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
1) HALACHAH: A MIXTURE OF "MIN B'MINO"
OPINIONS: The Gemara mentions the dispute between Rebbi Yehudah and the
Chachamim regarding whether or not the forbidden food in a mixture of Min
b'Mino is Batel. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that it is not Batel, and the
Chachamim maintain that it is Batel.
2) HALACHAH: EATING HEART
Why is a mixture of Min b'Mino not Batel? Why do we not apply the normal
rules of Bitul (Bitul b'Rov, or Bitul b'Shishim) to a mixture of Min b'Mino
according to Rebbi Yehudah?
(a) The Ran (Nedarim 52a) writes that Bitul can occur only when there are
two different, opposing objects confronting each other. Since the objects
oppose and contrast from each other, one can overpower the other. However,
when the objects are similar to each other and do not contrast, one will not
overpower the other. This is the reasoning of Rebbi Yehudah, who rules that
a mixture of Min b'Mino is not Batel.
HALACHAH: The Rishonim argue whether the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi
Yehudah or the view of the Chachamim.
The Chachamim argue with Rebbi Yehudah and maintain that even a mixture of
Min b'Mino is also considered to be a mixture of two opposing objects. Even
though they are the same type of food, one is Heter and one is Isur. The
Halachic difference between the two foods is powerful enough to cause them
to oppose each other, and thus one can be Mevatel the other. (See also
Insights to Beitzah 39:1, Nedarim 52:1, and Avodah Zarah 73:3.)
(b) TOSFOS (Yevamos 82a, DH Rebbi Yehudah) explains that Rebbi Yehudah
maintains that Min b'Mino is not Batel only when the two foods in the
mixture are *liquids* ("Lach b'Lach"). In a mixture of *dry* foods ("Yavash
b'Yavash"), Rebbi Yehudah agrees that the prohibited food is Batel in a
majority of permitted food. Rebbi Yehudah's logic is that in a liquid
mixture, the prohibited taste spreads equally throughout the entire mixture.
Since the two liquids are of the same type, the forbidden liquid's taste is
annulled or covered up by the taste of the permitted liquid; the taste of
the forbidden liquids is thus discernible in every part of the mixture. When
the forbidden and permitted substances in the mixture are dry foods, the
taste of the Isur is present only in the actual morsels of Isur; the taste
of a solid, dry food does not spread like the taste of a liquid. When there
is a majority of permitted food in the mixture, most mouthfuls that the
person takes will not include the prohibited morsels, and thus the mixture
is permitted even according to Rebbi Yehudah.
(a) RASHI (DH v'Su Lo Midi) rules like Rebbi Yehudah that a mixture of Min
b'Mino is not Batel, regardless of how little Isur is in the mixture.
The SHULCHAN ARUCH (98:2) rules in accordance with the opinion of TOSFOS.
(b) TOSFOS (97a, DH Amar) disagrees with Rashi and rules that Min b'Mino is
Batel. Most of the other Rishonim agree with Tosfos. Indeed, Rashi himself
in Avodah Zarah (66a, DH v'Chol) seems to agree that the Halachah follows
the view of the Chachamim.
OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that in order to permit an animal's udder to be
eaten, one must tear it open and remove the milk. If one cooks (and eats)
the udder without tearing it open first, he does not transgress the Isur
d'Oraisa of cooking (and eating) meat with milk. Similarly, in order to
permit an animal's heart to be eaten, one must tear it upon and remove its
blood. If one cooks and eats the heart without tearing it open first, he
does not transgress the Isur d'Oraisa of eating blood.
3) EATING COOKED BLOOD
Why does one not transgress the Isur d'Oraisa of eating blood when he cooks
and eats the heart without first tearing it open and removing its blood?
(a) RASHI (DH ha'Lev) explains that the flesh of the heart does not become
prohibited when it is cooked with its own blood, because the flesh of the
heart is smooth and impermeable and does not absorb blood through cooking.
HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 72:2) rules in accordance with the opinion
of RABEINU TAM. The REMA mentions that there is a custom to cut off the
"Orlas ha'Lev" (the tip of the heart) before eating the heart. The SHACH,
quoting the RIKANTI, explains that we do this in order to remove the Kochos
ha'Tum'ah, the powers of defilement, which reside in the heart. (Z.
The RASHBA (DH Leima) agrees with Rashi and explains that the law regarding
the heart is taught in the same Mishnah as the law regarding the udder in
order to show that they share the same Halachah. Neither one becomes
prohibited if cooked before being torn open.
(b) TOSFOS (DH ha'Lev) quotes RABEINU TAM who disagrees. Rabeinu Tam permits
eating a heart (that was not first torn open) only when it was *roasted*
(over fire) with its blood inside. If the heart was *cooked* (in a pot of
water), then it becomes prohibited becomes the cooking causes the flesh to
absorb the forbidden blood.
QUESTION: The Mishnah states that in order to permit an animal's heart to be
eaten, one must tear it upon and remove its blood. If one cooks and eats the
heart without tearing it open first, he does not transgress the Isur
d'Oraisa of eating blood. RASHI (DH ha'Lev) explains that this means that
one is not punished with Kares for eating blood, because the Mishnah is
referring to the heart of a *bird* that does not contain a k'Zayis of blood,
and one is not Chayav for eating less than a k'Zayis of blood (it
nevertheless is forbidden mid'Oraisa to eat any amount of blood, because the
Halachah follows the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan in Yoma (73b) who says that a
partial amount (Chatzi Shi'ur) of forbidden food is Asur mid'Oraisa). If,
however, one ate the heart of an animal without tearing it open first, then
he is Chayav Kares because he are a k'Zayis of blood.
Rashi's words seem to contradict the Gemara in Menachos (21a), where Ze'iri
states explicitly that one is not Chayav for eating blood that has been
cooked. Rashi there (DH Dam) explains that the Torah gives a punishment only
for eating the type of blood that can gain atonement for a person through
being offered as a Korban. Cooked blood has undergone a fundamental change
and is no longer considered blood that can gain atonement. How, then, can
Rashi say that one is Chayav for eating the cooked blood of an animal's
heart? (TOSFOS DH ha'Lev)
(a) The RITVA answers that it is possible that Rashi understands that the
Gemara in Menachos is referring only to the blood of Kodshim. Blood of
non-sanctified animals, in contrast, remains forbidden to be eaten (and one
is Chayav Kares for eating it) even when it is cooked.
The Ritva cites proof for this answer from the Gemara later (111a), in which
Rav Dimi states that one may not roast liver above meat by placing both on
an upright beam inside of an oven, because the blood of the liver drips down
onto the meat. The Gemara clearly implies that the blood is forbidden, even
though it has been cooked in an oven. (In contrast, Rav Dimi permits
roasting an udder above meat, because the milk that drips from the udder is
only prohibited mid'Rabanan to be cooked with meat.)
TOSFOS (DH ha'Lev), who maintains that one is not Chayav for eating blood of
Chulin that has been cooked, understands the Gemara there differently.
Tosfos there (111a, DH Dam) explains that the blood of the liver is
prohibited only mid'Rabanan once it has been roasted. However, the intention
of Rav Dimi there is that blood is forbidden mid'Oraisa before it is cooked,
while milk of an udder is never forbidden mid'Oraisa. Since blood is a more
severe Isur than the milk of the udder, we are more stringent and forbid
roasting it over meat.
(b) The NEKUDAS HA'KESEF (to SHACH YD 87:15) answers that in the conclusion
of the Gemara in Menachos (21a), a distinction is made between a Korban
Chatas Penimis (brought on the inner Mizbe'ach), and a Korban Chatas
Chitzonis (brought on the outer Mizbe'ach). Rashi there (DH Kan) explains
that one who ate the cooked blood of a Chatas Chitzonis is Chayav Kares, and
certainly one who ate the cooked blood of Chulin is Chayav Kares. When
Ze'iri there says that one is not Chayav for eating cooked blood, he is
referring only to the blood of a Chatas Penimis. (See also RASHASH.) (D.
4) TEARING THE UDDER AFTER IT WAS COOKED
QUESTION: The Gemara records two versions of Rav's ruling regarding an udder
(Kechal) that was cooked before its milk was drained. According to the first
version, Rav permits the cooked udder without tearing it. According to the
second version, Rav prohibits the cooked udder even if one tears it and
removes the milk.
The Gemara records a Beraisa that states that when a heart was cooked before
its blood was drained, the blood may be drained after cooking the heart, and
the heart is permitted to be eaten.
Why does the Halachah of the udder differ from the Halachah of the heart?
Both the heart and udder must be torn, l'Chatchilah, before cooking them.
Why, then, is there a difference between them after they have been cooked?
(a) TOSFOS (DH Ha Kechal) explains that according to the Gemara's first
version, Rav permits a cooked udder without tearing it because its milk is
not the type of milk included in the Torah's prohibition against eating meat
and milk together. The Rabanan required that it be torn before cooking
because it contains such a large quantity of milk, and people will confuse
it with normal milk. When the udder is cooked with its milk, the cooking
extracts some of the milk, leaving only a small amount inside the udder.
Since only a small amount of milk remains, the Rabanan did not require that
it be drained.
(b) According to the Gemara's second version, Rav prohibits an udder once it
was cooked, because Rav maintains that the Rabanan gave the milk of the
udder the status of ordinary milk. When the milk is cooked or roasted
together with the udder, the milk becomes absorbed in the flesh of the udder
and the udder becomes prohibited (mid'Rabanan).
Although the blood of the heart is also prohibited, it does not become
absorbed in the flesh of the heart, either because the flesh of the heart is
extremely smooth and impermeable, or because the fire which causes the blood
to become absorbed in the flesh of the heart causes that same flesh to expel
the blood ("k'Vol'o Kach Polto"). Both of these reasons apply only to the
heart and not to the udder, because the udder is not as smooth as the heart,
and because the principle of ("k'Vol'o Kach Polto") does not apply to fatty
liquids such as milk, as Tosfos (DH Dilma) writes.