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) "BITUL" OF A "HEFSED MU'AT"
QUESTION: In the beginning of the Beraisa, the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah
argue whether a piece of meat ("Chatichah") of a Korban Chatas which is
Tamei that becomes mixed with a hundred Chatichos that are Tahor is Batel or
not. In the end of the Beraisa, everyone agrees that if a Chatichah of
Chatas Tehorah falls into a hundred Chatichos of *Chulin*, it is not Batel.
The Gemara explains this Beraisa according to the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan,
and according to the opinion of Reish Lakish.
2) THE AMOUNT NEEDED, MID'ORAISA, FOR "BITUL" OF TERUMAH
RASHI (81b, DH Divrei, and 82a ul'Reish Lakish) explains that according to
Rebbi Yochanan, the Beraisa is discussing whole Chatichos which are
considered "Kol she'Darko Limanos" (see previous Insight). The Beraisa holds
that something that is "Kol she'Darko Limanos" *is* Batel, for it does not
have the status of a "Davar sheb'Minyan." In the second case of the Beraisa,
the Chatichah of Chatas is not Batel because it is a "Hefsed Mu'at" -- it
involves only a minimal loss, since one can sell the entire mixture to a
Kohen (who may eat both meat of the Chatas and Chulin).
The Gemara asks that according to Reish Lakish, who maintains that the
Tana'im of the Beraisa hold that an item which is "Kol she'Darko Limanos"
*is* considered a "Davar sheb'Minyan" and is *not* Batel, then the Beraisa
must be discussing disintegrated Chatichos which are no longer a "Davar
sheb'Minyan." If the Beraisa is discussing disintegrated pieces, asks the
Gemara, why, in the second case of the Beraisa, is the Terumah Tehorah that
became mixed with Chulin *not* Batel?
What is the Gemara's question? The Gemara just said, according to Rebbi
Yochanan, that the Chatichah of Chatas is not Batel in Chulin (even though
it is not a "Davar sheb'Minyan") because it is a Hefsed Mu'at, a minimal
loss. Likewise, according to Reish Lakish, the reason the Chatichah that
became mixed with the Chulin is not Batel is because it is a Hefsed Mu'at!
It does not matter that the Chatichah is disintegrated and is no longer a
"Davar sheb'Minyan," Hefsed Mu'at provides a new reason for it not to become
(a) From RASHI (DH Tehorah, DH Tehoros) it appears that the Gemara
understood Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan to be arguing over this very
point; should we be more stringent by Chatas mixed in Chulin (because it is
only Hefsed Mu'at) or not? According to Reish Lakish, the Gemara (at the top
of the page) proves that when Chatas mixed in Chulin, and both are Tahor, we
are not more stringent, but rather more *lenient* -- since the Chatas that
was mixed in can at least be eaten by Kohanim. In the Reisha, when Chatas
Tamei was mixed in, since even Kohanim cannot eat it, we will be more
stringent. That is why the Gemara assumes that Reish Lakish cannot explain
that we are more stringent in the Seifa because it involves a "Hefsed
Mu'at." Instead, the Gemara suggests other reasons for being more stringent
in the Seifa (e.g. that the Seifa involves an Isur d'Oraisa, while the
Reisha only involves Tum'ah mid'Rabanan).
However, this explanation has a number of weak points. First, as Rashi
himself asks, if we are more stringent when the mixture may be eaten without
Bitul, why does Rebbi Yosi allow an Igul of Terumah to become Batel? Even if
it is not Batel, a Kohen can eat the mixture! Rashi's answer, that we need
not be stringent regarding an Igul since Terumah is separated from fruits
only mid'Rabanan, leaves much to be desired. Throughout the Sugya we were
assuming that Terumah of fruits is just as stringent as Terumah of grains;
if the latter is d'Oraisa, we will deal stringently with the former as well.
This was the very basis for Reish Lakish's proof, from the Igul that is
Batel, that the obligation to separate *all* Terumah nowadays is only
mid'Rabanan. (TOSFOS YESHANIM 81b, ARUCH LA'NER ibid.)
In addition, according to Rashi, the logic of Rebbi Yochanan and of Reish
Lakish are diametrically opposed. Rebbi Yochanan says we must be more
stringent with Terumah in Chulin, while Reish Lakish says we must be more
lenient! (MAHADURA BASRA)
(b) Perhaps for these reasons, TOSFOS (81b DH Divrei) suggests another
explanation for the difference between the Reisha and Seifa of the Beraisa.
According to Tosfos, Rebbi Yochanan understood that the reason the ruling in
the Seifa was more stringent was because a cut of meat is a "Davar Chashuv."
It may not be "Es she'Darko," but it is nevertheless important in its own
right since it is a "Chatichah ha'Re'uyah Lehiskabed," a portion worthy of
honoring someone with (by presenting it to him to eat). Such an item is
never Batel, as the Gemara says in Chulin 97b.
Why, then, is the cut of Chatas meat Batel in the Reisha, which discusses
Chatas Tamei falling into pieces of Chatas Tahor? Tosfos explains that meat
of a Chatas can never be called "worthy of honoring someone with," since
Kohanim do not give out meat of Korbanos to honor their guests. The meat is
divided equally among the Kohanim serving there, and is not served to
guests. Since, when we apply the laws of Bitul, the meat will not be used to
serve to guests, it can become Batel. In the Seifa, when the Chatas fell
into *Chulin*, since, if we would apply the laws of Bitul, the meat would
*not* be considered meat of a Korban and it would be possible to serve it to
guests, the meat is considered "Chatichah ha'Re'uyah Lehiskabed," and it
cannot become Batel.
Tosfos himself asks, though, that according to this explanation it makes no
difference whether Chatas *Tahor* or Chatas *Tamei* fell into Chulin. In
either case, it would not become Batel. If so, it is not clear why the
Beraisa chose to discuss specifically Chatas *Tahor* that fell into Chulin,
in the Seifa. (According to Rashi, of course, the reason it discussed Chatas
Tahor is because it is only when Kohanim can eat the meat that the Chatas is
not Batel, according to Rebbi Yochanan, or is more easily Batel, according
to Reish Lakish; see though RASHASH and PORAS YOSEF on the words of Rashi
here and BA'AL HA'ME'OR.)
(c) Some of the Rishonim (see BA'AL HA'ME'OR and MILCHAMOS) had a different
Girsa in the Gemara, in which the Gemara does not preface its question with
"And according to Reish Lakish...." They explain that both according to
Rebbi Yochanan and according to Reish Lakish, the Gemara has not yet found
an explanation for the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa.
(The GE'ONIM, cited by the Rashba, had yet a third Girsa, according to
which the Gemara is asking for the difference between the Reisha and Seifa
only according to *Rebbi Yochanan*. According to the way the MILCHAMOS
explains our Gemara, the Gemara indeed *cannot explain* the difference
between the Reisha and Seifa according to Reish Lakish -- since there should
have been a Gezeirah enacted that Tamei in Tahor is not Batel just like
Chatas in Chulin is not Batel. That is why the Gemara asks for the
difference only according to Rebbi Yochanan.)
QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Beraisa which discusses two baskets, one with
Chulin and one with Terumah. Two dishes, one of Chulin and one of Terumah,
fell into the two baskets, and it is not known which dish fell into which
basket. The Halachah is that we assume that the Terumah fell into the basket
of Terumah, and that the Chulin fell into the basket of Chulin. The Gemara
says that even if the Terumah fell into the Chulin it would only create an
Isur d'Rabanan, and that is why we may be lenient in this case.
Why, though, would Terumah mixed into Chulin only be an Isur d'Rabanan?
Reish Lakish explains that it is because the basket of Chulin contains more
Chulin than the dish of Terumah that might have fallen into it, so even if
the Terumah fell into the Chulin basket, mid'Oraisa it is Batel b'Rov.
However, we know that Terumah is Batel with only one in one hundred. The
SIFRI derives this from the verse, "Es Mikdesho Mimeinu" (Bamidbar 18:29;
see TOSFOS 73a, DH Mah, and RASHI in Chulin 99a, DH sh'Nisbashlu), which
teaches that if the amount that one was Mekadesh as Terumas Ma'aser falls
back into the original produce from which it was removed, it all becomes
Asur, because it is one out of a hundred (one part Terumah and 99 parts
Chulin). From there we learn that if it falls into one hundred parts (one
part Terumah and one hundred parts Chulin), it is Batel.
Why, then, does our Gemara say that if there is more Chulin in the basket,
the Terumah would be Batel mid'Oraisa? Terumah is only Batel mid'Oraisa when
there is at least one hundred parts of Chulin in the mixture! (It cannot be
that when it says that there is mostly Chulin in the basket, it means that
there is one hundred times more Chulin than Terumah, because then there
would be no question that the Terumah is Batel, and we would not need the
Heter that "we say that the Terumah dish fell into the Terumah basket." Even
if the Terumah fell directly into the basket of Chulin and there was no
basket of Terumah there, the basket of Chulin would be Mutar because the
Terumah is Batel in one hundred parts of Chulin.)
(a) TOSFOS (73a, DH Mah sh'Ein and elsewhere) proves from this Gemara that
the Sifri is teaching only an Asmachta. Mid'Oraisa, even Terumah is Batel
b'Rov. This seems to be the way that all of the Rishonim learned this
(b) The OR SAME'ACH (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 15:16) suggests a novel
approach. He says that perhaps the Sifri is indeed teaching a Halachah
d'Oraisa, and Terumah is *not* Batel b'Rov mid'Oraisa. Why, then, does Reish
Lakish say that there must be more Chulin than Terumah, if the Terumah still
will not be Batel mid'Oraisa until there is a hundred times more Chulin than
The Or Same'ach says, based on the RAMBAM in Hilchos Shechitah 5:3, that an
Isur that is explicitly written in the Torah is treated with greater
stringency than an Isur that is not written explicitly in the Torah (even
though it may still be d'Oraisa; see also RAN in Nedarim 8a, DH Ha Ka Mashma
Lan, and SHITAH MEKUBETZES Kesuvos 40a, DH Hachi Nami). The Isur of Terumah
that fell into a Rov of Chulin (and less than one in one hundred) is not
written explicitly in the Torah, whereas the Isur of a mixture that is
*mostly* Terumah is explicitly forbidden by the Torah. That is why Reish
Lakish says that we are lenient once there is Rov Chulin.