|
|
Rabbi Yehudah Deri's Shiurim on Yorah Deah
Shiur 2 - "A drop of milk
that fell on meat"
Translated and transcribed by:
Rabbi Yacov Yitzchak Abrahams
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
- The chidush
(new teaching) of the din of chanan
is that if milk falls on meat and the meat is less than sixty the amount
of milk the meat is then osser and
becomes a chanan. That meat now mixed
in other meat will osser the other meat
unless there is sixty in the other meat against the slice which is a chanan and not only against the milk that was
swallowed in the original slice of meat.
In the
din of chanan there are three shitot (systems):
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.
Source Material
|
