|
Gemora: Chulin 108a
Said Rav: Since it gave taste to the slice, the slice
itself is made totally nevaleh (forbidden like meat
of an animal that died other than by shchita) and
in turn it forbids all the other slices, for they are its
min (the same kind).
Explanation: The drop of milk that fell onto a slice
of hot meat that was being cooked, gave the taste of milk
to the meat and therefore the mixture became "meat
with milk" (bosser b’holav) which is
forbidden by the Torah. That slice of meat is now in itself
forbidden and is an entity of "forbidden food"
(issur) and in turn it will "forbid" (osser)
anything that it is mixed with - according to the proportion
that issur (forbidden food) will prohibit heter
(permitted food).
This sugia gives rise to two laws (dinim):
1. "The slice is made a nevaleh" (chaticha
na'asit nevala, abbreviated "chanan").
2. "That which is possible to squeeze is forbidden"
(efshar l'schoto osser).
1. Chanan
- The simple understanding of chanan is that the
issur is swallowed in the slice of heter and
now makes the slice itself an entity of issur. As
a result that piece of meat, in a pot of hot meat, will
in turn forbid all the rest of the pot.
Although according to Rav this chanan will forbid
all the rest of the pot, even if there is a thousand in
the pot against the chanan, that is because Rav
holds like Rabbi Yehudah that min b'mino (two substances
of the same kind) do not cancel each other and the mixture
of issur with heter will not be canceled
and will forbid the mixture, even if it is only a thousand
part of the mixture. The Halachic authorities on the other
hand (with the exception of Rashi ) hold like the Rabbonon
who disagree with Rabbi Yehudah and hold that the issur
in the mixture will only osser the mixture as long
as it is at least one part in sixty of the mixture. Once
that it is less than this, it is canceled out by the majority
and all the rest of the pot will be permitted
a. The Rivad - that this din is only according to Rabbi
Yehudah and Rabbonon do not hold by it. This view is not
held in Halachah.
b. The view of Rabbenu Efraim, the Rambam, the Rashbah,
the Rosh and most Rishonim that we say chanan in
boser b’halev and not in other issurim.
This is held by the M’chaber in the Shulchan Orech.
c. Rabbenu Tam and Rashi that chanan is also a din
in other issurim. The Rama takes account of this
opinion.
2. Efshar l'schoto osser:
- The other din, "efshar l'schoto", concerns
a piece of meat in which issur is absorbed (a chanan)
and is then cooked with other meat.
- Do we say that the issur can be expelled from
the chanan, spread throughout the pot and therefore
be cancelled in sixty in the pot - or no, the original piece
remains issur and cannot be cancelled in the remainder,
even if there is more than sixty in the remaninder of the
pot.
- There are two views on the relationship between these
two dinim - chanan and efshar l'schoto:
1. The Tor holds that each din is dependent on
the other - that is that they are in essence the same
din. This means that:
a. Where we say chanan - for example in boser
b’halav - we also say efshar l'schoto
is osser . Even though there is sixty in the
pot against the original piece, so that the taste of
that slice is botel (nullfied) in the pot and
the rest of the pot is mutar, even so the original
slice remains osser. This is the view of the
M’chaber in Simon 92:2.
b. On the other hand, where we do not say chanan
- for example in sha’ar (other) issurim,
we say efshar l'schoto mutar and therefore, if
we have sixty in the pot against the drop of issur
- blood or halev or nevala - the rest
of the pot is mutar and comes back and m'vutels
the original slice of issur.
2. The Rashba on the other hand holds that the dinim
are not the same. Although it seems certain that whenever
we say chanan we would say efshar l'schoto is
osser (because this is the pshat of the Gemora
according to Rabbi Yochenan and Rav against Reish Lokish
and Shmuel) on the other hand in sha’ar issurim,
even though we do not say chanan, we would still
be strict and say efshar l'schoto osser.
Explanation :
If milk drops on meat which is less than sixty times the
milk, the meat is a chanan and is all osser.
If that meat falls into a pot which is less than sixty
times the chanan, all the pot is osser.
If the meat falls into a pot which is more than sixty
times the meat, all the pot is mutar but the first
slice - the chanan - is still osser - efshar
l'schoto osser.
If another issur - blood or treife falls on a
slice of meat which is less than sixty times the issur,
the meat is all osser. According to Rebeinu Efraim,
however, it is not chanan and therefore if it in
turn falls into another pot, we do not need sixty against
the slice of meat but only against the blood or treife
that was swallowed in it. If there is sixty in the pot
the rest of the pot is mutar. According to the
first view we say that the original slice is also mutar,
efshar l'schoto mutar - the blood or treife
is squeezed out of the slice onto which it fell, is mixed
with all the rest of the pot and is cancelled (botel).
According to the second view, efshar l'schoto osser,
the original piece remains osser because it is
not possible to squeeze out the issur - or because
the piece once osser cannot come back to be mutar.
- There is an apparent contradiction in the M’chaber.
In Simon 92:4 he holds like the Tor in the first view, that
in sha’ar issurim the pot can muttar
the slice, that is efshar l'schoto muttar. In Simon
101, the M’chaber holds that in sha’ar issurim
the original slice remains osser, like the Rashba.
Although there are explanations of this contradiction, none
clearly remove the problem.
- The reasoning (svora) of Rebbenu Efraim as to
why there is a difference between boser b’halev
and sha’ar issurim is clear - boser b’halev
are each muter in themselves and it is only in the
combination that they are osser. It follows that
it is the combination itself which is osser, rather
than the component parts. In sha’ar Issurim
on the other hand, it is the issur, whatever it may
be, which causes the mixture to be osser and therefore
the issur element can be considered separate from
the heter element.
- According to this we have three differences between boser
b’halav and sha’ar issurim:
a. Chanan as we have explained according to most
Poskim is a din only in boser b’halev
because of the svora of Rebbeinu Efraim.
b. Efshar l'schoto osser according to the Tur is
a din in boser b’halev only, because
in sha’ar issurim the rest of the pot can
come back and m'vutel the original drop of issur
which has a separate identity.
c. The din of chetsi shiur (half a measure).
In boser b’halev since the combination is
the issur, we only need a shiur of the combination
and not of each individual element. to create an issur
which would have a punishment of lashes (malkus)
if someone were to eat such a quantity of the combination
intentionally. In sha’ar issurim on the other
hand a shiur of the mixture is not sufficient to
have a din of malkus. There must be a shiur
of the issur itself.
- There is an halachic analysis (chakira) in the
svora that boser b’halev is a din
in the combination.
- According to Tosfos, even though the combination is
osser, in a case that it is possible to separate
the elements, then the slice of issur may not go
on to osser other pieces. For example, if the milk
fell on a slice that was boiling already in a pot and
expelling taste of meat into the pot before the milk fell
on it, the slice of meat will continue to send out the
taste of meat alone as long as the pot remains boiling,
and would not osser the rest of the pot. Also,
if that slice which swallowed milk were to touch another
hot piece without any sauce between them, it also would
not osser the second piece.
- According to the Ran however, the moment the milk falls
on the first slice it is now a body of issur and
whatever comes out of it, has the din of boser
b’holev, is osser and will osser
that which contacts it or absorbs from it.
- According to this chakira there are possibly
two explanations of the strict view (chumra) of
the Rashbah that efshar l'schoto is osser
in sha’ar issurim. In the view of Tosfos it
is impossible to remove the issur completely from
the original piece, and that is why the original piece
should itself remain issur. If it were, in practice,
possible to remove all the issur, and there would
be no doubt that any issur would remain, then according
to this view, the original piece could revert to being
mutar. The other view in the Rashbah, which seems
to be the Ran, is that the din is that the slice
of issur remains issur even if all the issur
could be removed.
SourceMaterial 
|
