Shiur 20-29

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.

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.

Review Answers Shiur 22

1. "Raiach milsa" means "odors have significance." This means that even the smell of a food can transfer taste to another food.
2. If both neveila and basar shchuta are kachush, it is mutar l'chatchila to roast them together even in a small closed oven according to the Shach (in the name of the Rashba). However, the Sifsai Da’as says that this only applies by bread since we are not experts to differentiate between kachuch and shamian.
3. If bread is baked with meat, we are more machmir to say reach milsa to osser the bread with milk unless the oven was completely open. This is because the bread can clearly be eaten b'heter with meat. However, is no other bread is available it may be eaten with milk.
4. If issur and heter are cooked together and only the heter is closed in a pot, even in a small closed oven the heter remains mutar.
5. Issur charif is more machmir than issur mashehu. According to the Rama, issur charif is ossur b'dieved even if the big oven is open Issur mashehu is mutar b’hefsed m’rubeh in a partially open big oven.
6. If issur is cooked under a machvat and then heter, according to Rama the heter is mutar since the issur did not give off zaiya. Rav Akiva Eiger is machmir in this case even if the issur did not give off zaiya since raiach will go into a kli and the zaiah will draw it out.
7. Bread baking in the oven is expanding from both the yeast and the water that is boiling out of the dough and causing it to rise. Hot bread that is cooling absorbs air from its surroundings as the water vapor inside cools and condenses. Thus hot bread placed near the opening of a wine barrel will absorb more raiach than bread baked with meat (Rav Dovid Bendory).
8. It is ossur to smell a rose if the rose is still in the years of orla. This is because the purpose of the rose is to give scent, so its scent is ossur during orla.

Review Answers Shiur 23

1. In the case of yavaish b'yavaish min b'mino, although according to some Rishonim 60 is needed, l’halacha it is batel chad b’trai. This is because even if we come to cook the pieces, it will be a case of min b'mino v'aino mino and will still not come to an issur d'oraita.
If it is min b'aino mino, we need 60 to mevatel the issur. This is because if we cook it we will come to eat an issur d'oraita unless there is 60.
2. There are 4 opinions for how the ta'aruvet can be eaten:
1. Tur / Rosh: One person can eat all the pieces, even all at the same time. Once the issur is batel it becomes heter.
2. Rashba: One person can eat all the pieces but not at the same time. When the first piece is eaten we say the issur is in one of the other two. After that piece is eaten, we say that the issur was already eaten to matir the other two pieces.
3. Tosefot: All three pieces can be eaten but not by one person. Each person can say that the other person ate the ossur piece.
4. Rashi: One piece must be thrown away or given to a goy. We say that piece was the issur and thereby matir the other two pieces.
3. In a case of chad b'trei where the two smaller pieces together are only slightly bigger than the bigger piece, we say:
Shach - everything is mutar because any two pieces have a rov over the third piece;
Minchas Yaakov - everything is ossur (d'rabbanan) because chad b'trei is dafka; that is, there must be a 2:1 ratio of heter to issur. (D'oraita the Minchas Yaakov agrees that everything is mutar.)
4. According to the Shach isur d'rabbanan yavaish b'yavaish min b'aino mino is batel chad b'trei.
5. Nodeh is a factor in being able to mevatel issur before the issur is cooked because it is our knowledge of the taaruvet that makes bitul happen; without our knowledge there is no bitul.

Review Answers Shiur 24

1. The machloket between R' Meir and the Chachamim is over whether bundles containing spices that are ossur as kalai hakerem are batel in 200 (like all kalai hakerem) or are not batel as davar sheb'minyan. The machlokes is R' Meir holds that all davarim sheb'minyan are not batel; Chachamim hold that only the specific 6 davarim are not batel.
2. R' Yochanan holds that R' Meir said "es shedarko limnos" meaning that only items which are *always* sold by count are not batel. Reish Lakish holds that R' Meir said "kol shedarko limnos" meaning that R' Meir includes items which are generally sold by count but sometimes are sold by weight.
3. L'ma'aseh, we all hold today that eggs are a davar sheb'minyan. The halacha depends on time and place and today eggs are always sold b'minyan.
4. The Mechaber holds like R’ Akiva. The Rama holds like R’ Meir according to R' Yochanan. The Maharshal holds like Reish Lakish.

Review Answers Shiur 25

1. The din of kavua comes from Devarim where we learn that if a man hates his neighbor and ambushes him to rise up against him and kills him he is chayav for murder. From the extra word "lo" (him) in the pasuk we learn that if a Jew throws a rock into a group of 10 people, nine of whom are Jews, we don't say that he intended to kill a Jew and is chayav mita rather we look at it as 50/50 and therefore he is patur.
2. We follow the rov based on the pasuk achrei rabim l'hatot – do not follow the mistake of the majority but in other cases you should follow the rov.
3. The din of rov does not apply if the items are kavua -- either in designated and known places or knowable (like people) and we see that the item was taken from the kavuah.
4. The difference in halacha between parush l'fanainu and parush lo l'fanainu is that parush l'fanainu falls under the din of kavua since the safek starts in the place of the kavuah, but lo l'fanainu falls under the din of rov. If there are 9 shops of kosher meat and 1 piece of treif meat and we see one being taken from the kavuah, it is ossur by the din of kavua; if 1 piece was taken out of the shops but we did not see it taken it is mutar because we say it came from the rov.
5. We make a gezaira of basar shenitalem min ha-ayin because maybe a non-Jew or bird switched the kosher meat for a treif piece. For example, I send my non-Jewish housekeeper to buy meat. She comes home with a piece of meat but the label has fallen off and it is not sealed with a kashrut seal. The meat is basar shenitalem min ha-ayin and is ossur. If there were no such gezaira, then if the majority of the stores sold kosher I could assume this is basar she-nimtza and it came from the rov and is kosher.
6. The 3 types of kavua are:
1. Kavua d'oraita. The classic case: Nine stores sell kosher meat; one sells treif. I buy meat and bring it home but I don't know which store I bought it from. This meat is ossur d'oraisa.
2. Taaruvot Chanuyot: One shop has treif, you don't know which one. You know which store you bought from. According to the Shach it is assur d'oraisa, according to the Pri Chadash it is assur mid'rabbanan.
3. Kavua d'rabbanan. Dealing with chatichot. The issur is not Nikar and is batel m'doraisa, but because if is davar chashuv/sheb'minyan/Chr'l/ it is not batel m'drabbanan.
7. The Ra'ah holds that in all cases the parush is ossur -- we always hold by kavua l'mafreah. The Ra'ah says that kavua establishes a gilui milta l'mafrea -- a retroactive fact.
The Ran and Tosefot hold that in all cases of lo noda, the parush is mutar -- there is no kavua l'mafreah. The reason is that kavua is a chiddush and as a chiddush it only applies from when it is known.
According to the Shach, the Rashba holds that in case two we hold kavua l'mafreah but in case 3 we do not; according to the Pri Chadash, the Rashba holds like the Ran.
The Rosh says that rov applies in a case of lo noda. The Bach says that the Rosh is referring to case 2 and that therefore the Rosh holds like the Ran; the Shach says the Rosh is referring to case 3 and that he ossers even in lo noda in case 1.
8. NEW
9. The Mechaber permits this case because it is a safek s'faika, the Rama holds that this case is assur because the first safek is assur mid'oraisa therefore we can not build a safek s'faika. The Shach explains that the Mechaber permits this case because it is a chidush.
10. NEW
11. The Shach in a hefsed m'rubeh allows the ta'aruvos by pirush lfanainu -- provided the chatichos are not all eaten at the same time. This is because we have a combination of the Ran and the Rashba.

Review Answers Shiur 26

1. According to the Rashba the pieces that are not r'yua l'hischabed are mutar m'ikar hadin, according to the Tur they are assur m'ikar hadin.
2. He says that the Rashba is referring to case 2.
3. 1. The Tur understood that the Rashba is referring to case 2 which is assur mid'oraisa.
2. Since part of the chaticha is assur the other part is also assur.
4. In Simon 101 there is only one piece of issur therefore if the piece cut is the issur it does not affect the other pieces. In our case since there is more than one piece of issur the others are also assur.
5. The Taz and Shach did not have the word "likach" in the Mechaber. The Taz infers that pirush lo l'fanainu would be assur. The Shach infers that if it was taken b'dieved it is assur.
6. According to the Taz since they are from one piece they have one din. According to the Shach because people will take from the pieces that are r'yua l'hischabed.
7. According to the Shach in a private home the aino r'yua l'hichabed are mutar, according to the Taz even in a private home they are assur.
8. a) Assur, they are ossur by kavua d'rabbana.
b) Mutar, they are parush lo noda and are thus parush from the rov.
c) According to the Chelkas Mechokek they are both mutar. According to the Bais Hillel they are both assur. According to the Shach the half in the store is assur but the half removed is mutar.
9. a) Rabbainu Tam holds that there is no need to make a gezaira shema yikach because no one is taking anything from the ta'aruvos. R' Yitzchak holds that parush m'maila is ossur because someone will take something from the remainder (shema yikach) if we permit the parush m'maila.
b) The Mechaber holds that shema yikash does not apply. The Shach and Taz hold like the Rosh that parush m'maila is ossur.
10. 1. Only if was sperated by the action of a Jew is it assur.
2. Only animals are permitted.
3. Only if it wandered off on its own is it permitted.
4. Only by chullin is it permitted.
11. According to the Rashba no, according to the Rama yes. The Rama holds it is mutar if it was dispersed but acc. to the Shach this is only if the person did not know that it was assur to disperse them.

Review Answers Shiur 27

1. Talinun l'kula means that "we assume that if 1 piece of the taaruvet was destroyed, it was the ossur piece." We can make such an assumption because it is a safek sfaika or because the issur was d'rabbanan in the first place (d'oraita it was botal), so we can make an assumption l'kula to permit it.
2. 1) If it fell into the sea by itself.
2) If it was eaten.
3) If it was thrown into the sea before the ta'aruvos was known.
4) If it was eaten by a dog or non-Jew.
3. The Shach and Taz make a gezeira to ossur the taarovet if a chaticha is accidentally eaten; the Mechaber does not.
4. They must be eaten two at a time, since one is certainly mutar we put the other on the same chazaka.
5. It is ossur for one person to eat the entire ta'aruvos. Two people may not all at once according to the Rama, the Taz holds that it may be eaten by two people at once but bends to the Rama.
6. According to the Rashba and Tosefos the second ta'aruvos is mutar but not all at once. According to Rashi and the Rambam the second ta'aruvos is assur. This is based on the girsa in the Gemora.
7. If a chaticha fell from the 2nd ta'aruvos into a 3rd, the second ta'aruvos is mutar to eat according to Rashi and Tosefos even all at once, according to the Rambam and Mechaber the second ta'aruvos remains assur.
8. If the Gemora includes the words acharos b'acharos, the second taarovet is ossur and only the third is permitted. If these words are not included then the second ta'aruvos is mutar (but not all at once).
9. The Mechaber permits a dshl"m in a sofek sfeika (just like anything else). The Rama only permits is in a case of need. The Shach ossers it unless there is a hefsed m'rubeh -- he says that it is never botal no matter how many ta'aruvos occur because we can just wait until it becomes heter and then matir everything.
10. In the case of an egg laid on the second day of Yom Tov. If it is a safek it is mutar. This is because:
1) The second day of Yom Tov is only a minhag.
2) Yom Tov is usually a need.
3) It is a safeg s'faika in the guf not of a ta'aruvos.

Review Answers Shiur 28
Bendory
1. Safek s'faika comes from a case in the Gamara where a man says that his new wife was not a betula. Her defense is a sofek s'faika: maybe she was anusa, and if she wasn't anusa, maybe her betula was lost before she was engaged.
2. The husband is believed in the case because he is a Kohen, so even given the safek s'faika she is ossur to him.
3. Examples of a sofek s'faika...
a) In one guf: A shachut chicken is found to have a broken bone. Maybe the bone was broken after it was shachut, and if it was broken before, maybe it didn't puncture the lung.
b) In two ta'aruvot: a neveila ChR"L falls into 3 pieces min b'mino; one of the pieces falls into another 3 pieces min b'mino. The second ta'aruvet is mutar by s"s -- maybe this piece is not the one that fell from the first ta'aruvet, and if it is, maybe it is not the nevaila piece.
c) 1 guf and 1 ta'arovet: a sofek treif ChR"L falls into 3 other pieces min b'mino. Maybe this piece is not the sofek treif, and if it is, maybe it isn't treif. This is not a valid s"s unless the sofek treif is d'rabbanan.
4. If the issur is d'rabbanan, the Mechaber will forbid a sofek guf sofek ta'aruvos; the Rama will permit it.
5. If a sofek guf sofek ta'aruvet are nodah b'yachad, the Mechaber will matir an issur d'oraita by s"s; the Rama forbids it.
6. A s"s is stronger than a chazaka. The proof is that a living animal is sofek treifa until it is shechted and checked. But if we find a broken bone, we can permit the chicken by s"s -- maybe it broke after the shechita and maybe it didn't puncture the lung.
7. The requirement of nehepach is that you have to be able to reverse the chronological order of the sofeks that make up the s"s and still have a s"s that makes sense. For example, if a knife was found to be pagum after a shchita, you can't say "maybe it was nicked on the bone, and if not, maybe it was nicked on the last part of the simonim." If you try to reverse it, you get "maybe it was nicked on the last part of the simonim, and if not, maybe it was nicked on the bone." This doesn't make sense chronologically -- the simonim are cut before the bone, and if the bone was cut before the bone, then the shechita is not kosher, so this s"s is not nehepach.
8. If the sofek d'rabbanan is a sofek on a d'oraita, we don't say sofek d'rabbanan l'kula. For example, if treif is mixed up and is botal b'rov (d'oraita) but remains ossur as a ChR"L, we don't matir a piece by saying it is sofek issur d'rabbanan. The d'rabbanan sofek issur on any given piece is really a d'oraita issur.

Review Answers Shiur 29

1. Tolin means ‘make an assumption’. It is used in a situation where there is a doubt as to whether a ta’aruvos is mutar or not. We can make an assumption that it is mutar based on various criteria.
2. Usually 50% heter is enough to say tolin, however by issur mashehu rov heter is needed.
3. The issur must be d'rabbanan or by an issur d'oraisa it must be batel mid'oraisa.
4. According to the Shach case three is worse because we know that issur fell in to one of the pots. According to the Taz case two is worse because we know that something fell into the pot.
5. d'sh'l'm
6. case two