1)

TOSFOS DH BERYAH

úåñôåú ã"ä áøéä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains some of the laws of a mixture containing a Beryah, such as that it is not even nullified in one thousand permitted parts.)

åàôéìå áàìó ìà áèéì åëï çúéëä äøàåéä ìäúëáã ìà áèìä ëãàîø äëà

(a)

Explanation: It is not even nullified if it is mixed with one thousand (permitted parts). Similarly, a piece that is fit to honor one with is not nullified, as stated in our Gemara.

åäéëà ãôéøù çã îéðééäå ðîé àñåø âæéøä ùîà é÷ç îï ä÷áåò ëéåï ùàéï äàéñåø ðéëø ëãôøéùéú ìòéì (ãó öä.)

(b)

Observation: In a case where one item from a mixture including a Beryah or a piece fit to honor with was separated from the mix, it also is forbidden due to a decree that someone will end up taking from a Kavua doubt (which is considered fifty-fifty), being that the prohibition is not recognizable as stated earlier (95a).

åãáø ùàéðå ìà áøéä åìà çúéëä äøàåéä ìäúëáã áèì áøåá åàôéìå àéñåø îãøáðï ìéëà ëãîùîò äëà åîéäå ùîà ìçã âáøà äéä àñåø

1.

Observation (cont.): If something is neither a Beryah nor a piece fit to honor with, it is nullified with a majority (of permitted parts). It is not even forbidden according to Rabbinic law, as is implied here. However, perhaps for one person (to eat all of the pieces) would be prohibited.

2)

TOSFOS DH SHANI CHATICHAH

úåñôåú ã"ä ùàðé çúéëä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not a Chatichah ha'Reuyah l'Hiskabed of Neveilah can be nullified.)

åà"ú àí ëï àîàé àîø áôø÷ äòøì (éáîåú ôà:) ãçúéëä ùì çèàú èîàä áîàä ùì çèàåú èäåøåú úòìä

(a)

Question: If so, why does the Gemara say in Yevamos (81b) that a piece of impure Chatas is nullified in one hundred pieces of pure Chatas?

åëé úéîà ùàðé çúéëä ãðáìä ãøàåéä ìäúëáã ìôðé àåøçéï òåáãé ëåëáé' àáì ùì çèàú èîàä àñåø áäðàä

1.

Answer: You might say that a piece of Neveilah is different as it is fit to serve to Nochri guests, whereas an impure Chatas is forbidden from benefit.

ãäà çúéëú áùø áçìá úðï áôø÷ áúøà ãîñëú ò"æ (ãó òã.) ãìà áèìä àò"â ãàñåø áäðàä ëã÷àîø äúí

2.

Question: [This is incorrect.] The Mishnah in Avodah Zarah (74a) says that a piece of meat cooked with milk is not nullified even though it is forbidden from benefit, as stated there.

åéù ìåîø ãëì ãáø äøàåé ìäúëáã àí äéä îúáèì çùéá åìà áèéì àáì áäòøì (éáîåú ôà:) àôéìå úúáèì áçèàåú èäåøåú äúí àéðä øàåéä àìà ìëäðéí åìà çùéáà ãëäðéí àéï îçæé÷éï èåáä æä ìæä ùëåìï ùåéï ãìëì áðé àäøï úäéä àéù ëàçéå ëúéá (åé÷øà æ) àáì ùì çèàú áùì çåìéï ÷àîø äúí ãìà úòìä

(b)

Answer: Anything that is fit to honor guests if it would be nullified is considered important enough that it is not nullified. However, in Yevamos (81b), even if the piece of impure Chatas would be nullified in the pieces of pure Chatas it would only be fit for Kohanim, and there (i.e. amidst the Kohanim) it is not considered important. This is because Kohanim are not grateful to each other (for the fact that they are receiving meat from the Korbanos), as the Pasuk says, "For all of the sons of Aharon should be (a portion for) a man like his brother" (Vayikra 7:10). However, if a Chatas is mixed with Chulin, the Gemara there (ibid.) states that it is not nullified.

åà"ú ãîùîò äëà ãçúéëú ðáìä ìà áèìä åáôø÷ áúøà ãîñëú ò"æ (ãó òã.) îùîò ãáèìä ãôøéê äàé úðà îàé ÷à çùéá àé ãáø ùáîðéï ÷à çùéá ìéúðé ðîé çúéëú ðáìä åàé àéñåøé äðàä ÷à çùéá ìéúðé ðîé çîõ áôñç

(c)

Question: The Gemara here implies that a piece of Neveilah is not nullified. In Avodah Zarah (74a), the Gemara implies that it is nullified. The Gemara asks, what is the Tana listing? If he is listing items that are sold by counting them, he should also list a piece of Neveilah! If he is listing items forbidden from benefit, he should also Chametz on Pesach!

åîùðé ãúøúé àéú ìéä ãáø ùáîðéï åàéñåøé äðàä åîôøù ðîé äúí ãäøé àìå àñåøéï ìîòåèé ãáø ùáîðéï åìàå àéñåøé äðàä àé ðîé àéñåøé äðàä åìàå ãáø ùáîðéï

1.

Question (cont.): The Gemara (ibid.) answers that it is listing items that have both qualifications: they are sold by number and are forbidden from benefit. The Gemara there also explains that when the Mishnah says, "They are forbidden" it excludes items that are sold by number but not forbidden from benefit, as well as items forbidden from benefit that are not sold by number. (This implies that Neveilah, which is sold by count but not forbidden from benefit as implied by the Gemara, should always be able to be nullified!)

åé"ì ãäúí ìà ÷àîø àìà ãìà àééøé áäå úðà ãîúðéúéï ãäúí åìàå îùåí ãñáø ãáèìé

(d)

Answer: The Gemara there merely means that the Mishnah is not discussing these items, not that they are able to be nullified.

åäà ã÷àîø ìîòåèé

(e)

Implied Question: The Gemara says that it (the Mishnah) excludes (as stated above). (Doesn't this mean that other items do not have the same law as the items listed in the Mishnah?)

äééðå ìîòåèé ãìà çùéá ìäå

(f)

Answer: This means that the Mishnah excludes items from its discussion (not that it holds they can be nullified).

åëä"â éù áøéù ô"÷ ãááà ÷îà (ãó ä:) ãîðéðà ãîúðéúéï ìîòåèé ãøáé çééà åãøáé çééà ìîòåèé ãøáé àåùòéà åìà îùåí ãôìéâé

1.

Proof: We find a similar exclusion in Bava Kama (5b) that the amount states in the Mishnah excludes the list of Rebbi Chiya, and the list of Rebbi Chiya excludes the list of Rebbi Oshiya, but this is not because they argue.

àáì ÷ùä ãëé ôøéê äúí åìéúðé ðîé çúéëú ðáìä àîàé ìà îùðé ãìà úðé ìä îùåí ãëáø úðà ìéä äëà áîúðéúéï

(g)

Question: However, there is a difficulty. When the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (74a) asks why the Mishnah doesn't list a piece of Neveilah, why doesn't it answer that it is not said in this Mishnah because it was already stated in our Mishnah in Chulin (96b)?

ëãîùðé äúí àäà ãôøéê äúí åìéúðé ðîé àâåæé ôøê åøîåðé áàãï åîùðé äà úðà äúí äøàåé ìòøìä åëå'

1.

Question (cont.): This would be similar to the answer given in Avodah Zarah (ibid.) to the question why Egozei Perech (a special type of nut) and Rimonei Biladan (a special type of pomegranate) were not listed. The Gemara answered that the Mishnah (in Orlah 3:7) already stated, "that which is fit for Orlah etc."

åé"ì ãäëé ôøéê äúí åìéúðé ðîé çúéëú ðáìä åàé îùåí ãëáø úðà ìéä äëà à"ë ìà ìéúðé çúéëú áùø áçìá ëéåï ãëáø àùîåòéðï äëà ãçúéëú àéñåø ìà áèìä îùåí ãäåé ãáø ùáîðéï åîùðé ãääåà úðà úøúé àéú ìéä

(h)

Answer: The Gemara there asks as follows. Why not list a piece of Neveilah? If the reason is because the Mishnah already stated this in Chulin (96b), the Mishnah in Avodah Zarah (74a) should also not list meat cooked with milk because the Mishnah in Chulin (ibid.) also taught that a piece of forbidden meat is not nullified because it is sold by number! The Gemara answers that the Tana only listed items that had two criteria (counted by number and forbidden from benefit).

åìôéøåù æä öøéê ìôøù ããáø ùáîðéï åìà àéñåø äðàä áèì ìääåà úðà åìëê ìà ð÷è àìà çúéëú áùø áçìá åôìéâ àúðà ãäëà

(i)

Observation: According to this explanation one must explain that something which is counted but is not forbidden from benefit can be nullified according to this Tana. This is why he only listed a piece of meat cooked with milk. He argues on the Tana of our Mishnah (in Chulin 96b).

3)

TOSFOS DH CHATICHAH

úåñôåú ã"ä çúéëä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the sauce does not become Neveilah.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ùðúáùìä úçéìä òîä ÷åãí ùðúï ùàø çúéëåú á÷ãøä åìà äéä áæå ùùéí áàéñåø åðúðä äðáìä èòí áä

(a)

Explanation: Rashi explains that this piece was cooked first with the piece of Neveilah before he put the other pieces in the pot. This piece was not sixty times bigger than the piece of Neveilah, which therefore put its taste into the previously permitted piece.

åàç"ë ðúï ùàø äçúéëåú á÷ãøä çúéëä æå ù÷áìä èòí äðáìä çúéëä òöîä ðòùú ðáìä åàåñøú ëì äçúéëåú ëåìï îôðé ùäï îéðä

1.

Explanation (cont.): Afterwards, the other pieces were placed in the pot (together with the Neveilah). The previously permitted piece that received the taste of the Neveilah is considered Neveilah, and forbids all of the other pieces as they are of the same type.

å÷ùä ìôéøåùå ãà"ë âí äøåèá ùäéä áàåúä ùòä ðàñø îúçìä ò"é èòí äðáìä åáñîåê îùîò ãîáèìéðï ìçúéëåú ò"é øåèá ãäåé ùàéðå îéðå

(b)

Question: There is a difficulty with Rashi's explanation. If so, the sauce that was in the pot when it cooked with the Neveilah was already forbidden due to the taste of the Neveilah. Yet the Gemara later implies that the pieces of Neveilah can be nullified through the sauce, as it is not its type!

åäìà øåèá òöîå ðàñø îúçìä åðòùú ðáìä åàåñø ëì äøåèá ùàçøé ëï îôðé ùäåà îéðå åéöèøê ùéäà ùùéí áçúéëåú ùðúï àçøé ëï ìáèì äøåèá ãîòé÷øà

1.

Question (cont.): Isn't the sauce itself forbidden and made into Neveilah? This should forbid all of the sauce in the pot being that it is of the same type! The added pieces of permitted meat should have to be sixty times larger than the amount of sauce that originally cooked with the Neveilah!

àìà é"ì ãîééøé ëâåï ùéù çúéëä ùì äéúø ëåìä çåõ ìøåèá åçúéëú ðáìä îåðçú òìéä çåõ ìøåèá åðòùú çúéëú äéúø ðáìä ìôé ùáåìòú èòí ðáìä ãàéï áäï ùùéí ìáèì äèòí åàçøé ëï ëùîðòø ä÷ãøä àåñøú ëì äçúéëåú îôðé ùäï îéðä

(c)

Answer: Rather, the case must be where there is a piece of permitted meat that is totally outside of the sauce, and the piece of Neveilah is on top of it outside of the sauce. The formerly permitted piece becomes Neveilah because it absorbs the flavor of the Neveilah, and it does not have sixty times the amount of the Neveilah. Afterwards, when he stirs the pot, it forbids all of the pieces because they are of the same type.

4)

TOSFOS DH B'SHE'KADAM

úåñôåú ã"ä áù÷ãí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses when we say Chatichah Na'asis Neveilah and when we only measure the amount of actual prohibited matter.)

àú äàéñåø

(a)

Explanation: He took away the Neveilah.

åà"ú ìîä ìé ùçúéëä ùì äéúø ÷áìä èòí îï äðáìä àôéìå ìà ðúðä èòí ðîé ãäà áîéðä àåñøú áëì ãäå

(b)

Question: Why is it significant that the piece of permitted meat received taste from the Neveilah? Even if it would not receive this taste it would be prohibited, as Min b'Mino forbids with even a small amount (which is clearly not dependent in taste)!

åàåîø ø"ú ãðäé ãäéà âåôä îéúñøà áëì ùäåà î"î ìà àîøéðï ùúòùä ðáìä ìàñåø ëì äàçøåú ëéåï ùäéà òöîä ìà ðàñøä àìà ò"é ëì ùäåà

(c)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that while this piece of meat would be forbidden when cooked with even a small amount of Neveilah, we would not say that it turns the other pieces of meat into Neveilah since it was only forbidden due to a small amount of Neveilah.

åøáéðå àôøéí äéä àåîø îúåê ëê ãàôéìå ëé ðúðä áä èòí àéï ääéúø ðòùä ðáìä ùéöèøê ùùéí ëðâã ëì äçúéëä àìà ëðâã äàéñåø äáìåò

(d)

Opinion: Rabeinu Efraim said due to this that even if the permitted piece did receive taste from the Neveilah, the amount of permitted item does not have to be sixty times greater than this piece, but rather sixty times greater than the amount of Neveilah absorbed by the once permitted piece.

äìëê ìøá ãàîø äëà ãîéï áîéðå ìà áèéì ëùçúéëú äéúø ÷áìä èòí îï äðáìä çùéá äàéñåø ëàéìå äåà áòéï åàåñøú ëì äçúéëåú áîùäå

1.

Opinion (cont.): Therefore, according to Rav who says here that Min b'Mino is not nullified when a piece of permitted meat received flavor from a Neveilah, the prohibited taste is considered extant and it therefore prohibits all of the other pieces of meat with even a small amount.

àáì ëé ìà ðúðä äðáìä èòí áä ìà äéúä àåñøú äçúéëåú îôðé ùäí îéðä ùäøé àéï öøéê ìáèì àìà äàéñåø ìáã åëéåï ùìà ðúðä èòí áçúéëä äåé äàéñåø ëîàï ãìéúéä ãìà äåé ëàéìå äåà áòéï åìà àñø àìà çúéëä øàùåðä ùàéï ääéúø ðòùä àéñåø åìà àñø ùàø çúéëåú

2.

Opinion (cont.): However, when the Neveilah does not give any taste to the permitted piece of meat it would not forbid the other pieces because they are of the same type, as only the prohibited taste must be nullified. Since the permitted piece did not receive the taste of the Neveilah, it is considered as if the taste is not extant and it therefore only forbids the first piece. This is because the first piece is not looked at Neveilah and therefore does not forbid the other pieces.

åãå÷à âáé èôú çìá àîøéðï ì÷îï áôø÷ ëì äáùø (ãó ÷ç.) ãçúéëä òöîä ðòùú ðáìä åöøéê ùùéí ëðâã ëì äçúéëä åìà ñâé ááéèåì èéôä ìçåã

i.

Implied Question: Specifically regarding a drop of milk we say later (108a) that the piece itself is a forbidden piece of meat like Neveilah (even though the context here is meat with milk), and that sixty times the amount of the piece of meat is required to permit it. It is insufficient to nullify the drop of milk itself. (What is the difference between a drop of milk turning an entire piece of meat into "Neveilah" and our case where we only have to nullify the forbidden taste?)

îùåí ãëì çã åçã áàôéä ðôùéä ùøé åëé àéúðäå áäãé äããé àñåø äìëê äáùø òöîå ðòùä àéñåø åìå÷ä àí àëì çöé æéú îáùø åçöé æéú îçìá åìëê öøéê áøåèá ùùéí ìáèì ëì äçúéëä ùðôìä òìéä èéôú çìá

ii.

Answer: This is because each of them (the milk and the meat) separately are permitted, and only when they come together do they become forbidden. Therefore, the meat itself becomes forbidden, and one receives lashes if he eats a half Zayis from the meat and a half Zayis from the milk. This is why the sauce requires sixty times the amount of the entire piece of meat that had the drop of milk fall on it.

àáì çúéëú äéúø ùáìòä èòí ðáìä åðàñøä åçæøä åðúðä èòí áøåèá àéï öøéê àìà ùùéí ìáèì äàéñåø ùðáìò áçúéëä åàéï öøéê ùéòåø ùùéí ùì àåúä çúéëä

iii.

Answer (cont.): However, if a piece of permitted meat that became forbidden because it absorbed taste from a Neveilah then proceeded to give its taste to a sauce, one only requires sixty times the amount of the taste of the Neveilah that was absorbed in the originally permitted piece of meat. Sixty times the amount of the entire piece of meat is not required.

å÷ùä ìôéøåùå ìøáà ãîùðé àôéìå úéîà ìà ÷ãí åñì÷å îàé îäðé ìéä çúéëä ùì äéúø ùðàñøä îúçìä åðòùú ðáìä åäìà ìòåìí àéï öøéê ñ' áøåèá àìà ëãé ìáèì çúéëä ùì ðáìä ìáãä åìà áòéðï ùùéí ìáèì ùúé çúéëåú ùì ðáìä åùì äéúø ùðàñøä òì éãä

(e)

Question: There is a difficulty with Rabeinu Efraim's explanation. According to Rava who answers that this is even if one did not take the original piece of Neveilah etc., how does it help to have a piece of permitted meat that was forbidden and turned into Neveilah? We only need sixty times the amount of sauce in order to nullify the piece of Neveilah itself, not to nullify one of Neveilah plus the one that was forbidden due to the Neveilah!

åé"ì ëâåï ùðúîòèä äðáìä äøáä îëîå ùäéúä ÷åãí ùðáìò èòîå áçúéëä ùì äéúø åäùúà ìôé ùðúðä èòí áùì äéúø öøéê ñ' ëðâã ëì îä ùäéúä îúçìä åàéï ùéòåø áøåèá ìáèìä

(f)

Answer: The case is where the Neveilah shrunk from its original size before its taste was absorbed into the permitted piece. Since it gave its taste to the permitted piece, sixty times its original size is required. There is not enough sauce to nullify it.

àáì ìà ðúðä áä èòí àéï öøéê ñ' àìà ëðâã îä ùðùàø áðáìä åéù ùéòåø áøåèá ìáèìä

1.

Answer (cont.): However, if it did not give taste to the permitted piece, only sixty times its current size is required. There is enough sauce to nullify this amount.

åøá ãàúà ìôìåâé àãøáä áø áø çðä ìà äéä öøéê øá ìåîø àìà çúéëä ùì ðáìä àåñøú ëì äçúéëåú îôðé ùäï îéðä àìà àâá àåøçéä àùîåòéðï ããå÷à ðúðä áä èòí ðáìä àáì ìà ðúðä áä èòí ðáìä ìà

2.

Answer (cont.): Rav, who is arguing on Rabah bar bar Chanah, only needed to say that a piece of Neveilah can forbid all of the pieces because they are of the same type. However, as an aside he taught that this is only if it gave off taste of Neveilah, as opposed to if it did not.

åøáéðå àôøéí òìéå äùìåí äéä îáéà øàéä îäà ãàîø ìòéì (ãó öç.) ääåà ëæéúà ãúøáà ãðôì ìãé÷åìà ãáùøà åãé÷åìà äåà ñì îìà çúéëåú ùì áùø øåúç åìà àîø ùúòùä ðáìä àåúä çúéëä ùðôì òìéä ëæéú çìá åúàñåø ùàø çúéëåú ùàéï áäï ùùéí ëðâã ëåìä ìôé ùáàåúä çúéëä òöîä ìà äéä áä ëãé ìáèì äëæéú àìà îùòøéðï äëæéú áëì äáùø ùáñì

(g)

Proof: Rabeinu Efraim Alav ha'Shalom used to prove his position from the Gemara earlier (98a). The Gemara stated that there was a Kzayis of forbidden fat that fell into a "Dikula" - "basket" of meat that was full of pieces of boiling hot meat. The Gemara did not say that the piece of meat that the fat fell on is considered Neveilah, and that it forbids the other pieces because the other pieces are not sixty times the amount of the fat plus the new piece of Neveilah, which becomes Neveilah because it itself was not sixty times larger than the fat that fell on it. Rather, we see if all of the meat in the basket was sixty times greater than the Kzayis of forbidden fat. (This proves that only what was absorbed is significant, and that we do not always say the entire piece is considered Neveilah.)

åàéï îùí øàéä ëìì ããé÷åìà äééðå ÷ìçú åëãôéøù ä÷åðèøñ åëãôéøùðå ìòéì

(h)

Question: There is no proof from this Gemara (ibid.), as a Dikula is a pot as explained by Rashi and as we explained earlier (98a, DH "d'Nafal").

åàôéìå àí ðàîø ããé÷åìà äåà ñì ëãîùîò äëà åáëì ãåëúà àéï øàéä îùí ãîîä ðôùê àí àéï çìá îôòôò îçúéëä ìçúéëä ëîå ùôéøùðå ìòéì à"ë àéï àñåø àìà äçúéëä ùðôìä òìéä äçìá åäùàø îåúøåú

1.

Question (cont.): Even if we say that a Dikula is a basket as implied here and in all other places, there is no proof. If the forbidden fat does not bubble from piece to piece as we explained earlier, the only piece that would be forbidden is the piece that it fell on. All other pieces would be permitted.

åàí äåà îôòôò îçúéëä ìçúéëä à"ë áãéï äåà ùëì äçúéëåú îñééòåú ìáèì åìà àîøéðï ùúòùä ðáìä àåúä çúéëä ùðôìä òìéä çìá îàçø ùñåôå ìäúôùè áëì äçúéëåú îéãé ãäåä àèéôú çìá ùðôìä òì çúéëú áùø ãàí àéï ð"è îåúø àò"ô ù÷åãí ùúúôùè äèôä ð"è áî÷åí ðôéìúä åìà àîøéðï ùéòùä àåúä äáùø ðáìä ëéåï ãñåó äèéôä ìäúôùè áëì äçúéëä

2.

Question (cont.): If it bubbles from piece to piece, it is understandable that all of the pieces should come together to nullify it. We do not say that the piece the fat fell upon should be considered Neveilah, as the fat is going to end up spreading out into all of the pieces, just like a drop of milk that falls on a piece of meat. If it does not give taste, it is permitted. This is despite the fact that before the drop of milk spread it did give taste to the spot of meat where it landed. We do not say that that piece of meat should be considered Neveilah, as the milk is going to spread out.

îéäå ìôé îä ùôé' ìòéì áùí äøá øáé àìòæø îîé"õ ãáçöé çúéëä àéï ùééê ìåîø ùúòùä ðáéìä àéï øàéä îùí

(i)

Observation: However, according to what I explained earlier in the name of Rebbi Eliezer from Metz that one cannot say a half piece becomes Neveilah, there is no proof (that this is the reason why it does not become Neveilah).

åàéï øàéä ìøáéðå àôøéí îäà ãàîø (úøåîåú ô"ä îùðä å) àéï äîãåîò îãîò àìà ìôé çùáåï åìà àîøéðï ùéòùä äëì úøåîä

(j)

Implied Question: There is no proof to Rabeinu Efraim from the Mishnah in Terumos (5:6) that says that a mixture that partially contains Terumah only causes other grain it mixes with to be considered mixed with Terumah based on the amount of Terumah in the original mixture. We do not say that the entire mixture is looked upon as Terumah. (In other words, if one Sa'ah of Terumah fell into ten Sa'ah of Chulin, and then one Sa'ah of this mixture fell into ten Sa'ah of Chulin, we say that the second mixture nullifies the Terumah that fell into it, as there is only one part Terumah to one hundred parts Chulin. We do not look at the entire Sa'ah that fell into the second mixture as Terumah.)

ãéù ìçì÷ áéï ãáø éáù ìãáø äðàñø ò"é áìéòä

(k)

Answer: This is because we can differentiate between a dry item and an item forbidden through absorption.

åìôéøåùå ðéçà äà ãàîø âáé ééï ðñê áñåó îñëú ò"æ (ãó òâ:) ééï ðñê ùðôì ìáåø

(l)

Proof: According to Rabeinu Efraim's explanation, the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (73b) that discusses Yayin Nesech that fell into a pit is understandable.

100b----------------------------------------100b

ãàéëà ìîàï ãàîø àôéìå ðôì ùí ÷éúåï ùì îéí ìáñåó øåàéï ääéúø ëàéìå àéðå åùàø îéí øáéí òìéå åîáèìéï àåúå åìà àîø ùééï òöîå ùì äéúø ðòùä àéñåø ìéçùá ëàéìå äåà ééï ðñê åéöèøê îï äîéí ëãé ìáèì ëì äééï

1.

Proof (cont.): This is because there is an opinion there that even if a pitcher of water fell into the pit after the wine was already present, we look at what is permitted as if it is nothing and the rest has the water nullify it. We do not say that the amount of permitted wine becomes as if it is forbidden wine (i.e. "Neveilah") in order to consider it like Yayin Nesech which would also have to be nullified by the water.

åîéäå é"ì ãäúí îééøé ëâåï ùìà äéä ùí ééï ðñê ëãé ìéúï èòí áùì äéúø ùááåø åìà ðàñø àìà ò"é ëì ùäåà åëéåï ãìà äåé àìà îùäå ìà àîøéðï çúéëä òöîä ðòùú ðáìä ëãôøéùéú ìòéì

(m)

Question: However, it is possible to say that the case there is where there was not enough Yayin Nesech present to give taste to the permitted wine that was in the pit. It was only forbidden due to a small amount of forbidden wine (Mino). Since it was only a small amount, we do not say that the permitted wine becomes like "Neveilah" as I explained earlier.

àò"â ãìà ãîé ãìòéì ìà àîøéðï àìà ìòðéï ùìà úàñåø äàçøåú àáì äéà òöîä ðàñøä áîùäå åëéåï ùðàñøä àñåøä ìòåìí ìî"ã (ì÷îï ãó ÷ç.) àôùø ìñåçèå àñåø

1.

Answer: This is despite the fact that it is really incomparable. Earlier, we only said this (small amount of taste) should not forbid the other pieces. However, it itself is forbidden with the small amount of taste, and as this is so it is forbidden forever according to the opinion later (108a) that even if the prohibited flavor absorbed can be cooked with other things and taken out, it is still prohibited.

åî"î éù ìåîø ãääåà ãùøé áò"æ àôéìå ðôìå äîéí ìáñåó éñáåø àôùø ìñåçèå îåúø

2.

Question: However, it is possible to say that the opinion in Avodah Zarah (73b) that permits the nullification of the wine even when the water fell in after the forbidden wine was in the pit will hold that if the prohibited flavor can be taken out is permitted.

åäéä îúéø ëîå ëï çúéëä òöîä

(n)

Opinion: Rabeinu Efraim similarly permitted the piece itself.

åîã÷àîø äúí ðôì çîøà ãäúéøà áâå îéà ãàéñåøà áð"è åëé ìéëà ð"è ùøé àéï øàéä ìôéøåùå

1.

Implied Question: The fact that the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (ibid.) states that if permitted wine fell into prohibited water (of idolatry) the mixture is forbidden only if the water gives taste to the wine is not proof to Rabeinu Efraim's opinion. (Why not?)

ãàéëà ìîéîø ãàééøé ëâåï ùðôì ëì ääéúø ááú àçú ùðúáèì ìàìúø äàéñåø àáì àí ìà ðôì ááú àçú øàùåï øàùåï ðòùä àéñåø åòåùä ééï ðñê ìàñåø äáà àçøéå ëãôéøù' áôø÷ ëéñåé äãí (ìòéì ôæ.)

2.

Answer: It is possible to say that the case is where all of the permitted wine fell into the water at one time, causing the prohibited wine to be immediately nullified. However, if it did not fall in at one time, the first drops that fall become prohibited and do become Yayin Nesech that forbids the permitted wine that falls in afterwards, as explained earlier (87a).

åìôé ôéøåù øáéðå àôøéí åãàé ðéçà îä ùöåä äëúåá ìäâòéì ëìé îãéï

(o)

Observation: According to the explanation of Rabeinu Efraim, it is certainly understandable that the Torah commanded us to scald the pots of Midyan.

ãäùúà éåøä âãåìä ùàé àôùø ìäâòéì áúåê ëìé àçø äéëé îùúøéà äà àéï áîéí ñ' ìáèì äàéñåø åàé ùéçæåø åîâòéìä áùðéä åäìà äîéí äøàùåðéí ðòùå ðáìä åçåæøéï åàåñøéï åàé ìà îùòøéï àìà áàéñåø òöîå ðéçà

1.

Observation (cont.): How can one kasher a big pot that cannot be kashered in another pot? There is not sixty times the amount of water to nullify the prohibited pot! If he will kasher it (i.e. dip another part of it into the water) again, the first waters become Neveilah and they forbid the pot! If we only measure based on the amount of prohibited taste, it is understandable.

ãæä àéï ìåîø ãëùàéï áú éåîà îâòéìéï àåúä ãäà ìà àñøä úåøä àìà ÷ãøä áú éåîà

2.

Observation (cont.): We have no reason to say that kashering should be done when it is not a Ben Yomo, as the Torah only forbade a Ben Yomo.

åàéï øàéä âîåøä îëàï ãàéëà ìîéîø ãìà àîøä úåøä ìäâòéì àìà ëìéí ÷èðéí áúåê ëìé âãåì ùéäéä áîéí ùùéí ëãé ìáèì äàéñåø

(p)

Question: There is no clear proof from here, as it is possible to say that the Torah only said to kasher small vessels in a big pot where the water will be sixty times greater than the pot in order to nullify the prohibited item.

åëúá øáéðå éäåãä ãðøàä ìø"é ìäçîéø áãáø ëéåï ãàéï øàéä áøåøä

(q)

Opinion: Rabeinu Yehudah writes that it appears to the Ri that one should be stringent (unlike Rabeinu Efraim) being that there is no clear proof.

5)

TOSFOS DH HAVEI MIN

úåñôåú ã"ä äåé îéï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the two different requirements of Shishim in our case.)

àåîø øùá"í ãëîå ùöøéê ùéäéä áøåèá ëãé ìáèì äçúéëä ãàéñåø ëê öøéê ðîé ùéäéä ñ' áçúéëä ùì äéúø ìáèì îï äøåèá ëùéòåø á' äçúéëåú

(a)

Opinion: The Rashbam says that just as there needs to be enough sauce to nullify the forbidden piece, so too there has to be enough permitted meat to nullify an amount of sauce equivalent to the size of two of the forbidden pieces of meat.

ãîëéåï ùðáìò äøåèá áçúéëú äàéñåø ðòùä ðáìä åëùðôìè àçøé ëï îîðä àåñø ùàø äøåèá îôðé ùäåà îéðå

1.

Opinion (cont.): Since the sauce was absorbed into the forbidden piece it becomes Neveilah. When the sauce is emitted from the piece, it forbids the rest of the sauce because it is Mino.

ãäëé àîøéðï áôø÷ ëì äáùø (ì÷îï ãó ÷ç.) âáé ëæéú áùø ùðôì ìúåê éåøä ùì çìá àîø øá áùø àñåø çìá îåúø åàé àîøú àôùø ìñåçèå àñåø àîàé çìá îåúø çìá ðáìä äéà

2.

Opinion (cont.): This is said by the Gemara later (108a) regarding the case where a Kzayis of meat fell into a pot of milk. Rav says that the meat is forbidden and the milk is permitted. The Gemara asks, if he holds that even if one can take out the prohibited flavor from a piece by cooking it with something else it is still forbidden, why is the milk permitted? It is milk of Neveilah!

ôéøåù ãçìá ùðáìò ááùø ðòùä ðáìä åëùðôìè àç"ë àåñø ëì äçìá îôðé ùäåà îéðå

3.

Opinion (cont.): This means that the milk that is absorbed in the meat becomes Neveilah, and when it is emitted it forbids all of the milk because it is Mino.

6)

TOSFOS DH SALEK

úåñôåú ã"ä ñì÷

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the difference between our case and a case in Bechoros.)

ä÷ùä øáéðå àôøéí ãàîø áôø÷ äìå÷ç áäîä (áëåøåú ëá.) äìå÷ç öéø ùì ò"ä îùé÷å áîéí åèäåø àé øåáà îéí èäø ìäå áäù÷ä åàé øåáà öéø ìàå áø ÷éáåìé èåîàä äåà åäðê îéòåèà ãîéí áèìé áøåáà å÷àîø ìà ùðå àìà ìèáì áå ôéúå àáì ì÷ãøä îöà îéï àú îéðå åðéòåø

(a)

Question: Rabeinu Efraim asks that the Gemara in Bechoros (22a) says that if someone buys brine from an Am ha'Aretz he should connect it to a Mikvah and it becomes pure. If most of it is water, it becomes pure through connecting it. If it is mostly brine, it does not become impure anyway, as the small amount of water in it is nullified. Rebbi Yirmiyah there says that this is only in order to dip his bread in the brine. However, if he wants to cook with it, the water in the brine mixes with the water in the pot and will remix (causing it to become impure).

åäùúà äéàê ðéòåø àîàé ìà ÷àîø ñì÷ àú îéðå ëîé ùàéðå åùàéðå îéðå ãäééðå äöéø øáä òì îéí èîàéí åîáèìï ìòåìí äöéø ùäåà øåá îáèì àåúí îéí äèîàéí

1.

Question (cont.): How does this mixing happen? Why don't we say that there (as we do in our Gemara that) we should take away Mino (i.e. in this case the water) as if it was not there, and the brine which is not Mino should nullify the impure water? This would mean that the brine that is the majority will always nullify the impure water (unlike Rebbi Yirmiyah)!

åé"ì ãìà ãîé ãäëà àéï îéðå ðàñø àìà îëç äàéñåø ùðúòøá áå åàé àôùø ìäáãéìå åáëì î÷åí ùéùðå äéúø äåà åìôéëê ùééê ìåîø ùí ñì÷ àáì äúí ãîéðå òöîå îèîà îçîú îâò îéí èîàéí àéï ùééê ìåîø ñì÷

(b)

Answer: The cases are incomparable. In our case, Mino is only forbidden due to the power of what is prohibited that is mixed together with it, and it is impossible to separate the two. It is therefore always considered permitted wherever it is. This is why it is possible to say that the name was taken away. However, where Mino itself is impure due to it touching impure water, it is impossible to say that we should take away Mino.

7)

TOSFOS DH V'CHI TEIMA

úåñôåú ã"ä åëé úéîà

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not ask a question from the implication of the Mishnah.)

ìôé æä äéä éëåì ìä÷ùåú îîúðéúéï ãîàé ÷àîø ø' éäåãä åäìà îáðé éò÷á ðàñø åòãééï áäîä èîàä îåúøú ìäï ãîùîò ãîèòí æä éù ìçåì àéñåø âéã ààéñåø èåîàä ëîå ùôéøù áñîåê áîñ÷ðà åàîø ãé÷à ðîé ã÷úðé ëå'

(a)

Implied Question: According to this, the Gemara could have asked a question from Rebbi Yehudah's statement in our Mishnah, "Wasn't Gid ha'Nasheh forbidden even to the sons of Yaakov, and they were still allowed to eat non kosher animals!" This implies that for this reason the prohibition of Gid ha'Nasheh should take effect on the prohibition of a non kosher animal, as stated later in the conclusion of the Gemara that this statement in the Mishnah can be deduced from etc.

åëï äéä éëåì ìä÷ùåú ìîàé ãáòé îòé÷øà ìîéîø ãèòîà ãø' éäåãä îùåí ãàéñåø çì òì àéñåø áëì î÷åí

1.

Implied Question (cont.): The Gemara could also have asked this on its original question that the Mishnah implies that Rebbi Yehudah's reasoning is due to the fact that he holds a prohibition can take effect when another prohibition is already present (on this object) in general (as opposed to it only being correct in this case). (Why didn't the Gemara ask these questions?)

åðøàä ìäøá øáéðå ùîåàì ãéù ìééùá ãñ"ã ãø' éäåãä ãèòîà ãú"÷ ëø' ùîòåï ãáñîåê îùåí îé ùâéãå àñåø åáùøå îåúø éöà ëå' åìäëé ôøéê ø' éäåãä åäìà àó ìáðé éò÷á ðàñø åòãééï áäîä èîàä áùøä îåúøú

(b)

Answer: Rabeinu Shmuel understands that our Gemara thinks that Rebbi Yehudah understood the Tana Kama's reasoning to be based on the opinion of Rebbi Shimon quoted later. Rebbi Shimon says, "This only refers to an animal whose Gid is forbidden but whose flesh is permitted, excluding etc." This is why Rebbi Yehudah asked, ""Wasn't Gid ha'Nasheh forbidden even to the sons of Yaakov, and they were still allowed to eat non kosher animals!"

8)

TOSFOS DH AVAL B'TEMEI'AH

úåñôåú ã"ä àáì áèîàä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not ask a question from an earlier Gemara.)

äéä éëåì ìä÷ùåú ãàîøéðï áôø÷ áäîä äî÷ùä (ìòéì ãó òä.) äôéìä ðôì çìáå ëçìá çéä ãçãùéí ÷à âøîé ìä

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked that the Gemara said earlier (75a) that if an animal had a Neifel its fat is permitted like that of an undomesticated animal, as an animal must be formed for a certain amount of months before its fat becomes forbidden. (Why didn't the Gemara ask this question?)

àìà òãéôà îéðéä ôøéê ãàéëà ìî"ã äúí ãàñåø ãàåéøà âøéí åáäîä èîàä ëàåéøà ãîéà ëéåï ãìà ùééê áä ëì ááäîä úàëìå

(b)

Answer #1: Rather, the Gemara had a better question, as there is an opinion (ibid.) that its fat is indeed prohibited because the fact that it came into the world prohibits it. This logic applies to a non kosher animal as well, since the Pasuk, "Anything that is in an animal you should eat" does not apply to it.

åòåã éù ìåîø ãéìîà ùàðé çìá ãøçîðà àîø ëì çìá ùåø àå ëùá àå òæ åàéï æä ÷øåé ùåø åëùá åòæ àáì âéã àñø äëúåá ëì î÷åí ùéùðå òì äëó

(c)

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is perhaps possible to answer that forbidden fat is different, as the Torah states, "Any fat of an ox, sheep, or goat" and this is not an ox, sheep, or goat. However, the Torah forbade a Gid ha'Nasheh as long as it is on the Kaf.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF