Taaruvot 10-19

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 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 12

1) We learn nt"lf from neveila l'ger. The pasuk says that we should give a neveilah to the ger who lives among us; we learn that food which is suitable for the ger to eat is neveilah but that which is unsuitable is not neveilah -- rather it is mutar.

2) The taste of a bad tasting bug is batel. Regarding the bug itself, if the bug originally tasted good and is now l'fgam (not fitting to eat) that it is batel. If the bug originally tastes bad then it is not batel. However, the Chavas Da'as holds that even a bad tasting bug that tastes worse than its original taste is batel.

3) The Rashba holds that as long as the issur is in the minority it is batel if it is Lifgam.

The Ran holds that if the issur makes the food taste bad but increases the volume of the food such that you are happier with the increased volume than you are saddened by the lifgam taste, the food is ossur even though it is l'fgam.

4) If the issur gives no taste, the Shach learns from gid haneseh that it is batel b'shishim, R' Akiva Eiger holds that it is batel b'rov if it gives no taste.

5) While the food is hot, the food is mutar according to the Shach. The Pri Chadash holds that even when it is l'fgam it is ossur. The Pri Megadim is maikil, and the Kaf Hachaim is maikil in a hefsed m'rubeh. Later, when it cools, it is ossur according to all opinions.

6) The Rama does not rely on not bar not in our case because:
1. He is worried that the spoon will touch the side of the pot and give taste without going through the food and thus not be not bar not d'hetera (The Taz in 94:7 says that the Rama is not worried about this).
2. By cooking in order to be muter we need 3 no'ts of heter in order not to ossur a pot that is l'shvach. Therefore if the spoon has ossur blias in it (because they came from something that was l'shvach) there will only be 2 no'ts, one from the spoon to the food and one from the food to the pot.

7) He wants to teach us that the taste imparted to the honey is lifgam even in the case of a ben yoma pot.

8) It is a machloket whether meat in honey is lifgam. The Taz says that it is not lifgram; the Rambam says it is. The Mechaber holds that it is lifgram but not if there are also onions and spices present.

L'ma'aseh for Sefardim in a hefsed m'rubeh one can be maikil that meat in honey is lifgam but for Ashkenazim it is lishvach.

Review Answers Shiur 13

1) because the blias from the kli are lifgam and nt"lf is mutar b'dieved.

2) It is a gezaira lest we come to use a ben yomo kli.

3) A 12-month-old kli that was used the food...
1. ...is mutar because the blias are like afar. (Chacham Tzvi)
2. ...is mutar if it was originally only used for cold food, but if it was used for hot food is ossur. (Panim Meiros)
3. ...is ossur even if it was only used for cold food, but we are maikil if the issur was yayin nesech. (Davar Shmuel)

4) According to Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, a kli is considered to be aino ben yomo if it has not been used for cooking during the night. The blias then become lifgam.
According to the Rashbam, a kli is considered to be aino ben yomo if it has not been used for cooking for a period of 24 hours.

5) Leinas Laila starts at shkiya. According to the Kaf Hachaim everyone agrees that it ends at daybreak. According to the Darchai T'shuva it is a machlokes.

6) If a pot is balua with sha’ar issurim and it was used to cook water it is aino ben yomo...
...from the time of the issur. (Smak)
...from the time of the water. (Sefer Hatrumah)
The Sefer Hatrumah holds that the water becomes ch'n'n and "re-ossurs" the pot, so we start counting from the water. The Smak holds by ch'n'n but only in the case where there is mamashut. Since this is a case of blias only, there is no ch'n'n in the water.

7) According to the Mechaber we only count from the water by basar b'chalav. According to the Rama we count from the water even by sha'ar issurim unless there is a hefsed.

8) The Shach holds that since the water has the din of haba m'basar b'chalav which has the din of sha'ar issurim, therefore the Mechaber should agree that even by basar b'chalav we do not have to count from the water.

9) By Basar B'chalav the Mechaber holds in accordance with the Sefer Hatrumah. If the water was boiled before night began, the water is assur and 24 hours is counted from the time of boiling the water. The Rama, however, holds that we can be maikil and count 24 hours from the time of the issur rather than the time of boiling the water, because linat layla cause the blias to become lifgam. By sha'ar issurim the Mechaber agrees that we count from the issur.

10) The Beit Yosef holds that although we normally rule in accordance with the Sefer Hatrumah, we can rely on the Smak in this case, because we have the opinion of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam that linat layla causes the blias to become pagum. So we count 24 hours from the time of the issur and not from the time of the boiling of the water. The Rama's conclusion in this case is the same.

11) The Rama holds that if there was linat layla between cooking the meat and cooking the milk, and the water was boiled afterwards, the 24 hour period runs from the time of cooking the milk. According to the Shach and Rabbi Akiva Eiger, the Beit Yosef holds otherwise. The Shach says that there is no heter of linat layla here according to the Beit Yosef, so 24 hours are needed from the time of boiling the water. Rabbi Akiva Eiger adds that the Beit Yosef is machmir when the water is cooked before night because the water becomes a neveila. Thus, 24 hours are needed from the time of boiling the water But if the water is cooked after night has passed, since ch'n'n in this case is a d'rabbanan we can be maikil.

Review Answers Shiur 14

1) Heter can not mevatel issur.

In a case of three pieces, which are yavesh, and I don't know which one piece is assur, and which two are mutar, then I say the heter does mevatel the issur, since I don't know which two of the three are mutar. There is a general rule issur is batel brov. However, 10 pieces of heter, and one piece looks like the neveilah piece that just fell into the taaruvot. Now you have 11 pieces, two of them look the same. One is neveilah. I don't say the 9 pieces are mitztaref to mevatel the issur, they are not part of my heter, since they are not part of my safek. The only part that is safek, is the peice that looks like neveilah. At this point I only have one against one, this is not enough because it is not batel brov.

Another example is solid in a liquid, since the liquid is not the part of the safek it does not help to be mevatel the solid b'rov.

2) One receives malkos by the eight shratzim for eating the size of a lentil while sha'ar issurim only receives malkos for a k'zayis. This is a chumra regarding the 8 shratzim. Because an adasha of sheretz brings tuma, the same quantity receives malkos. Further, according to the Rama, the Rabannan gave that quantity of a sheretz the din of biriah.

3) The Shach and Taz disagree in the case that the achbar was cut up in such a way that it cannot be removed.

The Taz holds that the achbar is not batel because it is a case of yaveish b'lach. This makes the achbar nikar even if it can't be strained and even if it can't be seen.

The Shach holds that if the issur cannot be separated it has the din of yaveish b'yaveish. The reason the achbar is ossur is because we are choshesh that when eating you will eat an adasha which is ossur.

The nafka mina is by sha'ar issurim. If this were not a sheretz, the Shach would matir it because you are not going to come to eat a kazayit. The Taz would ossur it because it is yaveish b'lach.

4) Bees' legs are botal in honey even though they are nikar because...
Taz -- they are an etz b'alma (like dry atzamot).
Shach -- you cannot separate the issur so it has the din of yaveish b'yaveish and is thus batel b'rov.

5) Yaveish b'yaveish min b'aino mino is batel if the issur is not nikar. For example, if I have diced baked apple that is ossur (because it was cooked with yayin nesech) and a piece of it gets mixed in with 60 times as much diced baked pear (which was cooked in kosher wine), the mixture is yaveish b'yaveish min b'aino mino. There is no way to identify the diced apple so it is not nikar, but it is batel b'shishim in the pears.

6) According to the Mechaber the shuman is mutar since the achbar gives a bad taste. According to the Rama, if it possible that hot shuman was poured on the achbar then the shuman is assur even if there is 60. This is because the achbar will osser every klipa. If hot shuman was not poured on the achbar and the shuman is hard then all that is needed is a n'tila since it is a safek s'faika.

7) According to Chasam Sofer they do. The Pischei Tshuva brings sources that indicate they don't.

8) 60 is needed against the blias of a fly if the fly is kavush in whiskey and then removed.

9) Gilyon Marsha (8) in the name of the Shach (84:30) states that worms are not repulsive, therefore you need 60x. The Taz (84:15), Minchas Yaakov and Mishb'tzos Zahav disagree and consider them repulsive.

Review Answers Shiur 15

1) Gemora Pesachim notes that it is a chiddush by bb"ch meat kavush in milk for 24 hours is mutar. We learn that if this is a chiddush by bb"ch, then by sha'ar issurim kavush for 24 hours is ossur.

2) By the time kavush occurs the kli blios are lifgam. Lifgam blios do not osser food.

3) The Issur v'heter holds that the entire kli is assur.
The Taz holds that the kli is assur k'dai klipa.
The Pri Megadim holds that the entire kli is assur.

4) Kli Cheres - A new kli cheres absorbs immediately even if the food is cold. If the kli is glazed, or has been used 3 times, or has been used continuously for half a day (or quarter of a day according to another version of the text), it absorbs after 24 hours.
Wood - absorbs only after 24 hours according to all.
Metal - According to the Issur v'heter, it does not absorb, and according to the Taz, it absorbs k'dai klipa,
Glass - The Pri Megadim states that in a hefsed m'rubeh, it does not absorb.

5) The Shach says that kavisha is mefatem issur shamain to the portion above the water line. Unlike melicha and tzli, we do differentiate between shamain and kachush in kavisha. The Pri Megadim, Rabbi Akiva Eiger and the Chavat Da'at all disagree with the Shach in respect of tzir, and give tzir the din of melicha, because it is salty, therefore the whole piece is assur immediately. In all other cases of kavush, Rabbi Akiva Eiger holds that kavush does not spread issur shamain above the water level. The Pri Megadim says to be machmir like the Shach if there is no hefsed m'rubeh.

6) Sofek kavush means that we aren't sure if the kavisha was for a full 24 hours. In such cases, the Rama is machmir and holds that sofek kavush is kavush -- except in a case of basar b'chalav where we matir sofek kavush. The Taz argues with this and says that a sofek (sofek kavush) cannot overpower a chazaka (the food has a chazaka of heter) to osser.

7) 1. It was a case of sofek kavush.
2. The issur is based on an asai rather than a lo-ta'aseh.
3. Perhaps the non-Jew is lifgam.

8) If a chaticha falls into tzir, it is immediately ossur k'dai klipa according to the Mechaber and kulo according ot the Rama. This is because tzir is like melicha, not kavisha.

9) According to the Mechaber vinegar has the din of tzir, however this contradicts Simon 104. According to the Shach it has the din of water. The Magen Avraham differentiates between strong vinegar and weak vinegar.

10) Between 6 and 18 minutes.


Review Answers Shiur 16

1)A kli shaini will not cook. The proof is from the gemora in Shabbos. According to the Rashba it will be maflit and mavlia a klipa. The proof is from shechita. According to the Tur it will be maflit and mavlia b'kulo.

2) If the food is a liquid, according to the Rashal the liquid begins to cool when it touches the cool sides of the kli sheini; thus liquids in a kli sheini doesn't cook (but solids do). According to the Rama, liquids hold heat better (i.e., they cool slower) than solids, so since a liquid in a kli sheini will not cook neither will a solid.

3) According to the Bach, hot meat in a kli sheini that was cut with a milchig ben yomo knife is mutar but the knife is assur. The meat in the kli sheini is hot enough to maflit meat blias and cause them to be absorbed into the knife but not hot enough to maflit milk blias from the knife and boleah them into the meat.

4) Whether or not kli rishon on the fire cooks if it is not yad soledet bo is a machloket:
Rashal -- We make a harchaka and say that it cooks lest we come to leave it there until it gets hot.
Taz -- Kli rishon doesn't osser unless it is yad soledet bo.
Shach -- It doesn't cook, but we are machmir to osser the food k'dai klipa.

5) A kli sheini does not cook, but l'chatchila it does mavlia, maflit, or both. The Shach holds that it will ossur a klipa and is maikil in a hesed for example a kli cheres.

6) According to the Rashal a kli shaini will not be maflit and mavlia simultaneously. According to the Bach a kli shaini will not be maflit and mavlia simultaneously will not maflit taste that is absorbed in something else

7) (a) Rama - the heter is assur k'dai klipa at the point where the issur and heter touched.
Taz, citing Rashal - Everything is assur, but we can be maikil and say that it is assur k'dai klipa in a hefsed merubah. Shach - the heter is assur k'dai klipa.
(b) Rama - the heter is assur k'dai klipa at the point where the issur and heter touched. The Taz and Shach agree.

8) (a) Rama and Shach - both assur k'dai klipa.
Taz - Basar assur k'dai klipa and chalav assur kulo. In a hefsed m'rubeh, we can be maikil and say that it is assur k'dai klipa.
(b) Rama and Shach - both assur kdai klipa.
Taz - chalav assur k'dai klipa and basar assur kulo, but in a hefsed m'rubeh we can be maikil as above.

9) According to the Maharshal there is no din tata gavar by kailim. Thefore, even if the food is hot and the kli is cold it will osser kulo. According to the Shach a kli follows the regular rules of tata gavar.

10) If cold food is poured into hot food.

Review Answers Shiur 17

1) This means that that which has become issur (by absorbing some pleitat issur) does not, in turn, have the power to spread this issur further that the original issur could have spread. For example, salt used to salt meat absorbs blood from the meat. Even though the salt is neveila from the blood, and even though the salt can spread beyond 60 because it gives such a strong taste, the blood in the salt can only spread up until 60. So if the salt falls into soup where it is less than 1/60 but it can still be tasted, the soup is still mutar because the blood is botal b'shishim.

2) This is learned from the fact that a klipa or n'tila that is assur will not consequently osser the rest of the piece.

3) This din appears to be in contradiction to reach milta which says that a substantial odor of issur is able to spread issur. By raiach milta, we learn that heter shamen will mefatem issur kachush and cause the issur to spread by pi-puah.

4) If heter shamen is roasted next to issur kachush, the heter is ossur until 60. This is because the shamen will go into the issur, mefatem the issur, and cause the issur to mefapeah throughout the heter.

5) The Taz holds that issur kachush absorbed in heter shamen will not spread with the shamen. His proof is 69:18 where a piece of meat is salted in a kli she-einu menukav. The meat outside of the tzir is mutar even if the mean is shamen because the ossur blood and tzir cannot mefatem.

6) The Gilyon Maharsha brings 4 types of pitum:
1. Shamen absorbed in issur kachush will carry our issur blias with the shamen;
2. A chaticha of shamen that abosrbs kachush blias will spread the kachush with its own blias;
3. Issur balua shamen will spread on its own from one piece to another;
4. Shamen that is balua along with an issur balua will spread the issur along with it.

7) The Taz argues with 1 and 4:
1. This is like 69:18 brought in answer #4. The shemen will spread but will not mefatem the issur and carry it where it couldn't spread on its own.
4. The Taz rejects this by the same svora.

8) According to the Pri Chadash if the issur is shamain you do not have to remove a n'tila. If the issur is kachush then a n'tila must be removed. According to R' Akiva Eiger even by shamain a n'tila does not have to be removed because the part that became assur is batel b'rov.

Review Answers Shiur 18

1) 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.

2) NEW

3) 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.

4) 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.

5) 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.

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.

9) NEW

10) NEW

11) NEW





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. NEW
9. NEW
10. 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.
11. The Mechaber holds of tata gavar by melicha but the only ramification is if the issur is shamain, salted and on the bottom.