Taaruvot Shiur 1-9

Review Answers Shiur 1

1) "Min b'mino" refers to a mixture of food in other items of the same "type." Thus a mixture of kosher meat with nevaila meat is min b'mino (if they are both from a cow). "Min b'aino mino" is a mixture of foods of one type in another type. Thus a piece of neveila meat that falls into vegetable soup is min b'aino mino.

2) There are 3 methods we use to determine if an issur has rendered heter ossur: kafeila, taste, and 60.

A "kafeila" literaly is a professional chef. We ask the kafeila to taste the mixture and tell us if there is a taste of the issur in it. This only works if it is min b'aino mino.

Taste can also be discerned by a non-expert. Thus a Kohen can taste a mixture of ma'aser and chullin to determine if the ma'aser has given taste to the chullin.

L'ma'aseh, we go by 60. If the heter is 60 times the issur by volume the mixture is permitted. (The issur still needs to be removed if it is nikar, and the mixture is still forbidden even with 60 if you can taste the issur.)

3) "Mas'la't" is "masiach l'fi tumo" and refers to providing information without knowing that the information is of importance. For example, a
piece of nevelah meat falls into my pareve vegetable soup. I tell a non-Jew that I am having an arugemnt with someone whether it has a meat taste.

4) Concerning the non-Jewish taste tester, there are 4 shitot that depend on kafeila and maslat:
1. Rashba -- we require either kafeila or maslat to believe the taster.
2. Rosh -- we require both kafeila and maslat.
3. Tosefot / Ran -- we require kafeila; maslat is irrelevant.
4. Rambam -- we require neither kafeila nor maslat.

5) Rashi will believe a non-Jew kafeila only if the heter is at least 60 times the issur.

6) The Mechaber believes a kafeila. The Mechaber explicitly allows maslat by a non-Jew. The only shitat rishonim to hold this way is the Rashba and he also allows kafeila. Thus the Mechaber holds like the Rashba and allows a kafeila.

7) The Rama does not believe a kafeila -- he holds by 60 in all cases and does not rely on a taste test. This is the halacha l'ma'aseh.

8) The Mechaber relies on maslat in our case even though the law states clearly that we only rely on maslat for eidut isha because:
1. Efshar l'mikam ala -- it is possible to independently verify what the goy said by maslat. After hearing the statement, a Jew can taste it to verify the statement.
2. The Taz says we accept maslat because this is not eidut, it is simply a clarification of facts.

9) The Rama doesn't rely on maslat because (according to R' Akiva Eiger) he wants to be strict by the opinions of all the Rishonim. Because maslat and kafeila are contradictory, he thus holds by neither. The other option would be to have two tasters, one kafeila and one maslat.

10) L'ma'aseh, we do not rely on maslat. We require 60 in all cases.

11) We can rely on the average Jew to determine if a tznon has meat taste. We know this because the Rama specifically said we cannot rely on a non-Jew -- he did not say that we do not rely on a taste tester at all.

12) According to the Taz food that is sofek ossur may be liked (however this will not help determine whether the food is ossur). According to the Shach even if a food is ossur d'rabbanan but mutar d'oraita, we don't allow the food to be tasted at all. According to the Tzemach Tzedek food that is ossur d'rabbanan may be placed in one's mouth if it is ont swallowed. L'halacha the Pri Megadim disagrees.

13) The only food that can be tasted on the tongue without concern that it will be eaten is food that we know is pagum such as food mixed with soap.

Review Answers Shiur 2

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 form k'chal. According ot 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.

Review Answers Shiur 3

1) We measure 60 against the issur even though it has been entirely removed because...
1. We don't know how much taste came out of it, so we assume the worst case (60). Even though this is a sofek l'kol ha-dor the Rashba says it has the din of sofek yachid.
2. The Ran says that if we allowed people to estimate how much taste came out, people would be overly maikil.

2) Because of this, if a pot absorbs issur, we measure 60 against the whole pot unless we know for sure how much issur it absorbed. Thus if we know there was only a kazayit of issur in the pot in the last 24 hours, we measure against the kazayit. If we know the pot is ben yoma but we don't know how much issur was in it, we measure against the whole pot.

3) According to the Raavad in a case that the issur can be completely removed we can estimate how much issur there is. According to most Rishonim even in such a case we can not estimate.

4) The Pri Megadim leaves it as a question. The Chavas Da'as holds that even shamian will not spread into a kli more than a klipa by melicha.

5) This means that if part of a metal spoon is hot we consider the whole spoon to be hot. Therefore, if a spoon that has assur blios absorbed in it is placed in a pot we need 60 against the whole spoon. L'halacha we only need 60 against the part of spoon that is placed in the pot.

6) According to the Plaisi – no. This is because the reason that one must do a tikun is because it has the din of a d'sh'l'm, however if it will get ruined it is not a d'sh'l'm. According to the Gilyon Maharsha – yes. This is because if one can do a tikun it is called b'ain and there is no bitul.

7) According to the Mechaber, there is no din of ch'n'n for sha'ar issurim so their blias never become ch'n'n and never make a kli ch'n'n. The Mechaber is strict by both kli cheres and sha'ar keilim that the blios they absorb become ch'n'n by bb"ch even in a hefsed meruba. However, if there are no blios the kli will not become a ch'n'n even by a kli cheres.

The Rama brings those that say that by a kli cheres even if there are no previous blios in the kli the walls themselves can become a ch'n'n. However, he says that this is only a chumra. Thus a new kli cheres is not ch'n'n in a hefsed meruba by bb"ch or in a hefsed by sha'ar issurim. For sha'ar keilim, the blias become ch'n'n but the kli doesn't.

The Shach holds that only blios absorbed in a kli can become a ch'n'n but not the walls themselves even by a kli cheres. Thus if a new kli (not used in the last 24 hours) can never become a ch'n'n.

Review Answers Shiur 4

1) There are 2 possible reasons that we need 61 to mevatel eggs: (1) eggs are different sizes, so we require 61 to be sure there are 60; (2) an egg is a briah so the rabbis made a heiker (by requiring more than 60) to "remind" us of this.

The N"M comes in a few cases:
1. If the ossur egg is mixed with other food, by the first reason you only need 60; by the second (briah) you still need 61.
2. If the ossur egg is scrambled with other eggs, by the first reason you still need 61; by the second you don't.

2) Ta'am k'ikar after 60 is d'oraita according to R' Akiva Eiger's reading of the Ran; it is d'rabbanan according to the Shach.

3) Ossur spices that are mixed b'mino are botel b'60 according to the Shach because their taste is not nikar. R' Akiva Eiger forbids them because they would give taste to aino mino.

4) Issur can indeed mevatel issur. If a boiling pot contains 59 measures of heter and one measure of each of two different issurim fall in, each of the issurim combines with the 59 measures of heter to mevatel the other issur. Similarly, if 60 measures of heter mevatel a measure of issur, then a measure + 1/60th of a different issur falls in, the first issur combines with the heter to mevatel the second issur.

5) This also holds for meat and milk. If 30 parts of pareve are mixed with 1 part of meat and that mixture falls into a mixture containing 29 parts of pareve with 1 part of milk, each min will combine with the pareve to mevatel the other min. The food remains pareve.

6) Everyone holds that 1 issur is mevatel another in the case of meat and milk like that described in #5 above.

Review Answers Shiur 5

1) Based on Tosefot, the source that issur is batel in 60 is a kabala that Rabbanan had (halacha l'Moshe mi-Sinai). As an asmachta, they based this sevora on the zaroa besheila. When the Nazir brought his korban, the kohen received the zaroa from it. In spite of the fact that the zaroa was cooked with the entire korban -- thereby imparting taste to it -- the rest of korban was mutar to the nazir.

2) If the bones of the korban and zaroa are included, the zaroa is 1/60 of the korban. If the bones are not included, the zaroa is 1/100 of the korban.

3) Both the Mechaber and the Rama agree that heter bones are mitztaref with heter to mevatel issur. The Mechaber also includes issur bones with the heter; the Rama only includes issur bones in a hefsed m'rubeh.

4) This depends of whether bones are mevatel the issur because they have lachluchis. If they are mevatel the issur regardless of lachluchis then eggshells and rocks are also included. If bones are only mevatel the issur because they have lachluchis then eggshells and rocks are not included. The halacha is like the Chavas Da'as therefore eggshells and bones are not included.

5) Even if lachluchis is not necessary to be mevatel, nonetheless a pot is not mitztaref to mevatel the issur because it is not submerged completely in (surrounded by) rotev. This is the halacha l'ma'aseh – however, a submerged heating element of an electric pot would depend on the two sides mentioned in answer 4.

6) If a piece of assur meat that had bones was cooked and then fell into a heter pot, both the Mechaber and Rama include the issur bones as part of the issur. However, according to the Mechaber if we knew how much meat there was originally we only need 60 against the original meat and not against the bones.

7) Even if there was 60 at one time if there is not 60 now it is not batel. This is because we are choshesh that the issur did not shrink in proportion to the heter.

8) If we did not see the issur when it fell in but we are sure it is now batel, the Taz permits it but the Darchai Teshuva in the name of the Pri Chadash prohibits it.

9) There is no difference. The Taz is matir in all cases, and the Beir Hetiv holds that in all cases it is assur.

Review Answers Shiur 6

1) "Ein mevatlin issur l'chatchila" is d'oraita according to Rashi and the Ravad and d'rabbanan by the Ran and Rashba. The Noda B'Yehuda holds that it is d'oraita for mamashos but d'rabbanan for ta'am.

2) The Taz says that if one does not intend to be mevatel the issur, it is mutar, e.g liquefying honey so that insects can be easily strained is mutar even though the taste of the insects is nullified. The Taz only allows this if there is no other way of removing the insects, but the Mishbetzot Zahav allows it if there is another option which will be bothersome. In other words, the Taz permits it only if there is no other option whatsoever, but the Mishbetzot Zahav effectively permits it if there is no other FEASIBLE option.

3) We are gozair shogeg atu meizid in the case of throwing one of the issur into the sea. We are gozair in such a case according to the Taz because the food as it is l'faneinu is ossur and we would have to rely on the person's statement of mapil to matir the food. According to the Bach because people might be mapil b'maizid. According to the Issur V'heter the case of throwing into the sea is a case of noda (where we knew that there was issur in the ta'aruvos) and all cases of noda are assur.

4) If he did not know that it was assur, that is considered to be beshogeig and the food is mutar - Taz.

5) L'halacha, a Rabbi need not ask if more heter was added after the issur fell in. We judge by the food as it appears l'faneinu; ain machzinin issura.

6) According to the Issur V'Heter, the main factor that causes the food to be assur is noda -- the food becomes ossur when you are aware that the issur fell in, not when the issur fell in. According to the Shach, the main factor is when the issur fell in, not when you became aware of it. The nafka mina is if additional heter (enough to mevatel the issur) was added between the time the issur fell in and the time you were noda -- according to the IV"H, the food is permitted; according to the Shach, it is ossur. The Rama holds like the Issur Vheter.

7) The Shach and Rama agree that if a piece became ch'n'n no additional heter will ever matir it. They disagree on noda / lo noda. The Rama holds like the IV"H that heter added before you knew the issur fell in can help mevatel the issur; the Shach holds that it cannot.

8) L'chatchila, we are machmir in a case of hefsed m'rubeh, but if someone is maikil in a case of hefsed m'rubeh in a case where the issur was removed or the pot cooled before it was noda , we do not protest.

Review Answers Shiur 7

1) The source is the Gemora Baitza. The Gemora says that you can be add to branches that are muktza which is an issur d'rabbanan in order to be mevatel them.

2) To "marbeh b'yadayim" means to add heter to a ta'aruvot in order that there is enough heter to mevatel the issur in the ta'aruvot.

3) There are 3 ways are:
1. Rashba. We allow marbeh b'yadayim in all issurei d'rabbanan
2. Tosefot and Rambam. We allow marbeh b'yadayim in issurei d'rabbanan that have no d'oraita basis, but not in other issurai d'rabbanan.
3. Rosh and Ra'ah. We only allow marbeh b'yadayim in issurei d'rabbanan when no ha'na'ah is derived when the issur is b'ain.

4) An issur d'rabbanan that has a source from the Torah is a rabbinic siyag; one that has no source from the Torah is a gezeira. An example of the former is chicken and milk which is a siyag for basar b'chalav. An example of the latter is muktzeh which has no d'oraita basis. The nafka mina is whether or not we may marbeh b'yadayim to mevatel the issur -- Rashba always allows us to marbeh b'yadayim; Tosefot only allows it for a gezeira with no d'oraita foundation.

5) If milk falls into chicken, the Rambam will allow additional chicken to be added to mevatel it. The Mechaber agrees; everyone else forbids it.

6) Halacha l'ma'aseh is that sephardim may add chicken; ashkenazim may not.

7) 1. In a case where oil is left over from the Chanukah Menorah became mixed with other oil and was not batel b'shishim, we cannot be marbeh beyadayim.
2. In other cases of issurei hana'ah.

8) A "kli shemishtamshin bo b'shefa" is a kli that is only used with lots of heter at once and there will always be 60. An example is a pot that is used to boil water to make pasta is typically filled with a lot of water at one time prior to boiling.

9) According to the Mechaber, the kli shemishtamshin bo b'shefa need not be kashered prior to use providing it absorbed only a small amount of issur. This is because the amount of issur is so small that it will be mevutal by the shefa in the kli. This is even more true if the issur is lifgam and even more so if the issur is d'rabbanan. The Taz and the Shach hold that only in a case where the issur imparts a bad taste to the food it is permitted to use the kli without kashering for a large quantity of food. The Mishbetzot Zahav adds that if the issur is midrabbanan AND the kli is mishtamshin b'shefa, then perhaps we can be meikil and use the kli without kashering it.

Review Answers Shiur 8

1) An issur is never batel if it falls into one of four categories:
1. Davar Chashuv. This includes bria, chaticha ha'r'uyah l'hitkaved, and ba'alei chaim.
2. Davar sheyeish lo matirin.
3. "Things that change the nature of the food even if only a small quantity is added." This includes chazuta (like food coloring), davar ha'ma'amid (like cheese enzymes), and yeast.
4. Issurei hana'ah that have a punishment of karet.

2) Whether or not chazuta alone is enough to ossur food is a machloket brought in the Mishbetzot Zahav. The Minchat Cohen holds that if the issur was added for the benefit of its appearance than it is not botel so long as you can discern its appearance. (an example would be food coloring). The Pri Chadash agrees to the Minchas Cohen but only by issurai d'oraissa. The Minchat Ya'akov says that taste is the determining factor, not appearance; thus it is botel b'shishim even if you can see it.

3) To be called a bria, an issur must...
1. Be ossur from when it was created. (ossur m'briato)
2. Be whole. (shalem)
3. Have one name that will no longer apply if it is divided.
4. Have been (part of) a living animal. (chiut)
5. The Pri Megadim adds a 5th condition, that the bria must be ossur in and of itself and not be ossur because of a din that is placed upon it. His example is a chicken that is born with a wound that renders it unkosher -- this is not a bria because the din makes it unkosher; it (as a chicken) is not inherently unkosher.

4) Kilai hakerem is not a bria because it never had chiut. (It was never part of a living animal.)

5) Everyone agrees that eiver min hachia is a bria if the eiver is greater than a k'zayit in size. Whether an eiver smaller than a kazayit is a bria is a machloket brought in the Pri Megadim.

6) Whether or not the part of the gid hanashe which is ossur d'rabbanan is a bria is a machloket. Most hold that it is not a bria because bria only applies to issurei d'oraita. The Kraiti u'Plaiti hold that it is a bria nonetheless.

7) An egg with a blood spot on the yoke is definitely not a bria. First, the egg never had chiut. Second, the egg is not ossur in and of itself; it is ossur because of the blood on it.

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.