Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Chulin, 100

1) HALACHAH:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 permitted food.

(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?

ANSWERS:

(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).

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 Re'uyah l'Hiskabed.

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.)

(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.

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 b'Mino.

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 b'Mino)!

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 food!

ANSWERS:

(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.

(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.

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.

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, Y. Shaw)

100b

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.

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!

ANSWERS:

(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.)