Shiur 2: "Official" Answers updated 9/18/05
Review Answers Shiur 2, Rav Aharon Schenkolewski
1) Ta'am k'ikar either comes from a pasuk (R"T) or is d'rabbanan (Rashi). The two pasukim in question regard (1) that a nazir cannot drink water in which grapes have been soaked and (2) that the kelim of Midyan must be kashered before use. Both pasukim imply that the taste absorbed (either in the water or the kelim) has the din of the mamashut itself.
2) Both the Mechaber and the Rama (who doesn't comment on it) hold like R"T that ta'am k'ikar is d'oraita.
3) The Pri Megadim says that ta'am k'ikar may be d'rabbanan in a case where it leads to a kula. For example, a piece of meat absorbed blios of a tameh animal that was not batel b'shishim. That meat then falls into boiling milk where it is not batel. If ta'am k'ikar is d'oraisa, the meat was assur when it fell in, but since the meat was assur already there is no din of ch'n'n of bb"ch. If ta'am k'ikar is d'rabbanan, we would be strict and say that the meat still had the din of meat and thus there is ch'n'n bb"ch. Either way all the food in question is ossur, but the nafka mina is if there is an issur ha'na'ah.
4) According to the Rama min b'mino is defined by name; according to the Shach by taste. There is no machlokes (1) if the name and taste are the same or (2) if the issur is ossur b'mashehu (such as yayin nesech or chametz on Pesach).
5) "Nishpach" refers to a mixture of issur v'heter whereby we cannot measure whether or not the heter is 60 times the issur. This may be because it spilled (literally "nishpach") or because some of it was eaten.
6) In a case of nishpach, we are machmir when the mixture is min b'she-aino mino and maikil when the mixture is min b'mino. This is because min b'mino is batel+ b'rov d'oraita but in 60 d'rabbanan. Thus if there may have been 60 before it was nishpach and there sure was rov, we can be maikil to matir the rest.
7) The Rashba learns that min b'mino and aino mino is mutar in a case of nishpach because he says to view the aino mino as if it is not there and allow the mino to mevatel the issur b'rov. Once the issur is batel b'rov, the entire mixture is mutar including the aino mino.
8) There are 3 arguments against the Rashba:
1. The issur is still giving taste to the heter aino mino. Though this taste can't be distinguished from the taste of the heter mino, it is still ossur. Thus the aino mino should be assur.
2. The heter of bitul b'rov is not about taste but rather is a g'zeiras hakasuv. Thus just because the issur is batel b'rov doesn't mean it cannot osser the aino mino -- thus again the aino mino is ossur.
3. We do not know if the issur and mino spread evenly. Perhaps the mino does not spread and all the taste that goes into the aino mino is from the issur. Thus the aino mino is ossur.
9) The aino mino is ossur according to the Rashal and Shach but mutar according to the Mechaber and Taz.
10) There are 3 kinds of s'faikot:
1. Sofek shotim. This is a sofek where an individual doesn't know something but we could bring an expert who does know it such as a sofek in a ketem.
2. Sofek hador. This is a sofek that no one knows the answer to such as how much salt is for melicha vs. how much salt for tzli.
3. Sofek in how we measure or estimate -- such as how much milk comes out of a kchal.
11) We cannot rely on our own judgment to determine the amount of issur even if the issur is l'fanainu because:
1. (Ran) we would have a tendency to be lenient;
2. Because it is called da'as shotim
12) According to the Rashba we learn other s'fakot from k'chal. According to the Rosh k'chal is a sofek shotim so we can't learn other s'faikot from there.
13) Only a sofek kol hador can be used to build a sofek s'feika. This is because in a sofek kol hador we are not sure if an issur is present or not, thus it is a valid sofek from which to build a sofek s'faika.
posted by Rabbi Benjamin Rubin, MD at 4:20 PM
3 Comments:
Question #3: We learned in b'b c that when a kosher piece of meat absorbs an issur, the piece is now a nevailah. Nonetheless, it would still be subject to an issur of cooking b'b'c (hence the issur of cooking a McDonald's cheeseburger). Accordingly,if we say taam k'aikar is only d'rabbanan, we can technically say that we still have a kosher piece of meat that is being cooked in milk- clearly an issur di'oraita of b'b c. However, even if we say taam kaikar is d'oraita, we still have a nevailah from a tahor animal that is subject to the prohibition of b'b'c. So where is the kula? Does it matter, perhaps, if the kosher meat absorbed issur from a tameh animal as opposed to stam issur?
Ans from Rav Ahron: You are correct the nafka mina is only by a meat that absorbed blios from a tameh animal.
Question#5: We said that we cannot rely on our own judgement to estimate in a case of l'fanainu because either 1) we would tend to be too lenient or 2) it is a case of safek shotim and we should be able to defer to an expert for a definitive impartial opinion. Yet, once nishpach has occurred we are maikal and accept botel b'rov in a case of min' b'mino because m'dioraita min b' mino is botel b'rov and we can be maikal. Would there be a potential tikkun therefore in a case of l'fanainu to purposely spill the taaruvot?
We have seen this argument in the case of a drop of milk that fell on a piece of meat in a taaruvot where we are advised to stir the mixture as a tikun. The latter case seems to be even more problematic as a tikun since it involves the potential d'oirata issur of cooking b'b'c while nishpach is at the worst a d'rabban? Furthermore, the act of spilling in nishpach would appear not to involve the issur of M' vatlin issur l chatchilla because the mixture is not having anything added to it.
Answer from Rav Channen : You are asking a very good question. In the example you gave it would seem that you are not being m’vatel anything and therefore your actions should be permitted.
However, there is no comparison to the case of tipa because in that case there is no issur since the whole pot is metztaref to be mevatel the issur since we do not know where it fell.
Also, the premise that your actions have no affect is not a heter either. We will learn in Simon 110:6 that in the case of kavuah d’rabbaban it is not muter to throw one piece of the ta’aruvos into the ocean b’yadayim in order to matir that piece (see shiur 6). Even though this does not m’vatel the issur it is still osser to do because you may come to eat from the ta’aruvos without any “tikun”. So too, if we matir you to spill some out, people will come to say that it is muter to eat without spilling anything out.
Furthermore, once you have seen how much food was in the pot, what good is spilling it out going to do? You will be asked how much was there before you spilled it. In the classic case of nishpach the cook did not pay attention how much food was in the pot.
A general question regarding taam kaikar in min b'mino. If we are defining min b' mino by taste there should be no situation of min b'mino where taste of the issur could be differentiated from taste of heter. If it could, it should by definition be min b' aino mino, correct?
Answer from Rav Ahron: Correct.
<< Home