Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Chulin, 99

1) A MIXTURE OF "TERUMAH" WITH "CHULIN"

QUESTION: The Gemara quotes the Mishnah in Orlah (2:6) that teaches that when beans of Terumah become mixed with lentils of Chulin, the entire mixture must be treated like Terumah if the taste of the beans is discernible. If the taste of the beans is not discernible, then the Terumah is Batel.

RASHI (DH she'Nisbashlu) points out that the Sifri derives from the verse, "Es Mikdesho Mimenu" (Bamidbar 18:29), that Terumah is Batel only when there is one hundred parts of Chulin per one part Terumah. The verse teaches that when a fruit of Terumas Ma'aser falls back into the produce from which it was separated, all of the produce must be treated like Terumas Ma'aser. Terumas Ma'aser is, by definition, one part out of hundred, and thus when it falls back into the produce, there is one part Terumas Ma'aser and 99 parts Chulin. From here we learn that if the Terumas Ma'aser falls into one hundred parts (one part Terumah and one hundred parts Chulin), it is Batel.

If Terumah is Batel with one part Terumah in one hundred parts of Chulin, then why does the Mishnah say that it is not Batel as long as the taste is discernible (even when there is more than one hundred parts of Chulin), and that it is Batel when the taste is not discernible (even when there is less than one hundred parts of Chulin)?

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (DH Ein Bahem) explains that the principle of the Sifri applies only to a mixture of Min b'Mino. Only in the case of a mixture of Min b'Mino is it necessary to have one hundred parts of Chulin in order to be Mevatel the Terumah.

(b) RASHI (DH Ein Bahen) explains that the teaching of the Sifri applies only when the actual fruit of Terumah itself remains in the mixture (whether the mixture is Min b'Mino or Min b'she'Eino Mino). In such a case, there must be at least one hundred times more Chulin in order for the Terumah to be Batel. The Mishnah in Orlah, which permits the mixture when the taste is not discernible, is discussing a case in which the beans of Terumah were removed from the mixture, and only their taste is left. In such a case, the mixture is permitted as long as the taste of the Terumah is no longer discernible.

This answer seems problematic. The Mishnah in Orlah differentiates between a mixture of Min b'Mino and a mixture of Min b'she'Eino Mino. According to Rashi, what difference does it make if the mixture is one of Min b'Mino or Min b'she'Eino Mino? The requirement for one hundred parts of Chulin depends on whether or not the original Terumah remains in the mixture!

TOSFOS (DH Ein) answers that according to Rashi, there are two separate conditions that require Bitul of one in one hundred. First, if the Terumah is still in the mixture, then it is Batel only when there are one hundred parts of Chulin. Second, if the Terumah is not in the mixture but the mixture is one of Min b'Mino, then there must be one hundred parts of Chulin.

Alternatively, perhaps the requirement of one hundred parts of Chulin is unrelated to the fact that the mixture is one of Min b'Mino, and it depends only on whether the actual Terumah is still discernible in the mixture, as Rashi writes. When the Mishnah says that a mixture of Min b'Mino needs one hundred parts of Chulin in order to be permitted, it is merely giving the most common case in which it is not possible to remove the Terumah. In a mixture of Min b'Mino, the Terumah usually cannot be found and removed, while in a mixture of Min b'she'Eino Mino, the Terumah usually can be found and removed.

99b

QUESTION: Rav Dimi quotes Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina, who said that not all of the amounts that the Chachamim established with regard to annulling Isurim are equal, because we find that Rebbi Yehudah says in a Mishnah (Terumos 10:8) that brine from a non-Kosher fish requires nearly 200 times of Heter (one Revi'is in two Se'ah) in order to be annulled. RASHI (DH Revi'is) calculates that one part of non-Kosher brine is annulled only by 192 parts of Heter.

The Gemara asks that we find that Rebbi Yehudah (100a) maintains that the forbidden food in a mixture of Min b'Mino is not Batel; even the smallest amount of non-Kosher brine will prohibit the Kosher brine with which it is mixed. How, then, can Rebbi Yehudah say that non-Kosher brine is annulled in Kosher brine when there are 192 parts of Kosher brine?

The Gemara answers that brine is different, because it is nothing more than "Zei'ah b'Alma," a secretion, like "sweat," of the non-Kosher fish and has no significance. Therefore, it can become Batel even in a mixture of Min b'Mino.

TOSFOS (DH Shani) writes that the Halachah of the Gemara, that brine is like "Zei'ah b'Alma," applies only to the brine of forbidden fish, because such brine is Asur only mid'Rabanan. In contrast, the secretions of forbidden animals and insects is Asur mid'Oraisa, as the Gemara later (112b and 120a) derives from the verse, "ha'Teme'im" (Vayikra 11:31), which forbids the secretion, congealed fat, and gravy of forbidden animals.

Why does the Torah differentiate between the secretion of a forbidden fish and the secretion of a forbidden animal?

ANSWERS:

(a) The KEHILOS YAKOV (Avodah Zarah 20:2) suggests as follows. The word "ha'Teme'im" refers only to things which the Torah calls, "Tamei." In a number of place, the Torah refers to forbidden animals as "Tamei" (see, for example, Vayikra 11:7).The Torah even uses the word "Tamei" to refer to a Kosher animal that is not fit to be offered as a Korban (Vayikra 27:11; see Rashi there). Similarly, a Kosher animal that became a Tereifah is considered "Tamei," because it is unfit to be offered as a Korban. Accordingly, the secretions of such animals are forbidden mid'Oraisa. In contrast, the Torah never uses the word "Tamei" with reference to forbidden fish. Rather, the Torah calls them "Sheketz" (see Vayikra 11:10). Therefore, the word "ha'Teme'im" teaches only that the secretions of forbidden animals and insects are Asur mid'Oraisa, but not the secretions of forbidden fish. (The Kehilos Yakov points out that his approach is not consistent with the words of Tosfos.)

(b) The CHIDUSHEI CHASAM SOFER answers that there is a natural, physical difference between the secretions of animals and the brine of fish. (Apparently, this difference is that the secretions that emerge from an animal are stronger and more similar to the animal itself, while the brine of a fish is weak and is not similar to the fish.) The word, "ha'Teme'im," appears in the Torah at the end of the passage that enumerates the forbidden Sheratzim (creeping creatures) and animals, and appears considerable later in the passage than the prohibition against eating forbidden fish, and therefore it does not refer to fish. Since the Torah tells us that what comes out of the flesh of a forbidden species is forbidden, we may derive that what comes out of the flesh of forbidden meat of a Kosher species (such as Neveilah or Tereifah) is also forbidden. However, fish brine has a different nature, and therefore we cannot derive that it is forbidden from the fact that the secretions of forbidden animals are forbidden. (D. Bloom)

OPINIONS: The Gemara concludes that the Gid ha'Nasheh has no taste -- "Ein b'Gidin b'Nosen Ta'am." Therefore, when the Gid ha'Nasheh was cooked with other food, the food is permitted once the Gid is removed (unless some of the fat (which does have a taste) of the Gid ha'Nasheh was cooked with the food; see following Insight).

The Gemara in Pesachim (22a) says that the question of whether or not the Gid ha'Nasheh has a taste has another important Halachic ramification. The Gemara there is discussing the opinion of Rebbi Avahu, who says that whenever the Torah says, "Do not eat," it forbids both eating and deriving benefit from the item. The Gemara asks that the Torah says "Do not eat" with regard to the Gid ha'Nasheh, and yet the Mishnah here (93b) permits giving to a Nochri a thigh with the Gid ha'Nasheh. The Gemara answers that when the Torah explicitly permits deriving benefit from Neveilah (Devarim 14:21), it also permits deriving benefit from the Gid ha'Nasheh.

The Gemara there questions this answer. According to the opinion that maintains that the Gid ha'Nasheh has no taste, when the Torah says "Lo Yochlu" (Bereishis 32:33) with regard to the Gid ha'Nasheh it cannot mean that it is forbidden specifically to *eat* the Gid ha'Nasheh, since eating something that has no taste (such as wood) is not considered an act of eating! Rather, it must be that the Torah's intention is to prohibit deriving benefit from the Gid ha'Nasheh, and thus the Gid ha'Nasheh is Asur b'Hana'ah. How, then, can the Mishnah in Chulin say that it is permitted to give the Gid ha'Nasheh to a Nochri? The Gemara there answers that the Mishnah in Chulin is following the view of Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains (Chulin 100b) that the Gid ha'Nasheh does have taste, and thus the Gid ha'Nasheh is only Asur b'Achilah but is not Asur b'Hana'ah. Rebbi Shimon, on the other hand, maintains that the Gid ha'Nasheh has no taste, and thus it is Asur b'Hana'ah.

Chizkiyah argues with Rebbi Avahu, and maintains that whenever the Torah says, "Do not eat," its intention is only to forbid eating the item, but not to forbid deriving benefit from it. According to Chizkiyah, the Gid ha'Nasheh is forbidden only b'Achilah, but not b'Hana'ah (according to both Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah).

What is the Halachah? Is one permitted to sell the Gid ha'Nasheh to a Nochri, or to benefit from it in some other way (other than eating)?

(a) TOSFOS (DH v'Hilchesa, #1) cites the Gemara in Pesachim that concludes that, according to Rebbi Avahu, the opinion that maintains that the Gid ha'Nasheh has no taste maintains that it is not only forbidden to eat the Gid ha'Nasheh, but it is also forbidden to derive any benefit from it. Since the Gemara here concludes that the Gid has no taste, it follows that the Gid is Asur b'Hana'ah.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 8:14), ROSH (7:17), and RASHBA (1:210) maintain that it is permitted to derive benefit from the Gid ha'Nasheh. They assert that the Halachah does not follow the view of Rebbi Avahu, but rather the view of Chizkiyah.

HALACHAH: The TUR (YD 65) quotes the opinion of Tosfos that the Gid ha'Nasheh is Asur b'Hana'ah, but he concludes that the Halachah follows the opinion of the Rambam and Rosh that it is permitted to derive benefit from the Gid ha'Nasheh. This is also the ruling of the SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 65:10). However, in the BEIS YOSEF, the Shulchan Aruch writes that it is best to be stringent and not derive benefit from the Gid ha'Nasheh, because the Zohar seems to maintain that the Gid ha'Nasheh is Asur b'Hana'ah. The DARCHEI MOSHE there argues and points out that the author of the Zohar is Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, who is the same Rebbi Shimon quoted by the Gemara in Pesachim. Rebbi Shimon in the Zohar is merely following his own opinion in Pesachim (according to Rebbi Avahu) that the Gid ha'Nasheh is Asur b'Hana'ah. Since we do not follow this view of Rebbi Shimon, there is no reason to be stringent and prohibit deriving benefit from it. (This argument of the Darchei Moshe is problematic, because, according to the Rambam and Rosh, Chizkiyah in Pesachim maintains that Rebbi Shimon agrees that the Gid ha'Nasheh is not Asur b'Hana'ah.)

OPINIONS: The Gemara concludes that the Gid ha'Nasheh has no taste -- "Ein b'Gidin b'Nosen Ta'am." Therefore, when the Gid ha'Nasheh was cooked with other food, the food is permitted once the Gid is removed.

Does this Halachah apply even when there was some fatty meat on the Gid (which does have taste) when the Gid was cooked with the permitted food?

(a) RASHI (DH v'Hilchesa) rules that when there was some Shuman (fat) on the Gid, the taste of that fat prohibits the rest of the food in the mixture (unless there is sixty times more Heter), even after the Gid ha'Nasheh with its fat is removed.

(b) TOSFOS (DH v'Hilchesa, #2) argues. Tosfos maintains that the fat of the Gid ha'Nasheh is prohibited only mid'Rabanan. Therefore, its prohibition is not more stringent that the Isur d'Oraisa of the Gid ha'Nasheh itself. Since the Gid ha'Nasheh does not prohibit the contents of the pot once it is removed, its fat also does not prohibit the food.

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 65:9) rules, like Rashi, that the fat and Kenokenos of the Gid do prohibit the food with which they are cooked. (Z. Wainstein)