Questions on Yoreh Deah, Choshen Mishpat

Home Forums Bais Medrash Questions on Yoreh Deah, Choshen Mishpat

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 104 total)
  • Author
  • #591935

    My chavrusa and I are in the final stages of preparing for a comprehensive semicha test on: Shechita, Melicha, Simanim ketanim (cheilev, dam, dagim, beitzim…) Melicha, Basar B’chalav, Ta’aruvos, Nidda, Mikvaos, Dayanim, and Eidus.

    If you post a question regarding any of these topics, we will discuss it and try to respond.


    Hatzlacha Rabbah.

    Somewhat noyge’ah to tayruvos, we’re doing the sugyah of kli rishon kli sheini in Shabbos 40b. Do you happen to have anything to add about tasa’ah gavar by a davar lach with another davar lach if its mevashel kdei klipah or if we say that it just becomes me’urav?

    Our nidon is bishul so I’m not sure how much shaychis it has with tayruvos really, but we’re about to jump into a long tosfos that discusses iruy and how he bases it on the machlokes of tasa’a gavar or ila’ah gavar. Also a little bit noyge’ah to the sugyah before that of ambati and kois according to Rashi.

    Anyway just looking for some background on tasa’ah gavar by a lach b’lach. Might not help me for bishul since your doing tayruvos but just thought I’d try.


    Reuven is a wealthy businessman who is MAJORLY connected in town. A psak against him and your reputation is toast!

    Shimon is a poor mechanech whose own parents can’t stand him or his life choices because chinuch is an embarrassment for the family.

    Reuven knowing full well that Shimon has no one to defend him has Shimon fired (for NO cause) and left with no parnassah.

    Shimon summons Reuven to POPA’s BAIS DIN.



    derech hamelech:

    A. by a lach blach, we would certainly say the whole thing is meurav. the only nafka minah I can think of regarding if it is bishul would be for basar b’chalav as to whether it is d’oraysa and assur b’hanaa. I imagine we would follow the regular rules of tassaa gavara and say it only cooked kdai klipa.

    B. Regarding irui and kli sheni, bear in mind that issur has another factor over hilchos shabbos in that on shabbos we are only concerned with bishul. Kli sheni, for instance, although it is not mevashel, is maflit u’mavlia according to the taz following rashal (not at same time though).


    what gives an item the status of kavua that we say kmechtza al mechtza.

    i.e. in 110 siman 5 in pischai tshuva (and p.m.) the story of the butcher and 7 cows the ones at home are defenitly considered kavua,

    is every time i have a safek at home called kavua?


    a) I guess taht would answer tosfos’ kasha on Rashi for me, unless tosfos doesn’t hold that lach b’lach is meurav. Why would we say that its mevashel kdei klippah by bassar b’chalav if its lach b’lach? Maybe there’s something there that tosfos holds applies by me too. (Sorry if this is beyond the scope of what you are doing- I’m not sure if you’re only learning aliba d’hilchisa if you know the sevaros and pilpul behind everything- but if you do I appreciate it- I have to give a chabura on wednesday!)

    b)Yeah we are doing bishul or at least working our way through perek kira right now. We just started the sugya of kli rishon kli shayni but I’m not sure how deep we are going to get since the zman is almost over and we’re supposed to start rechitza on wednesday.



    siman 12 siif 1. A dayan does not have to judge an adam kashe unless he is the appointed public judge.


    A.I was assuming it was at least mevashel kdei klipa. Hence for basar bchalav only the klipa would be issurei hanaa. But see yad avraham siman 87 that urui is not derech bishul so not min hatorah.

    Another nafka mina is for shaar issurim whether we will say chaticha naaseis neveila according to taz in siman 92 that by lach blach if not cooked then no chanan

    B. According to taz following maharshal in siman 105, kli sheni is mavlia kdei kulo. irui is more chamur so should do so as well. Why do we say irui only kdei klipa? Answer may be because tasaa gavar. See chavas daas 105:7 maharshal holds irui is kdei kulo, chavas daas objects on grounds of tasaa gavar.


    Wow! Thanks for those mareh mekomos!!! That Yad Avraham is really interesting. I never thought of that and its really so pushut. That’s really going to help me tomorrow when I get into tosfos.

    That chavas daas and maharshal also sounds interesting. I wanted to understand the whole vort of mevashel kdei klipah, tasaa gavar and iruy in the hopes that I’d be able to figure out a svoroh behind a shitah in a braisah that pouring hot water into a bath of cold water would be assur.

    You got me really excited now with some great mareh mekomos!! Thanks!!!


    Fish and chicken which is assur to eat due to “sakana”. May one use the same oven to cook both fish and chicken, uncoverned, at the same time? Does it matter how large the oven is? Can the same oven be used for fish and then immediately after for chicken (cooking both, uncovered).


    I wonder about that last question too.

    Also someone one time about 7 years ago showed me someone (don’t remember who) that said that drinking water after eating fish is also bad. Is my memory really bad and I’m confusing something or does such is there such a thing?

    YW Moderator-105

    It’S a teshuvas R’Akiva Eiger that says that drinking water after fish is a sakana


    we tell our childeren that if you drink water after the fish, it will start swimming in their tummy…


    Is it water AFTER fish, or while eating fish? Because I always knew not to drink while eating fish, but after that its ok.


    I tried googling “fish water drinking sakana”

    and all I could get was information about japanese restaurants


    Mod you’re confused- one can find everything in the torah, but not everything from the torah on google!!


    I never heard about the drinking (or not drinking) while eating fish. Is that based on halacha – or is it more like a “good idea” not to drink while eating fish because one might accidentally swallow a bone while simultaneously drinking, that would have been more readily apparent while chewing the fish?

    Y.W. Editor

    Here is a question:

    Does a bais din need (al pi halacha) to send three hazmanos before writing a siruv? Or is it just the minhag?


    Apashutayid: Siman 116:2. According to Rema, it is assur lechatchila and mutar bdieved in same oven at same time. I believe one after another would be ok unless the oven was so small as to be considered like a pot cover. (108:1)

    According to Shach 116:1, cooked at same time is assur bdieved.

    According to Taz 116:2 we can allow together lechatchila if it is a “large oven”. A “large oven” holds 12 esronim.

    Derech: I don’t know about the fish and water.

    YW Editor: According to Mechaber Siman 11:1, it depends where he lives. If he lives in the “kefarim”, we need him to ignore 3 invitations before we put him bnidui. If he lives in the city, we put him bnidui after one ignored invitation.



    For some reason I had thought it was from R’ Akiva Eiger. Do you know where I can find it?


    Popa. The sakana seems to be the smell created by cooking the 2 together (rma). If the aroma from thr first cooked item was so pervasive in the oven, would I stiull be allwed to cook the other afterwards?



    Where/what are the shittos regarding baking cheeses, and if they make an oven Milchdik?


    I’m not sure where in Shulchan Aruch this is. I recently heard a shiur about paying workers. There is a Mitzvah Asei of “b’yomo titein s’charo” and a Lo Sa’asei of “Lo salin”. These go into effect when the work is completed and/or the employee delivers the product. For instance, when a baby sitter leaves, you are mechuyav to pay her before shkia that day. If you pick up a car from a mechanic, you are mechuyav to pay from the time that the car is picked up. If the mechanic delivers the car to you, you would usually be mechuyav to pay when he delivers it. The exception to this is if you had agreed that it would be delivered at a later point and he delivers it earlier. In this case, the chiyuv doesn’t start until the time agreed upon.

    I was wondering how this applies to Electronic work. Is sending an email with completed documents considered delivering the product? What if the employer doesn’t open the email until a few days later, does the chiyuv start when the email is sent or received?

    What if I upload updated files to a web server, does the chiyuv start as soon as the new files are “live”? When the employer uses the updated site? When the employer benefits from it by someone else using the site?


    chofetz chaim: sorry, that is beyond the scope of my syllabus.

    I’ll check back in later with a more comprehensive summary of the issues with ovens.


    mod: please delete previous post, I pushed enter in the middle mistakenly.

    PLEASE NOTE THAT EVERYTHING I WRITE, ESPECIALLY THIS POST, IS NOT INTENDED TO BE RELIED ON. (Or, as Montaigne said, “All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed.”)

    Ok. Ovens are discussed in siman 108:1-2.

    We generally say that to roast basar and chalav or issur and heter in the same oven is not allowed but is ok if you did provided that the oven was not sealed. It is only a problem if one of the two has an oily nature.

    If you are cooking them in pots, it is allowed to be done, provided that the oven is not sealed. If one of them is covered, even with dough, it is allowed to be done.

    If the one of them is spicy, it is a problem even bdieved unless one is covered. (Here, the shach 10 is machmir lechatchila regarding a dough covering.)

    No mention is made of any issur lechatchila or bdieved to do one after the other.

    However, the Rema mentions that if you were to roast the two under a pan, and the pan were to receive the steam of the two, all the cases are assur bdieved even one after another, unless one was covered.

    I have heard that our ovens are considered to be like the pan which receives the steam. If this is so, it would be assur even one after another, even if cooked in pots, unless one was covered.

    It still would be ok if neither one had an oily nature, even lechatchila. I do not think this is what is done in my house.


    Some Niddah questions:

    Is a woman required to do a bedika on her levainim each time during her shiva nekiim?

    Is there a situation where a woman can declare she is a Niddah (when she really isn’t) and still be considered tahor?

    There is a case discussed about a woman who goes to the mikvah without daas to be tovel. How can such a case exist if she must do a verified good chafifa beforehand?


    Para Aduma:

    A. A woman is definitely obligated to be bodek her levanim during each of the bedikos of the seven days. It is explicit in in R’ Akiva Eiger 186:4. It is also pahut, since for what other reason must she wear levanim? I have heard that some kallah teachers teach that she is not obligated to check. This is an error.

    B. Yes, if she has an excuse why she needed to say she was tamei.

    This is trickier if she did an action which showed she is tamei. We can still allow it if she told her husband in advance that she was going to do so. For example if she wanted to hide her pregnancy. (Taz 185:2) Also if she was unable to accomplish her objective by just speaking. (shach 185:5)

    C. Hmmm. How about if she did the chafifa and then fell into the mikva? She would still have daas once she fell though. Maybe she did the chafifa, fell into the mikva, and hit her head and was knocked out? You tell me a case.


    What happens if one is toivel now in the Gulf of Mexico in the oil spill itself?



    Generally if something other than water (and certain water based liquids) were to fall into a mikva, and changed its appearance, it invalidates the mikva. (YD 201:25) However, if the “mikva” were a spring, even if the appearance is changed by the liquid which fell in, it is still a valid “mikva”. (201:28) Oceans are considered a spring. (201:5)

    One would therefore imagine that one may indeed tovel in the oil spill.

    Unless one wished to argue that since the oil does not mix with the water, it is not part of the ocean?



    still awaiting your answer!



    I’m sorry, I missed your question. I’ll try to get to it tomorrow.


    I offer four scenarios:

    (1) I take out a loan with a bank. The bank designates an agent — often, another bank — to service the loan, so they want me to pay the second bank.

    (2) I take out a loan with a bank. This time, instead of designating an agent to service the loan, it actually sells the loan itself to investors who designate an agent to service the loan. I have no idea who the investors are.

    (3) I take out a loan with a bank. Because I didn’t pay on time, the bank sells the loan to a collection agency for cents on the dollar and writes off the loan, sending me (and the IRS) an IRS form 1099-C that says that I essentially have income because of the written-off debt and I have to pay taxes on that income. The collection agency demands payment of the entire amount and the original bank refuses to have anything to do with me.

    (4) Same scenario as (3) except that the original bank does not send me (or the IRS) a form 1099-C.

    What is my halachic obligation in each of the three circumstances regarding the debt?


    I understand that the ocean is considered as a spring and is therefore a kosher mikveh. Under what circumstances are any of the following kosher mikvaot:

    (1) Tidal estuaries such as Long Island Sound

    (2) Navigable rivers such as the Hudson that have a direct connection to the ocean

    (3) Fresh water lakes



    A respected rabbi supervises a restaurant, and then is indicted by the authorities for financial crimes. Can the rabbi still be trusted for the kashrut of the restaurant?


    Of course. No less than before he was indicted. Just because some sheigetz prosecutor, seeking to advance his career, makes some unfounded politically-motivated anti-semitic allegations against a Yid, is no reason to treat him any differently than any other tzaddik.

    And you’re asking about mere accusations, so all the more so. Even if he were convicted (which wasn’t your question), it would be meaningless, as a secular court conviction, based on their corrupt secular court standards of evidence and utilizing corrupt secular law — which are against halacha — have no standing.


    I am renting an apartment and the landlord refuses to keep the apartment in satisfactory condition; in fact, conditions are bad enough that under secular law I can create an escrow account to put my rent money and sue the landlord in housing court. But the landlord is Jewish so I have to take him to beit din instead. Halachically, do I still have to pay him the rent pending the beit din proceeding (which can take a long time) or can I set up an escrow account? Or do I have to pay him at all pending the beit din proceeding since the landlord is not doing what he agreed to do in terms of giving me the quality of apartment we had agreed to?

    Thank you for the opportunity to pose these questions; I understand that this is a learning opportunity and does not substitute for consulting one’s own Rav for a psak halachah.


    Popa. I have no idea whether you are writing Lehalacha or not. But it looks impressive. for what its worth, you have my semicha 🙂

    Good luck on your bechina.


    a body of water does not have to be considered a spring to be a kosher mikveh for most purposes. a large (40 seah of course) puddle of water formed from rain is a kosher mikveh



    If a 600 kilo bear smacks a 70 kilo calf on the head so as to allow for conformance to New Zealand’s laws regarding stunning, can that calf then be schechted and considered kosher?

    What about if a calf was born with a hechsher on its forehead? Would said calf meat be kosher even if it were stunned before schechita (regardless if by bear or by hammer)?



    My question was not directed to you.

    Regardless of the (now previous) title of this thread, anyone is free to respond to anyone’s post


    You can safely assume that the indictment is not politically motivated and the prosecutors are not anti-Semites, which is the case for most prosecutions in the US.


    Chulent: we first need to mention that there are two different things referred to as “kavua”. This is partially because siman 110 deals with two different types of “Rov”.

    There is a rov where we have a piece which comes either from issur or heter and there is a rov of one of them. The example is 9 stores selling kosher and one store selling treif.

    In this case we say “kol dparish, meruba parish”, meaning that we assume that the piece in question came from the majority. However, we also say that if it was “kavua”, here defined as that the uncertainty was known while the piece was in its original place (the store- example, you were spacing out and didn’t know which store you were in), then we do not assume the piece came from the majority, rather it is an equal safek. This is min hatora and learned from “v’arav lo v’kam” (BK 44b)

    There is another rov which is the concept that if a piece is lost in a mixture, it takes on the status of the majority. This is min hatora and learned from “acharei rabim l’hatos”. Hence, if a piece of treif were to be mixed among two pieces of kosher meat, they are all permited. (We throw out one, 109:1.)

    However, the rabanan decreed that certain significant items are not batul in a majority.

    They called this “kavua”. It is sometimes referred to as “kavua derabanan”.

    The case you cited with the seven cows, the maharit said that the cows which were taken to the store are ok because of the first rov we discussed. The cows in the house were not “parish” so that cannot apply. We still need to consider the second rov, to say chad btrei batul. We are not able to say that either because the pieces were significant.

    So, in your house, if pieces of issur are mixed among heter, it will not be “kavua d’oraisa”, but will depend on a myriad of other factors. Basically, the whole siman 109 and much of 110.



    A. I am intrigued by the loan cases, but I did not learn that area of Choshen Mishpat. Sorry.

    B. You asked about a tidal estuary, a river which flows into the sea, and a freshwater lake.

    There is rainwater and spring water. Rainwater is only a mikva if it pooled with no apparent flow. Spring water is fine even flowing.

    A river which is formed from a mixture of spring and rain, if it is mostly spring is fine.(half/ half see shach 201:10) If it is apparently mostly rainwater it is a machlokes the Rosh and Rabeinu Tam. According to the rema 201:2 and shach, this is a real psul. According to the Taz 201:3, this is a gzeira. The gezeira applies to all rivers which are overwhelmed by rainwater lest you be tovel in a spot of all rainwater.

    One of the proofs of the Taz is that since the springwater is touching the rainwater, it should make all of it kosher for tvila even flowing (see also taz 20).

    The Rema states that we can rely on the permitting opinions if we have no other mikva. Even so, one can only go in the middle of the river where it was flowing before the rain (shach 11).

    Your cases therefore present a difficulty. If the water were to be springwater, it would unquestionably be ok. However, if the water is rainwater and it is flowing (the lake would probably be considered flowing if it has an outlet, the estuary, if it flows), it is more difficult.

    The Mechaber says in 201:10 that if a spring is connected to a pool of rainwater it takes on the status of rainwater. This would seem to permit your river which is open to the sea.

    Nevertheless, according to the Taz, it would still clearly be pasul since the gezeira would still apply. I imagine the estuary would not have the gezeira, I don’t know if the lake would.

    According to the shach, rivers which have majority rainwater are always pasul despite the fact that they are connected to their own springwater. the shach therefore qualifies the mechaber in 201:10 saying, (shach 201:32) that the mechaber was only speaking in a case of majority springwater after the mixing. I don’t imagine that the river flowing into the sea will become majority springwater. It would therefore be pasul.

    So. In all three, if majority spring water, fine.

    If majority rain water, if flowing, not fine.

    Except the lake, perhaps ok even if flowing according to Taz as long as some spring water.


    Reb Papa:

    Just reminding you regarding cheeses and Zayah.




    I meant to address that in the post which begins “mod please delete…”

    To summarize, you should be machmir to not use the oven for meat until you do libun.



    Regarding the rabbi who supervise the restaurant and is accused of financial crimes.

    An accusation alone would not suffice to make him pasul for eidus. We would need two proper witnesses testifying to his crime.

    Now, even if he were found to be a gazlan, he would still be reliable as a mashgiach. See YD 2:6 that someone who is pasul for eidus is reliable to be a shochet unless he is a mumar for gezel. To be a mumar, he would have to do it 3 times (pri megadim on shach 2:19).

    So, until we have proper testimony that he stole 3 times, we can rely on him.


    To add to popa’s point about the necessity of 2 kosher eidim, the witnesses would need to make their testimony in front of a kosher Beis Din of dayanim who would have to question them and decide the case based upon Jewish law.

    So Charlie’s question would not come to this conclusion, as his question presumed accusations made by secular authorities.



    Regarding the renter whose landlord is ripping him off.

    This is largely beyond my area of study. I’ll mention some ideas though.

    Assuming that according to Jewish law you are entitled to not pay him, the question is, are you obligated to not sue him in secular courts even though it will likely cause you a loss?

    According to Rema 4:1, you are not allowed to take judgment into your hands by appealing to secular courts, even in a situation where you are otherwise allowed to. You are required to get permission from beis din, and the beis din should allow you to go to the courts if it is necessary.




    More regarding the mashgiach accused of fraud:

    kasha, you are certainly correct that we would need a proper kabalas eidus as well.

    I would add to my previous post that even if we were to establish him as a mumar for gezel, he still is not totally unreliable. It is a machlokes by a mumar whether we trust him for shechita (2:6). Even those who do not, only require that we check the knife but still rely on him to do a proper shechita.

    In fact, if one’s animals are stolen and found slaughtered, they are permitted provided that most of the burglars of the city are jewish (1:4)

    I wonder if it is worse in our case, since he is being paid for his services and might not wish to lose the client by saying it is not kosher. Since his sin is money related, it is possible that would make it worse. We find a similar idea in choshen mishpat 34. I don’t know.



    You asked what would the din be if you (bear) smacked a calf and knocked it out to then do shechita.

    There is a treifus issue here with regard to being attacked by a carnivore. Also since it was knocked by something big. I did not learn treifus.

    If an animal is sick, we do not eat it unless it flopped around after the shechita. (17:1) If it was owned by a goy, we do not shecht it unless it stands and walks 4 amos by itself. (shach 17:8)

    tomim tihye

    Ashrecha, Popa. Onu ameilim u’mekablim s’char

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 104 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.