ”א attacks this -ש”ךb/c it is NOT A דשל”מ at all b/c it’s “היתר b’makom acher” (like the TH”D) and NOT b/c a דשל”מ has to be אסור machmas atzmoh. A דשל”מ should be אסור even by a belias .at some point היתר as long as there is a איסור

? דשל”מטלטול there are 2 מוקצה if something is :יו”ט on ביצה -(p29) (נודע ביהודה written by) צל”ח

טלטול) 1: איסורים and 2) אכילה. Once there is a תערובת, can I move the eggs or am I worried about the דשל”מ? applies only when you do something ONCE and דשל”מ b/c מותר says that it’s צל”חwhen you do that action, do it בהיתר and not דשל”מ. באיסור doesn’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.

ביכוריםMishna ביכורים (Rav Dimmerman quotes)- maser sheni fell into a תערובת in ירושלים, can you eat it out of י-ם where it is אסור b’mashehu. He splits b/t a case of .י-ם b/c you could’ve eaten it in דשל”מ says that it is a -ברטנוראmaser sheni that fell into the תערובת in י-ם where it is a דשל”מ and can’t be eaten outside. But, if it fell into the תערובת outside of י-ם then there is an expense to force the person to go to י-ם to eat the food, and by this type of case (of expense) the חכמים weren’t מתקן.This is like the svara of the רשב”א by kelim which would require הגעלה, and it isn’t a .דשל”מ isn’t considered a טירחא A .דשל”מ

(1 לפגם (טעםנותן 22 שיעור / Dec 14- (W) P22 YD 103

65

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

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

לגמריפגום requires -בעיןneeds 24 hours -טעם

.אסור holds that NTL is ר' מאירWe paskin that if it is w/in 24 hours the טעם goes into the food and after 24 hours the ”.לא תאכלו“ of פסוק and the ר’ שמעון This is based upon .פגום is טעםWhen we say that NTL is מותר because of the delay of 24 hours, is it because the thing is putrid and not ראוי לאכילה? If 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 חילוק in standards between בעין וטעם. Isn’t it learned out from the same פסוק though? The Ran addresses this (p5):When the Torah was אוסר נבילה, this was only for הנאה. When you have a בעין then there is a chance to be נהנה even after 24 hours therefore it must be נפסל מאכילת אדם but when it’s just a כלי then we are concerned with טעם and there is no הנאה after 24 hours.Therefore, the Ran says, if the דבר האסור helps 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 טעם and the food is NOT considered NTL, rather it is a שבח.

:you need היתר to make NTL into a -(p6-7) (Bais HaKatzer) רשב”א The .טעם by a אסור and then 2) it is only רוב food must be the היתר Track: 1) the טעםonly איסור of the טעם is if the איסור has a positive טעם (NTL is not considered איסור). תערובת must be putrid to make the טעם then 2) the רוב is איסור (Track: if the 1 בעיןפגום טעם and a mere בעין is then like איסור b/c the מותר isn’t sufficient.

Perhaps the Ran doesn’t require היתררוב and even איסור רוב wouldn’t require לגמריפגום and only if the בעין is alone then you need לגמריפגום . The way people explain this מחלוקת: that there are two ways explain the partial פגם by

איסור טעם : or (Ran) ( טעם /w תערובת and only a רוב perhaps Ran doesn’t need) ראויה לגר (12) need רשב”א ()היתר (רוב( .

.are arguing רשב”א Mishpetzos Zahav [103, end of 1])- says that the Ran and( פמ”גR’ Simon is not convinced that they are arguing. He thinks that all agree that you need

היתר רוב before the פגום טעם is enough (even the Ran). .פגום to create לינת לילה on חידוש he has a-שיטת רש"י

66

on Pesach חמץR’ Ovadiah Yosef- quotes a story of a woman crying for using חמץ kelim 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 מותר to eat (like a pot after 24 hours) and a בליעה is פגום.

What about חמץ on pesach?פגום טעם says that -מחבר is מותר even on pesach.איסור is an חמץ on Pesach b/c אסור and we say that NTL is מחמיר says that we are -רמ”א.on pesach מהשהו(All agree that before Pesach if the תערובת occurred then it is בטל and מותר on Pesach.)

.(רמ”א like the) אסור says that NTL on Pesach is רשב”א ביטול ברוב says you need רשב”א The .לשיטתו is רשב”א cited earlier)- says that this(פמ”גfor NTL to be effective w/o the food being putrid. חמץ is an איסור מהשהו and therefore there can’t be a היתר of רוב so there can’t be a היתר of רוב on Pesach. There is no such thing ON PESACH of ביטול ברוב . The Ran doesn’t require ביטול ברוב and hence this can be the נקודת מחלוקת b/t the 2.

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

NTL by איסור מהשהו is it shayach to say that you can’t say ,איסור מהשהו if you have an -(p11) (A”Z 66a) תוס‘NTL OR/ can it have been masriach and NTL still applies and the food is מותר?I) ‘תוס says that איסור מהשהו means there is no NTL. ספר יראים(p16)- if it is an איסור .מותר then NTL won’t be כל שהואII) המחמיר טובו עליו ברכה- תרומת הדשן" " but it may be that it can be מותר by NTL.

פגום טעם Do we view : מחלוקת נקודת ה as better than an איסור מהשהו or not?

בן יומואינו and קדירא : how long?There are 2 opinions in the poskim about קדירא and what the phrase “ בן יומואינו (ABY)” means.I) Hagahos Ashri (p12)- says that it ABY means 24 hours “מעת לעת” from the last time it has time in it.II) רש”י A”Z (67b) (p3)- says that the שיעור is “לינת לילה”- one nighttime.

)103,5 (ש”ע (p22)- brings down the 24 hour shittah (but we do use the לינת לילה shittah for some דינים.)

A”Z (65b-66a) quotes פסוקים from פרשת מטות talking about הכשר כלים. The גמרא asks about why we need a parsha of הכשר כלים, if everything is מותר in 24 hours מדאורייתא?A) The חכמים made a גזירה of "בת יומו אטו אינו בת יומו". If you aren’t מכשיר כלים you are דרבנן גזירה on the עובר , but it would seem that the food would still be fine b/c the טעם was really פגום after 24 hours.

67

creates a problem to הכשר disagrees and says that a kli used after 24 hours w/o -רשב”אeat the food.

?שיעור asks why “linas ha’lailah” was a possible -רא”שA) 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"ת says that you need the night b/c of disuse.When is the “night,” at the beginning of the night or the end?The רא”ש and רש”י aren’t sure about it. Perhaps it is like קדשים and you have to wait the whole night.

The רא”ש therefore has an issue with רש”י’s shittah of “linas ha’lailah.”Q) We know that if you cook קדשים- when the morning comes then the food is נותר and the טעם in the kelim is also נותר (and the kelim would have to be broken). If all that you need is סוף הלילה to make the טעם פגום, then you’d never have to break a kli b/c it would become נותר and פגום at the same time?!The רא”ש feels that even if you leave the kelim of קדשים until פגום, in the mikdash they wouldn’t rely on it. Also, maybe you will cook with the כלי חרס at night.

The רא”ש says that if you use the kli that isn’t בן יומו, the kli is אסור and the food is .מותרWhy is the food permissible? This is the היתר of “תחילת בליעתו לפגם.” Here the טעם was good in the kli and then it became פגום so that is why we are מחמיר, but when the This is ."אינו יומו אטו בן יומו" so we don’t say פגם went into the food, it started as טעםwhy the רא”ש says the food is מותר: b/c the food started off with פגום טעם .

(2נותן טעם לפגם (23 שיעור / Dec 19- (M) P23 YD 103

.לינת לילה is based on נותן טעם לפגם says that .רש"י ע"ז עוIf you use a kederah w/in 24 hours it will tref up the food, but after 24 hours all the food is מותר and the Torah’s parsha of הגעלה was for the first 24 hours. The חכמים were מתקן that even after 24 hours there is a חיוב to do אטוהגעלה before 24 hours.

תחילתו בליעתו לפגם :הגעלה there are 2 types of [from Rabenu Yitzchak] -(p3) רשב”א1) a fork is put in a pot of hot water and then the טעם of the hot fork goes into the water 2) if the pot itself is tref you boil water in the pot itself and the טעם comes out.Any הגעלה done w/in 24 hours is being done on a לשבחטעם . Q) The טעם may come out, but then it goes right back in?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:

68

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 מדין didn’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 טעם is already פגום and then you can put it in a less than 60 times mixture?Q) But then what did you accomplish, before the הגעלה there was a פגום טעם in the kli and after the הגעלה the טעם was also פגום?A) {Like the רא”ש} The first time that the טעם went into the kli was תחילת (לשבח

)לשבח בליעתו and after the הגעלה the תחילת בליעה will be לפגם. This was the reason for the דרבנן. When it is תחלית בליעתו לפגם there is no חיוב “even” דרבנן to 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 יומו (because it is בן יומו of something) you need to do הגעלה on the spoon (there is no need though for הגעלה on the bowl). You could in theory do הגעלה right away by putting the spoon in a pot that has 60 times it, however we try not to rely on our ability to be 60משער and therefore you should first wait a day in order to make the טעם פגום and then do הגעלה (even without 60). Also the cereal that you cooked is מותר indefinitely.

and if you cooked in a pot that מעת לעת is based on בן יומו The definition of-ש"ע ס' קגwas אינו בן יומו then the תבשיל is מותר because נותן טעם לפגם.

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

If you want to be machshir a kli in a tref kli after 24 hoursQ) If we say that you can’t use an aino בן יומו to cook, why can we use it to do הגעלה?A) The only reason that cooking is אסור is “uto cooking in it בן יומו” which is an איסור איסור kelim, even if I use the tref kli after 24 hours, the maximum הכשר By .דאורייתאthat 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.

DishwashersYou 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”א that just as the הגעלה kli doesn’t need הכשר first, so too the dishwasher. Therefore, after 24 hours the dishwasher should be מותר w/o anything. The רא”ש was only concerned about the pot (that there would be cooking in it) and not the הכשר kli. R’ Moshe wasn’t ready to accept this b/c you are using it for your own צורך and maybe the reason for no גזירה on the הכשר כלי was only for that purpose.There are opinions that you should first wait a year before doing any הגעלה on the dishwasher.

69

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”א b/c there is soap in the dishwasher and there is תחילת בליעתו לפגם.The problem is: 1) is all soap considered פגום (caustic)? and 2) whether when the first dishwasher cycle- the water is released before the soap is released and then there is a .before the soap is used בליעה[R’ Konegsberg said that perhaps R’ Abade would say that it is all one process.].פגום says the soap must be caustic soap to be considered רב שכטר

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

Does the בן יומו גזירה ever expire?Chacham Tzvi (p30)- Does the של אינו בן יומו אטו בן יומוגזירה ever end? Do we ever say that the טעם is as if it isn’t there and it is מותר to use?Q) There was a kli that had חמץ cooked in it two years earlier and the family accidentally used the pot on Pesach? 1) This is a מחלוקת between the רמ"א/מחבר (see earlier shir) and b/c the pot was used ON PESACH the ביטול would 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 טעם will be מדרבנן אסור forever. There must be a limit to this גזירה. He says that the רמ"א would agree that 12 months should be the cut-off point.The גזירה is only for a 12 month period and then the טעם is like עפר דעלמא.

Chacham Tzvi based his psak on a גמרא in 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 [.to other cases דין is only about wine, but the Chacham Tzvi extends this דין

Q) Who says that we make a גזירה only up to 12 months, perhaps there is a גזירה after 12 months for fear of using it before 12 months?A) יין נסך: even the בן יומו was אסור even בדיעבד. For 12 months it is אסור to use the barrels of יין נסך at all. If after 12 months we say it is לכתחילה מותר , there is a clear difference b/t the היתר period and the איסור period.-- Tref kli after 24 hours: after 24 hours it is בדיעבדמותר and this קולא would say that after a year it would be לכתחילה. The Chacham Tzvi says that in this case he will NOT make a גזירה b/c there is not a clear differentiation b/t the איסור period and the היתר period. b/c there is a strong distinction b/t מותר would be :רמ"א According to the חמץ בפסח --the איסור period (even בדיעבד it is אסור) and then making it לכתחילה מותר would undermine the גזירה.

70

BUT, According to the מחבר where the pot is דיעבד מותר until 12 months and then it is לכתחילה מותר , the Chacham Tzvi would say the גזירה would still apply.

R’ Moshe says that you should 1) wait a year (b/c of hefsed) and then 2) be mosif הגעלה 3 times based upon the תרומותירושלמי .

3 הגעלה says that - תרומותירושלמי times can מתיר even a כלי חרס.

What if you are getting something from a גוי?If the גוי has kosher food, but he has tref kelim that haven’t been used for 24 hours. You can’t tell a גוי to cook for you, but if he did cook, can you eat that food?

cooked kosher in a kli that גוי says that if the שערי דורא quotes the רמ"א -(p5) תורת חטאתwas בן יומואינו , you can eat the food לכתחילה b/c the גוי doesn’t have a גזירה. He is telling us that this isn’t a violation of אין מבטלין איסור לכ'..to cook for you is like you cooked in that pot גוי argues and says that telling a רשב”א

used for non-kosher food. Q) If (spatullah) מרדה A”Z (p11)- the famous case of the תוס‘the מרדה is now clean and hasn’t been used for 24 hours, can the גוי use it to remove kosher food from the oven for the Jew?A) The גוי is not going to make two מרדות for the Jew, therefore it is מותר to allow the גוי to get the bread with this מרדה (the Jew can’t use it).תוס‘ quotes this מחבר[.to eat אסור was being asked to get the bread out, it is גוי would say where the רשב”א]

כלים-ש"ע ס' קכב that are in the possession of גוים have a חזקה that they are not בן יומו. However, you still can’t tell a גוי to cook for you (however, it is okay to tell an אומן to cook for you). He also says that just like their כלים are assumed not be בן יומו so 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 הגעלה on Friday and then the kosher batch is put on early Monday morning. Can the mashgiach assume that a proper הגעלה was done.1) If the law is (the American law) that there must be a הגעלה then we can assume that there was a proper הגעלה.2) Really no הגעלה is needed, only that it is clean. The איסור is on the bishul and the akum doesn’t have an איסור of using kelim that aren’t בן יומו. This is a גוי’s factory so .isn’t needed הגעלה

Chamude Daniel/ רשב”א (p8)- to cook with a kli that isn’t בן יומו, we were taught that the food is always מותר. The רשב”א says that using the food from the pot if done במזיד (whether a Jew or a גוי) is אסור. It is a violation of אמא”ל and therefore anyone who tells a גוי to cook in an כליבן יומואינו , the food is אסור. You can NOT tell a גוי to take bread with his כלים.R’ Moshe says that we don’t hold like that רשב”א [at the end of the margarine teshuvah.]

71

כלי חרס never applied to a גזירה the :מנחת יעקב of the חידוש b/c perhaps the כלי חרס doesn’t apply to a אטו בן יומובן יומואינו perhaps - מנחת יעקב didn’t want people to throw out dishes. The חכמים was only on a metal kli. The גזירה.הגעלה was to force people to do גזירהMany Achronim are against this opinion.Some יםהכשר will do הגעלה with soap that is NTL so they can undermine the חיוב to wait 24 hours..in the end of the day היתר discusses this but is not so convinced of the רע"א

(3נותן טעם לפגם (24 שיעור / Dec 21- (W) P24 YD 103

Devarim (14,21) (p1-2): "לא תאכלו כל נבלה לגר" [you can get הנאה from נבלה]פקוע but if it isn’t then ,אסור is לגרראוי that is נבלה only -”כל הראויה לגר“ (p3-4) :ע"ז סז.(doesn’t apply נבלה of איסור the) איסורא

you must eat it in the normal מאכלות אסורות for מלקות in order to get -(p5) :פסחים כדway. If people would not eat the איסור raw or burning hot, you won’t get מלקות for this מלקות חיוב The .אכילה is based upon eating it in the “derech” that it is normally eaten.There are 2 exceptions to this rule: a) כלאי הכרם (K”H) and b) בשר בחלב (B”B)In these 2 cases, the Torah never expresses the איסור in a language of “אכילה” but only in other language (eg. bishul). B/c of this, even if the איסור isn’t eaten in the “derech” of .מלקות you will still get ,אכילה

Q) Are these 2 sugyos related?This is a very fundamental מחלוקת of the כרתי and חוות דעת:We said that if something is נפסל מאכילה then it isn’t כל הראויה לגר (אסור מדאורייתא( . Is this a separate halacha or part of שלא כדרך? N”M 1) Is בשר בחלב only an exception in אכילהדרך (Pesachim) or is it also an exception to “ ?as well ” מאכילת אדםנפסלN”M 2) Are the processes reversible? Is נפסל irreversible and “שלא כדרך” reversible?

I) חוות דעת (p9)- The simple pshat is that these 2 sugyos have nothing to do with each other b/c their דינים come from 2 different pesukim. In Pesachim the meat is fine, but not meat (a rotten piece of meat). Even though b”b is נפסל to eat and in A”Z it is about ראויeaten raw you don’t get מלקות, if it is נפסל then it isn’t called נבלה. One is “שלא כדרך” and one is “נפסל.” If b”b is נפסל then it is מותר. (One is in the גברא and one is in the .(חפצא[Toras Chaim- if you swallow something w/o chewing is it “שלא כדרך אכילתו?”]

II) כרתי/פלתי- says based upon the רמב"ם that נפסל is שלא כדרך. The פלתי connects the sugyos and says that the חומרא on b’b and k’h that is stated in Pesachim about “ שלא (.אינו ראויה לגר of היתר and b’b doesn’t have the) נפסל is also extended to ”כדרך

הנאה except for B”B and K”H where ”הנאה derech“ איסור you must eat the -(p6) רמב"םisn’t written. He then says that something that is “nisrach” by b”b and k”h you will be

72

B”B and K”H are therefore ”.שלא כדרך“ for it b/c he includes nisrach in his list of חייבalso exceptions to the derech אכילה rule.

How can the C”D explain the רמב"ם?Bechoros (23b)- brings a מחלוקת at interpreting the פסוק of “לא תאכלו כל נבלה לגר:” one The .סרוח מעיקרא and the other says it is to exclude אינו ראויה says that it comes for מ"דRambam must be using the פסוק for סרוח מעיקרא.

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

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

Gelatin is not ” נפסל“ is reversible, while ”שלא כדרך“ also says that something that is -חוות דעתreversible b/c it is “פקע איסורא” (the איסור was removed). “שלא כדרך” is 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 כדרך is different from נפסל . Gelatin is פקוע איסורא.-- This is crucial for the gelatin question which was נפסל and is then reconstituted. The C”D would say that this is not איסור anymore.

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 גמרא of 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 אסור gelatin uses the Kresi/Rambam.- If the psak was using shitas Rambam, then gelatin would be איסור gamur. 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 מותר according to the .רמב"ם

Is there an דרבנן איסור by נפסל?

73

Q) If something is נפסל מאכילה, is it אסור to use מדרבנן (whether we are assuming like the פלתי [R’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 אוכל and whether אחשביה applies? Is אחשביה agreed upon to all opinions?

Pesachim (21b)- if you char bread before Pesach and it is now נפסל , it loses its shem .הנאה’b מותר on pesach and it is חמץ’b מותר“ Why does it say ?אכילה for מותר say it is גמרא Q) why doesn’t the -(p15) רא”ש”?הנאהA) The רא”ש says that some say it is also מותר for אכילה, but this is not mistaber. He says “if you decide to eat it then it is אסור” (it seems מדרבנן and some may say it is .אחשביה doesn’t use the term רא”ש The (.דאורייתא

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

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

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

MedicineYou are not eating it for אכילה.Shagas Aryeh (p21)- [מחמיר] says that it’s אסור and it is אחשביה by medicine (probably .(מדרבנןR’ Moshe- says that אחשביה isn’t for medicine, only food items. Food is being taken for .but medicine is not and therefore it doesn’t matter about tarfus or something else ,אכילהR’ 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

74

Achronim- say that אחשביה might be the shitas Rambam (p25) and perhaps שלא כדרך would be מותר, but it would still be אסור b/c of אחשביה.Rambam- if you eat נבלה or trefah (the bones) even though they aren’t ראוי l’אכילה it’s .אחשביה and R’ Ahron says that this is b/c of אסור

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

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

חדשפרי (p28)- paskins that there is no דין of אחשביה like the Ran and B”H.He says that the reason why נפסל איסורי are אסור is “baal teshaktzu” (medicine wouldn’t be teshaktzu and therefore would be a problem and he says that there is no אחשביה דין and we don’t hold like the רא”ש).

Chazon Ish (p29)- quotes the 5: חדשפרי things ,and B”H רא”ש between the מחלוקת he could’ve quoted the] : נפסל that are אכילה איסורי

instead he] quotes the פרי חדשand says that they are מותר. He says that even those who want to say אחשביה is אסור, that is only by חמץ like the T”H (who HOLDS of אחשביה) b/c he says that we can be מחלק between חמץ and שארדרבנן חמץ now becomes חמץ and the) מאכלות אסורות ).

Bach- wants to understand how אחשביה works. Why should there be a דין of אחשביה once it is נפסל? He says that there has to be a limit of אחשביה and that when it hits עפר but ,אחשביה Perhaps if it is edible in its state, it can have .אחשביה then it isn’t בעלמאsomething totally putrid that even in a תערובת wouldn’t be edible, doesn’t have the דרבנן דין He says there is no .אחשביה of דין on 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.

(4נותן טעם לפגם (25 שיעור / Dec 26- (M) P25 YD 103

גמרא and then shvach.” The פגום“ or ”פגום what if the food is “shvach and then-.ע"ז סזquotes a case of “shevach and then פגום” and says it is אסור..by either of these cases אסור says it is -(p2) ש”ע

When does it become אסור? Is it אסור immediately or only later on? But, if it is !מותר but before that it is ,השביח once it is אסור is only תערובת says the -ש”ךshvach and then פגום it is always אסור at the end.

חדשפרי - says that the תערובת is even אסור during the פגום period (even before השביח).The פרי מגדים thinks that both of these דינים are מדרבנן.

75

Rav Soloveichik- we understand the פרי חדש b/c the פגם is treated the same way the whole time, but what is the svara of the ש”ך?

"אין ביטול אלא מתחילת התערובת: חידוש "- when the תערובת is made, the ביטול has to set in immediately, or it won’t set in. If it is משביח first, then it’ll always be אסור. But, if it starts פגום then the תערובת is מותר and can only later become אסור.Proof 1: ש”ךProof 2: אפשר לסוחטו אסור-מחבר" "-meat has milk in it and cooked in corn 70 times, but what about the piece of meat? “אפשר לסוחטו” teaches that the piece of meat remains “ ,The Rav learns from here .איסור ביטולאין ” b/c the ביטול must come מתחילה.Questions against this yesod:Q1) “אמא”ל” seems against this yesod b/c there can be ביטול after the תערובת is already formed, בדיעבד. A) The Rav says that “ היתרתוספת ” becomes like the new תערובת.Q2) בריה is not בטל- but if it breaks up even afterward then it is בטל.A) The Rav says that מדרבנן we say as if it’s not in the תערובת and 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”ך and אפשר לסוחטו?.can be b/c you can never be sure that it was fully removed אפשר לסוחטו (12) The ש”ך can be explained by the פרי מגדים(p4): that the ש”ך is probably a דרבנן דין , b/c you don’t want to be matir things that are mushbach m’techilaso.

and maybe if פגום כל דהו now there is a פגום and then later it’s משביח Once it’s-רא"ה?it’s so strong then the שבח wouldn’t even make a difference.

חסרה מלח/יתרה מלח is because of a פגום and the only reason it is פגום If you have something that is -.ע"ז סז

מותרדבר (ie salt) to make the פגום תערובת , 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 פגום (תערובת( is מותר.

Boiling hot water in a pot that was last used for tref and is waiting 24 hours?Q) A pot used for איסור at 9AM and then water at 11AM, does the 24 hour period begin from 9 or 11 b/c at 11 the טעם of the meat will come into the water and go back into the pot, perhaps we should start the clock again?A) ספר התרומה(p11)- the water is CNN and the pot is reinfused with the איסור (w/o 60). The water now is like a piece of נבלה and 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 היתר therefore the walls of the pot won’t be re-infused with the .ends at 9AM the next day טעם The meat .היתראיסוריםשאר assumes that CNN applies by שיטת ספר התרומה (like R”T). The .מותר in this case and say that the pot is מקילין says that there are many -סמ”ק.בן יומו is not איסור of the טעם b/c the מותר is תערובת

76

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 איסוריםשאר .

if a kederah had meat and milk cooked in it and then the same day water was -(p15) ש”עcooked in the pot, we start the 24 hour el”e period from the end of the water cooking. -- We can imply from the ש”ע that 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.

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

איסוריםשאר doesn’t hold of CNN by -ב"י . of BB בליעה quotes the B”Y and says that water can’t be CNN by having the (p17) ש”ךb/c CNN can only be formed in BB when forming the איסור (putting the meat and milk together). The ש”ך feels that the ספר התרומה’s דין might 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 b/c it could’ve been cut ,גוי you can’t get a type of sharp plant (chilkis) from a -.ע"ז לטwith a tref knife. When dealing with sharp foods, we assume that the טעם can be remade shevach even after 24 hours. The food can pull out the טעם and make a techias hamasim.

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

that something spicy can re-energize דין who denies this -רא”ה quotes the (A”Z) ריטב”אa טעם פגום [like the C”Daas would say]. It is already פגום, so how can it come back?Ran says there are 2 tracks to 1: בן יומואינו (גמריפגם and 2) פורטאפגם . A פורטאפגם , although it is פגם, it can have a “techias hamesim,” while a לגמריפגם can’t. it is פגום and therefore when it is פגם disagrees and says there are not 2 tracks to -רא”ה.is like afar טעם and there is no “techiyas hamesim” and the סרוח A”Z might be talking about a case where the knife was dirty with גמרא says that the רא”ה ,נפסל is טעם to that grease l’shevach. Once the טעם grease and the chilkis is giving בעיןthe tref knife won’t effect anything. Perhaps the רא”ה is l’shitaso.

Teshuvas רשב”א: case there was דבר חריף and not chilkis: the charifus won’t be able to make the b”y shevach unless there is a lot of דבר חריף in the תערובת.Teshuvas רשב”א (p24)- perhaps it is only by chilkus.

77

.says that chilkus makes it charif -(103,6) (p15) ש”ע .says that the spicyness has to be the majority in the pot ש”ך

(5נותן 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 אסור b/c עכבר is one of the 8 sheratzim and is אסור to eat. עכבר by definition is a דבר מאוס and the Torah said it is אסור, therefore the Torah is teahing me that NTL by achbar is still אסור. Rav Sheshes says that עכבר is the exception to נותן טעם לפגם מותר.

רא”ה/רשב”א מחלוקת : Dvarim Meusim says that if you cook sheratzim/shekatzim with your rice, it -(p6) (בתורת הבית(רשב”א

will be NTL and מותר. We paskin like Rava and distinguish between the בעין and the .follows the regular rules טעם and בעין is only on the איסור Rava says that the .טעםTherefore, even if you took out the עכבר it’s still a problem because there is טעם. Rav Sheshes holds that דבר מאוס is definitely assur with טעם in addition to the בעין. The חידוש of the Torah is that one of the sheratzim is only אסור when you eat it “ בפני .תערובת but when you eat it within a לגמריפגום even if it is ”,עצמו

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

Yetushim she’e efshar l’hotzeumA”Z (69a)- if the mouse fell into into vinegar it’s אסור b/c the עכבר “falls apart” in the vinegar and we are afraid that you are going to eat one of these pieces.

Are these pieces ניכר?ניכראינו says it is -רש”י . The question is then why isn’t the mouse בטל when it is not a ?anymore בריהMeilah (16b) (p3)- the שיעור of איסור is a כזית in order to get מלקות and it would seem that this same שיעור applies to shekatzim b/c it uses the lashon of “אכילה” when describing that איסור. The גמרא then brings a second opinion that says that the שיעור for tumas sheratzim is the שיעור of a lentil. Q) Why there are 2 שיעורים by שרץ? A) If you eat the שרץ while it’s alive it is not טמאמ and then the שיעור is כזית, but when it is dead and מטמא the שיעור is עדשה.

ש”ך מחלוקת and ט”ז it also has a ,עדשה of שיעור has a special שרץ says that just a -[104,3 top line](p11) ש”ךspecial חומרא. Any part of a שרץ has a pseudo דין of that שרץ and still has a status of בריהאיסור The mouse contains an .בריה even if it contains less than an עדשה, ie a שרץ contains an איסור מהשהו.

78

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

by butter מחלוקת Rambam/רשב”אRambam (p13/4)- There is a תקנת דרבנן to eat חלב ישראל and 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 גזירה on butter because of the מציאות. However, there are other מקצת גאונים that 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 בטל b/c of NI. The Rambam says that if you can remove the איסור, then it should be fine.

Anything that you .מותר says that the Rambam is not correct and it should be -רשב”אcan’t remove is בטל, even though it is ניכר!! The miktzas geonim (2) and the Rambam don’t agree to this. This is a case of ביטול by NI as long as “א"א לסנן.”

Bugs in NYDivrei Chaim (p18) said that this might apply to the bugs in NY. 1) It might not be called ניכר w/o expert and 2) if it is very hard to rid of the bugs, perhaps it is אסור (and as well). It is unclear who we paskin like in this case. Perhaps it is possible to get בטלpart of them out.

הקריבהו נא לפחתךShuls 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”א (p22) תורת הבית- whatever is אסור to eat you can’t use for the shul from the from Malachi (p20) (1,8) which says “hakrevu nuh l’pechushechuh”- try to bring פסוקthese נותקרב to 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 עבכר out (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 געולים? A) Filtering is only מותר for your private house, but this water is being used in the B”M and gevoah (B”M) is a higher standard.

says that we can be somech on the makilim by makom hefsed even if the oil -(p12) ש”עis אסור to eat, but if it is אסור to eat you really shouldn’t use it for the shul.

כבוש כמבושל27 שיעור / Jan 2- (M) P27 YD 105

79

טעם :כמבושל כבוש is 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.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 איסור can go both ways.

.is like mevushal כבוש Shmuel said that -(p1)(111b) חולין

Does any liquid qualify or only a sharp liquid?חולין רש”י (97b)(p2)- says that כבוש means vinegar (chometz).

Do we take this רש”י literally and say only vinegar, or even water?

)ביצה (מרדכי (p3)- רש”י always says vinegar when discussing כבוש. The מרדכי disagrees with רש”י b/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 דין called “shas ha’beur.” Shevios is only מותר if 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 אסור to 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 אסור? The Mishna says that you must take the rose out before the time of כבוש and 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 .אסור and the oil will also be אסור

The מרדכי proves from here that the דין of כבוש doesn’t only apply to vinegar. This proves that רש”י can’t be davkah.

What is the שיעור of כבוש?Pesachim (44b)(p6)- what is the source for טעם כעיקר? Perhaps you can learn it from BB b/c the whole איסור is based upon טעם כעיקר.We say that BB is a חידוש b/c 2 מותר things make it אסור.Q) Kelaim?A) The חידוש is: 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.

where you soak it in water that it wouldn’t be איסור Why is this different than any -רא”ש?אסורRitzbah- said that this גמרא is a proof that the שיעור of KKM is 24 hours. By other איסור טעם in for the whole day then the איסור if you would keep the ,איסורים would go into the היתר. But by BB, b/c there is no איסור of KKM, BB is a חידוש even though it gets the same טעם.R’ Simon said that the es l’es שיעור is very strange שיעור. Ritzbah is a חידוש to say “kulai yomah” means 24 hours.

80

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?

חולין רא”ש (p8)- says that the שיעור of KKM by zir is different from other liquids. The ”.is “the amount of time that it takes to put water on the fire and it will get cooked שיעורOther liquids have a different שיעור.

)105,1 (ש”ע (p13-21)- says that the whole piece of meat is אסור from 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. .אסור if half the solid is in the liquid and half is outside the liquid, it will be fully -רמ”א

)105,2 (ש”ע - If it is כבוש with zir or vinegar, then the שיעור is the amount of time that it can be on the fire and be heated up (from the שיעור of bishul).If you take it out before this שיעור, then the outer klipah is אסור (in 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 שיעור of bishul by zir? says that water is 24 hours and vinegar is 18 minutes. The שיעור of bishul must be a set שיעור.Gra- perhaps the שיעור of כבוש is like mevushal and the שיעור mevushal is 18 minutes, so that is the source for that דין. .is 3 days and it includes vinegar for that 3 day shittah כבוש says that -מרדכי

RSZ”A- says that vinegar won’t help you even less than 18 minutes. (This שיעור is gleaned from the שיעור of 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 .to use as maror אסור

!!pulled a fast one ש”עBe’er HaGolah- says that the ש”ע pulled a fast one on us- the רא”ש only said his חומרא by zir and the ש”ע extended this שיעור to vinegar!!How do we know if this is legitimate or not? that disagrees with the רא”ש doesn’t think it is legitimate b/c he quotes another ש”ך.s extension’ש”ע only applies to zir and not כבוש by שיעור A”Z (87b, 11)- says that the shorter (p7) רא”שto vinegar. שיעור had no right to extrapolate and extend vinegar to the ש”ע says that the (p19) ש”ךof zir when he’s extenדיןg the רא”ש who disagrees with this דין.Pri חדש- also says that the ש”ע is wrong to compare zir and vinegar.

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

81

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”ע seems to be on shaky ground. Perhaps by shas hadchak. There are generally better ways to get out bugs w/o relying on the ש”ך and discarדיןg the ש”ע.

כבוש ספקIs KKM a דאורייתא or דרבנן?

דאורייתא דין is a כבוש says that -איסור והיתר and ספק is l’חומרא, except for BB b/c it requires bishul and by BB, KKM is only a דרבנן דין ..רמ”א brings this I”V l’halachah in the ש”ע

ודאי איסור the טעם כעיקר by -ט”ז fell 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 דאורייתא ספק we should also be makil?

Shev Shematsa- quotes this דין of כבוש ספק . He says that you don’t say ספק m’ikkarah by a תערובת ספק . 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 KKMIf you have a kli that just had tref in it and it is clean, then you put cold soup in kli. goes into the soup after 24 hours and it becomes טעם says that the kli’s -איסור והיתר.אסור.פגום The last part will be ?בן יומו isn’t it not a -ט”ז ?has 2 answers -(p23) פלתיA1) 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 טעם comes in slowly and after 24 hours there is a palpable טעם. The פלתי says that the טעם comes in goes out over the 24 hours and it is regenerating the טעם over 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”י and R”T l’חומרא.

Kli Rishon and Kli Sheni28 שיעור / Jan 3- (T) P28 YD 105

Are the status of בליעות in 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?

82

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

says that it is clear that a kli sheni can also be YSB, so the -(40b S”Mina) תוס‘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 דרבנן איסור According to ‘תוס b/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.

if you pour a davar lach from a kli rishon into a second kli חומרא has a -(p11)פרי מגדיםwhile the kli rishon is still on the fire. He says that the second kli has a דין of a kli rishon. Only once the kli rishon is off the fire can the second kli get the status of a kli sheni. Shabbas was getting its hot גמרא says that the bathtub in the -(source for Pr”M) רש”יwater from an underground stream (According to רש”י) and 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. defines kli sheni as the first kli that the food is poured into once the food isפרי מגדים -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 ‘תוס holds of this shittah. ‘תוס does understand that there is a דין of kli rishon al huaish, but it is probably only דרבנן.

Harchakah of kli rishonShabbas (42b) Mishna- iflis: you can’t put תבלין in a kli rishon that is not on the fire. This גמרא shows that there is an איסור even when the food is not on the fire (probably .(מדרבנן -Shabbas- brings a clear definition of kli rishon as when the fire is under the pot ירושלמיthis גמרא seems to be the only דאורייתא form of kli rishon. Shabbas (p5-6)- Rav Yona says that the difference b/t a kli rishon and sheni is ירושלמיthat “asu harchek l’kli rishon” and “lo asu harchek l’kli sheni.”

What does this mean?Shevisas Shabbas has 6 interpretations of this ירושלמי

83

says that the heat is not important. The issue is making a harchakah for -(p8)פרי חדש (1a kli rishon. A kli rishon is אסור even if it isn’t on the fire if the food is ys”b and a kli sheni is מותר even if there is yad sholetes water. The mishna by ilfes is only a chashash .This works well with all shitos .דרבנן

2) Yam Shel Shlomo- says that the harchakah is that we should be מחמיר to 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 ירושלמי was gozer on the kli rishon.

by kli sheni בליעה]תורת הבית [רשב”א - Some say that only kli rishon can do בליעות (at ys”b) b/c it can do

bishul. This is a tremendous קולא b/c then you could go to a tref restaurant and eat on their plates. doesn’t think this is the pashtus. He feels that as long as the food is from the fire רשב”אit can be polet even if the food isn’t ys”b and even in a kli sheni.

Proof to רשב”א :s knife’גוי if you shecht an animal with a -(p14)(8b) חולין (1Rav- peel the outer part (b/c the beis haשחיטה can be cooked)Rabba bar bar Channah- wash off (maidiach) the place of the שחיטה (b/c the blood is “polet harbeh,” but if not, then it would cook).Therefore both agree that there is enough heat to give בליעות and the beis haשחיטה isn’t a kli rishon and can be colder than a kli sheni

-- Maybe the רשב”א doesn’t have such a good example b/c this בליעה is NOT a function of heat, so it doesn’t matter how hot the beis haשחיטה is.

is removed from the animal, you חלב if an animal was shechted and -(8b) חולין (2shouldn’t put the חלב on top of meat b/c the חלב טעם will get into the meat b/c it is very hot when it is being taken out of the animal.Proof- if the חלב out of the body of the animal is able to be polet then a kli sheni would also be able to. Here the חלב is also detached so he wants a kal v’chomer to kli sheni (vs. Tos.).Problem for רשב”א- is the same as #1, the בליעה isn’t specifically a function of the heat.

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

Q on Tur) there is still a בליעה to kdei klipah and the other ראשונים said there aren’t any ?בליעות

84

A) לכתחילה- ש”ע you should be nizhar not to put hot chicken on their kli sheni, but b’de’eved it is מותר w/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 לכתחילה מותר even without !!הגעלהSome 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 יומו uto בן יומו doesn’t apply to a כלי חרס b/c the גזירה was only on metal kelim. The חכמים didn’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 of davar gush: he says that kli sheni only applies to davar חומרא big (p23) ים של שלמהlach, 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 קולות are 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). also talks about basar in a pot and says that the walls that would cool off the -איסור והיתרliquids 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”ע (p25)- he says that if a hot piece of meat is cut with a milk knife, the whole piece of meat is אסור (w/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 אסור if 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..like the YS”S מחמיר we should be -ט”ז

Ladels A”Z [Ri]- if a person scoops up the boiling water with a ladel, can you use this ladel תוס‘for הגעלה (ie is it a kli sheni)? He is מחמיר both ways. By הגעלה we are מחמיר and 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.

85

.says that it is a kli rishon -ט”זRayah 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..says anything from a fire is a kli rishon -פמ”ג if the plate that the soup is poured into is hot then the soup plate might not be a -רב שכטרkli shelishi.Bram Weinberg- said that styrofoam would always be a kli sheni (ie if it is used as a ladel).

Kli Rishon עירוי29 שיעור / Jan 4- (W) P29 YD 105

is very Halacha L’Maaseh. You are taking a Kli Rishon and pouring onto עירויsomething. A good example would be a sink. If you take dirty (ממשות) milk 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 ( דאורייתא בליעות ) and off the fire (?Is it like a kli rishon or sheni ?עירוי but what is the status of ,(דרבנן

Shabbos (42b) quotes a machloket about this. The Mishna says you can’t put an תוס‘ambate into a kli rishon, but putting it into anything else is תוס‘. מותר then says that a kli sheni is מותר, which implies that עירוי kli rishon is אסור. R”T/Rei- עירוי kli rishon = kli rishon (not on the fire)k”r= kli sheni עירוי -mרשב”אR’ Baruch- עירוי cooks kdei klipah.

NM: עירוי by Hagalat KalimNM: ‘תוס A”Z (74b)- Rav says that to purify a winepress (that became tref by יין נסך) you 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 עירוי kli rishon. m yayin nesesh. They prove from here that עירוי is kli rishon and this גמרא is referring to יין נסך where beliyot were not from heat. is specific to a winepress and doesn’t apply to דין m disagees and says that thisרשב”אkashering a pot. He also says that generally עירוי is k’kli sheni.

Tatah gavar or ilahah gavar require heat the reaches the temperature of ys”b. This degree of heat will permit a בליעותbishul 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 איסור definitely cooks the היתר and if they are both cold then neither cooks (just wash off the kosher

86

piece). If the “hot piece” was on the fire then the bottom would win unless the bottom piece got hot.Rav- elaha gavarShmuel- tatuay gavarWe 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 גמרא does 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.

m is based uponרשב”א of R”T and the מחלוקת A”Z- Rabbenu Baruch says that the תוס‘the מחלוקת of tatuay gavar. R’ Baruch says that עירוי is not like kli rishon or sheni, but it in between which will make the בליעה only kdei kelipah. We pasken like this middle shitah and עירוי will make a kedei klipah אסור. However, the ‘תוס [Pesachim] 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 עירוי is 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 עירוי is k’kli rishon? By tatuay gavar, the heat .[Pesachim] גמרא wants to defend R’ Tam from the איסור והיתרsource 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 בליעות and the עירוי can be considered like a kli rishon.

Pour meat juice onto ab”y milk plate discusses a question where you take hot meat juice and pour it onto a milk איסור והיתרplate which is aino בן יומו. We pasken that בליעות in a kli are treated in a more strict fashion than if the meat food was cooked in the plate and there is an איסור even if the kli isn’t בן יומו. But, the bowl is only אסור kdei kelipah. Therefore the kli is אסור and needs הגעלה but the food is מותר.

What happens if you do multiple עירויs?If we use a kli that had בליעות of 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 בליעות were done and therefore there are many kelipos. Perhaps each new עירוי infects another portion of the bowl? Chavat .אסור says that it will go past kdei klipah and will make the whole kli איסור והיתרDaat says that no matter how many בליעות, the עירוי’s potency stops at k’dei klipah.

Maflit Umavlia K’achadIn a kli rishon, the heat has the ability to take טעם out 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).

87

Does עירוי have the power to take tref טעם out 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 מותר b/c עירוי is 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 עירוי (which would make a kdei kelipah of איסור if tref was poured onto the plate), but it’s not strong enough to take the טעם from 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 מליחה and 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 אסור parts and the blood, as well, you can’t do meliga with עירוי kli rishon.

How can this be, if the עירוי is not maflit and mavliah? but when עירוי asks: Q) how can the Remah say by meliga that you can’t do it with ש”ךit comes to the dishes together we say that you CAN do עירוי. What’s the difference? A) Restatement of Remah: the Remah holds that עירוי is 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, עירוי is strong enough because chicken isn’t so strong.

who (תרומת הדשן( rejects this restatement and brings the Hagahot Sharay Dura ש”ךholds that עירוי kli rishon is maflit umavlia k’achat even in a kli. Therefore, you should NOT clean your dishes with עירוי kli 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 פגם of soap, and nat bar nat and non ys”b water.] But, לכתחילה we should be מחמיר like 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 ?kli rishon can infuse from a liquid into a solid or into a kli עירוי

What about by a dishwasher which would also seem to have the same דינים as a sink, but it might not be עירוי b/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

88

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

not in the air but on a stove עירויWhat if עירוי is poured on something else? SHUT) discusses the case of hot milk on the fire. The milk over flows onto(תרומת הדשןthe stove and touches a piece of meat. Is this like עירוי kli rishon and the basar is אסור? Or// עירוי has 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 עירוי kli rishon as long as it’s still yad soledet bo. We see a proof from chamey teveria where it stays עירוי kli rishon even though it’s not in the air, since it’s flowing from the original heat source. .kdei kelipah אסור says it’s still ש”ךRema- עירוי is 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 עירוי k”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. .disagrees with this Rema מהרש”ל

בליעות בלי רוטב30 שיעור / Jan 9- (M) P30 YD 105

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

is based upon whether there דין the ,גיד הנשה a thigh that was cooked with a -(96b) חוליןwas טעם in the thigh to the degree calculated by the שיעור of basar b’lefes. But, if the thigh and גיד were צלי-ed together then the דין is “kolef v’achel ad shemagiah l’גיד.”This גמרא is mashmah that you can eat the basar even if there isn’t 60 k’neged the גיד.

Q) Don’t we have another גמרא that says that a piece of meat that was roasted can’t be eaten (even “ad רא”ש uzno”) b/c the איסור goes throughout the piece of meat?A) This is talking about צלי done with חלב, which is different b/c it spreads out in the .ing process-צליNormally, a liquid medium is required to totally penetrate the whole piece of kosher meat, but this גמרא teaches that if a fatty substance is involved, that is like a liquid. If neither piece is fatty and both are solid, then the בליעות aren’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 מחמיר even though the meat might be kachush (lean) and we will treat the pieces as shamen.

89

of kachush to mean that kachush meat doesn’t חולין in גמרא R”T)- explains the( תוס‘spread throughout the kosher piece of meat or// that the lean piece of meat has some fat that is בטל b’60 in the kosher piece.

Is the שיעור of 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 ראשונים point out that the שיעור is not the same even if the roasting is “m’fapeah b’kullo.”

-(p3) רשב”אKdei 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 אסור and hot, tatuay gavar is the psak. But, even though the kosher piece cools off the piece of איסור, the גמרא in Pesachim says that for the first few minutes the bottom is cooked and you must remove a kdei kelipah.

Why is the שיעור kdei netilah here?)איסור והיתר( רבינו יונה - when you do bishul, it is clear that the טעם will be nis’pashet

throughout the whole תערובת, but by צלי, it’s not clear that it will be mifapeah b’kulloh. Therefore, we are מחמיר and we fear that most gets stuck in the outer layer and therefore a kdei netilah must be removed. We are מחמיר both ways, for 60 and kdei netilah.[The שיעור of kdei netilah must be removed even though there was 60 k’neged the [!איסור

)105,4-5( ש”ע (p15/6)- says l’halacha that we distinguish b/t lean and fatty meat and the .of 60 שיעור of kdei netilah is only by a lean piece, whereas a fatty piece requires a שיעורThis would also be true if there is a piece of lean tref meat on top of a potato that is in a is that a kdei netilah of the potato must be דין The .(צלי which would be) תערובתremoved.

Kesef Mishna says that the Rambam holds that kachush means a minimal amount of fat, so it will be בטל b’60, but there is no fundamental difference b/t a shamen and kachush animal.Rambam (p2)- doesn’t have the שיעור of 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 חלב and eat it. A fatty piece of meat is m’fapeah b’kulloh, but kachush has a 60.We hold like the רשב”א and ש”ע vs. the Rambam

Ain ha’baluah yotzeh ma’chtichah l’chatichah bli rotevCASE 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/ בליעות of tref) on a grill, and roast it with kosher meat w/o 60 שיעור , is the kosher meat אסור b/c of the lettuce?

90

A) רשב”א (p6)- The meat isn’t אסור. If the איסור is אסור b/c of בליעות of איסור, then that This is the principle of “ain .צלי will only come out through bishul and not through בליעהha’baluah yotzeh ma’chtichah l’chatichah bli rotev.”

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

CASE 3) What about tref חלב cooked with kosher meat, then the kosher meat with בליעות of tref חלב is then roasted with another kosher piece of meat?A) In this case, the בליעות of חלב DO make the other piece of meat אסור.

Efshar L’hafridoQ) If you put a piece of meat in vat of milk on fire: you then take the meat with בליעות of 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 אסור b/c of the איסור of b’b and there is a חיוב of 60 plus kdei netilah. It then wouldn’t matter if the milk doesn’t come out b/c the meat itself is איסור b’fnei atzmoh2) OR// the איסור of the first piece was from בליעות of milk (בליעה ma’איסור), and therefore if you roast it with the other piece of meat then the בליעות don’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 איסור (in this case, the milk) was totally removed from the היתר.

Why is efshar l’sochto אסור? Two possibilities: 1) Rav and 2) רשב”אA1) Rav Soloveitchik- ein ביטול ela b’techilas ha’תערובת: even though the Rav would say that efshar l’sochto is אסור b/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 בליעה איסור , as proven from the psak that the meat would be מותר in 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”א (p7)- says that the piece of b’b is considered an איסור baluah b/c you can’t be sure that everything was removed. It is an איסור of metzios and you can’t get all of the milk out.

-(p13) ספר התרומהTipas 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?

91

A) The גמרא says 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 אסור the 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? A) ספר התרומהanswers that this proves that the בליעות of 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 אסור other pieces of meat b/c it is an איסור atzmoh and make the meat into a cheftzah of b’b. .רשב”א quotes the Tur!! This seems to go against the -(95,7) (p17) ש”ע

have to be correct, so he will say aספר התרומה and רשב”א was adamant that the -ט”זdifferent p’shat in the Tur and ש”ע. He feels the רשב”א is correct b/c that is the pashtus in the sugyah about tipas chalav, (stirring is the only way to create איסור in tipas chalav) and therefore he must re-interpret the ש”ע. and thereby made another piece of meat בליעה really means: not that the meat got a ש”ע is discussing a case hot meat touching cheese and the cheese is the davar ש”ע The .אסורha’oser machmas atzmoh and that is why צלי can create the איסור in the piece of meat. The ש”ע is discussing the formation case of b’b and comparing it to נבלה which can make another piece אסור through negeah during צלי, but the ש”ע isn’t saying that בליעות of a b’b piece can make another kosher piece of meat אסור.

The ט”ז says that the next line in the 105,7 (ש”ע( is talking about בליעות of b’b (which is an בליעה איסור and can’t transfer to another איסור w/o rotuv). The ש”ך would say that this line must be talking about נבלה that had בליעות of איסור and not b’b which is an איסור atzmoh.

.is k’peshuto ש”ע says that the -ש”ךQ) What about the גמרא? A) The גמרא which 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 אסור w/ צלי b/c everyone agrees to CNN by b’b. -(p14) [in Hagaos Sha’are Durah] תרומת הדשן quotes the ש”ךQ) Why by the case of CH”L b’b isn’t considered to be an איסור baluah and here there ?baluah איסור says that it is an רשב”אA) He says that the רשב”א is correct: in a case where there is milk, like a case of CH”L, then the meat is considered guf ha’איסור and is an איסור machmas 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 איסור baluah. 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 איסור machmas atzmoh. If we can remove the milk from the piece of meat, then it would be מותר like the רשב”א and Sefer HaTerumah.

Ochel to kli

92

If you have a plate that is בן יומו that 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?”HaGaos Sha’are Durah (p22)- has a חידוש that is assumed l’halacha: בליעות don’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 גמרא says that the טעם is too weak.Q) Why don’t you matir it b/c “ain habaluah?” A) We see from here that there can be a בליעה from a kli even w/o rotev. .brings down the Sha’are Durah -רמ”א in and out (of a food item), but by a בליעות explains that by a food it is harder to get -ט”זkli, the kli takes in and lets out בליעות more easily.

2 kederosExample: 2 kelim, milk and meat touch each other and both are בן יומו (ie a stove). a food w/o rotev, but not from one kli to another kli אסור says that a kli can -(p20) ש”ךw/o rotev.Remah (p29)- to get בליעות from one kli to another kli (like by עירוי) is a higher standard, but he says that we should be zahir. to each טעם that kelim that touch don’t give דין is the earliest source of the -(p27) מרדכיother.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 דעת(p25)- 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. צלי isn’t totally dry, but צלי isn’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 מחמיר by בליעות on Pesach.R’ Moshe- has a teshuva on the tri-pod.

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

דבוקאיסור and מליח כרותח 31 שיעור / Jan 10- (T) P31 YD 105

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

I) חולין (97b)(p1)- Shmuel said that מליח is כרותח and כמבושל כבוש .

93

Q) Why doesn’t the גמרא say that מליח and כבוש are כמבושל even though in both of these cases there are בליעות w/o liquid medium?

The גמרא quotes a case of thighs attached to the גיד הנשה that were salted together: Ravina- said it was אסור and R’ Acha- said it was מותר. A) The גמרא says that roseach can’t mean כמבושל from the fact that Shmuel split b/t and not cooking with a liquid צלי means רותח and כמבושל is כבוש where ,כבוש and מליחmedium.

II) חולין (112a)(p2)- there was a bird that fell into salty milk (yogurt) which was cold: the psak was that the תערובת was מותר even though the yogurt was salty. The reason was that only time that the salt does “ "is when the food is salty to the degree of ” כרותחמליח.that it is not able to be eaten b/c of the salt ",אינו נאכל מחמת מלחו

III) חולין (96b)(p3)- how much is the בליעה into the איסור? ,טעם if you hold of CNN and if there is some)קליפה הסמוכה לו says that it is in the תוס‘the היתר can become a cheftzah of איסור and then you would need 60 against the kelipah and the rest of the animal.) כדי קליפה is the שיעור when the piece of meat is NOT FATTY with a salty piece of food.[K’צלי doesn’t mean like צלי mamush, b/c צלי is always a כדי נטילה, but salting can be כדי [.קליפה

IV) חולין (113a)(p4)- kosher fish with tref fish salted: כרותחמליח only applies when the davar ha’אסור is the salted part, but if the דבר הכשר is the salted part, then we don’t say that the salt takes the טעם of the tref fish into the kosher fish. Psak: The salt will immediately give בליעות as long as the item reached the state of" אינו".נאכל מחמת מלחו

whether it is on the top or on the אסור I) if the tref is the davar maluch it will -(113a) תוס‘bottom. The halachos of עילאה or תתאה גבר don’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 גוי’s cheese forms which are בן יומו even 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) ‘תוס says that you can borrow the גוי’s forms even if you salt the kosher cheese when its being made, b/c the davar אסור is the kli and the davar אסור must be salted, and the kli wasn’t salted only the tref cheese (“אין מליחה בכלים”) and the food will remain כשר. He says that this is like the case of טהור שמליח and טמא תפל.

)91,5 (רמ"א (p15)- says that אין מליחה בכלים is only by פולט, but it will be בולע. We said that zir is אסור (b/c of dam) and that salty liquid will go into the kli w/o holes and will require הגעלה even though the בליעה is machmas מליח.

עילאה גבר concerning תוס‘ .vs רשב”א b/c the salt in ,איסור must be the salted one to create דבר טמא says that the -(p5) רשב”אthe kosher food doesn’t have the power to pull the טעם out of the tref food.

94

he argues that if the tref salty piece is :תוס‘ Bais HaKatzar- disagrees with (p6) רשב”א איסור transferred, but if the tref piece is on top, then the בליעות then there are תתאהdoesn’t go down and there is only a כדי קליפה of איסור. 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 ‘תוס would say that it is like צלי even if it is on the top. [Avichai: is it so clear that ‘תוס would say that a salty tref ilaha would extend further than [?kdei kulloh אסור ,and make the bottom kosher piece צלי

)105,11 (ש”ע (p13)- holds like the רשב”א concerning tatuay gavarRemah (105,11)- quotes the ‘תוס as yesh cholkim, and that we are noheg like ‘תוס that it doesn’t matter where it is positioned and we are מחמיר in any event.

)105,12 (ש”ע - he is matir by the גויish cheese pots.Remah- says that גויish pots is only מותר b’de’eved.

Fatty מליח)105,9 (ש”ע (p9)- the regular מליח דין is kdei kelipah is only w/o fat, but the shuman haגיד

we should be מחמיר and take off “kdei makom” and real fat goes through the whole kosher piece. See ש”ע for 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 איסור davuk must be 60 against the איסור or else it too is אסור and either way a kdei kelipah must be removed.

Davuk איסורIf you have a davar איסור in the pot, we are generally משער against 60 of all the other things in the pot. But, what if the davar איסור is attached to another piece of meat in the

)1+1 (תערובת and there are 90 other pieces of meat? In this case there is 60 against the plus the davuk. Do we see this attached piece of meat as איסור but not against the ,חלב?איסור and a separate entity of איסורEx: 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 איסורים שאר (the מחבר would not hold of איסור davuk, b/c he only holds of CNN by B”B!!).)רמ"א (שאר איסורים there is CNN by-ר"ת(מחבר) CNN is only by B”B-רבינו אפרים

Reasons for איסור davukQ) What is the reason for this דין and that this piece of meat is different and it is considered אסור?

)72,18 (ש”ך (1 (p18)- normally the reason why we use 60 is b/c the טעם dissipates through the mixture, but by an איסור davuk, then there will be one spot that the טעם will be more concentrated in the piece that it is davuk to, and that is why we have to be .davuk. 60 is b/c of equal dissipation איסור by an מחמיר

95

You can win if the איסור hadavuk is 60 against the איסור itself: ie mishna in חולין (96b). davuk is a איסור :and says that there is another reason איסור והיתר quotes the ט”ז (2chashash that the חלב and 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.

(משבצות זהב( פרי מגדים (p20)-Q1) What about an איסור davuk that is only an דרבנן איסור ?Q2) Does איסור davuk 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”ז) then it would only apply to an איסור דרבנן איסור would also apply by an (ש”ך) but the first reason ,דרבנן and not דאורייתא .A2) The ש”ך’s shittah would only apply to a natural connection, while the ט”ז’s would even apply to a non-natural one.

Therefore, the פרי מגדיםsays by an דרבנן איסור w/o a natural connection that neither svara should apply. (ט”ז is ספק דרבנן לקולא and ש”ך would hold an איסור if the connection wasn’t natural). Ex: On thanksgiving where there is tref stuffing מדרבנן then he’d be matir..handbook for Rabbis [O”C (chelek 1)]- also quotes this halachah -(p22)פרי מגדים

says that it has to be “davuk b’toldah” (naturally) [the important factor] so the -חוות דעת.and not to non-natural connections חלב would only apply to the heart or איסור איסור discuss an apple that had a worm in it which is an -מהרי"ל/(p24) איסור והיתר.דאורייתא

ריחא וזיעה32 שיעור / Jan 11- (W) P32 YD 105

ריחא מילתאPesachim (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 אסור it.[vs. last שיעור where 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 טעם from מליחה.]Levi disagreed and said that even lean kosher meat roasted with fatty tref meat is not a problem, b/c ריחא לאו מילתא w/o a conduit of water and Levi paskined this way l’halachah (see רש”י).

Erev Pesach: each קרבן Pesach has a group and the halacha is that the קרבןos can’t be .ed together-צליQ) Isn’t this against Levi and the fear is that the קרבןos are going to give טעם to each other?A) No, we are afraid that one group will take the קרבן of another group and that is the fear. This is not specifically against Levi.

96

Q) The גמרא then 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 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 קרבן pesach 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 שיעור of 60 with this halachah?Rif says that Rav is Rav l’shitaso that מין במינוisn’t בטל and 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 גוי smelled the Jew’s wine?By a גוי smelling 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 רבא except for yaal k’gam

and we hold like רבא Pesachim (76b)- says the halachah is like Levi, b/c he is like רש”י.רבא R”T ?רבא g likeדיןsays that R”T holds like Rav, but what about hol -(p3) [רבא] A”Z תוס‘says that these sugyos don’t need to be consistent (vs. רש”י). ‘תוס explains that these two sugyos aren’t connected b/c רבא can 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 אסור like 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 נסך wine that a piece of bread was put on top: will the wine make the bread אסור [the 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 .בטל ainoמין במינו and we are against R”Y of בטל.in both places מחמיר e Anshe Shem- isחידוש

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!

97

.like Levi מותר but b’de’eved it’s ,לכתחילה seems to hold like Rav -(p7) רמב"ם[Q) Is it a problem or not? Is he really holדיןg ma’ikkar ha’דין like Levi?]

.Tur- rehashes the sugyah/רשב”א b’de’eved and if it is a big tanur then he can לכתחילה quotes the Rambam about -ש”עeven roast them לכתחילה or 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 נסך then that’s more problematic.B”Y [from Orchos Chaim]- can you smell pepper in the tref wine? You are getting the ?דין and not from the wine, what’s the תבלין from the kosher הנאהDon’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 אסור to smell, but if it would be mainly used for .to smell מותר And the pepper wine would be .מותר then it would be ,אכילה.brings down this B”Y -ש”עRZN”G- what about היתר and אסור b’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’אכילה even when dealing with בשר בחלב.

זיעהSteam from tref soup and you put something kosher on top into the steam. If it’s יד סולדת .בשר בחלב of שאלה at the time it hits the thing on top, then it could be a בו

for an ochel to be m’kabel tumah it must come into contact with one of -משנה במכשיריןthe 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 .and the tumah come at once טמא

[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.]

.(חידוש) co-opts this mishna from tumah to yoreh deah -רא”שQ) If you have a milchik pot can you put it under a meat pot?A) He thinks that it should be אסור even בדיעבד b/c זיעה is worse than ריחא. The דיעה is like בעין. A) Yad ?אסור to become זיעה be and still get היתר how high up can the -תרומת הדשןsoledes bo (ys”b). Therefore, people who would hang their salamis from the ceiling under milk pots and the זיעה isn’t ys”b at that point, the salamis are מותר..Shut רא”ש quotes the -(p20) מחברRemah (p22)- quotes the Th”d.

98

for mashkim and not for זיעה only wants to say -(handbook for Rabbi) פרי מגדיםochlim because it isn’t significant [from a Rambam.]What about with fat? He says that זיעה of ochlim isn’t like a liquid. Even if it makes זיעה it is still not a problem. on the top שרץ Tumas Ochlim (7,4)- about a flow of water (netzok) and there is a רמב"םof the stream and a kli טהור on the bottom, is it as if the שרץ is 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 זיעה then don’t rely on the פרי מגדיםbut if not then maybe you can b’de’eved.Mishkenos Yaakov- said that the רא”ש might have overstepped his bounds. He claims that the SHUT Rivash said that you can’t bring זיעה into yoreh deah. According to the Rivash as well there might be a side to say that חמץ שעבר עליו הפסח could be מותר because he feels that it’s דרבנן. Once something is אסור בהנאה it stays אסור. came from is זיעה when, if the food item that the אסור is only זיעה says that -ריב”שnishtanen l’gamre (that it is totally changed and destroyed: ie to burn a שרץ), that the food is still אסור. You can only bring זיעה into maachalos asuros only if the זיעה was nishtaneh that it would still be אסור!Ex: The ashes of a burnt שרץ isn’t אסור, therefore the זיעה of a שרץ doesn’t have an [.רא”ש went with the ש”ע But the] .state זיעה even in a איסור

and tanur זיעהHow can you use the oven for milk and meat acc. to the ש”ע and 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 זיעה then you have to be nervous even in a solid.

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

and hevel, and we don’t have thick steam in our זיעה there is a difference b/t -רב שכטרovens. Also, according to Rav Abade there is no problem with זיעה in ovens today (which Rav Moshe didn’t accept). Rav Abade goes as far as saying that מעיקר הדין it is okay to put both meat and milk in at the same time, but it is important to מחמיר on this because otherwise people would be נכשל. He thinks there is no זיעה by 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 מקיל on ovens.

99

R’ Ben-Tzion Wosner (Sefer Or Yisrael)- that minhag Yisrael was never to worry about .By microwaves he is more worried .זיעהR’ 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 בליעות are easier to create then being maflit, so we can’t automatically extend the חומרא of 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 בעין and 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 גמרא “ad hasof” which means גמרא until you get to the halacha. We need to learn the gemaros alebah d’hilchesah.

100