This Halacha is an excerpt from our Sefer
Buy me here or on Amazon.com
Check out our state of the art Online Taaruvos course
In this chapter the laws regarding a Davar Chashuv will be discussed. There are certain foods that due to their importance the Sages decreed they are not able to be nullified and hence prohibit their mixture irrelevant of the ratio. Even in such a case there are times that we are lenient to permit the mixture in cases that one of the pieces became destroyed or lost. Likewise the laws regarding a second and third mixture which received a piece from the first mixture will be discussed. This chapter also discusses the laws of doubtful prohibitions. When do we prohibit a food due to a doubtful prohibition and when are we lenient.
1. Davar Chashuv/Important Item:
A. The general rule:
Never nullified: An Issur which is a Davar Chashuv is never nullified irrelevant of the ratio [even in 3000x].
Is a Davar Chashuv nullified in Eino Mino? The Michaber writes that a Davar Chashuv is not nullified in mixtures of Min Bemino, hence implying that by Eino Mino mixtures it is nullified. The Rama however rules that a Davar Chashuv is never nullified even in Eino Mino. The Shach explains that even the Michaber agrees that a Davar Chashuv is not nullified in Eino Mino and the reason he mentioned the law in a case of Min Bemino and did not mention Eino Mino is because it is only common to have such a mixture when both foods are the same species and hence one is unable to differentiate between the Issur and Heter. However by mixtures of Min Beino Mino the Issur would be recognizable being they are not the same species.
Is the law of a Davar Chashuv Biblical or Rabbinical: The law that a Davar Chashuv is never nullified is a Rabbinical enactment.
Safek Davar Chashuv: If there is doubt regarding a Davar Chashuv one may be lenient to nullify it being that its law of not being nullified is a Rabbinical decree and by doubts of a Rabbinical prohibition one may be lenient. [However this only applies if the doubt is regarding whether the Issur is or isn’t a Davar Chashuv. However if the doubt is regarding another matter, such as whether or not the item is an Issur or Heter, and it is for certain a Davar Chashuv, then we are stringent and it is not nullified.]
If the Davar Chashuv is forbidden in benefit: If a Davar Chashuv which was forbidden in benefit becomes mixed with Heter then the entire mixture becomes forbidden in benefit. However it is permitted to sell the mixture to a gentile, excluding from it the worth of the Issur food, if there is no worry that it will get resold to a Jew. It is not permitted to redeem the Issur and then throw the coin into the Dead Sea.
B. Items that are considered a Davar Chashuv:
The general rule: Any food which is considered as Chashuv as the foods to be listed below only has a status of a Davar Chashuv if the food is considered Chashuv in ones area at the current time. In such a case it has the status of a Davar Chashuv and is never nullified even in 1000x. However in other areas that the Issur is not considered Chashuv, or if at the current time the food is no longer considered Chashuv even though it used to be Chashuv then it has the same law of nullification as do all Issurim.
Items that are always considered a Davar Chashuv in all places and in all times: The following 7 foods are considered Chashuv and are never nullified irrelevant of time or place:
- The Perach nut
- The Badan Pomegranate
- Closed barrels
- Chilfos Tradin
- Kilcheiy Kruv
- Dlaas Yevanis
- Homemade loaves
The definition of the above foods
- The Perach nut: Some opinions say that this refers to a nut from the town of Perach. Others learn that it is a nut with a very soft shell that can be broken off with one’s hands.
- The Badan Pomegranate: A pomegranate from the town of Badan.
- Closed barrels: Closed barrels of Issur wine are considered a Davar Chashuv and are never nullified. [However this only applies if the barrels are large; if the barrels are small or they are open then it is nullified in 1:2. However barrels of Yayin Nesech are never nullified even in 1000x.]
- Chilfos Tradin: Chilfos Tradin refers to the root of the spinach leaf that is left in the ground after the spinach is cut.
- Kilcheiy Kruv: Cabbage leaves.
- Dlaas Yevanis: The Greek zucchini
- Homemade loaves versus bakery loaves: This is coming to exclude bakery bread as in times of the Gemara bakery bread was not considered Chashuv. Today however in certain places even bakery bread is considered important, and in such places it is not nullified.
All live animals are considered Chashuv. [This applies even if the animal was born Kosher such as a Kosher animal that became forbidden due to idolatry or Drusa or Shur Haniskal. Even if such a cow became mixed with 1000 cows everything is forbidden.]
If the animals were slaughtered: Forbidden animals that were slaughtered and then became mixed with Kosher animals are no longer considered of importance and it is thus nullified in 2:1. However this only applies if the meat of the animal is too small to be considered Charal [or a Davar Shebiminyan]. [Thus for example a small bird is not considered Charal, however a chicken and sheep is Charal, as explained in chapter 101.]
May one intentionally slaughter an Issur animal to nullify its Chashuv status? It is forbidden to intentionally slaughter the mixture of animals in order to nullify their Chashuv status. Thus the above law only applies if the animals were slaughtered Beshogeg [i.e. without prior knowledge of the prohibition of removing the Chashuv state of the mixed Issur]. [It is however permitted to intentionally slaughter an Issur animal before it becomes mixed with other animals in order to nullify its Chashuv status.]
2. Davar Shebiminyan:
A. What is a Davar Shebiminyan?
An item which is sold individually [one by one] as opposed to sold by weight or volume is considered a Davar Shebiminyan.
B. Opinions in the Talmud:
It is disputed in the Talmud whether or not a Davar Shebiminyan is considered Chashuv and is thus not nullified. Rebbe Akiva rules a Davar Shebiminyan is not considered Chashuv and is thus always nullified.
Rebbe Yochanan rules that if the item is always sold individually by number then it is considered Chashuv and is not nullified. Reish Lakish rules that even an item which is only occasionally sold individually is considered a Davar Chashuv and is never nullified.
C. Opinions in Poskim:
Always nullified-like Rebbe Akiva: A Davar Shebiminyan is nullified like all classical Issurim. This applies even if it the item is [always] sold individually. [The reason for this is because such items are not considered Chashuv]. [Thus the Michaber here holds like Rebbe Akiva. The Taz however questions this ruling of the Michaber as earlier in 86/3 the Michaber rules an Issur egg is never nullified, hence implying he rules like Reish Lakish that even items that are occasionally sold individually are a Davar Chashuv, as rules Reish Lakish.]
If always sold by number not nullified-like Rebbe Yochanan: There are opinions which say that a Davar Shebiminyan which is only sold individually is considered a Davar Chashuv and is never nullified, and so is the custom. [However if the item is only occasionally sold by number and at times it is sold by weight or volume, then it is not considered Chashuv and is nullified. Thus the Rama rules like Rebbe Yochanan.]
- Rashal; Bach; Issur Viheter:
Even items which are only occasionally sold individually are not nullified-Like Reish Lakish: Even an item which is only occasionally sold individually by number is considered a Davar Chashuv and is hence never nullified. [Thus the Rashal, Bach and Issur Viheter rule like Reish Lakish.]
In a case of loss one may be lenient to rule like the Rama that an item which is not always sold individually is able to be nullified.
Summary of an item which is only at certain times sold individually:
Some Poskim rule that in such a case it is nullified. Other Poskim rule that it still retains its Davar Shebiminyan status and is never nullified. The Taz concludes one may be lenient in a case of loss.
D. Is an egg considered a Davar Shebiminyan?
Eggs used to be sold occasionally by number and occasionally by weight. Hence it would be considered a Davar Chashuv according to Reish Lakish and those that rule according to his opinion but not according to the other opinions. However today eggs are only sold by number and hence would be considered a Davar Chashuv according to both Rebbe Yochanan and Reish Lakish, and the Poskim [i.e. Rama] who follow their opinion, but not according to Rebbe Akiva and the Michaber. Despite this in 86/3 the Michaber rules an Issur egg is never nullified. This contradicts his ruling here which follows Rebbe Akiva that a Davar Shebiminyan is not considered a Davar Chashuv and is thus nullified. The Shach and Taz leave this matter in question.
E. Is an intestine a Davar Shebiminyan?
Intestines are not considered a Davar Chashuv, as although they are always sold individually by number, nevertheless since they are not eaten plain but rather only with filling, therefore they do not have the importance of a Davar Shebiminyan.
Status of meat in a town with majority Kosher stores
3. The law of Kavua:
Introduction: In chapter 109 the laws of nullification regarding Issur that becomes mixed with Heter were explained [i.e. Yaveish Beyaveish is nullified in 2:1]. This Halacha now explains that the laws of nullification apply only to an Issur that becomes mixed with Heter and not with separate groupings of Issur and Heter. This means to say as follows: Whenever there is a group of Issur and a group of Heter, even if there are more Heter groups then Issur groups the Issur group is considered as if it was 50% of the groups. This is because the Issur group is considered Kavua [a set Issur] and any Kavua item is viewed as if it was 50% of the amount and is not nullified in majority. Thus for example if there are 9 butcher stores which sell only Kosher meat and one store which sells Issur meat we consider it as if half the stores sell Kosher meat and half the stores sell Issur meat. We do not say that the Issur store is nullified in majority to the Heter stores. Thus if one bought meat from one of the store’s and does not remember from which store it was bought we do not follow the majority and rather the piece is forbidden. However this only applies in the case that one went to the store to buy the meat or saw someone buy the meat there. If however a random piece of meat is found then another rule is applied called “Kol Deparish Meruba Parish” whatever separates is from the majority. The following are the cases and its law.
A. A town which contains nine Kosher stores and one Issur store:
If there is doubt as to the source of a piece of meat and the majority of stores in one’s town are Kosher does one follow the majority of stores?
One bought meat from one of the stores and does not recall if he bought from the kosher or non-Kosher store: If one bought meat from one of the stores and does not recall if it was the Kosher store or Issur store then the meat is Biblically forbidden due to doubt, as since the Issur store is Kavua it has a status of 50% of the ratio of stores. [It makes no difference in this case whether the meat is Charal or not.]
One found a piece of meat in the market and does not know from which store it came from: In a case that one found a random piece of meat in a town that contains majority Kosher stores then Biblically the meat is permitted [even if the piece is Charal] as since the piece was only found after it already separated from the store we therefore follow the rule of “whatever separates is from the majority”. Nevertheless the Sages forbade such meat due to their decree of “Basar Hanisalem Min Hayin” as explained in chapter 63. Thus Rabbinically even if all the stores and butchers in town sell only Kosher meat, the meat would be forbidden with exception to those cases permitted in chapter 63.
The piece of meat was found in the hands of a gentile: Meat that was found in the hands of a gentile has the same status as meat which was found in the marketplace.
The piece was found in the hands of a child: Meat that is found in the hands of a child has the same status as meat which was found in the marketplace.
One witnessed the gentile/child take the meat from the store: If one witnessed a gentile or child leaving the store with the meat [but does not know which store it was bought at], then it is considered as if he bought the meat from the store and thus the meat has a status of Issur Kavua which is Biblically forbidden. [However the Shach brings opinions that rule in a case that one witnessed the separation it is only Rabbinically forbidden due to Kavua, while the Biblical law of Kavua only applies if one himself removed the meat from the store.]
Is there a difference between Min Bemino and Eino Mino in these laws? No. The same laws of Kavua apply here whether the case involves Min Bemino or Eino Mino. [This is unlike the ruling of the Levush which differentiates between Mino and Eino Mino regarding the laws of Kavua.]
B. Nine Issur stores and one Kosher store:
The law of Kavua applies also in such a case and hence if the meat was bought in one of the stores and one does not know which store, then we view the mixture as 50/50 and the meat is only forbidden due to doubt. [The practical ramification would be in a case that this piece of meat then became mixed with other pieces.]
C. The law if one does not know which store sells the Issur meat and which sells the Heter:
The previous case [A] refers to a case that one knows which stores sell Kosher and which sells Issur and is simply in doubt as to which store he purchased the meat. In such a case we say that if the meat is found after it separated from the store then we follow the majority. If however one does not know which store sells Kosher and which sells Issur then even if one found the meat outside of the store, then according to the Rosh the meat is Rabbinically forbidden due to the law of Kavua. However according to the Rashba even in such a case the meat is permitted.
D. The law if all the stores sell Kosher and one store had an Issur piece mix with the other pieces:
If one store had a Charal Issur piece mix with the other pieces then all the pieces in the store are Rabbinically forbidden due to the law of Davar Chashuv. If one then bought meat from one of the stores in the town but does not know from which store the meat was bought from then the meat is Rabbinically forbidden as the Sages gave the Issur store a Rabbinical status of Kavua. However if this piece then became mixed with other pieces the entire mixture is permitted even if the piece is Charal. See Halacha F!
E. The law if it was only discovered that one of the stores had Issur meat after one already bought it:
The case: All the stores in town are Kosher. One bought a piece of meat from one of the stores and it was then discovered that really one of the stores sells Issur meat. Does the meat that people bought have the status of Kavua and is hence forbidden or do we say that since at the time of purchase all the stores were still under a Kashrus status therefore the status of Kavua does not apply and the meat is permitted due to the law of following the majority?
The following are the recorded opinions:
- Rav Avraham Haleivi [Riei]:The meat has a status of Kavua as now it has become revealed that retroactively one of the stores was Issur, and hence the meat purchased from the stores in this town all have a status of Kavua.
- Ran:Since the law of Kavua is itself a novelty therefore we only apply it in a case that the Issur was known at the time of the purchase and not retroactively even though it was revealed that in truth one of the stores was Issur.
- Bach explanation of Tur:We do not apply the law of Kavua retroactively.
- Final ruling of Shach:The Shach rules like the Riei that the laws of Kavua apply even in such a case. This applies even if one does not know which store was found to contain the Issur meat and simply one knows that one of the stores sells Issur. In such a case we prohibit meat bought from any of the stores, even if the piece is not Charal.
The Taz rules like the Riei that the laws of Kavua apply retroactively and even if one does not know which store contained the Issur meat it is considered Kavua.
F. Meat from a Kavua mixture became mixed with other Heter:
Example: There are nine butcher stores which sell only Kosher meat and one store which sells only Issur meat and one bought meat from one of the stores, and does not know from which store he bought it from. This piece of meat is Biblically forbidden due to the doubt created by the rule of Kavua as explained above. What is the law if this piece of meat then became mixed with other pieces of meat?
- Michaber: The Issur piece that came from the Kavua is nullified in a ratio of 2:1. [This applies even if the Issur is a Davar Chashuv.] The reason for this is because the case involves a Safek Sfeika [as there is one doubt regarding whether the original piece of meat was bought from a Kosher or Issur store, and a second doubt as to whether the current piece of the mixture which one desires to eat is that original piece or is the Kosher piece. Thus based on this logic it is forbidden to eat the entire mixture simultaneously, even according to the Michaber, as in such a case there is no longer a double doubt.]
- Rama: There are those which forbid the entire mixture [if the piece was a Davar Chashuv] as they hold that there really is no double doubt [Safek Sfeika], as since the original piece of meat is Biblically forbidden due to a doubt of Issur Kavua, it is therefore considered like an absolute Issur as opposed to a mere doubt.
Practically the custom is like this latter opinion. [This applies even if one saw a gentile or child take the meat from the store and does not know which store it was taken from and then that piece became mixed with other pieces. However in a case of great loss one may be lenient to permit the mixture in such a case that one saw a child or gentile remove the meat from the store, so long as he does not eat the entire mixture simultaneously.]
- Taz:In the case mentioned by the Michaber the entire mixture is forbidden being that the law of Kavua in such a case is Biblical, and only if a piece from the second mixture mixed with a third mixture is it permitted. However by a case of Rabbinical Kavua, such as that all the stores sell Kosher but one store had an Issur Charal piece mix with the other pieces [See D] then if this piece mixes with other pieces the entire mixture is permitted due to a Safek Sfeika.
The Shach explains the ruling of the Michaber and his source in the Rashba, however practically concludes like the Rama that if one removed the meat from the store the entire mixture is forbidden as it has a status of Biblical Kavua. However if one saw a gentile remove it then since some opinions say the meat has only a status of Rabbinical Kavua therefore one may be lenient in a case of great loss to permit the mixture.
G. What is the law if one bought a piece of meat from a butcher shop and it was then discovered that the shop contained Issur meat within their products?
The meat was bought prior to the discovery of the Issur meat in the store: If one bought meat in the butcher shop prior to the discovery of Issur meat being found amongst their products then the meat is Kosher even if it is a large enough piece to be considered Charal.
The meat was bought after the discovery of the Issur meat in the store: Once it has been discovered that there is Issur meat in the store it is forbidden to buy any meat from this store and one who does so his meat is forbidden. Even the pieces of meat which are less than the size of Charal are forbidden as people are not expert in this matter and may come to also buy Charal meat. [The Shach rules that this law only applies at a store while at home the non-Charal pieces are permitted. However the Taz rules that all the pieces in the store are forbidden from the letter of the law, even the non-Charal pieces, as the Issur pieces all come from the same animal and one cannot differentiate between one piece and another from the same animal in the same mixture. Hence according to the Taz even if this occurred at home the non-Charal pieces are forbidden.]
The law if meat separated from the store after the Issur was discovered: The Taz rules that even if a gentile bought meat from the store after the Issur was discovered, that meat is forbidden due to a decree that one may come to buy the Issur piece from the store.
Pieces that separated from forbidden mixtures of Yaveish Beyaveish
4. What is the law of a piece that separated from a mixture that contains an Issur Chashuv and was hence forbidden?
Introduction: In the previous Halacha the law of Kavua was discussed. Biblically the law of Kavua is only applicable in a case of a town with Issur and Heter stores as opposed to a mixture of Issur and Heter pieces. The reason for this is because whenever an Issur piece becomes mixed with majority Heter the Torah states that the Issur is nullified even though there is certainly a set Issur within the mixture. It is only by stores in which the Issur and Heter are independent of each other and not actually mixed [the mixture is only in the persons mind] that Biblically the Issur store is not nullified. Nevertheless Rabbinically whenever an Issur is not nullified to Heter, such as a Davar Chashuv became mixed with Heter then the mixture has a Rabbinical status of Kavua and is viewed just like the case of stores. The ramification would be in a case that a piece separated from this mixture.
Example 1: If a Chashuv piece of Issur meat [such as Charal, Davar Shebiminyan and Berya] mixed with nine Kosher pieces the entire mixture is forbidden. If one of the pieces then separated from the mixture what is the law of the piece? Do we follow the rule of majority, and assume the piece is Kosher or not?
Example 2: The same question would apply if an Issur animal became mixed with other animals and one of the animals then became separated from the mixture.
A. Removed the piece intentionally from the mixture:
If after discovering that a mixture became forbidden due to it containing an Issur Davar Chashuv one intentionally [whether Beshogeg or Meizid] caused a piece [or animal] to separate from it then the piece [or animal] remains forbidden [due to a decree that one may come to take from the mixture itself before separation].
B. If the piece became removed on its own:
- Michaber:All the above was referring to a case that the piece was separated intentionally [whether Beshogeg or Meizid] however if the piece became separated from the mixture on its own [such as through a child or gentile and this itself was unbeknownst to the person] then the piece is Kosher [as we follow the majority]. Nevertheless the original mixture itself remains forbidden. [This however only refers to a case that minority of the pieces separated from the mixture. If however half or majority of the mixture separated together, then they are all forbidden as perhaps the Issur has separated with the majority.]
- Shach; Taz; Toras Chatas; Rashal:There are opinions which say that even if the piece became separated on its own unbeknownst to the owner, it nevertheless remains forbidden. Practically the Shach and Taz both rule that one is to be stringent to forbid the piece even in a case that the piece separated on its own. So rules also the Rashal. The Toras Chatas concludes it is proper to be stringent like their opinion.
The Bach argues on the above opinions and rules that by a case that an Issur live animal became mixed we permit the separated animal while in a case of pieces of meat that became mixed we forbid it. The Shach negates this opinion and concludes there is no difference between the two cases.
If one witnessed a piece separate on its own:
The Shach rules that if one witnessed the piece separate from the mixture then it is forbidden according to all as it still retains the status of Kavua as ruled in the case of the nine stores. However the Taz brings that according to Rabbeinu Tam even if one witnessed the separation it is permitted. Practically as stated above the Shach and Taz both rule we are stringent even in a case that it did not separate in front of us due to a decree one may come to take from the Kavua mixture.
C. If the piece separated prior to knowing about the mixture of the Issur:
All the above was referring to a case that one knew about the mixture of Issur prior to the separation. However if the piece became removed from the mixture before one discovered that the Issur became mixed with the pieces infiltration, then even if one removed the piece intentionally from the mixture it is Kosher as we follow the majority.
If a piece separated from the forbidden mixture then if this occurred prior to discovering that the mixture became forbidden, the separated piece is permitted. If it was separated after discovering that the mixture is forbidden, then if it was intentionally separated the piece is forbidden. If however it was separated on its own and this separation was not witnessed then it is disputed whether it is permitted.
D. The law if the entire mixture separated to a different area and at the same time some of the pieces were separated:
- Rama:The above law [in A] that if one intentionally removed a piece from the mixture the piece is forbidden due to a decree only applies if some of the pieces remained in the area of the original mixture. If however the entire mixture moved to another area and while it was moving some of the pieces separated, then all the separated pieces are Kosher even if they were intentionally removed. [This applies even if one witnessed the separation.] This law applies for every subsequent piece separated at time of movement until the last two pieces, in which case we can no longer apply the rule of separated from majority. [Furthermore, even if after the mixture was moved it returned back to its original place it loses its status of Kavua and if pieces separate from it they are permitted. However the Peri Chadash argues on this ruling of the Shach and rules that if the mixture returned back to its original place it has the status of Kavua.]
May one intentionally move the entire mixture elsewhere in order to nullify its Kavua status? Even according to the Rama it is initially forbidden to move the mixture elsewhere in order to nullify the Kavua state and it is only Bedieved that if one did not know that doing so is forbidden that we rule the Kavua status is nullified.
The Bach argues on the Rama and rules the state of Kavua is not nullified even if the entire mixture is uprooted to a different area.
Regarding animals which are Kodshim we are stringent that even if they all separated together in front of us they remain forbidden due to a decree on may come to take from a Kavua grouping. However by non-Kodshim animals the letter of the law remains that if all the animals separated together their status of Kavua is nullified.
Summary of D:
The mixture is no longer considered Kavua and every piece that separates from the mixture is permitted up until the last two pieces. This applies even if one intentionally causes the piece to become separated.
E. An egg is found inside a chicken coop that contains Treif chickens:
If one has Issur chickens amongst his chicken coop and an egg is found in the coop the egg is permitted as we assume it came from the majority of chickens which are Kosher.
5. If a piece which separated from the mixture became lost what is the law of the mixture:
Case: If a Davar Chashuv such an animal, Charal, Berya, DSL”M became mixed with Heter and one of the pieces of the mixture was eaten or fell into the sea or became lost, what is the law of the mixture?
The ruling in this case is dependent on the following factors:
- Is the lost piece able to be found?
- How did the piece become destroyed or lost?
- When did this occur, before one knew of the Issur or after?
A. The lost piece is able to be found:
In any case that the lost piece is still able to be found the mixture remains forbidden, and hence the following law only refers to a case that the piece is lost forever from mankind.
B. If the piece has been destroyed or forever lost:
If the piece became lost from mankind, such as it fell on its own into the sea and became forever lost, then the entire mixture is permitted to be eaten two at a time. However it remains prohibited to be eaten one at a time.
May a single person eat the entire mixture?
- Rama:It is forbidden for the mixture to be entirely eaten by a single person even 2 at a time.
- Shach:A single person is allowed to eat the entire mixture two pieces at a time, so long as he does not eat the entire mixture simultaneously.
- Taz:The Taz agrees with the ruling of the Rama that it is forbidden for the mixture to be entirely eaten by a single person even 2 at a time.
May two people eat the mixture simultaneously?
- Rama:Two people may not eat the entire mixture simultaneously.
The Taz argues and proves that two people may eat the entire mixture simultaneously. Nevertheless the Taz concludes that he does not have power to argue on the ruling of the Michaber and Rama.
Two people may eat the entire mixture two pieces at a time even simultaneously.
The law if two pieces of Issur fell into the original mixture: If two pieces of Issur fell into the mixture and one piece of the mixture was accidently eaten then although the mixture is permitted one must eat four pieces or more at a time. If three pieces of Issur fell into the mixture then one must eat six pieces or more at a time.
The law if one caused the piece to become lost or destroyed: If one caused one of the pieces to become lost or destroyed [such as he threw it in the sea] then the mixture remains forbidden. This applies whether one did so Bimeizeid or Beshogeg as it is forbidden to nullify an Issur, and we decree against Shogeg due to Meizid. [However regarding if one of the pieces were eaten Beshogeg see C for a dispute on this matter.] If however one destroyed one of the pieces or threw it into the sea prior to discovering that Issur became mixed into the mixture, then the mixture is permitted according to all and one may eat it two at a time.
Must two pieces become lost or destroyed or does one piece suffice? The Michaber only requires one piece to become lost or destroyed from the mixture. However the Rambam rules that by mixtures which the loss of one piece is not noticeable then two pieces must become destroyed in order to permit the remaining mixture. However by large items like barrels, then even if only one is destroyed everyone agrees the mixture is permitted. The Michaber here does not record the opinion of the Rambam although later in 140/1 he brings his opinion as a “Yeish Mi Sheomer”. [The Peri Megadim concludes that one may be lenient in a case of great loss.]
C. The law regarding if one of the pieces were eaten:
- Michaber; Rama; Admur in Shulchan Aruch Harav:
If one of the pieces were accidently eaten [whether it was accidently eaten by the owner or by another person] it is considered as if it fell into the sea on its own and the mixture may hence be eaten two at a time as explained in B. [If however it was eaten Bimeizid then it remains forbidden to eat the mixture. Likewise this ruling of the Michaber only applies if it was accidently eaten by a Jew if however it was accidently fed to a gentile or to an animal then the mixture remains forbidden.]
- Shach and Taz:
The Shach and Taz rule that whenever one of the pieces was eaten by a human, even accidently, the mixture remains forbidden, as we decree against permitting an accidental case due to an intentional case. However when eaten by an animal, such as an animal came on its own and ate one of the pieces, then it has the same laws as stated above regarding a piece that became destroyed on its own.
D. The law if the lost or destroyed piece separated from the mixture before being destroyed or lost:
The Shach rules that whenever one has witnessed the lost piece separate from the mixture, then even if it later became destroyed, the mixture remains forbidden. Furthermore even if one did not witness the piece separate from the mixture [but discovered that it separated from it prior to becoming destroyed] then [even] according to those opinions which hold that when the separation of the piece has not been witnessed the piece remains forbidden [See Halacha 4B], nevertheless in this case the mixture remains forbidden. [Certainly according to the opinion there that the piece itself is permitted when it separates on its own would have to hold that if that piece then becomes destroyed the mixture remains forbidden.] Thus only if a piece became destroyed without it becoming first separated from the mixture is the remaining mixture permitted.
E. The law if one of the pieces became cut into small pieces:
This matter was discussed in Chapter 101 Halacha 2 see there!
F. The law by a DSL”M:
Case: If a DSL”M became mixed with Heter and hence forbade the mixture and a piece then became destroyed from the mixture, what is the law of the mixture?
- Michaber:A DSL”M has the same status as all Issurim that are Chashuv and hence the mixture is permitted if a piece fell into the sea.
- Rama as explained by Shach:
According to the Rama if a DSL”M became mixed with Heter and a piece became destroyed or fell into the sea then nevertheless the mixture remains forbidden. [Regarding if one may be lenient in a time of need See Halacha 6E!].
The remaining mixture is only permitted if all the following conditions are met:
- One is unable to find the lost piece.
- The lost or destroyed piece did not separate from the mixture before becoming lost or destroyed.
- Some hold that two pieces must become lost or destroyed if the mixture involves small sized foods. In a case of great loss one may be lenient if only one piece was lots or destroyed.
- The piece became lost or destroyed prior to discovering that Issur entered into the mixture. Alternatively it occurred after one discovered the prohibition of the mixture but the piece became lost or destroyed on its own as opposed to one causing it to occur. Regarding if the piece was accidently eaten by a Jew it is disputed whether this form of destruction permits the remaining mixture or not.
Even in a case that the mixture is now permitted it is disputed whether a single person may eat the entire mixture. It is likewise disputed whether two people may eat the entire mixture simultaneously.
6. A piece from a Kavua mixture separated and became mixed with other Heter:
Case: If an Issur Chashuv became mixed with Heter and hence forbade the mixture and a piece then separated from it and became mixed with another group of Heter, what is the law of the second mixture? If a piece separated from the second mixture into a third mixture what is the law of the third mixture?
A. The law by a definite Biblical Issur:
Law of the second mixture: [If the Issur was a definite Biblical Issur and one witnessed the piece separate from the first mixture, then] the second mixture is forbidden even if it contains a thousand pieces of Heter. [Furthermore according to those Poskim which forbid a piece that separated on its own, then even if one did not witness the separation of the piece the second mixture is forbidden.]
Law of the third mixture: However the third mixture is permitted, as the piece of the first mixture is nullified in majority within the third mixture, as in such a case there is a double doubt.
- Shach: Second mixture is permitted in time of great loss: Many Poskim rule that the second mixture is permitted to be eaten so long as the entire mixture is not eaten simultaneously. Practically the Shach concludes one may be lenient in a case of great loss. However according to all it is forbidden to eat the entire second mixture simultaneously.
- Taz:The Taz leans to say that even the second mixture is permitted to be eaten so long as one does not eat the entire mixture simultaneously. Nevertheless he concludes that one is to be stringent.
- Admur in Shulchan Aruch Harav:
Rules like the Michaber that the second mixture is forbidden.
B. May one eat the entire third mixture simultaneously?
- Rama:Forbidden: Although the third mixture is permitted a single person should not eat the entire mixture simultaneously.
- Shach:Permitted: A single person may eat the entire third mixture simultaneously.
Must destroy piece: The Taz rules that in all cases one is to be stringent to discard one of the pieces from the mixture being that one the first mixture contained a definitely forbidden piece.
C. The law by a Safek Issur:
The above prohibition of the second mixture is only in a case that the Issur was a definite [Biblical] Issur. However if the Issur was only questionably forbidden then the second mixture is Kosher if there is 2:1 ratio of Heter over Issur.
May one eat the entire second mixture simultaneously? If the Issur is a questionable Issur then even a single person may eat the entire second mixture simultaneously. [However from the Rama it is implied that a single person may not eat the entire mixture simultaneously.]
Must one throw out one of the pieces? The Taz rules that one must discard one of the pieces from the second mixture just like the Taz rules regarding the third mixture of a Biblical Issur.
D. The law by a Rabbinical Issur:
The above prohibition of the second mixture is only in a case that the Issur was a Biblical Issur. However if the Issur was only Rabbinically forbidden then the second mixture is Kosher if there is 2:1 ratio of Heter over Issur. [Furthermore one may eat the entire mixture simultaneously].
Must one throw out one of the pieces? The Taz rules that one must discard one of the pieces from the second mixture just like the Taz rules regarding the third mixture of a Biblical Issur.
E. Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin:
Case: If a DSL”M became mixed with Heter and hence forbade the mixture and a piece then separated from it and became mixed with another group of Heter, what is the law of the second mixture? If a piece separated from the second mixture into a third mixture what is the law of the third mixture?
- Michaber as explained by Shach:A DSL”M has the same status as all Issurim that are Chashuv and hence the third mixture is permitted.
- Rama:There are opinions that say that if in the above case the Issur was a DSL”M then it is never nullified due to a Safek Sfeika [and hence the third as well as any subsequent mixture is forbidden]. Practically it is best to be stringent being that in any event the Issur will eventually become Kosher. However in a time of need one may be lenient.
- Taz:Stringent by Biblical Issur, lenient by Rabbinical: If the Issur is a Rabbinical Issur then the third mixture is permitted. If it is a Biblical Issur then the third mixture is forbidden and one may not be lenient even in a case of great loss.
Biblical and Rabbinical Issur have same law: Whether the Issur is Biblically or Rabbinically forbidden, if it is a DSL”M it is never nullified in any mixture, as in any event it will eventually become Kosher on its own.
May one be lenient in a case of great loss? The Shach writes that it requires further analysis in whether one may be lenient like the Rama to permit the mixture in a time of need, as there are many Poskim which are stringent by a DSL”M.
The law by a Safek Issur: The above stringency not to permit a Safek Sfeika of a DSL”M only applies to mixtures which are definite prohibitions. However if the Issur is only questionably forbidden, even if it is questionably Biblically forbidden, then we are lenient by a Sfeik Sfeika.
F. The law of Safek Chadash grains:
Grains that are available after Passover of which one does not know whether [the majority of] such grains are Chadash, such grains may be eaten due that their prohibition is a double doubt. However by those grains which one knows for certain that [majority of their species] are planted after Passover, as is accustomed in certain province [like Poland] and as occurs in certain years when the winter continues past Passover, then one should be stringent to not eat these grains from after that year’s harvest until Passover. This however is with exception to a case that the majority of that areas grains are imported from areas that the grains are planted and rooted prior to Passover.
G. The law by a second and third mixture of Avoda Zara:
Case: An item used for Avoda Zara is forbidden in benefit. If an item used for Avoda Zara became mixed with other items of the same kind and hence forbade the entire mixture in benefit and one item then separated from that group and became mixed with another group of items, what is the law of the second mixture? If an item then separated from the second mixture into a third mixture what is the law of the third mixture?
- Michaber: The Michaber rules that Avoda Zara has the same ruling as forbidden foods and hence the second mixture is forbidden in benefit while the third mixture is permitted in benefit.
The Shach rules like the Rambam that by Avoda Zara which prohibits in benefit we are lenient to permit the second mixture.
The third mixture is permitted in all cases. However there is a dispute regarding whether a single person may eat the entire mixture simultaneously or not. According to some Poskim one must discard one of the pieces from the mixture.
According to all the second mixture is permitted in all cases that the Issur was a Rabbinical Issur or a Safek Biblical Issur. If the Issur was a definite Biblical Issur then it is disputed whether the second mixture is permitted or not.
7. The law if a Safek Issur mixed with Heter:
If a questionable Issur mixed with Heter the Issur requires nullification [and hence if the mixture is Min Bemino it is nullified in majority]. If the Issur is a Davar Chashuv then it is not nullified.
A. The reason why we do not permit the mixture due to a Safek Sfeika:
- Michaber:We do not permit the mixture without majority despite the fact the case involves a Safek Sfeika as whenever there is a doubt by an actual piece regarding whether it is permitted or forbidden we do not view it as a doubt. [Hence it is not similar to the previous law regarding the second and third mixture in which case we permitted the third mixture due to Safek Sfeika, as there the two doubts were by the mixtures, however here the first Safek is by the actual body of the Issur, and such a Safek is not viewed as a Safek.]
- Rama:Some say the reason why the mixture is forbidden without majority is because since the Issur is a Biblical Issur a case of doubt is viewed as a Biblical doubt and a Biblical doubt is viewed as an actual Biblical Issur. Thus when a Safek Issur mixes with Heter there is only one Safek and hence one requires nullification.
Whenever the two doubts are on two different entities and of two different claims we do not permit a Safek Sfeika. Thus here since the first doubt is on the Issur in whether it is forbidden or not and the second doubt is on the piece of the mixture that one desires to eat in whether it is the Safek Issur piece or not, therefore it is two doubts on two different entities of which we do not permit a Safek Sfeika in such a case. However in the case of two mixtures [previous Halacha] the two doubts are within the same body, as perhaps the Issur did not mix into the second mixture and perhaps the piece that one is currently eating of the second mixture is not the Issur piece.
B. The law by a Safek Rabbinical prohibition:
Ruling of Michaber and Rama: According to the reason of the Michaber even questionable Rabbinical Issurim are not considered a true doubt and hence if it falls into a mixture one requires nullification versus the Issur. However according to the reason of the Rama a questionable Rabbinical Issur is considered a true doubt and hence if it mixes into Heter one does not require nullification. However possibly even the Michaber would agree to the Rama in this case.
Example-Safek Issur cheese: If a piece of cheese contains a doubt in whether it is cheese of a gentile or of a Jew and this piece of cheese then becomes mixed with other cheese and one does not know which cheese is the Safek cheese, then according to the Michaber the mixture requires nullification, while according to the Rama it does not require nullification.
Final ruling of Shach: The Shach rules in Klalei Safek Sfeika that a Safek Rabbinical prohibition does not require nullification in a mixture.
Ruling of Taz: Even by a Rabbinical Issur the two doubts must be on a single entity and hence in the above case of cheese the mixture requires nullification.
C. If one discovered both doubts simultaneously:
In a case that one discovers both doubts simultaneously, we permit the mixture even if the Issur is a Biblical prohibition and one of the doubts involve whether the Issur is in truth prohibited or not. Furthermore even if the item had a Chezkas Issur it is now permitted due to the simultaneous double doubt. [See Halacha 8!]
Example: A bird always has a Chezkas Issur until one knows for certain that it is Kosher. If this bird breaks its wing or back bone and there is doubt whether this occurred before or after the slaughtering, we permit the bird due to a simultaneous double doubt. Now although this matter is able to be verified through checking the lungs of the bird, nevertheless we do not suspect that the lung has become punctured. [However the Shach rules one is to check the lungs unless the lung is not readily available and no loss is involved.]
Does the above law apply even if the two doubts involve two different entities? [The Rama does not differentiate in this matter although the case that he gives is discussing two doubts within the same entity which is the chicken.] The Shach and Taz bring the Masas Binyamin which rules that even by two doubts that involve two different entities nevertheless if both doubts were discovered simultaneously it is permitted. The Shach and Taz argue that by two different entities, since the doubts are independent of each other we do not permit the item even if the two doubts were discovered simultaneously. The Shach concludes one may be lenient in a case of great loss which also involves a Seudas Mitzvah. Although even in such a case one may only eat the mixture two at a time.
Is one required to discover both doubts simultaneously even in a case that the two doubts are within the same body? The Issur Viheter rules that in all cases that we permit a Safek Sfeka the two doubts must be discovered simultaneously, even if the two doubts are with the same body. However the Taz argues that it never makes a difference whether one discovers both doubts simultaneously or one after the other and in all cases we rule that by two doubts involving two bodies it is forbidden, while two doubts in one body is permitted.
8. Is a Safek Sfeika valid in a case of Chezkas Issur?
- Rama:Even an item that has a Chezkas Issur is permitted due to a simultaneous double doubt.
- Masas Binyamin and Shach:The Masas Binyamin and Shach rule a Safek Sfeika is never valid by an Issur that has a Chezkas Issur.
A Safek Sfeka is valid for all Issurim, even Issurim that contain a Chezkas Issur, unless the Safek contradicts the Chazaka in which case we are stringent.
9. An Issur lung became mixed with Kosher lungs:
If an Issur lung was found amongst Kosher lungs and the Bodek claims that he knows which animal had the invalid lung and that animal was not mixed with the other Kosher meat, then the meat remains Kosher.
10. Summary of the laws of Safek Sfeika of Shach:
- One Safek in body and another in mixture: By a Biblical Issur the mixture requires nullification unless the Safek of the body was discovered only after the mixture occurred in which case one may be lenient in a case of great loss. By a Rabbinical Issur one may be lenient in all cases.
- Egg of chicken with Safek Treifa: Since the two doubts are on two different matters and the Issur is a Biblical Issur therefore if this egg mixes with other eggs it requires nullification.
- Two way Safek Sfeika: A Safek Sfeika is only valid if it can be said in both directions. If however it will only be permitted when said in one direction then it is not valid. However there are exceptions to this matter.
- Chezkas Issur: Any Issur which has a Chezkas Issur we do not permit due to Safek Sfeka if the Safek is regarding the Chazaka, such as a Safek if the Shechita of an animal was Kosher is not considered a Safek as it has a Chezkas Issur.
- Issur is more common than Heter: We only allow a Safek Sfeika if the Issur and Heter are equally common. If however the Issur is more common than the Heter, then it is not allowed.
- Doubt due to lack of knowledge: Is not considered a doubt.
- Inspection to remove Safek Sfeka: Whenever one is able to verify a Safek Sfeika through an inspection he is to be stringent to do so if it does not involve a loss.
 Michaber 110/1
 Shach 110/2 “Even in many thousands”
 Shach 110/1
 This follows the ruling of the Issur Viheter Klal 25/17 that a Davar Chashuv is nullified in a different species mixture.
 101/6 regarding Charal, and in Toras Chatas Klal 40/6
 Rama 110/1
 Rama 110/1
 Shach 110/10; as rules Rama in 101/1
 Shach 110/2; Admur 447/1
 Michaber 110/1
 Shach 110/3
 Rashi brought in Shach 110/3
 Shach 110/4
 Shach 110/5
 Shach 110/6
 Michaber 110/1
 Shach 110/7
 Michaber ibid
 Rama ibid
The Rama here is answering a seeming contradiction of the Michaber which here rules that a slaughtered animal is not a Davar Chashuv while earlier in 101 he rules it is. Thus the Rama establishes the case to be referring to animals that are too small to be considered Charal. Alternatively the Rashal answerers the Michaber by saying that here he refers to animals that are still in their skin and hence are not considered Charal. Alternatively the Taz explains that the Michaber here is dealing simply with the form of Chashivus found in a live animal, as this Chashivus is independent of if the animal is considered Charal or not, and is not coming to negate other forms of Chashivus if they apply. [Taz 110/2]
 Shach 110/13
The Shach explains that in truth it is possible for a food to not be Charal but be a Davar Shebiminyan, such as a whole sheep with its skin is not Charal due to it lacking a great action but is a Davar Shebiminyan. Hence the intent here of the Rama is that it is too small to be considered Chashuv of any type. This answerers the seeming contradiction of the Rama which here rules that if the animal is small and slaughtered it is not considered Charal, when in truth even when large it is not considered Charal if it lacks a great action. Hence the Shach explains in the name of the Bach that the Rama here means to say that it is not considered Chashuv at all, not even a Davar Shebiminyan, and in truth whole chickens and sheep still are a Davar Shebiminyan. [Shach ibid]
 Taz 110/2
 Michaber 110/2
 Shach 110/11
 See Taz 110/1
 Beitza 3b
 Shach 110/8
 Shach 110/8
 110/1; 86/7
 110/1 and Toras Chatas Klal 42/1 and 63/3; So rules also Admur in 447/20
 Shach 110/9; Taz 110/1
 Brought in Shach 110/9 and Taz 110/1
The Taz brings the previous mentioned Poskim which rule like Reish Lakish and concludes that since this is merely a Rabbinical enactment therefore one may be lenient like the Rama in a case of loss.
 Taz 110/1; Shach 110/9
 Rama 110/1; Toras Chatas Klal 42/1 and 63/3
 Mahrshal, Bach, Issur Viheter
 Taz 110/1 and 86/7; Shach 110/8 and 86/9
 Rama rules in Toras Chatas Klal 42/1 that eggs are not a Davar Chashuv. This follows his ruling here that only items which are always sold individually are considered a Davar Shebiminyan. [Shach 110/8]
 110/1; 86/7
 Taz 110/1 in name of Rashal
 This law is learned from the ruling that if one threw a rock into a group of 9 Jews and 1 gentile and killed a Jew he is not liable for the death penalty, as when he threw the rock we consider the group as 50/50 Jews and gentile and not as a group of only Jews. [Shach 110/15]
 Taz 110/3
 Shach 110/16; Meaning the Sages did not apply a decree in this case even if it is Charal. However they did apply the decree of Basar Shenisaleim Min Hayin.
 Although the Issur store is Kavua the law of Kavua [50/50] only applies when the doubt occurred at the place of the Kevius [meaning at the store] and not when the item is first discovered outside of the store. As once it leaves the store it is no longer Kavua [set] and thus when it is discovered we follow the majority. [Shach 110/19]
 All meat which has not had constant supervision of a Jew is Rabbinically forbidden to be eaten due to a decree that perhaps a gentile or animal switched the meat for Issur meat. See Chapter 63 for the full details of this subject and in which cases the meat remains permitted despite not having constant supervision.
 Shach 110/20
 Shach 110/18 in name of Rokeiach
 Rama ibid
 The reason for this is because the doubt awakened in the area of Kevius of the Issur store, therefore the laws of Kavua applies and it is Biblically forbidden. [Shach 110/21]
 110/22 in name of Bach
 Shach 110/21 unlike the ruling of the Levush
 Shach 110/15
 Peri Megadim 110 S.D. 15
 Shach 110/17
 If one buys the meat from the store and does not know which store sells Issur and which sells Kosher then according to the Shach [110/14] it has a Biblical status of Kavua. However the Peri Megadim rules that the law of Kavua in such a case is only Rabbinical.
The reason why according to the Rosh we would prohibit the meat in such a case even if it separated is because we suspect perhaps one may come to buy meat from the Issur store being he does not know which store sells Issur. In however the previous case that one knows which store sells Issur and which sells Heter there is no need to make such a decree. [Shach ibid]
 Taz 110/3
 Shach 110/14
 Shach 110/29
 Michaber 110/4
 Now although later on in 110/8 the Michaber requires three Taaruvos in order for an important item to become nullified [and hence we see a double doubt does not suffice] nevertheless here since the law of Kavua is a novelty and there are Poskim which permit even two Taaruvos, therefore we are lenient. [Shach 110/23]
However the Taz [110/10] learns that this ruling of the Michaber contradicts the ruling in 110/8 and the Taz leaves the matter with a question.
 As otherwise the Issur is always nullified 2:1 even without a Sfeik Sfeika and even if the Issur was a definite Issur. Hence the entire case here is referring to a piece of meat which is Charal and is hence normally not nullified.
 Shach 110/24
 Issur Viheter
 Meaning that once the Torah decided that a food is forbidden it is considered a definite prohibition even if a doubt is what caused it to become Biblically forbidden.
The Shach [110/22] however defends the reason of the Michaber saying the law of Kavua is a novelty and hence it only applies when the meat is not mixed with other pieces and one knows for certain which piece came from the Kavua. However when mixed the novelty of Kavua does not apply and the original piece of meat has a true status of a doubt.
 So rules also Bach, unlike the ruling of the Levush which follows the Michaber. [Shach 110/25]
 Toras Chatas Klal 43, as the Rama ruled in 110/4 that even if one witnesses the separation it has a status of Kavua. [Shach 110/26]
 Shach 110/26
As there are Poskim which rule the law of Kavua is only Rabbinical in a case that one saw a gentile or child separate the piece from the store. Hence in a case of great loss one may be lenient like their opinion. [Shach ibid]
The source of the ruling of the Michaber is the Rashba. The Taz argues that in truth the Rashba never discussed such a case of nine Kosher stores and one Issur store, as in such a case the Issur has a Biblical status of Kavua. Rather the Rashba was referring to a case that the Issur has only a Rabbinical status of Kavua, such as when an Issur was found mixed with Heter of one of the stores. Thus the Taz concludes there is no dispute in Poskim on this matter and the Michaber’s case does not exist amongst the Poskim.
 That one store sells only Issur meat as opposed to Heter meat which had an Issur piece mix into it.
 110/22 and 26
 The Shach [110/22] explains that according to the Michaber the law of Kavua is a novelty and hence it only applies when the meat is not mixed with other pieces and one knows for certain which piece came from the Kavua. However when mixed the novelty of Kavua does not apply and the original piece of meat has a true status of a doubt.
 Michaber 110/5; Shach 110/28
 Now although we now know that there was Issur meat in the store at the time of the purchase, nonetheless since at the time of purchase there was yet no knowledge of the prohibition, therefore there was not yet a status of Kavua in the butcher shop, and thus all pieces which had separated beforehand are considered that they separated from the majority.
 Even if one went ahead and bought a piece that is not Charal it is forbidden to eat. [Shach 110/30]
 The reason why one may not buy any of the pieces: Once a Charal piece of Issur meat has been discovered all the Charal meat in the shop is forbidden being that a Charal piece is never nullified. However those pieces that are less than Charal are legally permitted, being that a less than Charal Issur is nullified 2:1. Nonetheless the Sages forbade buying such meat as not all are expert in this law and they may come to buy even Charal pieces. [Michaber ibid] The Shach [110/31] explains that this decree only applies at a store being that many people buy from it and a mistake is bound to occur. However in one’s home the pieces less than Charal are permitted.
 Taz 110/4
 Meaning that although normally by the nine store case we rule that if the piece separated it is permitted as we say it left the majority, in this case we are stringent as the Issur is not known.
 Shach 110/32
 Michaber 110/6
 Such as one asked a gentile to remove it.
 Rama ibid and Taz 110/6; Meaning we suspect that if we were to permit eating this separated piece based on “majority” then people may come to eat from the actual mixture itself which contains the Issur Davar Chashuv and is hence an Issur Kavua.
 Michaber 110/6
 Shach 110/35. However if it separated in front of someone then it has a status of Kavua as explained by the case of the stores. [Shach ibid]
 Shach 110/34: We say that the piece that separated, separated from the majority and the Issur piece in the mixture remains with the majority and hence the separated piece is Kosher.
 Shach 110/34
 Shach 110/36
 Taz 110/6 and 110/4
 Rosh and other Rishonim as opposed to Rashba
 Their reason is because they say if we were to permit the separated piece then people may come to allow even the original mixture itself based on majority. This suspicion does not apply by the case of 9 stores as there the Issur is in a known store and no one will come to buy from the Issur store just because we permit the separated piece, as we are not dealing with Reshaim in Rabbinical decrees. [Shach ibid]
 Perek Gid Hanashe 24
 Klal 43 brought in Taz 110/6; Shach 110/36
 Brought in Shach 110/36
 His reasoning is because by animals it is even permitted to cause the group to separate and hence there is no reason to forbid it in a case that the animal separated on its own.
 Shach 1110/35
 Michaber 110/6 and Shach 110/33
 This applies even according to the Rosh which normally prohibits the separated piece even if it became separated on its own. This is opposed to the opinion of the Rashba and Beis Yosef which says that according to the Rosh it would be forbidden even in this case. [Shach ibid]
 Rama 110/6
 The reason for why when the entire mixture moves the separated pieces are now Kosher: As when the mixture moves from its original place the mixture now loses its law of Kavua [50/50] and we thus view the mixture in its reality of majority Heter, and thus every piece that has separated is Kosher due to the rule that it follows the majority.
 Shach 110/35
 Shach 110/37; As since the law of Kavua is a novelty we only apply it in its original place before it moved. [Shach ibid]
 Brought in Beir Heiytiv 110/18
 Shach 110/37
 Brought in Shach 110/37
 Rama 110/6
 Now although chickens are Chashuv and hence the Treif chickens are not nullified to each other, nevertheless regarding the eggs we follow the majority. [Rama ibid] We do not decree that one may come to take a chicken from the mixture if we allow him to eat this egg. This law applies even according to the opinion that rules eggs are considered a Davar Shebiminyan, as even by the nine store case we rule that if a Chashuv piece separated it is permitted. [Shach 110/38]
 Michaber 110/7
 Shach 110/43; so is also implied from Michaber ibid which writes that when it falls in the sea it must be lost from mankind.
 The reason for why the piece must be lost from mankind is because otherwise since the Kashrus of the separated piece is also needed to be ruled on we should apply to it the rule that it separated from the majority and hence we can no longer say that it is the Issur piece. However once the piece becomes lost and is no longer being asked on we can assume that it was the Issur piece. [Shach 110/44]
 Regarding how many pieces must become destroyed from the mixture, see the end of this Halacha.
 If however one caused the piece to fall into the sea then even if this was done Beshogeg [without knowledge of there being a prohibition involved in doing so] the mixture remains forbidden as we decree against permitting the mixture in a case the piece was destroyed Beshogeg due to worry one may come to destroy it Bimeizid. [Shach 110/40, see the end of this Halacha.]
 The reason the mixture may be eaten is because Biblically the Issur was already nullified in majority [Shach 110/45] and Rabbinically in such a case we assume the Issur piece was the piece that became destroyed. [Michaber ibid]
 The reason that it may not be eaten one at a time: As when eating one piece at a time there is an equal doubt as to whether one is eating a Kosher piece or Issur piece. However when eating two at a time since for certain one piece is Kosher we assume that the second piece is likewise Kosher. [Michaber 110/7; Shach 110/47]
 Rama ibid and so rules Michaber in 140/1
The reason why in this case a single person may not eat the entire mixture while in a case of a Issur that is not a Davar Chashuv [chapter 109] we allow [according to one opinion] even a single person to eat the entire mixture is because there the Issur has become completely nullified both Biblically and Rabbinically. However here the Issur is not truly nullified, it is just that when one does not eat the entire mixture there is a double doubt; perhaps the Issur was the destroyed piece; perhaps the Issur is within the piece that he did not eat. If however he were to eat all the pieces that this second doubt would not apply. [Shach 110/48; Taz 110/9]
 110/49 based on the Perisha
 Rama ibid based on Beis Yosef as explained in Taz 110/9; The reason for this is because in such a case there is no second doubt, as if the piece that became destroyed is not the Issur piece then the piece is now certainly being eaten. [See previous footnote]
 110/49 based on the Perisha 110/24 see there!
 Shach 110/47
 The rule is one must always eat at the same time double the amount of Issur contained in the mixture in order so we can always depend that just like half of the pieces are definitely Kosher so too the other half is also Kosher. [Shach ibid]
 Shach 110/40; Taz 110/8; Michaber ibid which writes “the piece fell into the sea on its own”.
 Shach 110/40 and 42 in name of Rosh as in such a case there is no room to decree Shogeg due to Meizid.
 Shach 110/41
 110 S.D. 41
 Meaning without knowledge that doing so involves a prohibition.
 Rama ibid
 Shach 110/40
 Shach 110/40 as in such a case we decree Shogeg due to Meizid as if we allow the mixture in a case one accidently fed it to a gentile or animal he may come to feed it to them purposely. However when eaten accidently by a Jew there is no worry that one may come to eat it or feed it to another intentionally. [Shach ibid]
 The Shach and Taz say that even if the food was eaten by a Jew accidently there is still a decree that one may come to feed it purposely to a gentile or animal and hence there is room to decree Shogeg due to Meizid.
 Shach 110/42
 As once the piece has separated from the mixture it is no longer considered part of the mixture, and now that it falls into the sea or becomes eaten one can no longer say we assume that the Issur that was in the mixture was destroyed or eaten as this piece is no longer part of the mixture. [Shach ibid]
 See Peri Megadim 110 S.D. 42; The Shach seems to say that only according to this opinion would the mixture be forbidden if it separates on its own. However, as notes the Peri Megadim, this makes no sense as on the contrary according to this opinion there is more room to be lenient by the original mixture.
 Peri Megadim ibid, as how can one say that before it becomes destroyed it is Heter and now that it became destroyed it is the Issur.
 Vetzaruch Iyun as how can the piece fall into the sea without first separating? One must say that the above only refers to if the piece went straight from the mixture into the sea if however it separated and then stopped and then fell into the sea, then the remainder is forbidden.
 Shach 110/45
 Shach 110/57
 This is based on the ruling of the Rashba. [Shach 110/57]
 The Shach derives this from the ruling of the Rama in 110/8 which writes that we do not allow Safek Sfeika by a DSL”M mixture.
 Michaber 110/7
 As opposed to a Safek Issur [Rama ibid]
 As opposed to Rabbinical [Shach 110/54]
 Shach 110/51 as rules Michaber 110/6 that if a piece separated on its own then the piece is permitted, and hence certainly the second mixture would be permitted. Thus one must establish in this case that one witnessed the separation. Alternatively if half of the first mixture separated into the second mixture then even if one did not witness the separation the Michaber agrees the second mixture is forbidden. [Shach ibid]
 The reason for this is because there is only one doubt in this case, perhaps the Issur piece mixed in and perhaps not, and in a case of a single doubt we are stringent. [Michaber ibid]
 See Halacha 4B
 Shach 110/51
 Perhaps the Issur piece did not enter into the second mixture; even if the Issur did enter into the second mixture perhaps it did not enter into the third mixture. [Shach 110/53] However the Rama learns the Safek Sfeika is perhaps the Issur did not fall into the third mixture and even if it did perhaps I am not currently eating the Issur piece. For this reason the Rama concludes one may not eat the entire mixture simultaneously. [Shach ibid]
 110/50 and 53 and 55
 As when one does not eat the entire mixture simultaneously there is a double doubt [Safek Sfeka]; perhaps the Issur did not fall into the second mixture; Even if the Issur fell into the second mixture perhaps one is not eating the Issur right now. [Shach ibid]
 As then the second doubt no longer applies and it is hence not a Safek Sfeika. [Shach ibid]
 Taz 110/10
 So learns Beir Heiytiv 110/24 Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol from the next Beir Heiytiv [110/25] which plainly rules that the Shach and Taz rule the second mixture is permitted to be eaten not simultaneously.
 Rama ibid
 As the Rama learns the Safek Sfeika is as follows: Perhaps the Issur did not fall into the third mixture and even if it did perhaps I am not currently eating the Issur piece. For this reason the Rama concludes one may not eat the entire mixture simultaneously. [Shach 110/53]
 As the Shach learns the Sfeik Sfeika as follows: Perhaps the Issur piece did not enter into the second mixture; even if the Issur did enter into the second mixture perhaps it did not enter into the third mixture. Thus it is permitted to even eat the entire third mixture simultaneously being that the double doubt still applies. [Shach ibid]
 Taz 110/10
 Rama ibid
 Shach 110/55
 As this is similar to a case of definite Issur in a third mixture. Thus the Rama seemingly would learn that even by a Safek Issur the second mixture may not be eaten simultaneously just like he rules regarding the third mixture, and so understands the Shach ibid to be the opinion of the Rama. [See Shach 110/55 and Taz 110/10
 Shach 110/54
 See Shach 110/55
 Rama 110/8
 Shach 110/57
 The Shach ibid derives this from the ruling of the Michaber in 110/7 that if a DSL”M fell into the sea then the mixture is permitted. This is based on the ruling of the Rashba which also holds that the second Taaruvos is permitted by a DSL”M. [Shach ibid]
 Shach 110/56
 Shach 110/59 and 56
 Although generally we apply the rule of Safek Derabanan Lekula by a Rabbinical prohibition, nevertheless by a DSL”M we are stringent.
 Shach 110/58
 Shach 110/56; Shach 293/4 regarding Chadash
 Shach 110/57; Rama 393/3; Admur 489/29
 Meaning that one does not know whether the majority of that grain available on market in his area is Chadash or not, however if one knows that majority of that grain is Chadash, then even if there is a minority which is not Chadash, and he thus does not know the status of the grain which he wants to eat, nevertheless its prohibited, as in such a case we do not say a Safek Sfeika. [Shach 393/3]
 As perhaps they were harvested prior to the 16th of Nissan, and even if they were harvested after, perhaps they had rooted prior to the 16th. Now, although in general we are stringent by a Davar Sheyeish lo Matirin even in a double doubt case, as is ruled in chapter 110, nevertheless this only applies to mixtures of which we are certain that did at one point contain prohibition. However here since the double doubt is itself regarding is there any Chadash here or not, therefore we are lenient. [Shach 393/4]
 Shach ibid
 Admur 489
 Shach 110/52
 We do not say that even without majority the mixture should be permitted due to Safek Sfeika [perhaps the Issur is really permitted and perhaps this piece that I am eating is the Heter piece] as whenever there is a doubt by an actual piece regarding whether it is permitted or forbidden we do not view it as a doubt. [Michaber ibid]
 Shach 110/60
 The double doubt is as follows: Perhaps the Issur is really permitted and even if it is forbidden perhaps this piece that I am eating is the Heter piece.
 Shach 110/61
The question of the Shach on the reason of the Michaber: The Shach 110/61 asks on the Michaber as follows: Based on the previous law [110/8] in which the Michaber ruled that the second mixture is forbidden despite their existing a double doubt in the second mixture, and only when a piece enters a third mixture do we permit the third mixture, what necessity is there to teach us the law in this case? Why would I think that the mixture is permitted by a Safek Issur if even the second mixture is forbidden by a definite Issur? Furthermore why does the Michaber say the reason the mixture is forbidden is because a doubt in the body of an Issur is not a real doubt if in truth even if it was a real doubt, based on the previous case we do not permit two doubts of this type. These questions also apply according to the reason mentioned here by the Rama. One cannot suggest that the novelty in this case is that even if a Safek Issur falls into a second mixture we prohibit it because a Safek Issur is not a real Safek, as the Rama explicitly ruled in 110/8 that a second mixture is permitted if the Issur was a Safek Issur. The Shach concludes with a Tzaruch Iyun. The Peri Megadim 110 S.D. 61 answers this question by saying we would have thought that a doubt regarding the body of an Issur is a stronger doubt then a second mixture and hence we would permit the first mixture here due to a double doubt. Thus the Michaber innovates that on the contrary the doubt of a Safek Issur is not considered a doubt at all.
To note that the above question only applies according to those that rule the second mixture is forbidden. However according to those that rule the second mixture is permitted then there is a need for the ruling in this case.
 Shach 110/62
 Klal 17
 Rama ibid
 When a wing or back bone is broken there is suspicion that the lungs have become punctured and hence invalidated the bird.
 The double doubt is as follows: Perhaps the wing broke after the death of the bird. Even if it broke beforehand, perhaps it did not puncture the lungs of the bird. Now since both of these doubts are discovered simultaneously, at the moment that the broken wing is discovered, therefore we permit the bird.
 63 Klal 1
 Klal Safek Sfeika Klal 1
 Taz 110/14
 Brought in Taz 110/15
 Klaleli Safek Sfeika Klal 28
 Klal 1
 Klal 17
 Klal 12-3; The double doubt here is as follows: Perhaps the chicken is Kosher. Even if it is not Kosher perhaps the egg was complete before it became a Treifa.
 Klal 13-15
 Klal 27-32
 Klal 33
 Klal 34
 Klal 35
Leave A Comment?
You must be logged in to post a comment.