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

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.

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.

Review Questions shiur 27 edition 4.1

Review Questions shiur 27 edition 4.1

1) Define talinun l’kula and why that is so.

2) What are the 4 hetarim brought by the Tur and Bais Yosef?

3) Should we make a gezaira to osser the ta’aruvos if a chaticha is accidentally eaten?

4) How must the ta'aruvos be eaten? Why?

5) Can it be eaten one at a time? Is there a difference if one or two people are eating the ta’aruvos?

6) If one piece from a ta'aruvos that is not batel falls into others what is the din of the second ta'aruvos, and on what is this din based?

7) If a chaticha fell from the 2nd ta’aruvos to a 3rd ta’aruvos does this change the din of the second ta’aruvos?

8) What are the halachik implications if the girsa of the gemora includes the words acharos b’acharos?

9) Is a davar sheyaish lo matirin mutar in the case of a safek safeka?

10) In what case does everyone agree that a d'sh'l'm is mutar in a safek s'faika? Why?

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 Questions shiur 26 edition 4.1

1) What is the machlokes Rashba and Tur?

2) How does the Bais Yosef defend the Rashba?

3) What are the two ways to explain the Tur?

4) Why do we permit a piece cut in Simon 101 and not in our case?

5) What is the machlokes between the Shach and Taz concerning the text of the Mechaber?

6) Why are the aino r'uya l'hischabed pieces assur in a case of ta'aruvos chatichos?

7) What is the nafka mina between the reasons?

8) 7 cows were shechted in the slaughterhouse and then 2 ½ were transferred to a shop in town. What is the din of:

a) The four cows in the slaughterhouse?

b) The other two in the shop?

c) The two half cows?

9) In the case of parush m’maila:

a) What is the machlokes Rabbainu Tam and R’ Yitzchak?

b) What is the halcha?

10) What are the possibilities for pshat in Rabbainu Tam?

11) May one intentionally disperse the ta'aruvos if none remain in the kavuah?

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 25

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. It is a gizairas hakasuv.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. - 8. 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. Machloket if assur d'oraisa.
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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. The Taz argues with the Mechaber's sofek sfeika. He says that since the kavua was an issur d'oraita, the second taarovet is ossur; only a third taarovet would be mutar by a sofek sfeika. The Shach says that because kavua is a chidush, ain bo ela chidusho -- thus we only apply kavua when the chaticha is nikar. Once the first taarovet happens, the issur is no longer nikar; thus the second taarovet is mutar.
12. The Shach argues with the Rama who ossers a sofek sfeika if the issur is d'oraita. The Shach will rely on the Ran in a hefsed meruba to allow the taarovet by pirush lfanainu -- provided the chatichot are not all eaten at the same time.
13. The Taz adds the case of 3 taaruvot. In the case of a third taaruvet, he will matir the third by sofek sfeika.

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 23

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. (See #1.)
3. 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.
4. In the case of chad b'trei and one piece has been eaten, we say that the issur was eaten and thereby matir the other two pieces. (Rashba)
5. 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.)
6. According to the Shach isur d'rabbanan yavaish b'yavaish min b'aino mino is batel chad b'trei.
7. 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 22

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).
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.

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