Shiur 21 Offical Answers 1/29/06

Review Answers Shiur 21

1. If fish are poured from a pot to a bowl, according to the R'iva all the fish are assur because the ones in the pot that became assur when the water level dropped below 60 will osser the ones already in the bowl. According to Rabbainu Baruch although some fish become assur they will be batel b'rov in the ones in the bowl.
2. They are arguing if the water is drained and then the fish are poured into the bowl. However, if the fish is poured out together with the water, then according to the Rama even Rabbainu Baruch agrees that all the fish are assur, but according to the Shach Rabbainu Baruch will only osser the fish in this case.
3. We say that the issur is in the Rov.
4. In the case of fish in all scenarios they are mutar but in the case of eggs he agrees that they are assur since there is not rov above the liquid.
5. We do assume that there is issur unless it was already established.
6. 1. It is similar to nishpach.
2. All the parts of the safek can combine to be mevatel the issur.
7. 1. If the water is poured together with the fish they are assur.
2. In the case of eggs they are assur since there is no rov against the assur eggs.
8. Even if the water was poured together with the fish, the Taz holds that they are mutar. This is because there is only a small amount or because it is nufsak hakiluach.
9. Nishpach is only mutar because it is batel mid’oraisa and it is a safek d’rabbanan, however our case is a safek d’oraissa.
10. If they are taken out with a spoon.
11. According to the Mechaber and Rama the blios of a fly are lifgam and therefore 60 is not needed. According to the Shach in the name of the Rashal we have to suspect that the blios of a fly are not lifgam and therefore we need 60 to be mevatel it.

Shiur 20 Offical Answers 1/20/06

Review Answers Shiur 20

1. A piece food that absorbed issur and became assur and now the issur was extracted to the point that it no longer has the taste of issur (however some issur remains).
2. According to the Rashba we say efshaer l’sochato assur even by sha’ar issurim and therefore the piece remains assur. According to the Tur efshar l’sochato is only assur by basar b’chalav but by sha’ar issurim the piece is mutar.
3. According to the Rashba kchal is assur because of efshar l’sochato. Accoridng to the Tur kchal is assur because of a gezaira.
4. According to the Plaisi they are two dinim. According to R’ Akiva Eiger they are one and the same, efshar l’sochato is another way of saying ch’n’n.
5. Issur davuk is where the issur is attached to the heter for example assur fats that are attached to meat. According to the Rama since the issur is davuk it will go into the piece attached to it and give it the din of ch’n’n. According to the Mechaber the fact that the issur is davuk has no ramifications.
6. One reason is that the issur will memaher levloa meaning that it will go into the piece that is attached to before the other pieces. Another reason is that perhaps the piece will be by itself outside the rotav and therefore the rest of the pot can not be metztaref to be mevatel it. By an issur d’rabbanan we do not worry about this second reason since it is only a safek.

Shiur 19 Official answers 1/20/06

Review Answers Shiur 19

1. According to Ravina melicha is like bishul, according to Rav Acha melicha is like tzli. Rav Acha learns his din from Shmuel that says meliach k’rosaiach, kavush k’mevushal. Since kavush is like bishul we can infer that melicha is like tzli.
2. According to the Ramban melicha will not cause an issur shamian to spread more than a klipa whereas tzli will cause shamian to spread into the whole piece. According to the Rashba the difference is that melicha will cause blios to be absorbed a klipa whereas tzli will cause blios to get absorbed a n’tila.
3. According to the Maharam neither salting or roasting will cause fatty blios to go from piece to piece and therefore only the pieces touching the chailev are assur. According to the Rashaba both salting and roasting will cause fatty blios to go from piece to piece and therefore all the piece that touch each other are assur but we can include all the piece to be mevatel the chailev.
4. According to the Maharam chailev does not spread evenly therefore 60 is needed in each piece that touches the chailev. According to R’ Netanel all the pieces touching the chailev are mitztaref to be mevatel the chailev but he is in doubt whether the blios will go into another piece.
5. According to R’ Netanel you can not be mitzraref other pieces that touch the piece that is touching the chailev and therefore the piece touching the chalev is assur if it itself is not 60 against the chailev. According to the Rashba we can be mitztaref all the pieces even the ones that are not directly touching the chailev.
6. In the Raisha the Mechaber says that if many pieces touch the chailev all the pieces are assur and in the saifa he says that if the chailev touches one piece it is batel b’rov. The question is that in the raisha as well it should be batel b’rov since there is only enough chailev to osser one piece.
7. In seif 7 the Mechaber says that by roasting issur shamain spreads from piece to piece like the Rashba and in seif 9 he says that salting does not spread from piece to piece like the Maharam. The question is that neither the Rashba or Maharam differentiate between roasting and salting.
8. The Rama does not hold by tata gavar in melicha. He says that the nature of melach is to spread from piece to piece by touching regardless of direction; it does not "climb" like heat or a flame. Thus if an issur maluach touches heter taful, it doesn't matter which piece is on top -- the heter is assur until 60.
9. The Mechaber holds of tata gavar by melicha but the only ramification is if the issur is shamian, salted and on the bottom.

Shiur 25-30 Photographs

Photos supplied by Rav D Bendory. Click on archives, Nov 2004 and 2005

Shiur 18 Notes and Charts

Shiur 18 "official" Answers as of 1/4/06

 Review Answers Shiur 18

1) The Tur brings the Rashba who holds that although basar b’chalav has a din of issur machmas atzmo and is a nevaila and 60 is needed against the entire ta’aruvos to m’vatel it, still if we separate the meat and milk both may return to muter.

The Shach argues with the Rashba and holds that basar b’chalav is an issur machmas atzmo. Even if the milk is separated from the meat it is still ossur.

2) In simon 92, we see that a piece of meat that is out of the rotev that absorbs a drop of milk becomes ossur by bb"ch if the meat does not have 60 against the milk. If it is assur after being separated it will osser another piece touching it.

3) Issur machmat atzmo is a food that is inherently not kosher such as tameh cheese or neveilah meat. An issur balua is a kosher food that has absorbed a non-kosher food -- such as a piece of meat that absorbs blood. The halachik difference is if the blios will go into another piece without rotav.

4) According to the Maharai so long as the milk and meat are combined it is called an issur machmas atzmo, but if it is separated it is mutar. According to the Shach the din of basar b'chalav can not be removed even if the meat is by itself. Therefore, it always has the din of an issur machmas atzmo.

5) Just as if a garment has shatnez, if a part that does not have linen in it is cut off it can be worn, basar b'chalav as well is mutar if the milk is totally separated from the meat.

6) Although we are not normally proficient to diffreniciate between kachush and shamian, by issur balua we are proficient.

7) Milk is kachush according to the Shach.

8) According to the Taz no, according to the Shach if the meat is shamian it will osser kulo and if it is kachush it will osser a klipa.

Transcription of audio Shiur 18

Transcription of audio shiur Notes:
Rashba Blios Ain Yotzte Bli Rotav (BAYBR), includes BBC. The milk will not go from one piece of meat to the next without Rotav. Even though the BBC is like nevilah and has din of ChNN, regarding this din of BAYBR, we don't consider it a neveilah, and it won't assur another piece.

Tur (as per Shach) Brings down Achronim who interpret the Tur, that BBC can assur another piece without Rotav. •Basar Bchalav is Machmas Issur Atzmo, and is an original issur.
•Davar L'hitkabed: davar machmos atzmo (DMA), Neviela and BBC.
•Milk absorbed in meat is DMA

Mechaber •issur touches another piece and assurs it, needs to be
•Hot
•Machmas issur Atzmo
•Neveila
•Basar B Chalav
Issur Does Not assur another piece that it touches, even if roasted together if it is Issur Balua
•Blios lo Yotze b'lo Rotav


Marshal Milk falls on meat in a pot and you didn't stir, only that piece is assur and we don't say that piece of meat makes other meat assur. Issur Balua does not assur without Rotav, even BBC. •Milk that goes into meat does not come out without Rotav.
•Hot meat and Hot milk together will assur each other.
Disagrees with Tur (he was not exact)

Rama Hot and Hot will Assur even without Rotav, and we don;t differenctiate between lean and fatty


Maharai The meat does not assur the rest of the pot because it is not Gufa shel issur, but why does the milk not assur from BBC, because the milk is an issur balua, and it is Kachush. Since it is Kachush it will not assur.
Absorbed issur, not actual issur: will not assur if it doesn't spread.
The meat is what should be the issur. Milk doesn't spread. Milk is Kachush, lean in BBC it is balua, absorbed issur


Shach Will assur the other pieces of meat a Natila, but not completely. Once we say ELA (efshar Lschoto Assur) and ChNN, then the meat is considered Gufa Issur, and it will assur the other pieces. The milk will not go out, and the meat can assur the other pieces of meat, even though the chalav will not go into the other pieces of meat. ?BBC is gufo issur and will assur other pieces of meat even if only the meat goes across. ONLY a NETILA, because we don't differentiate between Kachush and Shamein, Since it is assur because the meat absorbed milk, it is an issur balua (IB)?. In IB we say we can differentiate, and this is issur balua, so we say we can differenetiate, and consider it Kachush. If it is Kachush, then it assur the other piece a netila.
If the BBC was shamain, then it would assur the other meat totally.


------

Shach 17: Maharai: Mordechai in the name of the RY: Tipas Chalav: The meat which has a drop of milk will not make another piece of meat assur without Rotav. DSLM is only something that is intrinsically assur, and not something that becomes assur. Meat that absorbs milk, is DSLM, so then why does it no assur another piece? It is a mishna in Avodah Zarah, that BBC is Chrl is not Batel. So why does it not assur another piece? BBC as long as it is combined is called an original issur. Even if part of the meat has no milk it is still called BBC. This last point is like Sha-atnez. (one string in a garment. you can't wear the garment, Can't even use the part of the garment that does not have the linen thread. If you cut off a part of the garment that does not have the linen thread, you could use that part. IN BBC, the only part that emparts from the BBC is the meat taste, not any milk, unless there is Rotav. It is as if we cut off a piece of the meat and we know that their is no milk contained in this part of the meat, it would be mutar just like Kilayim. This would be because we have a case in which we could completely separate the milk from the meat. It is no longer BBC, and is mutar.

Efshar Lsochot Assur: ELA. MaharaiOnce it becomes BBC, as long as there is a mashehu, it is assur. If I could completly remove the milk, this would not be done by bishul, and therefore it would be mutar. The Rama comments on Tipas chalav, that if you didn"t stir or cover the pot, the only part assur is the meat the milk fell on. The rest of the pot is OK. If we say that BBC is Gufa Issur, and it would assur another piece without Rotav, then if this was true, the food in the rest of the pot should be assur, even if you didn't stir it. The fact that the Rama says it is not assur if you didn't stir it, means that this piece of meat will not assur other pieces without Rotav.
Chochmas Adam explains according to the Maharai. The meat does not assur the rest of the pot because it is not Gufa shel issur, but why does the milk not assur from BBC, because the milk is an issur balua, and it is Kachush. Since it is Kachush it will not assur.
Blood: when absorb into meat it is Balua. Since by issur balua we can differentiated by Kachush and Shamain, we will say it is Kachush, and will not go from one piece to another. A piece of meat or chicken that was never salted, has its own blood in it, in such a case, if it is salted or roasted, it will assur another piece of meat, because these processes remove the blood from the meat, and if it touches another piece it will assur it. If it is blood that came from some where else, this blood does not come out and will not assur a piece it touches without rotev.

What if the issur is Kachush, and the piece that it is absorbed into is shamain. Does it spread from one piece to another? This is case 2 of Gilyon Marsha in Shiur 17. Shach: The issur balua which is kachush, does not spread from one piece to another. He quotes this from the Tur.
What if the issur balua shamain is hot and falls on cold piece: Shach don't even need a klipa (which is what we usually say for Tata Gavar). PM if not hefsed hold by /Pri Chadash/Pri Toar: need a klipa if issur balua is shamain.
Shach: Balua that comes out of a kli will assur a klipa if there is no Rotev (Degel Moshe). This is Kli to food, but kli to kli, Rotev is needed. Lechatchila one pot which is assur should not touch another pot, or Milchig and fleishig should not touch if they are hot, but is mutar bediavad.