DO WE IGNORE B'EINO MINO TO ALLOW BITUL? [Isurim: Bitul: Salek Es Mino]
(Rabah bar bar Chanah): If a piece of Neveilah fell into a pot, it forbids the contents only if the piece is big enough to give taste to the liquid, sediments, and pieces of meat in the pot.
(Rav): Once the Neveilah gives taste to another piece, that piece is itself like a Neveilah, and it forbids all the pieces, for they are the same Min.
Question (Rav Safra): Rav's law is like R. Yehudah, who holds that Min b'Mino is never Batel. Even if the Neveilah didn't give Ta'am to another piece, it would forbid them all!
Answer (Rava): Since the Neveilah is mixed with Mino (pieces of meat) and Eino Mino (the liquid and sediments), we ignore Mino, and Eino Mino (if there is enough) is Mevatel the Neveilah.
Toras ha'Bayis ha'Aruch (4:1:10b): We should be stringent like those who say that Ta'am k'Ikar is mid'Oraisa. Therefore, if a Neveilah fell into a pot of vegetables, and before we could estimate whether there is a Shi'ur for Bitul, some spilled, we are stringent, for it is a Safek Torah. If it fell into slaughtered meat, and there is enough for Bitul b'Rov, and some was removed before we could estimate the Shi'ur, all agree that it is permitted. All agree that mid'Oraisa, Min b'Mino is Batel in the majority. Mid'Rabanan we are stringent to require 60, like Isurei Torah (b'Eino Mino). We are lenient about a Safek mid'Rabanan. If it fell into Mino and Eino Mino, it seems that we are lenient as long as we know that there is more Mino of Heter than Isur. According to R. Yehudah (that Min b'Mino is never Batel), when Isur is mixed with Mino and Eino Mino, we ignore Mino, and Eino Mino is Mevatel the Isur. For the same reason, we ignore Eino Mino, and Mino is Mevatel the Isur.
Toras ha'Bayis ha'Katzar (4:1:7a): If Isur fell into Heter and we did not know the Shi'ur, and it fell into Eino Mino, all is forbidden due to Safek, for a Safek Isur Torah is like Vadai Isur, unless we are sure that there are 60 parts of Heter against it, or a professional Nochri (chef) tasted it and said that the Isur cannot be tasted. If Isur fell into Mino and we know that there is a majority of Heter, the Safek (whether there is 60) is permitted, for this is a Safek mid'Rabanan. If it is a Safek whether there is a majority of Heter, this is a Safek Torah and we are stringent. If it fell into Mino and Eino Mino, it seems that we ignore Eino Mino, and Mino is the majority and it is Mevatel the Isur, just like we say 'we ignore Mino, and Eino Mino is Mevatel the Isur'.
Tur (YD 98): The Rashba says that if Isur fell into Mino and Eino Mino, and some spilled, we ignore Eino Mino, and we are Toleh (assume) that Mino (of Heter) is the majority and it is Mevatel the Isur, just like we say 'we ignore Mino, and Eino Mino is greater and it is Mevatel the Isur', according to the opinion that Min b'Mino is never Batel.
Beis Yosef (yd98 DH Kasav ha'Rashba): The Tur connotes that even if we are unsure whether the majority was from Mino or Eino Mino, the Rashba is lenient to assume that it was Mino. This cannot be. If so, it is a Safek, and we must be stringent! Also, what was his proof from 'we ignore Mino, and Eino Mino is Mevatel'? There, we know that Eino Mino is the majority! We must say that the Rashba discusses when we know that Mino is the majority, One might have thought that since it is mixed also with Eino Mino, it is not Batel. He answers that this is not so. Rather, we ignore Mino, just like R. Yehudah (who holds that Min b'Mino is not Batel) ignores Mino, and Eino Mino is Mevatel the Isur. He says in Toras ha'Bayis ha'Aruch 'if it fell into Mino and Eino Mino, we are lenient as long as we know that there is more Mino of Heter than Isur.'
Yam Shel Shlomo (8:46): The Tur does not mean that we are unsure if there was a majority (of Heter) b'Mino. If so, it is a Safek Torah! Rather, we know that there was a majority of Mino. One might have thought to consider this like a mixture Min b'Eino Mino, for which a majority does not permit. It depends on Nosen Ta'am. (Since it is a Safek Torah whether the Isur was enough to give taste, one must be stringent.) Rather, we ignore Eino Mino and consider this like a mixture Min b'Mino (which is permitted mid'Oraisa because the majority is Heter), and we are Toleh to assume that there were 60 parts of Heter. Alternatively, we are Toleh (lenient) to consider it as if there was only Mino.
Yam Shel Shlomo: I disagree with the Rashba's law. We cannot learn from Rava's law. There, there is no Isur due to taste. R. Yehudah holds that a Gezeras ha'Kasuv teaches that Min b'Mino is not Batel. Therefore, when there is also Eino Mino, we ignore Mino, in order that Eino Mino will be Mevatel the taste, and everything is permitted. Here, the Isur forbids Eino Mino mid'Oraisa through taste. Therefore, when the gravy spilled, even if there is also Mino, it is a Safek Torah, so we must be stringent.
Defense (Taz 5): The Gemara said that we remove Mino when there is Shechutah (slaughtered meat), Neveilah and gravy, and there is 60 times as much gravy as Neveilah. We should have forbidden the Shechutah due to Mino, since R. Yehudah holds that Bitul does not help for Mino. We do not. Rather, since the Shechutah is forbidden only due to the mixture, we ignore Mino of Heter. The mixture does not harm it, since the Isur is Batel in the gravy, so it is as if there is no Isur. There is not even an absorption of Isur. The same exact reasoning applies here. Mid'Oraisa, Mino is Batel in the majority. All agree that there is Bitul in 60 parts of Eino Mino. Here, we do not have 60 parts of gravy to be Mevatel the Neveilah, but there is Shechutah to be Mevatel it mid'Oraisa. It is proper to forbid the gravy because there is not 60, and it gives taste. Therefore, we say that we ignore the gravy, as if it was not mixed with the Neveilah, since the Neveilah was already Batel in Shechutah. It is considered like true Heter. Chachamim were stringent to require 60 even for Mino. Here it is a Safek if there were 60 of Eino Mino, and we cannot know, so we follow Torah law that the Neveilah is Batel in the majority without 60, since perhaps there really were 60 of Eino Mino.
R. Akiva Eiger: The Taz should say 'perhaps there were 60 including Mino and Eino Mino.'
Prishah (17): The Tur means that we are Toleh (assume) that there Vadai were 60, since we know that Mino was the majority and (mid'Oraisa) the Isur was Batel. Alternatively, even if now (after some spilled - PF) Mino and Eino Mino together are not 60 times as much as the Isur, since in any case there is more Mino than Isur, we are Toleh (lenient) to judge based on Mino, and we ignore Eino Mino.
Drishah (4): There are three differences between the source and here (the Rashba's law). 1) Here, some of the mixture spilled. 2) There, we require 60 times as much Eino Mino as the Isur. Here, he requires only a majority (after it spilled - PF). 3) There, we required 60 times as much Eino Mino as the Isur without joining Mino, for R. Yehudah holds that Min b'Mino is not Batel. Here, we are lenient to assume that there were 60 times as much Heter including Mino and Eino Mino, for this is like R. Tam, who holds that Isur is Batel (even) in Mino.
Shulchan Aruch (YD 98:2): If Isur became mixed with Mino and Eino Mino and some spilled, and we cannot estimate it, and we know that Mino was mostly Heter, we ignore Eino Mino, and Mino (of Heter) is more, and it is Mevatel the Isur.
Taz (5): According to R. Yehudah, when Isur is mixed with Mino and Eino Mino, we ignore Mino, and Eino Mino is Mevatel the Isur. Similarly, we (who hold that Min b'Mino is Batel) say conversely, since mid'Oraisa Min b'Mino is more lenient than Min b'Eino Mino. Therefore, if Isur is mixed with Mino and Eino Mino, we ignore Eino Mino, and (a majority of) Mino is Mevatel the Isur. If nothing spilled and the mixture were still in front of us, it would be forbidden mid'Rabanan. Now that it spilled and we can say that there were 60 times as much Mino as the Isur, we are lenient. We must know that there is more Mino than Isur. If not, there is a Safek mid'Oraisa.
Taz (5): Surely, we discuss when it became mixed at once with Mino and Eino Mino. If first it became mixed with Eino Mino and later Mino was added, the first mixture already became (Asur like) Neveilah.
Shach (8): The Rashba's law is unlike the source. There, Mino does not forbid through giving taste. Therefore, we ignore Mino, since it is Batel in Eino Mino. Here, how can we ignore Eino Mino? The Isur gives taste to Eino Mino! It is a Safek Torah; perhaps there was not 60. I say that even the Rashba and those who accepted his law permit only Mino. I.e. do not say that since it now it fell in Eino Mino, it is a Safek Torah. Rather, we ignore Eino Mino, and Mino remains and it is Mevatel the Isur. (I.e. Eino Mino is forbidden, just it does not prevent Bitul from permitting Mino - PF.) This is why he said 'and the rest of Mino is the majority and is Mevatel it.' He did not say 'Mino is the majority and is Mevatel it.' This is because Eino Mino is forbidden.
Pischei Teshuvah (7): The Chasam Sofer (YD 87) says that we should not be lenient (to permit Eino Mino) against the Shach. The taste is not Batel. Therefore, one must remove all moisture of gravy from the Shechutah. One must peel the pieces because they have cracks in order to remove the gravy, which is intact Isur.