December 15, 2011 9:50 pm at 9:50 pm #977856
yitay: do you agree?December 16, 2011 2:51 am at 2:51 am #977857
Yes, thank you for responding. Good points. My rav also holds l’halacha that the reason for ein mevatlin is because you may miscalculate. Though it would be interesting to calculate if on a normal sized piece of meat there will ever not be 60 against it, making it similar to ???? ?????? ????. But your other points preclude that anyway. Moreover, I was thinking that there is a bigger problem using 60 here, in that we are dealing with tzli.
On one thing I’m not sure though – you say that the sauce is separate from the steak; I was assuming that she wasn’t dousing it with that much that there would be any actual separate mamashus after the steak was finished done grilled, because that’s usually how it is when I grill. But if the metzius is like you, I readily agree.December 16, 2011 9:33 am at 9:33 am #977858
I can’t think of any case where we say ???? ?????? ???? on Mamashus. It is only used in conjunction with ??? ?????? ????, which works with a pot but not sauce.December 16, 2011 11:44 am at 11:44 am #977859
old man: I would like to hear if you were unaware of the Chasam Sofer and retract your assumption that meat and fish is merely a Minhag, or if you have some source or authority that disagrees with him.December 16, 2011 3:55 pm at 3:55 pm #977860oomisParticipant
I am told you cannot use sauce that contains fish, fish juice, fish products, etc. to cook with meat or chicken. It is considered a sakana. So I was told when I asked.December 17, 2011 9:02 pm at 9:02 pm #977861old manParticipant
I wrote a long post, in which I refuted the arguments presented against my previous post. Apparently this most recent post was not accepted for publication, and so I have nothing further to say on this topic. I do not retract my previously published position.December 17, 2011 11:26 pm at 11:26 pm #977862
old man: It is difficult for me to know how to relate to someone who argues on Shulchan Aruch without giving any justification.December 18, 2011 1:09 am at 1:09 am #977863
My understanding of the Rema at the end of 89 with the milk in the water is for the reason of it being impossible to mess up (since it already has 60 in the water), because I believe ???? does not become batel in ????. I know the Shach learns differently. Also, you have R’ Akiva Eiger in 103:3 who wants to say that you can be mevatel issur l’chatchila in that case over there and the Pri Megadim argues and says you’re only allowed to do it when it’s ????? ??”? ????? ???? ????? ????. I think this is along the same lines.December 18, 2011 1:33 am at 1:33 am #977864oomisParticipant
i imagine if you ask the majority of medical practioners whether or not eating shrimp can cloud your cerebral processes, they will answer no. we dont even know for sure in what sense meat-fish is a sakana, physically, spiritually or both.”
Maybe so,but we don’t eat shrimp for the reason that the Torah tells us we cannot eat seafood that does not have fins and scales. It makes no difference if shrimp clouds our cerebral processes or turns us into MENSA geniuses. It’s assur to eat it. Period.
I also would not drink liquids that were uncovered overnight, even if the Gedolim tell us it is perfectly OK halachically because there are no longer snakes and scorpions in most neighborhoods, because G-d knows what shmutz cold have fallen in or worse, cockroaches and other wild life might still have crawled over the open container. Yuck.December 18, 2011 5:28 am at 5:28 am #977865JotharMember
hello99,there is magen avraham as well who argues on Rabi Akiva Eiger, by Chametz. I forget where, but my darchei halacha cheat sefer, in the I’ll try to hunt it down.December 18, 2011 2:16 pm at 2:16 pm #977866December 19, 2011 7:46 pm at 7:46 pm #977867
Yes, I meant 99. This has happened to me before, for some reason every time I think ?? or ?? I write 88 or 89.
The Pri Megadim you mention is very shver in my opinion. Look up the Ran, he is most definitely talking about min b’she’eino mino. That is his whole point, that the chachamim see mino and aino mino as having nothing to do with types of food, but with dinim. Ayin sham. And that’s where I am coming from, and therefore my ikkar raya is from this Rema.
It was not my intention to prove my point from R’ Akiva Eiger in 103. I simply meant to show that you see the idea that there is no problem of bitul issur l’chatchila when it is impossible/unlikely that anything will go wrong, even though there would have been a problem of bitul issur l’chatchila had we not been able to say that you won’t go wrong. The idea I am shparring from here is that bitul issur l’chatchila is a problem because you might go wrong, and therefore in a completely different case, such as a food which is “???? ?????? ????” such a svara would also apply. But I know the cases are not the same. Again, my raya is from the Rema, and misvara (that ??? ??? ????).December 19, 2011 8:08 pm at 8:08 pm #977868daxyMember
Boro park girl, I know someone who won’t eat shwarma because the name grosses him out. 😉December 19, 2011 11:05 pm at 11:05 pm #977869
I think the Pri Megadim is fine and you are remembering the Ran incorrectly. He says that Bitul is universally accepted to require Hisnagdus. According to Rabbi Yehuda, it must be conflict in Metzius; therefore, Min b’Mino is never Batel. According to the Chachomim, even Hisnagdus in Din is sufficient to effect Bitul. However, the contrast must be extreme, and Davar she’Yesh Lo Matirim is too similar to Heter to create sufficient opposition for Bitul. Certainly, the Chachomim agree that Hisnagdus in Metzius is Kal v’Chomer sufficient for Bitul.
Also, my point with Rabbi Akiva Eiger was that his reason is NOT “nothing could go wrong”
Also, once Chazal forbade Bitul Issur l’Chatchila, we cannot dismiss a d’Rabannan just because we think thmotiveve is not relevant. So, the Sevara is not enough to make it Mutar.December 19, 2011 11:48 pm at 11:48 pm #977870
Hello: Yes, but we see cases where we say it’s Muttar to be Mevatel Issur Lechatchila. So maybe there are times when we can make this case similar to those. Also, with the sauce, it should be possible to water it down/mix it with other sauces so that the fish really is Batel before you ever put it in meat. That should be completely Muttar.December 20, 2011 1:11 am at 1:11 am #977871
Sorry but I believe you are wrong about the Ran. Look it over again. The Gemara in Menachos 22b which asks rhetorically, ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??????, ???? – is according to you, the maskana, which is absurd.
once Chazal forbade Bitul Issur l’Chatchila, we cannot dismiss a d’Rabannan just because we think the motive is not relevant
Sure we can, as long as we aren’t being mevatel the gezeira. We always do this.December 20, 2011 6:58 pm at 6:58 pm #977872
The way you wish to interpret the Ran as solely following the Din, which I admit some of my Talmidim also initially made the same mistake, the goal is unrealized. The entire point of the Ran was to elucidate the distinction between Mino and Eino Mino by DASHILM, and according to you it is irrelevant.December 20, 2011 6:58 pm at 6:58 pm #977873
Sam2: I agree that any solution that works with Issur should help for fish and meat; however, your solution to mix the sauce before adding it to the meat would be problematic. The Pri Megadim SD 99:22 writes that milk cannot be added to water with the explicit intention to add the mixture to meat. Mixing the fish to make it Batel before applying to meat would be the same problem.December 20, 2011 7:10 pm at 7:10 pm #977874
Hello: I feel like many Achronim disagree with that Pri Megadim. And even so, that is by an Issur (D’Oraisa no less). Here the Issur is an issue of Sakanah. If you’ve removed the Sakanah, are you sure that even the Pri Megadim would say it’s not okay.December 20, 2011 7:50 pm at 7:50 pm #977875
Yes, he’s mechalek between mino and eino mino by ????”?, I am well aware of that. But he only does so since a ????”? is already assur and only has a tzad heter, so in order to make it like the same kind he adds the factor of eino mino. But this distinction is only in ????”?, which only has a tzad heter. Regular heter b’heter, according to his understanding of the Gemara in Menachos, is never batel even if is aino mino, and this is pashut pshat in that Gemara which requires only ????? and not also ??? ?????. With all due respect you are misreading the Ran.December 22, 2011 4:22 am at 4:22 am #977876JotharMember
I thought I remembered something on this. I took a peak at my darchei halacha cheat sefer from my semicha days. He has a whole pilpul on bittul sakanah lechatchila. He has a pischei teshuva and s shu”t shoel umeishiv on th allowed side, and a yad yehuda on the assur side. He is machria that by a doraysa like fish-meat (not sure why this is deoraysah but I read it quickly as I was in a rush) we should be machmir and by a derabanan like mayim giluim (again, not sure why this is derabanan) we can be meikel. Good question to ask my lor.December 22, 2011 1:06 pm at 1:06 pm #977877
Furthermore, when milk is already Batel, it is impossible to become Assur subsequently. You want to extend this to steak sauce where the common usage may be unlikely to contain 1/60, but it is certainly not impossible.
BTW, the Meikilim on Bitul Sakana are: Pischei Teshuva, Chamudei Daniel, Eretz Tzvi, Ramatz, Ein Yitzchok, Avnei Nezer, Maharash Engel, Yad Meir, Yad Eliezer, Degel Efraim and Rav Ovadia Yosef. The Machmirim are: Mekor Maim Chaim, Avnei Tzedek, Maharsham, Yad Yehuda, Shulchan Chai, Atzei Olah, Divrei Yatziv and Rav Chaim KanievskyDecember 22, 2011 7:29 pm at 7:29 pm #977878
The reason why basar b’chalav is batel even if heter b’heter is not is because there is a special din that ????? ??? is required for basar b’chalav (the Gemara learns this out in Chullin 108a for the fact that ??? ????? ???? ????). If I’m not mistaken I’ve seen this answer mefurash somewhere.
My point was not to go straight from here to fish and meat. It was to say that the Rema’s case of milk and water is heter b’heter, so how is it batel according to the Ran? My answer (which I admit is a chiddush, but is mistavra to me) is that ein hachi nami it’s not batel, but it isn’t worse than ???? ?????? ????. Since there is already 60 water against milk, there will automatically be more than 60 in anything you add this to, to the milk.
Based on this, ???? ?????? ???? is not a special din in keilim, but in minute amounts of food as well. And just as by keilim, ???? ?????? ???? isn’t that it’s impossible to be ????? ???? ???? but only that it isn’t the ??? to do so, so too here it doesn’t have to be impossible, only not ??? ever to do so, because ???”? it’s the exact same din.
The big nafka mina according to me would be in the Rema’s case, what if instead of 60 you had 59 against it. In most normal cases would say it’s still fine. Because we never cared about bitul in the first place, we cared about being assured that it will become batel as soon as it is poured into the pot, and that will certainly happen with 59 as well, ???? ??? ?????.
This was my comparison to the sauce – i.e. if the fish is such a minute amount that even though it is more than 1/60 of the sauce but it will always be less than 1/60 of the meat it is spread on, you will not have a problem of bitul issur l’chatchilah. And if the metzius is not like this, I completely agree that my vort isn’t relevant here.
And as I’ve said before, this is not going to help for the other issues – the fact that it’s ??? to which 60 may not be relevant, and the fact that as you’ve pointed out the sauce might remain ????.
Thank you for your list at the end.July 9, 2012 9:11 pm at 9:11 pm #977879
yitay: if you look at Shut Rabbi Akiva Eiger 207, I think he clearly concludes not like you are learning.July 10, 2012 12:04 am at 12:04 am #977880choppyParticipant
hello99: You sure have a looooong memory.July 10, 2012 8:15 am at 8:15 am #977881HaLeiViParticipant
Bassar B’chalav is not really Hetter B’hetter. The idea of Hetter B’hetter not being Batul is that there is nothing to be Mevatel. Bittul is more a Din than a Metzius. Bassar in Chalav is an Issur.
Bassar Bechalav, on the other hand, should really be Assur Bemashehu. Just as in Klaim we say that the Iruv is Assur and therefore there is no Bittul, Bassar Bechalav would be the same, if not for the fact that we need Nesinas Taam.March 31, 2013 7:10 pm at 7:10 pm #977882benignumanParticipant
R’ Elyashiv held that there was no problem of bittul issur l’chatchila for fish and meat because it is not a matter of issur.October 7, 2013 10:56 pm at 10:56 pm #977883
I was reading for some T’shuvos from R’ Ovadia today and I saw that in Yoreh Deah 1:8 he discusses the issue of Bittul Sakanah L’chatchilah. He is Meikil in the end.
And to explain to Jothar why this could be D’oraisa, he begins with a Machlokes Rishonim about whether Chavalah B’atzmo is D’oraisa or D’rabannan and then tries to figure out if that would apply to a Chavalah S’guli, not Tivi, as he calls it. (Derech Agav, he assumes in that T’shuvah that the rabid dog mentioned in the Gemara is only a S’guli issue and not Tivi; I wonder if anyone told him about rabies and if that could have changed his mind on that detail.)October 8, 2013 4:02 pm at 4:02 pm #977884HaLeiViParticipant
I don’t think he lived in a cave. Nor do I think all references to Kelev Shota match rabies all the way. Also, if it were around back then wouldn’t they all be infected by now? Even in our time it has spread.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.