THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
CHULIN 100 - (11 Iyar) - dedicated by the Feldman family in memory of
their mother, ha'Rabbanit Sara Dvosya bas Rav Mordechai (of Milwaukee).
OPINIONS: The Gemara (end of 99b) asks that when the Gid ha'Nasheh becomes
mixed with permitted Gidin, the entire mixture should be permitted because
of Bitul b'Rov -- the forbidden Gid should become Batel due to the majority
of permitted Gidin. Similarly, the Gemara asks that a piece of Neveilah that
fell into permitted pieces of meat should become permitted because of Bitul
b'Rov. The Gemara answers that in the case of Gid ha'Nasheh, since the Gid
ha'Nasheh is an independent, significant entity in itself ("Biryah"), it is
not Batel b'Rov like other Isurim would be Batel. Similarly, in the case of
a piece of Neveilah, the Gemara answers that such an Isur is different,
because it is "Re'uyah l'Hiskabed" -- it is fit to be served to guests as a
display of honor to them, and thus it does not become annulled in a mixture
with a majority of permitted food.
2) HALACHAH: "CHATICHAH HA'RE'UYAH L'HISKABED"
The Gemara implies that if not for these unique features of the Gid
ha'Nasheh and a piece of Neveilah, the Isur *would* be Batel b'Rov and it
would be permitted to eat the mixture (in a case of a piece of a dry Isur
that fell into two dry pieces of Heter).
Does this mean that in a case of Bitul b'Rov, where one Isur fell into two
pieces of Heter, one people may eat all three, or that three different
people may eat them?
(a) The TOSFOS RID in Bava Basra (31b, as cited by the KOVETZ SHI'URIM
there, 128a) rules that Bitul b'Rov permits the three pieces to be eaten
only by three different people; the Rov states that the piece that each
person is eating is the permitted piece. If one person eats all three
pieces, even at separate times, then he has transgressed mid'Oraisa and he
is Chayav to bring a Chatas.
HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 109:1) rules like the RASHBA that one
person should not eat all three pieces at the same time. Similarly, the
Shulchan Aruch rules that if all of the pieces were cooked together in gravy
(thereby becoming a mixture of liquid (and not dry) Min b'Mino), there must
be sixty times more Heter in order to annul the Isur.
Similarly, TOSFOS here (DH Biryah) says that although the Gemara implies
that when an Isur is Batel b'Rov, there is not even an Isur d'Rabanan to eat
the mixture, perhaps one person should not eat all three pieces.
(b) The RASHBA (cited by BEIS YOSEF YD 109) maintains that it is permitted
for one person to eat all three pieces, one at a time. Every time he eats
one piece, the Rov dictates that the piece that he is eating is a piece of
Heter. One person is not allowed to eat all three pieces at the same time.
(See TAZ YD 109:1.)
(c) The ROSH here (7:37) rules that it is permitted for one person to eat
all three pieces, even at the same time. His reasoning is that the principle
of Bitul b'Rov does not merely dictate that the piece in question is part of
the Rov, but rather the principle of Bitul b'Rov is effective in turning the
Isur into Heter entirely (this is the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv of the verse,
"Acharei Rabim l'Hatos"). Therefore, all three pieces are permitted, and one
may eat them all at one time.
QUESTIONS: The Gemara teaches that a piece of forbidden food that is a
"Chatichah ha'Re'uyah l'Hiskabed" -- it is fit to be served to guests as a
display of honor to them -- does not become annulled in a mixture with
3) HALACHAH: "CHATICHAH NA'ASAH NEVEILAH"
(a) How do we measure whether a certain piece of food is one that is given
to guests to honor them?
(b) Does the principle of "Chatichah ha'Re'uyah l'Hiskabed" apply to all
types of prohibited foods, or only certain types?
(a) There are two basic opinions in the Rishonim with regard to what
constitutes a food that is Re'uyah l'Hiskabed.
1. The ROSH quotes one opinion (that of the RASHBA in TORAS HA'BAYIS, RAN,
and others) that says that a food is considered Re'uyah l'Hiskabed when it
is common to honor guests with that food in its present form. A live animal,
for example, is not fit to be given to guests to eat in its present form,
and thus it is not Re'uyah l'Hiskabed. Therefore, when a live Tereifah
animal becomes mixed with Kosher animals, it is Batel. A similar case
involves a defeathered chicken, which is considered Re'uyah l'Hiskabed,
while a chicken with its feathers is not Re'uyah l'Hiskabed, since it is not
given to guests in its present form (it was the manner to serve raw meat
("Umtza") to guests, as the Gemara mentions in Shabbos (128a); this does not
apply today according to the view of the Rema below that we determine what
is Re'uyah l'Hiskabed based on the common practice today).
(b) The RASHBA quotes the RA'AVAD who says that a food is considered a
Chatichah ha'Re'uyah l'Hiskabed only when it is inherently prohibited. In
contrast, a food that became prohibited by acquiring the taste of a
prohibited food (such as by being cooked with it) does not have the status
of a Chatichah ha'Re'uyah l'Hiskabed, because the absorbed taste alone is
not Re'uyah l'Hiskabed. This is also the view of the ROSH (7:36), RAN (36b
of the pages of the Rif), in contrast to the view of the ISUR V'HEITER
HA'ARUCH (25:5), as cited by the DARCHEI MOSHE (YD 101:1) points out.
Similarly, a item is Re'uyah l'Hiskabed only when it is of a *size* that is
normally given to guests. An entire lamb, for example, is not Re'uyah
l'Hiskabed, since one does not give an entire lamb to a guest to eat.
2. The Rosh argues with this opinion and asserts that the term "Re'uyah
l'Hiskabed" refers only to the size of the food item. In order not to be
annulled in a mixture, the food item must be large enough that one would
give it to guests as a show of honor. It does not matter whether or not the
item is fit to be given to guests in its present form. As long as it will be
fit once it is defeathered or cooked, it is considered Re'uyah l'Hiskabed if
its *size* is fit to honor guests. Hence, a live animal is considered
Both opinions are recorded by the SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 101:3). The REMA writes
that the practice follows the second opinions, except in the case of a
Tereifah chicken with its feathers. Since the chicken is lacking a
significant act before it can become fit for giving honor to guests, it is
not considered Re'uyah l'Hiskabed.
The Rema adds that "in these regions," the hooves of small domesticated
animals are not considered Re'uyah l'Hiskabed and are Batel. The words of
the Rema imply that when determining whether a food is Re'uyah l'Hiskabed,
one must take into account the practices of the place and time. This is also
written explicitly by the PRI MEGADIM (Mishbetzos Zahav 101:8).
(Regarding whether a forbidden food is considered Re'uyah l'Hiskabed when it
is given only by a Nochri host to his guests (such as frog legs), the NODA
B'YEHUDAH cited by the PISCHEI TESHUVAH (YD 101:4) says that only a food
normally given by a Jew to his guests is considered Re'uyah l'Hiskabed.
However, he does not rule conclusively on the matter.)
This is the Halachah as recorded by the SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 101:2).
QUESTION: Rabah bar bar Chanah teaches that a piece of Neveilah or a piece
of a non-Kosher fish that fell into a pot of permitted food does not make
the contents forbidden unless it is large enough to spread its taste to all
of the contents of the pot, including the gravy, sediments, and other pieces
of food in the pot.
Rav disagrees and teaches that once the Neveilah gives its taste to another
piece of meat in the mixture (that is, the two pieces of meat were first
cooked together, and then they fell into a pot with more permitted food),
the other piece itself becomes like Neveilah ("Chatichah Atzmah Na'ases
Neveilah"). Since the second piece of meat is like a piece of Neveilah, it
forbids the entire mixture; it is not Batel, because it is a mixture of Min
The Gemara explains that Rav follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah, who rules
that in a mixture of Min b'Mino, the forbidden food is not Batel even if it
is very small.
The Gemara asks that if Rav follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah, then why does
Rav say that the mixture is forbidden only when the first piece of meat (the
Neveilah) imparts its taste to the second piece of meat? Even if it does not
impart its taste to the mixture, the presence of the Neveilah should forbid
the entire mixture, because the Neveilah is not Batel (because it is Min
Abaye answers that Rav is discussing a case in which the original piece of
Neveilah was removed from the mixture. Since the Neveilah is no longer
present, the mixture will be prohibited only if the taste of the Neveilah
entered another piece of meat, thereby making that piece of meat into a
piece of Neveilah.
If Rav follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah, then why does he need to say that
when the piece of Neveilah gives its taste to the neighboring piece, it
makes that piece into Neveilah which then prohibits the entire mixture?
According to Rebbi Yehudah, even without a transfer of taste from the
Neveilah to the second piece of meat, the second meat becomes Asur! Once the
two pieces of meat are cooked together, the piece of Neveilah prohibits the
other piece of meat because any amount of Isur in a mixture of Min b'Mino
prohibits the entire mixture, even without giving its taste to the permitted
(a) TOSFOS (DH b'she'Kadam) cites RABEINU TAM who answers that even though
the second piece of meat, which is the same Min as the Neveilah, would
become forbidden even if the Neveilah did not impart its taste to it,
nevertheless we would not say that the second piece itself becomes a piece
of Neveilah with the ability to forbid all of the other pieces when it
becomes mixed with them. The second piece of meat can forbid the rest of the
mixture only when it itself has absorbed the taste of the original Neveilah,
thereby becoming a piece of Neveilah itself.
HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 92:4, 106:1) rules like Rabeinu Efraim that
"Chatichah Na'asah Neveilah" applies only to a mixture of meat and milk.
Therefore, with regard to all other Isurim, when a food became prohibited
because of a forbidden taste that it absorbed, and it then fell into a pot
of permitted food, it suffices to have sixty times more than the taste
absorbed in it in order to annul it, and it is not necessary to have sixty
times more than the entire piece.
(b) Tosfos writes that RABEINU EFRAIM has a different approach. Even when
the Neveilah imparts its taste to the second piece of meat, the second piece
does not become Neveilah itself to require sixty times more Heter than the
entire piece itself in order to become Batel. Rather, the Isur of the second
piece is Batel as long as the Heter is sixty times greater than the amount
of the taste of Isur absorbed in the piece. Rav's ruling of "Chatichah
Na'asah Neveilah" means that the second piece has the ability to transfer to
the mixture whatever taste it absorbed from the original piece, but not that
the whole piece itself becomes Asur like a piece of Neveilah.
According to Rav, who maintains that "Min b'Mino" is not Batel, when the
permitted piece receives taste from the forbidden piece, the Isur is
considered to be "b'Ein," recognizable, and it will make an unlimited number
of pieces forbidden. However, if the first piece would not impart its taste
to the second piece, then the Isur would not be considered recognizable and
its taste would not spread to the other pieces. (The RASHBA explains that
since it does not give taste, it is considered to have no Shi'ur (size) and
therefore it cannot spread.)
There are two important differences between the opinion of Rabeinu Tam and
the opinion of Rabeinu Efraim. First, according to Rabeinu Tam, in order for
the second piece of meat (that has "become Neveilah") to be annulled in the
mixture, there must be sixty times more Heter than the entire piece of meat.
According to Rabeinu Efraim, it suffices to have sixty times more Heter than
the *taste* absorbed in the second piece of meat.
Second, according to Rabeinu Tam, the principle of "Chatichah Na'asah
Neveilah" applies to all Isurim, and not only to the Isur of meat and milk
(where the entire mixture becomes Asur as "Basar b'Chalav"). (Most Poskim
maintain that even according to Rabeinu Tam, the principle of "Chatichah
Na'asah Neveilah" applies only mid'Rabanan to other forms of Isur, while it
applies mid'Oraisa to Basar b'Chalav.) According to Rabeinu Efraim,
"Chatichah Na'asah Neveilah" applies only when a drop of milk falls on meat.
Since both milk and meat are permitted by themselves, they became forbidden
only as a result of mixing with each other. Therefore, the entire piece of
meat becomes forbidden as "Basar b'Chalav." In contrast, "Chatichah Na'asah
Neveilah" does not apply to other Isurim, such as the Isur of Neveilah.
The REMA states that our practice is that "Chatichah Na'asah Neveilah"
applies to all Isurim. Therefore, sixty times more than the entire piece is
necessary in order for the contents of the pot to be permitted. (D. Bloom,
4) MITZVOS GIVEN BEFORE AND AFTER SINAI
QUESTION: In the Mishnah, Rebbi Yehudah and the Chachamim argue whether the
Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh was given to Benei Noach at the time of Yakov Avinu,
or whether it was given only at the time the Torah was given at Sinai.
5) A NOCHRI'S OBLIGATION REGARDING THE PROHIBITION OF "GID HA'NASHEH"
The RAMBAM in PERUSH HA'MISHNAYOS explains that we perform the Mitzvos
because Hashem gave them to us and commanded us to fulfill them at Har
Sinai, but not because Hashem told the Mitzvos to the earlier prophets (such
as the Avos, or Noach). The reason why we do not eat the Gid ha'Nasheh is
not because Hashem gave the Mitzvah to the sons of Yakov, but because Hashem
commanded us at Har Sinai not to eat it. Similarly, we do not perform the
Mitzvah of Bris Milah because Avraham was commanded to perform Bris Milah,
but rather because Hashem commanded us at Har Sinai to perform Bris Milah.
What practical difference does it make whether we are obligated to fulfill a
Mitzvah because it was given at Sinai, or because it was given to the Avos
or to Noach?
ANSWER: HAGA'ON RAV YISRAEL ZEV GUSTMAN zt'l (in Kuntrusei Shi'urim, Bava
Metzia 12:6) explains that according to the Rambam, when we observe the
seven Mitzvos that were also commanded to Benei Noach, we are not fulfilling
the same Mitzvos that the Nochrim are commanded to fulfill. Their seven
Mitzvos were given through Noach's prophecy, while we observe them as part
of a new set of Mitzvos that was given to us at Sinai.
Rav Gustman points out that, according to this, the suggestion of the
MINCHAS CHINUCH is not correct. The Minchas Chinuch suggests that even
according to the opinion that blind people are exempt from performing
Mitzvos, they should be commanded to observe the basic seven Mitzvos of
Benei Noach. Rav Gustman disagrees based on the words of the Rambam. Since a
blind person is not a Ben Noach, but a Jew, the Mitzvos given to Benei Noach
do not apply to him.
We may add that the Rambam elsewhere (Hilchos Melachim 10:7) rules that "all
of the descendants of Avraham are obligated to perform Bris Milah." On the
other hand, the Rambam rules that when a person vows not to accept any
benefit from a circumcised person, he *may* benefit from Benei Noach who are
circumcised! The Rambam in Perush ha'Mishnayos in Nedarim (3:11) explains
that this is because Benei Noach are not commanded to perform Bris Milah,
and therefore they cannot be considered "Mahul" ("circumcised"). Since the
Rambam writes that all of the descendants of Avraham are obligated to
perform Bris Milah, why does he write that a person who vows not to derive
any benefit from a "Mahul" is permitted to derive benefit from a circumcised
Nochri? He should write that it is prohibited to derive benefit from all of
Benei Yishmael who are circumcised!
According to the approach that the set of Mitzvos given to Jews does not
include the set of Mitzvos that was given to Benei Noach, it is clear that
even though the Benei Yishmael are obligated to circumcise themselves, they
are not commanded to perform *our* Mitzvah of Bris Milah, and therefore they
are not considered "Mahul." (Z. Wainstein)
QUESTION: Rebbi Yehudah maintains that the prohibition of Gid ha'Nasheh
applies to the Gid of a non-Kosher animal. Since the Gid ha'Nasheh was
forbidden from the time of Yakov's children, and non-Kosher animals were
permitted to eat at that time, it must be that the prohibition of Gid
ha'Nasheh applies to the Gid of non-Kosher animals as well.
The Gemara explains that the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh can take effect on a
non-Kosher animal, even though the animal is already forbidden (and there is
a rule that "Ein Isur Chal Al Isur"), because the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh is
more severe ("Chamur") than the Isur of eating a non-Kosher animal, because
the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh applies to Nochrim, while the Isur of eating a
non-Kosher animal applies only to Jews (see RASHI DH u'Meshani Af Al Gav).
Why does Rebbi Yehudah answer that the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh is an "Isur
Chamur"? He should answer that it is an "Isur Kollel" -- an Isur that makes
the object forbidden to more people, since the Isur of eating a non-Kosher
animal makes the animal forbidden to Jews, while the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh
makes it forbidden to Nochrim as well!
(a) TOSFOS (90a, DH Kodshim) suggests two answers. In his first answer, he
says that Rebbi Yehudah does not actually mean that the Gid ha'Nasheh was
prohibited to all Nochrim at the time of Yakov Avinu. Rather, he means only
that it was Asur to the sons of Yakov before the Torah was given.
Accordingly, it is not an Isur Kollel at all. (This is also the opinion of
RASHI in Sanhedrin 59a, DH v'Aliba.)
(b) In his second answer, Tosfos explains that even if the Gid ha'Nasheh
indeed was prohibited to all Nochrim before Matan Torah, nevertheless after
Matan Torah it remained prohibited only to the Jewish people, and thus it is
not an Isur Kollel, since it no longer includes Nochrim.
(However, TOSFOS in Pesachim (22a, DH v'Rebbi Shimon) quotes RABEINU YAKOV
of Orleans who implies that even today Benei Noach may not eat the Gid
ha'Nasheh. This opinion requires further explanation, because the Gemara in
Sanhedrin (59a) clearly implies that the Gid ha'Nasheh is permitted to Benei
Noach today. See also Insights to Chulin 91:2-3.)