Review Answers Shiur 11 as of 11/22/05

Review Answers Shiur 11

1) According to the Mechaber it is not. R' Akiva Eiger argues that food that will spoil is still a d'sh'l'm. But if the food will completely spoil and be inedible, the Badai Hashulchan says that everyone agrees that it is not.

2) According to the Rama something that has the taste of a d'sh'l'm doe not have the din of a d'sh'l'm. The Taz agrees unless it is added to enhance the food. The Shach holds that taste of a d'sh'l'm gives it the din of the d'sh'l'm.

3) An issur machmat atzmo is an issur that is due to the nature of the food. For example, neveila or tameh meat. An issur balua is an issur that is "swallowed" (absorbed) by heter. For example, kosher meat that absorbed yayin nesech is ossur due to an issur balua.

4) Yes, a d'sh'l'm needs to be nikar before it fell into the ta'aruvos. Thus on Shabbos if juice comes out of grapes directly into wine it is batel.

5) A neder has the din of a d'sh'l'm unless it is a neder to do a mitzvah.

6) Chametz on Pesach...
1. Is not a d'sh'l'm according to the Ran. The Ran holds that food becomes a d'sh'l'm because the din becomes the same and they do not negate each other. Since next Pesach the chametz will become assur again therefore they are not looked at as having the same din.
2. Is a d'sh'l'm according to Rashi. Rashi holds that d'sh'l'm is a gezeira -- why allow bitul of the issur when the whole ta'aruvet can be eaten b'heter!? Thus chametz will become mutar and therefore it is not batel on Pesach.

7) According to the Magen Avraham it is assur to everyone on Shabbos. According to the Chavas Da'as the one that cooked it may eat it on Shabbos since for him there is never a heter.

Review Answers Shiur 10 as of 10/30/05

Review Answers Shiur 10

1) There are 3 possible reasons that a dshl"m is not batel:
1. Rashi -- Since you can eat the ta'aruvos b'heter, therefore the Rabbanan said that you should not eat it b'issur.
2. Ran -- because a mixture of the same type strengthens each other rather than weakens each other. In the case of dshl"m, the issur is not quite completely removed from the din of heter -- since it will become heter again -- thus since the opposing force is weak the Rabbanan say they strengthen each other and it is not batel.
3. Badai HaShulchan in the name of the Kanfai Yonah -- if we allowed the dshl"m to be batel, it would appear that the issur is weak and people will come to be mevatel it l'chatchila.

2) D'sh'l'm is batel in aino mino because...
1. Ran -- In aino mino, they are two different types, so there is no strengthening. The normal laws of bitul hold.
2. Rashi -- Because it is called by the name of the aino mino and this takes it out of the din of d'sh'l'm.

3) The nafka mina between the Ran and Rashi is the beitza treifa that was laid on Yom Tov that got mixed up with other eggs. According to the Ran, the fact that it is a beitza treifa means it is not the same and thus it has no din of d'sh'l'm and thus it is batel b'shishim (actually in 61). According to Rashi since it can be eaten without the issur of Yom Tov (muktza) it has the din of d'sh'l'm and is not batel until Yom Tov ends.

4) We could try to matir an egg sofek born on Y"T when it got mixed up with other eggs by using a sofek sofeika: for any given egg, maybe it isn't the sofeika egg, and if it is, maybe it wasn't born on Y"T.

5) There are 2 possible reasons not to matir the eggs:
1. We do not hold by any S"S for a dshl"m. Even if there were 1000 S"S, you can simply wait and eat the taarovet in complete heter.
2. It isn't a true S"S because these are two different sofekas.
3. D'sh'l'm is not muter any time we have to come on to a ta'aruvos.

6) Salt, water, and flour are min b'mino. The reason is because they come together to make dough and are the essential ingredients in dough. Thus when mixed they "become" min b'mino.

7) According to the Taz chazusa is not batel only if it gives taste. According to the Shach even if there is only appearance without taste it is not batel.

8) The Mechaber 102:3 holds that the treif kli is batel. The Rama says that this is because hagala is costly and it therefore does not have the din of dshl"m. But the Ra'ah argues that since hagala can be done, it is not batel, and the Maharil argues that the cost of hagala is minimal. The Shach therefore says that one should be machmir except in a case of hefsed meruba. And even in a case of hefsed meruba, one should wait 24 hours before using the kli so that it will definitely be mutar mid'oraisa. According to the Taz, all the keilim need to be kashered because there is a chance that they may all be used at once (i.e. together).

9) Whether or not something that is muktza is a dshl"m is a machloket. R' Akiva Eiger holds that it does apply; the Tzlach holds that it doesn't.

Review Answers Shiur 9 as of 10/12/05

Review Answers Shiur 9


1) The Toras Chatas understands the Issur V'heter that it is a ch'r'l. He argues that the cheese is not a ch'r'l because it is an issur balua. The Bach holds like the Issur V'heter and the Taz holds like the Toras Chatas.
The Nekudat HaKesef disagrees with the Torat Chatat's understanding of the Issur v'heter. He argues that the Issur v'heter and the Bach would agree that where chalav treifa is used as a ma'amid, the cheese would not have the din of a ch'r'l, and he therefore holds that the cheese in this case does not have the din of a ch'r'l.

2)Bach, Issur v'heter and Nekudat HaKessef - Yes. This accords with the way in which the Bach and the Nekudat haKessef understand the Torat Chatat.
Taz If the only chashash is that tameh milk was mixed in then no. It is an issur migufo with regard to sfek sfeika because the Chachamim gave it a din of a definite issur and if it is not batel b'rov, we cannot make a sfek sfeika. But in relation to the din of ch'r'l, it is considered an issur balua. This is how the Taz understands the Torat Chatas. However, if there is a possibility that it was made with ohr hakaiva then the Taz would agree that it is a ch'r'l.

3) Cheese made with enough traifa milk that when made into cheese it alone is enough to be a ch'r'l.

4) According to the Taz yes. According to R' Akiva Eiger no.

5) There are 4 opinions as to what state a chaticha needs to be in in order to be R"L:
1. Rosh -- Even if the chaticha needs a lot of processing before serving it is still R"L.
2. Smak -- It is still R"L even if it still needs cutting or is raw.
3. Rashba -- It is R"L if it is still raw but not if it has not been cut to appropriate size for eating.
4. Y"O in the Rosh -- Only if it is ready to serve.

6) The Rama holds by the Smak.

7) The Mechaber holds by the Rashba or the Y"O in the Rosh. In our seif, he seems to hold by the Y"O in the Rosh that only a piece ready to be served is R"L. But in Simon 69 he holds that raw 3-day-old meat can be R"L, thus he seems to hold by the Rashba there.

8) L'ma'aseh, Ashkenazim follow the Rama and Smak. Sepharadim follow the Kaf HaChaim who says that in places where the minhag is to follow the Y"O that is fine; all others should follow the Rashba.

9) Whether or not one piece of gibbin is R"L is a machloket Taz and Mshbetzot Zahav.

10) Ch'r'l depends on time and place because what people consider fitting for guests varies with time and place. For example, we consider a good cut of veal to be R"L, but there are communities where eating veal was considered something to avoid (because of tzar ba'alei chaim). In such a community, veal would not be R"L.