1
‫בס"ד‬
Rav Baruch Simon, Shlita
Hilchos Melicha, Shechita, and Assorted Topics, June Zman 5768
*Please note: These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the
shiurim. Any mistakes should be attributed to me. Beni Krohn.
‫ שיעור‬#1- 6.3.08/ 29 Iyar 5768
Issur Dam
I. Source of Issur
A. Gm Krisus 4b- 5 psukim that assur dam: Dam Chullin, Kodshim, Kisui, Eivarim, and
Tamtzis (blood that drains out after animal is already dead).
B. Mishna Krisus 20B- machlokes whether chayav kareis for dam tamtzis. Chachamimnot chayav. R’ Yehuda is mechayev. We hold like chachamim.
- Only chayav for dam shehaneshama is teluya bo (‫ ר"ת‬in Kesubos: Issur of taking blood
on shabbos is netilas neshama b/c dam that taking out is shehaneshama teluya ba b/c
person is alive).
C. Gm Krisus 21B- Dam Eivarim, Heart, etc. only b’lav, not kareis.
1. ‫רש"י‬- b/c not dam hanefesh.
- R’ Sheishes- human blood isn’t nichlal in any of these issurim. Only time its assur is
when its pireish (on piece of bread, in a cup). Lichora, problem of maris ayin.
2. '‫ רמ‬MA 6:4- All these other kinds of dam (eivarim, tamtzis, etc.) not chayav
kareis, but get malkus b/c not dam shehanefesh yotzei bo.
II. Dam eivarim shelo piresh/ Is Melicha necessary even for raw meat?
A. Mishna Chullin 14A- If shecht on shabbos or YK, Kosher Shechita. Gm – this is acc
to R’ Yehuda, not R’ Shimon, who holds that food that isn’t muchan before shabbos is
assur on shabbos altz muktza.
1. '‫ תוס‬Nisbin- ‫ ממ"נ‬can’t eat it, so who cares that it’s mutar!?
2 Answers:
- He was over the issur shabbos of meabeid and salted it.
**- He eats it raw and no need to do melicha if want to eat meat raw
b/c only issur dam is when it’s pireish: Gm Chullin 111A- can eat liver just by pouring
hot water on it to keep dam inside. And 112A- if cut meat on bread and dam comes out,
the bread is assur but meat is kosher.
B. Gm Chullin 113A- If break the neck of the animal before the animal dies, the blood
doesn’t come gushing out, so gm says you are machbid es habasar, gozel es habrios, and
are mavlia dam in the eivarim (b/c since it’s heavier, will sell it for more than its worth
b/c a lot of that weight is dam, not meat). Gm wants to know is this only an issur gezel or
even an issur to eat? And gm leaves it as a teiku.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
2
1. ‫ רשב"א‬Thb- Calls this dam shepeirish mimakom l’makom. And gm is asking
if you can eat this meat raw. Mashma, that in normal situation can eat raw meat without
melicha, and only when dam has been peirush mimakom limakom do we assur it.
However, if would do melicha, for sure it would be mutar.
(Others have girsa, that gm wants to know if mutar to eat at all, and gm leaves that as a
teiku, in which case this gm isn’t telling us that generally it’s mutar to eat meat raw).
2. ‫ – רא"ה‬Davka dam shepiresh ligamrei is assur, but if it moves mimakom
limakom, not assur. B/c when are moleiach dam, obviously don’t get all of it out. Ela,
we are moleiach basar to extent that after pouring boiling water on it it would stop
coming out (Check this). And even though for sure some dam is traveling on its way out
when it is stopped. Ela vaday dam is only assur once its totally piresh.
3. ‫ רא"ש‬Chullin: 4 cases that have ‫ נ"מ‬based on this yesod.
(a) Case #1- 7:11- Piece of meat is red b/c the animal had gotten a bruise
mechaim, not called dam evarim shepiresh.
*Assuming that perish mimakom limakom is considered piresh.
(b) Case #2- 1:19- Tzole basar, no need for melicha b/c the dam will come
out and fall to the ground. And the dam that is left inside and moves around inside, that’s
not called dam eivarim shepiresh.
**Apparently holding that piresh mimakom limakom is not called piresh!? What about
in perek 7?!
- Drisha: Makes chiluk that if it moved meChaim, called dam shepiresh, but if
happens after death, not called dam shepiresh.
(c) Case #3- 8:45- Basar nisbashel without any melicha. Need 60 in the
tavshil kineged the dam. What about the original piece?
1- Yesh omrim: Assur b/c it was cooked without melicha.
2- ‫רא"ש‬: Mutar b/c the dam was batel, and whatever dam moved around inside the basar
isn’t a problem b/c its dam eivarim shelo piresh.
(d) Case #4- 8:49- If use kli she’eino menukav to do melicha what’s din of
meat?
1- Nimukei R’ Peretz: Whole chaticha should be assur b/c dam can’t come out at all b/c
the whole area is backed up, and dam already started moving and couldn’t get out, so the
whole piece is assur.
2- ‫רא"ש‬: Only the part of the meat sitting in the dam/tzir will become assur b/c has din
kavush, and that which moves around inside doesn’t assur the whole piece b/c it’s
dspmml”m.
4. '‫ רמ‬MA 6:12 – Chiyuv Melicha even by raw meat. Gm never says that don’t
need melicha by basar umtza. However, if chalto b’chometz, now can eat it w/out
melicha.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
3
(a) ‫כ"מ‬- As long as the dam has the ability to be piresh, still assur until do
melicha. Only once it loses the ability to come out, then mutar even without melicha.
D. Halacha Limaaseh
> ‫ שו"ע‬67:1- Only dam that’s assur is if it is yotzei lichutz or mimakom limakom
(against ‫רשב"א‬, ‫)רא"ש‬. Can eat raw meat without melicha.
> 69:18- Moleiach basar in kli she’eino menukav:
- ‫מחבר‬: Only part in tzir is assur.
- ‫רמ"א‬: whole piece is assur, v’hachi nohagim.
> 69:11- Bishul w/out melicha:
‫מחבר‬: everything is mutar if there is 60 (‫)רא"ש‬.
‫רמ"א‬: yesh osrim that piece, but can be meikil l’tzorech orchim or l’kavod
shabbos (Nimukei R’ Peretz).
III. Dam shebishlo
A. Gm Chullin 109A- not over on dam shebishlo, only issur dirabanan.
B. ‫ רש"י‬Denies this halacha in 2 places:
1. Chullin 109A- Cooked the heart with the dam inside. ‫רש"י‬- Case where not
chayav kareis is when it’s oaf (no kizayis). But if it was beheima, would be chayav. But
‫ממ"נ‬, how can you be chayav kareish, you cooked it?!
2. Chullin 120A- Hardened heart ‫רש"י‬: by cooking it until it gets gelled, get
kareis. '‫תוס‬: cooked it b’chama.
*So what’s pshat in ‫?רש"י‬
C. Maadanei Asher- ‫ רש"י‬thought that gm was only a HA. But acc to the maskana, only
talking about dam that is karush, that’s when eino over alav b/c can’t dip anything into it
(see inside). But just being mivushal is not enough.
‫ שיעור‬#2- 6.04.08/ ‫ ר"ח‬Sivan 5768
Hadacha Kamaysa
I. Source of din
A. Gm Chullin 113A- R’ Huna: Basar can only get rid of its dam w/ melicha and
hadacha. Braisa says to do hadacha before and after melicha. But gm says not a
machlokes, R’ Huna was talking about a case where the butcher already did the hadacha
kamaysa, and if he didn’t then you have to do it yourself. But ‫ כו"ע‬are modim that need
hadacha b4 and after.
B. '‫ רמ‬MA 6:10- says do hadacha before and after, and then put it in boiling water.
II. Reasons for this din (at least 5 Pshatim)
A. ‫ ר"ן‬Chullin 42A- Always assume that whenever a piece of meat is being poleit, it
cannot be boleia at the same time. Quotes two reasons for hadacha kamaysa:
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
4
1. ‫רא"ה‬: If didn’t do hadacha kamaysa, would salt it, blood is coming out, but also
blood caked up, left on the surface and nervous that after all the blood is done coming
out, the blood that was on the surface will now melt and come into the chaticha and assur
it b/c only while blood is coming out the chaticha can’t be boleia, but once its done, then
the dam on the surface will seep in. Therefore, do hadacha kamaysa to get rid of the
surface blood before we start.
**‫ ר"ן‬doesn’t like it b/c says if that is your concern, then just do hadacha right afterwards
b/c chaticha will be poleit as long as there is salt on it (even after official ‫ שיעור‬melicha),
so once do hadacha to get rid of salt, that will get rid of the blood on the outside as well.
2. ‫ר"ן‬: In order to soften the basar, will soften the outer blood, so that it won’t
prevent the dam inside from coming out (really just says soften the basar, and this is
explanation of the Pri Megadim).
B. Mordechai Chullin 7211. If don’t do hadacha, when you put melach on the chaticha, first encounter will
be with the surface dam, which will blunt the potency of the salt, so then when it seeps
into the meat won’t be able to fully extricate the dam from the chaticha.
2. Just to soften up the meat, so that the dam will come out more easily. (Pri
Megadim is upset with ‫ ש"ך‬who seems to equate this shita with that of the ‫)ר"ן‬.
C. Smak 205- If don’t do hadacha, but salt it first, the surface blood will be nivla
immediately into the chaticha and is never able to come out. So if don’t do hadacha first,
the piece will be assur forever after you put salt on it.
D. ‫ רא"ש‬Chullin 8:46- What if did melicha w/out hadacha. Can you rectify it later?
Normally have klal that dam is misrak sarik = since coming out with such a force, glides
right off the meat, doesn’t get nivla in meat on its way out. ‫רא"ש‬: there are those who
say that no takana if didn’t do hadacha b/c don’t say dam misrak sarik in that scenario
and dam will get nivla back into the meat. However, the Sefer haTruma thinks that dam
that goes in can come back out with melicha, so acc to him the salting afterwards can
help.
III. Achronim
-Achronim only deal with two of these mehalchim: Either the Smak or the ‫( ר"ן‬maybe
2nd pshat in Mordechai).
A. Pri Megadim (pesicha l’Hilchos Melicha) - Brings six reasons for hadacha rishona:
And quotes the ‫ רא"ש‬as a separate mehalech.
B. ‫ שו"ע‬69:11. ‫מחבר‬: Have to do hadacha before the melicha (and if butcher did it, eino tzarich
lihadicho babayis).
(a) ‫ ש"ך‬1- quotes different reasons: Acc to the Yesh omrim in
Mordechai and the ‫ ר"ן‬that just helps it be poleit better, if didn’t do it, do a hadacha and
melicha again. However, acc to the Smak, no takana.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
5
2. ‫ מחבר‬continues: if cut the meat into pieces after hadacha, need a new hadacha.
3. ‫רמ"א‬: And if didn’t do it, k’ilu lo hudach klal.
(a) ‫ ש"ך‬3- This shayla depends on the reasons for melicha. If hold like the
Smak, that reason for hadacha is b/c of the dam on the outside, when cut the chaticha
now have dam on side of the new chaticha and need to do hadacha again. However, if
hold like ‫ר"ן‬/ Mordechai, just to soften basar, now already softened (this is where chiluk
btwn ‫ ר"ן‬and 2nd deia in Mordechai starts to come into play).
C. ‫ שו"ע‬69:21. ‫רמ"א‬: If only did minimal hadacha, only works bidieved. Also, if have 60 in
chaticha kineged the outer blood, mutar bidieved (b/c also depends on machlokes ‫ ר"ן‬and
Smak).
(a) ‫ ש"ך‬14- B/c acc to those who want to soften basar won’t work, but acc
to Smak, to get rid of outer blood, even minimal hadacha will be enough.
i. ‫ רע"א‬69:1- What if the meat is very cold, do you have to use hot
water? Also depends on this machlokes.
IV. Can you do hadacha on meat that’s frozen?
- ‫ש"ך‬, Yam shel shlomo, chavas daas, all discuss this shayla.
Chavas Daas 69:5- Hadacha doesn’t work if it’s frozen.
V. Can you do hadacha with fruit juice (also taluy on whether hold like ‫ ר"ן‬or smak)?
A. ‫ – שו"ת רמ"א‬In Toras Chatas writes that can only use mei peiros for hadacha basraysa,
mashma not for kamaysa, and shoel asked what’s the difference? Answers that mei
peiros don’t have ability to soften as well as water.
B. ‫ ש"ך‬69:30- ‫ רמ"א‬is against '‫ תוס‬Chullin 33A!?
1. Mishna Chullin 33A- If shechted beheima, chaya, v’oaf and no dam comes
out, ksheirim. And can be eaten with tamei hands and meat won’t be mikabel tuma (b/c
not muchshar from the dam).
(a) '‫ תוס‬dh Neechalin: Must be talking about tzli b/c if were doing
hadacha, won’t it become muchshar likabel tuma?! And gives 2nd teretz, that it was
hudcha in mei peiros which isn’t one of 7 mashkim.
** ‫ ש"ך‬69:30 says that see from '‫ תוס‬its clear that could do all the hadacha in mei peiros
b/c if had to do hadacha kamaysa with water then this teretz doesn’t start.
***But limaaseh, the ‫ רמ"א‬in ‫ שו"ע‬paskens that can use mei peiros for Hadacha kamaysa
as well, so only a problem with ‫שו"ת רמ"א‬.
C. ‫רע"א‬- doing hadacha on only one side. Also taluy on this shayla, but says that if do
good hadacha on one side and hadacha miktzas on the other side will have covered all
your bases (why?).
D. Maadanei Asher- brings 10 ‫ נ"מ‬based on this machlokes rishonim and discusses how
‫ מחבר‬and ‫ רמ"א‬each hold.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
6
‫ שיעור‬#3- 6.05.08/ 3 Sivan 5768
Inyanei Melicha
I. How much salt are we talking about?
A. Gm Chullin 113A- Basar doesn’t get rid of its dam unless you salt it “yafe yafe”, but
not clear how much that is.
B. Gm Menachos 21A- Talks about the actual ‫ שיעור‬of melicha. HA: Need to heap on a
mound of salt like the amount of teven you would use for making bricks, a lot. But then
gm says no, just put salt on each side for the mizbeach, and Abaye says “v’chein
l’kdeira”.
1. ‫ רשב"א‬thb 71A(a) Don’t have to make sure that every single spot on meat is covered with
salt. But has to be so much that its not rauy l’achila b/c of all the salt, but not more than
that.
(b) Only mitzva min hamuvchar to put it on both sides, but if only put it
on one side that’s fine too. When want to salt a chicken on both sides would have to fill
up in the underside and won’t stick so well, so if can’t do both sides its ok.
‫ שו"ת רשב"א‬265- Do you have to be moleiach from both sides?
- Not necessary. Consistent with what he said in Thb.
2. ‫ רא"ש‬Chullin 8:43/44- Argues on both points:
(a) Have to cover the whole surface.
(b) Chicken have to be moleiach even inside.
‫טור‬- quotes this as double machlokes btwn ‫ רשב"א‬and ‫רא"ש‬.
Beis Yosef- Could say they’re not really arguing b/c ‫ רשב"א‬said don’t have to do it
k’binyan, and that what he means when says don’t have to do kulo. But ‫ אה"נ‬on the base
level maybe it does have to be totally covered. And when it comes to tarnigoles, maybe
just saying bidieved kosher even if he didn’t do it inside, and maybe even the ‫רא"ש‬
assumed that way bidieved.
3. Mordechai – has to be eino neechal machmas molcho. And quotes story that
s/one didn’t do melicha on inside of chicken and they assured.
4. Issur V’heter- thinks doing melicha on both sides is l’ikuva, if don’t do it, will
assur the meat when you cook it, and also brings the story with chicken that wasn’t salted
inside.
Missed something.
II. How long does the Melicha have to be?
A. '‫רמ‬- ‫ שיעור‬mil. (18 minutes).
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
7
B. Trumas HaDeshen (Dinei Issur v’heter, siman 167)- One hour. Should be
dependent on how long it takes to do tzli on that particular piece of meat, but that gets too
complicated, so the minhag became to do one hour, which will cover all meat. And you
often find that in the gm they give an hour to go be milakeit eitzim and that’s why added
an hour to issur chametz. But maybe it only takes 15 minutes? Ela they made a universal
‫שיעור‬.
Brings another raya: Last korban of the day was the tamid bein ha’arbaim, and around
2:30, 3:30 they were closing up shop. This was on a regular day. But on Erev Pesach
they started ealier, and was brought after the tamid shel bein ha’arbaim, so had to bring it
earlier, 130 or 230, gave extra time for ppl to bring korban pesach. And erev pesach that
was on Friday, when had to roast the Pesach before shabbos too, so brought the bein
ha’arbaim around 12:30, 1:30. So he says you see that the whole korban pesach only
takes an hour to be nitzle, so for sure these small pieces would have been nitzle in that
amount of time. However, if running late and question of not having meat for orchim or
shabbos, can rely on '‫ רמ‬that its only k’‫ שיעור‬mil, which is 18 minutes. (This is the source
that ‫ שיעור‬mil is 18 minutes).
* ‫ שו"ע‬says that davening mincha gedola is only bidieved for this reason b/c really they
always brought the tamid later, only on Erev Pesach brought it earlier. But minhag
HaYeshivos became to do this lichatchila so as not to conflict with the middle of seder.
III. Halacha Limaaseh
A. ‫ שו"ע‬69:4- salt it enough to cover the whole thing, and has to be eino neechal
machmas molcho, but not more than that, and should do both sides, even chickens, but if
only do any meat from one side, mutar. ‫רמ"א‬: yesh osrim even bidieved no good, and
that’s how we are noheig unless there’s some tzorech. However, this is only if you went
ahead and cooked it. But if haven’t cooked it yet and it hasn’t been 12hrs yet, then do the
other side. And if its already been 12 hrs just do tzli.
1. ‫ט"ז‬- the ‫ רמ"א‬in 70 says can wait even 24 hrs. Why is this case different? Says
that b/c in this case, since we have eitza of doing tzli then no need to be as meikil.
However, in 70, already fell in some other blood, tzli is not going to help, so assume that
get 24hrs, can be poleit for that long (Can be tzole even after 24 hours).
B. Pri Chadash 69:21,23- Tarnigoles that is only salted from one side, even ‫ מחבר‬will be
mode that it doesn’t work b/c the chalal of the chicken is a hefsek between the top and
bottom and will be k’ilu didn’t do any melicha at all on the bottom. Also mentions the
same answer as the ‫ ט"ז‬to the stira from Siman 70.
‫ שיעור‬#4Inyanei Melicha II- More Yesodos B’inyanei Melicha
I. Kibolo Kach Polto
A. Gm Pesachim 74A- Raba: Mulyisa (chicken stuffed w/ unsalted meat and cooked) is
mutar, even though the dam will go into the chicken. Why? B/c k’bolo kach polto (even
though in general we say ein hagala b’ochlin b/c can’t be sure it all came out, or b/c ein
bitul ela b’techilas hataaroves, nevertheless, we assume that by dam as it comes in it also
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
8
comes out). Gm tries to bring rayos from Korban Pesach (roast w/ unsalted insides) and
lev (can do kria after the bishul by heart) but both are rejected.
(Whether glass is boleia is machlokes ‫מחבר‬/‫רמ"א‬:
‫מחבר‬- not boleia.
‫רמ"א‬: It is boleia and like kli cheres.
**R’ Abadie- thinks ‫ רמ"א‬is talking about a different kind of glass, but most poskim
assume not this way)
II. Dam Misrak Sarik
A. Gm Chullin 111A- Put liver on top of basar on the shish kabob, kaveid still has dam
inside, mutar. Why? B/c the dam is misrak sarik.
1. '‫ תוס‬Dama- Why weren’t they matir simply b/c k’bolo kach polto? Why say
this bigger chidush that dam is misrak sarik? A: Case of mulyisa is just a piece of meat,
can say kbk”p, but when it comes to liver, so full of dam, can’t say kbk”p, so have to
resort to bigger chidush that dam misrak sarik.
B. Gm 111A (cont) – What about kchal on top of the meat?
1. Assur b/c chalav takes hold when it drips down onto the piece of meat.
2. R’ Dimi miNahardai- Says the opposite, kchal is mutar b/c chalav shechuta is
midirabanan, and kaved is assur b/c dam is doraysa.
Hilchisa: If these things are on the bottom they are mutar, on top, bidieved its mutar, but
lichatchila shouldn’t do it.
III. Being moleiach different items together
A. Gm Chullin 112B- Being moleiach fish and chicken together is assur even in kli
menukav b/c fish has very thin outer layer and melicha process of fish is much shorter
than chicken so the fish is done being poleit before the chicken is finished and the will
then be boleia dam from the chicken
1. ‫רש"י‬- Salting many pieces of meat together is no problem b/c they are poleit at
the same rate, so won’t be boleia from one another.
2. '‫ תוס‬V’dagim: - But what about when the pieces of meat aren’t all starting at
the same time? Gives 4 pshatim to explain why this case is mutar even though its b’ze
achar ze.
(a) Dam is misrak sarik even by melicha, just like by tzli. And don’t say
same thing by fish b/c they have very thin skin, dam can still seep in.
(b) Even when the dam is not coming out anymore, there is still tzir
coming out, so as its being poleit the tzir it will be poleit the dam that’s coming in from
the other pieces as well. So why doesn’t this work by the fish? B/c even after they’re
done being poleit their tzir, the chicken is still being poleit the dam.
(c) ‫ ר"י‬M’Orleans- As long as there’s a time when both are being poleit,
(overlap time), even though #1 is finished now, the tunnels will not close until nothing
new is coming through. ‫ משא"כ‬the fish and chicken, the fish is done even before the
chicken starts. (But acc to this, have to make sure there’s an overlap between the first and
last piece).
(d) As long as it’s being poleit tzir, won’t be boleia dam.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
9
IV. Kli Menukav vs Eino Menukav
A. ‫ רא"ש‬Chullin 8:49- Have to always use kli menukav or one made out of a material
that if you would pour water on it it would come right through (yotzei lachutz). What if
did melicha in kli She’eino menukav? Basar is assur and kli needs shvira.
B. Hagahos Maimonios- also says basar and kli are assur if its eino menukav. And adds
that if you’re moleiach on a daf pashut that is mutar.
1. Trumas HaDeshen 173- doesn’t mean any smooth surface, rather talking
about slanted surface that e/thing poured on it will run right off.
C. ‫ רא"ש‬Chullin 8:28- If were moleiach in a kli can’t put basar on it, but dealing with kli
she’eino menukav. However, there are rishonim who say that even the kli menukav
becomes assur (‫)ראב"ד‬. ‫ רא"ש‬asks: If that’s true, shouldn’t be allowed to do another
melicha in that kli, so must not be true, rather the dam is misrak sarik.
D. ‫ר"ן‬- Any k’ara that nimlach ba basar does become assur, like ‫ראב"ד‬, which is
mashmaus of the gm that k’ara shemalach ba basar, which implies that you did it
k’hilchisa. So how can they reuse it? B/c since the meat is being poleit won’t be boleia
from the k’ara itself, and even when done being poleit dam it’s still poleit tzir, so won’t
be boleia dam from the k’ara.
E. ‫ רשב"א‬Thb Melichas Basar 76A- Quotes ‫ רמב"ן‬who agrees w/ ‫ ראב"ד‬b/c says when
dealing w/ meliach k’roseiach always need the issur to be maluach, but in this case the
kosher meat is maluach, so won’t become assur from being maluach on a k’ara that is
nivla w/ dam.
V. Halacha Limaaseh by Kli Menukav/Eino Menukav
A. ‫טור‬- quotes machlokes ‫ רא"ש‬and ‫ראב"ד‬. And quotes R’ Peretz: specifically cheres
becomes Assur even when the kli is menukav.
B. ‫ שו"ע‬69:16- ‫מחבר‬: If used kli she’eino menukav, can’t use it for roseiach, like ‫רא"ש‬.
17‫ש"ך‬- lichatchila even by shaar keilim, and bidieved heter extends even to kli cheres.
Fill in ‫שו"ע‬.
70:1, 2 – fill in.
Tafel = meat that has not been salted.
‫ שיעור‬#5- 6.12.08/ 9 Sivan 5768
Basar that Waited 3 Days w/out Melicha/ Basar Kafu
**This comes into play when shechita operations are international: In Eretz Yisrael,
most of the meat is imported from South America. And b/c shechting so many animals,
difficult for them to do melicha on all the basar that was being sent, so they would import
the meat, and it takes more than 72 hours from time it was shechted until it reaches Eretz
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
10
Yisrael. Therefore, the Rabbanut relied on a heter of basar kafu, that if meat is frozen,
time freezes as well. [The Badatz have a smaller operation and are able to get their
animals shechted in South America and have melicha done there].
I. Source of this Minhag and Shitos Rishonim
A. Mordechai Chullin 722- R’Yoel HaLevi: Kabala from rishonim (Geonim) that any
basar that goes 3 days without nikur and w/out melicha will never be poleit the dam b/c
its niskashe from chelev and dam. Maharam MeRutenberg was noheig lihatir when it
came to tzli b/c can do tzli w/out melicha anyways.
B. ‫ שו"ת‬Rivash Siman 86- In Barcelona they assured it even for tzli, which is chumra
yiseira. Brings two gm’s he thinks are against the takana in general:
1. Gm Chullin 93B- Umtza d’asmik: Meat which is red from a bruise, just cut it,
salt it, and can even cook it. Keeping meat for 3 days shouldn’t be worse than this.
2. Gm Chullin 113A- If break mafrekes of animal before the dam can all come
out, different girsaos in the gm ‫רי"ף‬- “Can you eat it raw?” And gm leaves it as teiku,
but gm assumes that if you do melicha and cook it for sure its fine! And thinks ikar girsa
is that of the ‫רי"ף‬. Waiting 3 days is no worse!?
***Nevertheless, thinks should follow the minhag, but for tzli don’t have to be choshesh.
(This is how R’ Simon said it out, but end of Rivash says: ra’uy lachosh l’tzli)
C. Shaarei Dura (Dinei Melicha siman 4) - So what that it won’t come out, it is dam
eivarim shelo pireish which is mutar!? But says should follow the minhag, but, can
follow Maharam not to be worried about tzli. Also, says that if could soak the basar
w/in 72hrs, this will allow you to extend the time.
D. ‫( שו"ת רא"ש‬klal 20, 25) – Quotes the takana and the Maharam.
E. Trumas HaDeshen:
1. Siman 160 - Acc to Maharam that you can do tzli, can you be mivashel it after
the tzli? - NO (Ohr Zarua), b/c all the dam won’t come out from tzli, enough comes out
so that its mutar to eat and whatever doesn’t come out is dam eivarim shelo piresh, but
when do bishul, even more dam will come out.
2. Siman 191- Not appropriate to let it sit 3 days and say, “I’m going to do tzli
anyways” b/c nervous you might come to be mivashel it.
F. Sefer Ha’Agur- There are Gedolim who place the meat in water, and the mehadrin do
it for 2 hours and then can wait another 3 days.
II. Halacha Limaaseh
A. ‫ שו"ע‬69:121. ‫מחבר‬: Basar that went 3 days w/out melicha, melicha won’t help and can only
do Tzli, and don’t be mivashel even after tzli, but if already cooked it, its mutar.
2. ‫רמ"א‬: Quotes din of Trumas Hadeshen- Lichatchila shouldn’t leave basar for 3
days b/c nervous will be mivashel it.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
11
(a) ‫ ט"ז‬32- Quotes Maharshal who is machmir even bidieved if were
mivashel after the melicha. And then quotes case where waited 3 days and then did
melicha in kli menukav, then put it in 2nd kli which was eino menukav, sitting in its own
salty dam. Maharshal was meikil b/c mutar ‫ממ"נ‬: B/c if dam didn’t come out in 1st
melicha, won’t come out in 2nd one either. And if it did come out in 1st, then what came
out in 2nd isn’t dam. And says not comparable to kli that need libun and you did hagala,
which generally doesn’t work. B/c by the kli when do hagala, some of the taam comes
out, but if would then use it with a hot piece of meat, more of the taam issur will come
out. ‫ משא"כ‬by the basar. B/c can say hagala pushes the taam towards the front and then
the cutting with the knife will cause it more to come out, ‫ משא"כ‬by meat, it’s stuck
(b) [Nekudas HaKesef- doesn’t understand the Maharshal, thinks more
dam could come out the 2nd time and should assur.
(c) ‫ ט"ז‬continues: If took this piece and did first melicha in eino menukav
then totally assur b/c have to be worried some dam came out through the melicha. And if
would be moleiach the 72hr piece of meat with regular meat the 72hr piece of meat
becomes assur b/c have to worry that maybe its not being poleit. Im kein, now it can be
boleia (b/c whole heter to be moleiach together was that aydi d’palat lo bala). But says
he found someone who was matir this case b/c k’bolo kach polto, whatever little dam did
come out, that which came into it will come out as well, but doesn’t like it.
(d) Nekudas HaKesef- Likes the kula b/c the whole thing is only a
chumra, and the Rivash really hit it hard, so will only assur the exact case they assured
and no more, shouldn’t extend it,
(e) ‫ ש"ך‬53- ‫ רמ"א‬writes in Toras Chatas that lichatchila shouldn’t soak it
to extend the clock, but bidieved it works, and ‫ הה"נ‬b’shaas hadchak and hefsed meruba
but ‫ ש"ך‬says ‫ רמ"א‬didn’t mention all of this in ‫ שו"ע‬b/c there are some places that have the
minhag to do this lichatchila (Krakow), so he didn’t want to come out against it. So ‫ש"ך‬
says limaaseh shouldn’t be machmir in these halachos b/c its not found anywhere in shas
and Rivash had a lot of koach against it. And if s/one wants to soak the meat should do it
very well.
B. ‫ שו"ע‬69:13- Bidieved, if already soaked, start counting 3 days again.
C. 69:141. ‫מחבר‬: If piece that waited 3 days got mixed with others, batel b’rov, even if
there is chh”l.
2. ‫רמ"א‬: ‫ הה"נ‬if cooked without melicha and got mixed with others.
(a) ‫ ש"ך‬57- Even though we said in 109 that mbse”m needs 60
midirabanan, since this whole thing is only a Chumras HaGeonim, only assured that case,
not more. And then says maybe really meant 60, just wrote Rov.
III. What about freezing?
A. Pri Megadim (SD 53)- If its frozen and left it for three days, should assur even
bidieved, b/c the whole purpose of soaking it is to soften it, and this makes it hard as a
rock, makes it even worse. SD 60- Quotes Minchas Yaakov that ‫ ממ"נ‬its assur. Either
its like kavush and its assur, or its not considered kavush, then at least 3 days w/out
melicha, and only can do tzli.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
12
B. Aruch HaShulchan 69:79- Could say like the Pri Megadim, however, could say the
opposite, the whole time of the krisha the clock stops b/c the dam is not being embedded,
just staying in its place. Brings raya from case of identifying a dead body (Even HaEzer
Siman 17, Heter Agunos), after three days, can’t ID b/c decomposes too much. However,
if in cold climate, nothing decomposed, many poskim allow IDing this body b/c things
stay still when frozen, nothing happens.
C. Igros Moshe YD 1:27- Difficult b/c not in rishonim, just achronim, and says since
only chumras geonim burden of proof should be on the osrim (like the ‫)ש"ך‬. Quotes Pri
Megadim, doesn’t like the ‫ ממ"נ‬of the Minchas Yaakov b/c maybe even if not kavush still
the time could stop. And maybe even the Pri Megadim only was talking when not totally
frozen solid and would be matir in our case.
In end, says yesh lihakeil b/c no real svara that machmirim so much stronger than
the meikilim. However, says this is only bidieved, but lichatchila shouldn’t do this unless
have some kind of tzorech gadol which would be like bidieved. But this is only if its
frozen solid, but just in Refrigerator is not enough. (also says similar idea in 1:28)
D. ‫ שו"ת‬Yabia Omer- Thinks this is mutar even lichatchila.
‫ שיעור‬#6- 6.15.08/ 12 Sivan 5768
Peulas HaMelicha/ Hadacha Basraysa
I. What does melicha really accomplish (Machlokes Rishonim)?
A. ‫ רא"ה‬Bedek HaBayis 71A: Argues (against ‫ )רשב"א‬that can’t say dam shepiresh
mimakom limakom is assur b/c there’s clearly more dam in the meat after melicha is
over. Im kein, every melicha has dam moving from one place to another in the meat, so
all meat would be assur after melicha. Ela mai, only the dam that comes all the way out
is assur. Only the surface blood is removed, and when the meat hits hot water, it gets
stunted and no more dam can come out.
B. ‫( רשב"א‬Mishmeres HaBayis) 73A- Melicha removes all of the blood, everything
inside is called chamar basar (meat juice) b/c salt penetrates the whole piece of meat,
even the bones (‫ רמב"ן‬says this as well). Brings a number of cases against the ‫רא"ה‬:
1. Tzli Keidar- Do melicha, then roast meat in a kdeira w/ no water. Maybe more
blood will come out b/c there’s no chalita, so shouldn’t we be choshesh that this is
assur?!
2. Chicken cooked in dough: Water won’t come into contact with the chicken!?
3. Chicken cooked in frying pan.
4. If do melicha on meat and then cut it up: Will have to do melicha to the newly
revealed part of the meat! Also, ‫ רא"ה‬also leads to a kula b/c if would put piece of meat
in kdeira with water and didn’t do any melicha, don’t have to be mishaeir 60 kineged the
whole chaticha, just kineged the outer dam, which ‫ רשב"א‬will say is totally incorrect,
have to be mishaeir kineged all the dam in the whole piece!?
*No one ever said this and making it look like everyone is being over on issurim!?
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
13
**Could be that the ‫ רא"ה‬would say ‫אה"נ‬. These dinim are taka true.
C. Pri Megadim Pesicha L’Hilchos Melicha
Quotes the machlokes and brings ‫נ"מ‬:
 If after the melicha, put meat in cold water for 24hrs. (Kavush K’mevushal). If think
all the dam is gone, no problem. But if think there is dam here, but won’t come out after
put it in hot water, then if do bishul through kvisha, lichora it wouldn’t work.
**Adds that acc to the ‫רא"ה‬, can’t cut it into small pieces even after melicha, unless leave
salt on there for 24hrs.
II. What kind of Salt do we use?/ Hadacha Basraysa
A. Gm Chullin 113A- R’ Dimi would use big chunks of salt. Afterwards, he would
shake the salt off b/c it was just sitting on top (need salt to come out b/c don’t want dam
that is in the salt to go back into the meat).
1. ‫ רשב"א‬73A- 2 possible pshatim in R’ Dimi:
(a) Need davka big chunks like R’ Dimi b/c only these chunks that don’t
penetrate will do the job.
(b) ‫ראב"ד‬- can use any salt, even the very small pieces b/c can’t say R’
Dimi was mechadeish how to do melicha? Ela R’ Dimi is just being practical, b/c b4 him
ppl would use regular salt and would have to rinse the basar off in kli menukav (so that it
won’t be sitting in the salt that has the dam there, and go back in). And since this is
difficult to do, R’ Dimi said just use bigger chunks and won’t have to worry about
finding kli menukav. B/c since there’s only a little dam, and no salt, no worry about
meliach k’roseiach in kli she’eino menukav. But not saying that don’t need hadacha
basraysa at all, you do need to get rid of that little extra dam.
2. ‫ רא"ש‬Chullin 8:44: Should do hadacha basraysa 2x. Once to rinse off the
blood and salt, and another time to get rid of the leftover water that still has lachluchis on
it.
B. ‫ שו"ע‬69:8- ‫מחבר‬: If didn’t shake off the salt, still salt and blood on it, and placed basar
in kli she’eino menukav, bidieved not a problem b/c once place it in a kli, the water in the
kli will stunt the strength of the salt.
69:9- But if you cooked it this way, need 60 kineged the salt that is there (which is now
full of blood).
1. Smak- Is the source this last din b/c acc to R’ Ephraim would say just need 60
kineged the blood itself, and there is 3rd shita that it should never be batel b/c it’s now a
milsa d’avida l’taama v’lo batel, but rejects both these opinions (like '‫ תוס‬Chullin 97A).
And adds that if there is non-Jewish worker in the house and they tell you mslf”t that they
did the hadacha basraysa, can believe them. Or if they knew they’re supposed to do it
and there are ppl around and they’ll be afraid not to do it, can trust them that they did it.
Also, can assume they would do it just mishum nekius, for sanitary reasons, they’ll want
to get rid of the blood and salt.
C. ‫ שו"ע‬69:10-
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
14
1. ‫מחבר‬: Goy who is mishameish in Beis Yisrael, minhag yisrael is to be someich
al dvarav if there was a yotzei v’nichnas, or some katan who is bar daas.
2. ‫רמ"א‬: Either Mslf”t or Yotzei V’nichnas works.
(a) ‫ ש"ך‬42- The ‫ מחבר‬requires both mslf”t and yotzei v’nichnas. Why?
B/c he brings in Beis Yosef that mslf”t is only believed by issurei dirabanan and eidus
isha. So how would it work here? Answers that b/c this is dam shebishlu (and something
else), so it’s issur dirabanan. However, since this case is also ischazeik issura, we know
there was dam there, so then mslf”t may not work even by issur dirabanan. And this is
why BY holds that don’t believe goy that hechsher keilim was done on keilim b/c it’s
ischazeik issura. So that’s why ‫ מחבר‬himself would only be meikil with both kulos
together. So what’s pshat in the ‫רמ"א‬, who seems to assume that ‫ מחבר‬would be meikil
here with only one kula, what about the din from hechsher keilim? Explains that here
have svara that goy would do it b/c of cleanliness.
(b) ‫ ט"ז‬24- Woman came to Rabbi and said she cooked the meat and
wasn’t sure if she did melicha or not. Was meikil b/c it was safeik dirabanan (dam
shebishlu [meliach k’roseiach], even though some rishonim argue [‫רש"י‬, '‫]רמ‬,
nevertheless this is the accepted psak), so we go likula. And even though this is case of
ischazeik issura, have rov kineged the chazaka b/c rov ppl do melicha (rov v’chazaka
ruba adif). And also has assumption that she did melicha b/c woman does it so often, does
it by rote, could be reason to be meikil as well. And says have this by krias shema as
well, if started “limaan yirbu” can assume you didn’t go just from the first paragraph b/c
mistama you go basar your general way you say k”s by rote.
D. Rav Soloveitchick- Quotes ‫ ט"ז‬that wanted to say that even without rov against the
chazaka would apply mslf”t even against chezkas issur b/c otherwise how could the ‫רמ"א‬
be meikil with only mslf”t in this case, it’s a case of ischazeik issura as well!? Rav
thought that the case of the goy isn’t a raya that in general can use mslf”t alone when
dealing with chazaka meikara b/c in case of goy just looking for neemanus, chezkas issur
doesn’t effect whether we believe this guy or not. However, in regular sfeika dirabanan
need to make a hachraa, and can’t be machria likula in the face of a chazaka meikara.
E. Mordechai- If cook piece in kli sheini after didn’t do hadacha basraysa, may also be a
problem, may need 60.
1. Maadanei haShulchan- even though kli sheini eino mivashel, with
combination of salt, charifus, maybe would be machmir.
2. ‫ שו"ע‬69:9- ‫רמ"א‬: quotes this din that need 60 even by kli sheini.
‫ שיעור‬#7- 6.16.08/ 13 Sivan 5768
Maaseh w/ ‫רש"י‬
I. The Case
A. '‫ תוס‬Chullin 112B dh V’Dagim- Story that happened in ‫’רש"י‬s house: Melicha done
in kli menukav then placed the meat in another kli which was eino menukav and in the
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
15
morning find meat sitting in pool of juice, more stuff had come out. What’s the din of
this meat?
‫רש"י‬- Since it had already been sitting in salt for ‫ שיעור‬melicha, all blood had already
come out, so whatever came out in the 2nd pot is not dam, just maal b’alma.
B. ‫ רא"ש‬8:38- adds that in this case the meat had not had hadacha basraysa done to it.
-Now we have two possible reasons to assur this meat:
1. Maybe what came out overnight was dam and kavush k’mevushal.
2. What came out wasn’t dam, but meat was sitting with bloody salt on it in juice,
meliach k’roseiach and dam on salt will come back into meat and assur it.
**Lichora ‫ רא"ה‬would assur b/c what’s coming out is more dam. ‫ רשב"א‬would only have
to be dan on hadacha basraysa tzad.  ‫ רש"י‬must be meikil by both.
- ‫ רא"ש‬asks why don’t we say that the surface blood should be nivla back in? 2
Answers:
1) The dam that comes out of the meat and is in the salt gets locked into the salt
and won’t go back into the meat (lichora, this is only as long as didn’t do bishul b/c we
saw yesterday that if didn’t rinse it off and are mivashel w/ other things it will assur).
2) After the salt has been used to remove the blood from the meat, now the salt
loses the power to be poel again to create a resicha and send the blood back into the meat.
C. Trumas HaDeshen Siman 159- Shayla: Preparing meat and chickens for bris mila,
did melicha in the separate keilim, and then placed them all together w/ salt on them, then
find out that one of the chickens was treifa and didn’t have 60 kinegdo.
Answers: Since it was l’tzorech mitzva, hameikil lo yafsid. And even though meliach
k’roseiach, that’s only as long as it’s doing its first job. But once it already did the job,
no longer has its potency to be roseiach (‫ שיעור‬of tzlia and ‫ שיעור‬of melicha are not
necessarily the same thing, separate halachos. So just saying that whenever the tzlia of
the salt ends, now it’s tired out).
D. ‫ ט"ז‬69:47- This din only applies when the salt should be fatigued b/c it had removed
blood. However, if I salt meat that has already been salted/ soaked to keep it fresh, it will
still be able to be marsiach b/c didn’t do any peula yet to tire it out. And thinks all
rishonim will agree to this yesod.
E. Hagahos Ashri 8:49- If did melicha, and then kept it around and more oozed out, and
another chaticha falls in to the tzir, since tzir isn’t dam, that piece will be mutar.
II. Those who argue with ‫ רש"י‬and why they argue
A. Chidushei ‫רשב"א‬- Only need to place meat in kli menukav at time of melicha, but
afterwards no need (pashtus, just like ‫)רש"י‬, but then writes that maybe Shmuel’s din of
kli menukav isn’t just during melicha, but even after melicha b/c worried that the tzir is
eino neechal machmas malcho, and will cause the dam to go back into the meat, and
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
16
would be case of kavush k’mevhushal, in which case can’t say that since its tarud to be
poleit won’t be boleia (against ‫)רש"י‬.
B. Rokeach- quotes same case and says the piece of meat will be assur b/c the tzir will
cause dam on surface to go back into the original piece.
C. '‫ רמ‬lichora would argue on ‫ רש"י‬as well b/c he thinks everything that continues to
come out is dam mamash. Same for the ‫רא"ה‬.
D. Shaarei Dura- quotes ‫’רש"י‬s case and says the minhag is to be machmir.
III. Discussion in the Achronim/‫שו"ע‬
A. ‫ שו"ע‬69:20- meat that is nimlach and sits kdei ‫ שיעור‬melicha and then put in another
kli w/out hadacha and now it fills with tzir is mutar (Maaseh d’‫)רש"י‬. And acc to this,
meat that falls into the tzir which came out of the meat after ‫ שיעור‬melicha would be
mutar (Hagahos Ashri). However, there are those who assur both cases (baze u’baze).
1. ‫ ש"ך‬80: This is a big Chidush b/c if just want to assur the maaseh case, could
be for either reason. However, to assur the Hagahos Ashri’s case, where kosher meat
falls into tzir, have to assume that tzir is dam. Which is a big deal b/c ‫ מחבר‬never quoted
the ‫ רא"ה‬or '‫ רמ‬when spoke about melicha before!
2. Aruch HaShulchan 69:110- Disagrees with ‫ ש"ך‬b/c we never assume
lihalacha like those who assume that tzir is dam, and thinks there is a taus sofer in the
‫ שו"ע‬and there is only one baze. B/c if wanted to say yesh mi she’omer on both cases,
would have just said “yesh mi she’omer” stam, but the fact that he says baze means only
on the last case.
B. ‫ שו"ע‬69:20 (cont) - Acc to the machmirim, have to do hadacha yafe yafe.
1. ‫ ש"ך‬85- Why is this a chidush davka acc to these machmirim? We already
know that everyone holds that you have to do hadacha!? Explains that this is acc to the
shita that holds that tzir is dam mamash, and this is coming to say that have to do hadacha
before the dam stops coming out b/c otherwise it will go right back in. Also, what about
cutting off the outer layer of the meat instead of hadacha basraysa? If hold tzir is not
dam, ‫ אה"נ‬this would work. However, if hold that tzir is dam, hadacha basraysa is like
the din of chalita acc to the '‫רמ‬. It closes off the pores. In this sense, explaining how the
‫ מחבר‬can be incorporating the shita of the '‫(רמ‬/‫)רא"ה‬. (Aruch haShulchan is arguing on
this ‫ ש"ך‬as well).
C. ‫ טור‬69:20- quotes R’ Yona in Shaarei Teshuva: Can’t cut meat with a knife before
doing hadacha basraysa, and have to do hagala on the knife b/c meliach k’roseiach.
1. Beis Yosef: But how does this shtim with ‫ רש"י‬acc to the yesod of the ‫?רא"ש‬
Also, the ‫ טור‬does quote maaseh of ‫ ?רש"י‬Says that he found in another girsa that the ‫טור‬
didn’t quote this R’ Yona.
2. Bach: Defends the ‫טור‬, says the reason don’t say meliach k’roseiach by maaseh
of ‫ רש"י‬is b/c the tzir is not dam, just like water. And water can take away potency of
meliach k’roseiach, so whatever dam and salt that is there is neutralized by the tzir. Not
saying the svara of the ‫רא"ש‬. Im kein, now R’ Yona and ‫ רש"י‬can co-exist b/c when cut
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
17
that meat with a knife and there is salt, and no water there, will say meliach k’roseiach
and will assur the knife, and even ‫ רש"י‬will be maskim to this.
- Makes sense, then, that the ‫ מחבר‬doesn’t quote this chumra of R’ Yona. However, the
‫ רמ"א‬mentions that yesh matirim to cut the basar with knife after the melicha b/c ein
melicha b’keilim.
‫ש"ך‬- This is b/c dam is misrak sareik, but not saying that no kli can ever become
assur through melicha, just not in this situation b/c dam is misrak sarik.
‫ שיעור‬#8- 6.17.08/ 14 Sivan 5768
Tzlias Basar and Tzlias Kaved
Have said many times that in order to cook meat, require melicha, but when roast over a
fire, dam will drip right off and into the fire, and even though it will drip on the chaticha,
will be misrak sarik, so no need for melicha.
- But how do we know?
I. Sources that indicate no need to do melicha if roasting
A. '‫ תוס‬Chullin 14A DH V’nasbin- Just explained that dam eivarim shelo piresh is
mutar, so for tzli do not need melicha, and even if don’t cook it all the way through and
even though it will move mimakom limakom (‫)ר"ת‬. And even though have gm which
says that we do melicha for tzli, that was just a minhag, but meikar hadin there is no
requirement.
B. Ohr Zarua Hilchos Melicha- If in a place where there is no salt anywhere, can just
cut the meat and roast it b/c tzli doesn’t need melicha at all. And afterwards can cook it in
water. And there was a minhag to do be moleiach anyways, but no requirement.
C. ‫ רש"י‬Pesachim 74A Dh shavya- refers to a melicha done by tzli.
D. Issur V’heter 8:10- If are tzole up to half the ‫ שיעור‬of roasting it, that is enough to get
rid of the dam.
E. Shaarei Dura Dinei Melicha 86- If no salt there, first be tzole until the blood comes
out and then you can cook it.
II. If do melicha before tzli, is there still a requirement of hadacha?
A. ‫ רשב"א‬Bayis HaKatzar 70B- No need for hadacha basraysa if tzole right away b/c
eish will get rid of the dam. If wait too long, though, dam will be nivla in the melach, and
then should do hadacha first before the melicha.
B. ‫ ר"ן‬2A Chullin- Quotes that requirement of hadacha is davka for kdeira, but if going
to be tzole, no need for hadacha at all.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
18
III. Cut meat on bread. What is status of the bread?
A. Gm Chullin 112A- If cut meat on a piece of bread, assur to eat if have certain
requirements. Why?
1. ‫רש"י‬- B/c dam comes out onto this piece of bread.
2. ‫ ר"ן‬41B- Explains that this case was one where the meat was roasted to
maachal ben drosay, and there is chashash maris ayin on the bread b/c looks like blood on
the bread. And even if choshesh, maybe only choshesh if it really soaked the bread all the
way through.
B. ‫ שו"ע‬76:5- If cut meat on bread, mutar to eat the bread as long as the meat was cooked
enough for maachal bnei adam (‫רמ"א‬: this is ½ roasted).
IV. Status of the Skewer on which you are tzole
A. ‫ רשב"א‬Thb 35A- ‫ראב"ד‬- assur b/c there is blia of dam in it. Acc to this, can’t leave
the meat on the skewer for too long b/c as long as the meat is being poleit, won’t be
boleia from the skewer, but once its done being poleit, can be boleia from the shfud, so
have to remove it right away.
B. ‫ שו"ע‬76:41. ‫מחבר‬: There are those who assur to cut off a piece of the meat while its being
nitzle b/c dam will assur the knife. Some assur the shfud as well, and think should
remove the meat right away after the tzlia b/c of the dam. But there are those who are
matir all this, v’chein haminhag lihakeil (‫רא"ש‬- all mutar b/c dam is misrak sarik.
Apparently ‫ ראב"ד‬didn’t think you can say dam misrak sarik by shfud)
2. ‫רמ"א‬: We are chosheish lichatchila and we are matir bidieved.
V. Placing Kli under meat while it is being roasted
A. Gm Chullin 112A- R’ Nachman Amar Shmuel- can’t put kli (Bei Dugi) under the
meat while you’re being tzole, until all the mare admumis is gone b/c otherwise will assur
the kli. And that time is when the meat starts to smoke. But maybe the bottom part is
finished but the top part isn’t finished yet? So gm says have to place trei galilei milcha,
meaning place two chunks of salt in the kli, so will go right into the salt and not into the
kli.
B. ‫ שו"ע‬76:6- Quotes this din that shouldn’t put kli underneath until its already nitzle to
the amount that ppl can eat it.
1. ‫ ש"ך‬25- Quotes Bach who holds that all dam doesn’t come out after ½ tzli but
proves from other places that this clearly is the din and rejects the Bach.
VI. How does one prepare Liver? It’s kulo dam!
A. Gm Chullin 109B- Yalta tells R’ Nachman, that e/thing the Torah assured, there is
something comparable that is mutar. And one example is that Torah assured dam, but
was matir Liver.
B. Gm 110B- Abaye asked R’ Safra, when you go to Eretz Yisrael, ask them what we
should do to make liver mutar l’achila. In end, gm says that they used to do chalita,
boiling water to stunt the dam from coming out.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
19
1. ‫ רי"ף‬39B- Got message from the mesivta that we don’t know how to do chalita.
Ela, have to roast it first and then can cook it. And the way to roast it is to cut it shasi
v’erev first.
2. '‫ תוס‬dh Kavda- ‫ר"ת‬: Says our whole gm is talking about kaved when didn’t do
melicha, but ‫ אה"נ‬if would do regular melicha that would work on its own. And gm by
Yalta says that Torah matired kaved, implying that midoraysa could eat it even with all
the dam inside. However, there is still an issur dirabanan so need melicha or chalita or
tzli. **We don’t assume like this ‫ר"ת‬, but rather like the ‫רי"ף‬.
VII. What about cooking liver in pot w/out melicha?
A. Gm 110B- Kaved can assur other pieces but never becomes assur itself (b/c always
being poleit can’t be boleia).
1. ‫ רשב"א‬Bayis Hakatzar 75- If would take a kaved and cook it in a pot, yira li
that this is mutar b/c it’s oseres but eina neeseres bidieved. But lichatchila should be
tzole first. And even though the '‫ רמ‬argues that the kaved can become assur, I don’t
agree.
2. '‫ רמ‬MA 6:7,8- If take kaved and put in hot water or chometz until it becomes
white, mutar to be mivashel. But now the minhag is to put it over the fire and then are
mivashel it even with other meat. **But if cooked it w/out roasting it first, the liver, the
pot, and e/thing else inside is assur.
B. ‫ שו"ע‬73:11. ‫מחבר‬: Can’t do melicha, ela have to be koreia shesi v’erev and be tzole with
opening open to the fire. Bidieved if were mivashel alone in the kdeira its mutar, but the
kdeira becomes assur, and some assur the kaved in this case.
2. ‫רמ"א‬: Our minhag is to assur everything even if liver was salted first.
C. 73:2- if did chalita that would work but geonim assured it. But bidieved it works.
VIII. How can we ever be tzole liver on a grate?
D. Maadanei Asher Siman 21- Asks this question b/c e/ time the blood will assur the
grate and will have to kasher it, and would need libun chamur and minhag is not to kasher
it every time?! ‫ רמ"א‬said we should be nizhar lichatchila!?
- Has a limud zchus: When it comes to the grate, wants to say k’bolo kach polto
b/c the grate is burning from the fire so as soon as dam is nivla into the grate, it will come
right out. ‫ משא"כ‬by shfud where the fire is not in direct contact with the shfud b/c the
basar is there surrounding it. Has other svaros as well. **See inside**
‫ שיעור‬#9- 6.17.08/ 14 Sivan 5768
5 Pesulei Shechita
Mitzva of Shechita
I. Dvarim 12:21- V’zavachta ka’asher tzivisicha. But where was He mitzave?
1. ‫רש"י‬- Hilchos Shechita are halacha limoshe miSinai.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
20
II. Gm Chullin 28A- See from this pasuk that Moshe was nitztave on cutting the Kane
and the Veshes, and Rov echad by chicken, and Rov Shnaim by Beheima.
III. Gm Chullin 27A- Mishna says lashon “HaShocheit” lashon bidieved when it’s
talking about shechting one siman by oaf and two by beheima, how can two by beheima
be bidieved!? One of gm’s answers is that Rubo shel echad kamohu is only bidieved.
*R’ Schachter likes to point out from here that Rubo k’Kulo is not lichatchila (i.e. Rov
kos by 4 kosos).
The Five Psulim
**'‫ רמ‬Shechita 3:1- 5 things that are mafsid the shechita: Shehiya, Drasa, Chalada,
Hagrama, and Ikar.
I. Shehiya
A. Mishna 32A- Knife falls out of his hand, or article of clothing fell off and he picked it
up, or he sharpened the knife and got too tired in the middle of the shechita, so his friend
comes to finish. And the ‫ שיעור‬of shehiya is amount of time it takes to shecht. R’ Shimontime it takes to check the knife (kdei bikur).
B. Gm- What’s the ‫ שיעור‬of k’dei shechita? Machlokes whether each animal gets ‫שיעור‬
that it would take for itself, or even ‫ שיעור‬beheima for an oaf.
C. ‫ שו"ע‬23:21. ‫ שיעור מחבר‬shehiya is amount of time it takes to pick up the animal, place it
down for the shechita, and it’s each animal like it is, beheima daka for daka, and gasa for
gasa, and then two opinions by oaf, either like beheima daka, and yesh omrim like oaf.
And says should be machmir, but b’shaas hadchak could be meikil.
2. ‫רמ"א‬: We are noheig to be toreif all shehiya, even mashehu.
D. Shehia b’miut Basra
1. Gm Chullin 32A- Shaha b’miut simanim, what’s the din? Already shechted
rov and then paused and then finished off the whole thing.
(a) ‫רש"י‬- even though the shehiya is in the miut basra which you didn’t
even need, could be that once you try to do the whole thing, now you ruined it. And it’s
left as a teiku and we should be machmir misafeik. Explains that gm must be talking
about miut basra b/c if it was miut kama in the kane, k’ilu did nothing (b/c need to cut rov
of kane to make the animal a treifa). And miut kama in veshes would vaday be treifa b/c
only need nikuv kol shehu to be mitareif it.
(b) '‫ תוס‬Hichlid 30B- ‫ ר"ת‬has the opposite pshat, talking about miut kama.
- But how is he going to deal with ‫’רש"י‬s points about miut kama?
B/c there are two aspects to shechita: 1) Heter Achila 2) MiThaeir midei neveila. So
even though ??????? FILL IN.
(c) '‫ רמ‬3:4- If were shohe the amount of time it takes to shecht miut
simanim, that’s safeik neveila. Learning a new pshat, not about beginning or end, about
how long you were shohe.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
21
2. ‫ שו"ע‬23:5(a) ‫מחבר‬: Rov echad by oaf and by beheima, shehiya does not pasul
afterwards. And acc to this, there’s never shehiya by kane of oaf at all. And then quotes
shitas ‫ רש"י‬to assur, and says should be machmir lichatchila.
(b) ‫רמ"א‬: minhag is lihatrif even bidieved.
II. Drasa (Pressing down instead of gliding across)
A. Mishna 30B- If cut off the head of animal in one fell swoop, if knife isn’t the length
of two heads (k’tzavar umalei tzavar), pasul. But if it is, then can assume that cut off the
whole head in one motion w/out being doreis. And if shechting 2 animals at once, has to
be length of 3 heads. However, if you are molich and meivi, then even if knife is a tiny
dagger, ksheira.
1. ‫ר"ח‬- Heter of small knife is only by an oaf which has soft neck. But by
beheima, always need a big knife.
2. ‫ר"ן‬- quotes this ‫ ר"ח‬and says gm never said such a thing.
B. ‫ שו"ע‬24:11. ‫ מחבר‬quotes din as brought in the gemara.
2. ‫רמ"א‬: But there are those who are machmir by beheima to always need big
knife and this is the minhag even bidieved (lashon of lifsol).
C. Igros Moshe YD 1:20- Can sickly person Shecht?
- Gm Yuma 66A- Ish Iti, the person who was designated to take the seir hamishtaleiach,
took it even on shabbos. And chidush that can do it even on shabbos is that even if the
animal was sick, the ish iti is allowed to carry the animal to the cliff on shabbos. This is
against R’ Nosson who holds chai nosei es atzmo?! Gm answers, no, chole shani. Don’t
say chai nosei es atzmo if the animal is sick.
- '‫ תוס‬Shabbos SheChai 94A: When carrying a live animal/person which is lighter, the
heter is b/c it’s not dumya d’mishkan b/c by the mishkan only carried inanimate objects.
See that a chole is machbid.
**R’ Moshe: Maybe have to be worried that the chole is heavier and might be dories.
Answers: When it comes to shechita, though, doesn’t mean he is always machbid,
just chashash, so if he is sure that he wasn’t dories, can be meikil.
[There is opinion that chai nosei es atzmo is only when animal/baby can walk.
- What’s the chiluk? R’ Moshe explains that hotzaa itself is a chidush b/c not really a
creative act. Only considered a melacha if afterwards it will be noticeable that it was
done. If desk is sitting in the street, must be someone carried it out there. But if see an
adult outside, don’t say must have been someone carried him there. That’s why no issur
hotzaa on chai nosei es atzmo if baby/animal can walk.]
III. Chalada
- Place knife inbetween the simanim so that when cut the bottom the knife was covered
by the top siman.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
22
A. Gm 30B- shayla about being covered by the skin, or being covered by handkerchief,
under the wool, and leaves these all as teiku. And then has hechlid b’miut simanim, also
teiku.
1. ‫ רא"ש‬2:5- if just put a tallis over the animal and shechted, that’s not chalada, it
has to be fastened to the animal.
2. '‫ רמ‬Shechita 3:9- If you shecht underneath the tallis, that is chalada b/c the
knife is not out in the open.
B. ‫ שו"ע‬24:7-11:
1. ‫מחבר‬: Chalada is putting knife between simanim. Quotes machlokes ‫ רא"ש‬and
'‫רמ‬, says to be chosheish lichatchila like '‫רמ‬. And quotes machlokes about hechlid b’miut
simanim, and says to be machmir lichatchila.
2. ‫ רמ"א‬8: Be careful to remove thick wool on sheep so that don’t come lidei
chalada.
3. ‫ רמ"א‬10: Minhag lihatrif kol chalada bein miut kama, basra, kane, or veshes.
IV. Hagrama
- Shechting outside the shechita zone.
A. Mishna 18A- Shechting in top ring of the neck, have to leave over a small sliver to
make sure that stayed in the zone. And Gm has discussion what about if veered out of the
zone at the end of the shechita.
1. '‫ רמ‬3:13- shechted rov and then finished by being doreis or hagrama, ksheira
b/c already did appropriate amount of good shechita. If did 1st 1/3 out of the zone and 2/3
in the zone, good. Also, if shechted 1/3 and did 1/3 out of the zone, and then 1/3 in zone,
also ksheira. But if were doreis or hechlid in 1st or middle 3rd would be pasul (last din not
clear).
2. ‫( רמב"ן‬quoted in ‫ )ר"ן‬- need either 2/3 in beginning or 2/3 in the end, can’t be
mitzareif 1st and last 3rd with problem in the middle.
3. ‫ רשב"א‬argues on both of them that have to have first 2/3 good, otherwise hit
rov point and don’t have good shechita.
B. ‫ שו"ע‬24:12-14
1. ‫ מחבר‬Paskens like the '‫רמ‬.
2. ‫רמ"א‬: Minhag Lihatrif all hagrama.
V. Ikur
A. '‫רמ‬- If kane and veshes are dislocated instead of being shechted.
B. ‫ שו"ע‬24:15- ‫רמ"א‬: Minhag to poseil all ikur.
C. Gm 9A- '‫ תוס‬quotes ‫ רש"י‬who quotes shachat es haveshet upasak es hagargeres and
explains that he holds that if shecht with sakin peguma, won’t cut the animal’s siman, but
will tear it. This is ikur.
D. Aruch HaShulchan 24:28- Explains ‫רש"י‬, not that the siman was dislocated when
you shechted it. Ela, during the maaseh shechita, the knife pulls the siman apart instead
of just slicing it. However, most of the rishonim didn’t learn this way.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
23
‫ שיעור‬#10- 6.19.08/ 16 Sivan 5768
Shechitas Akum
I. Purposes of Shechita
 Shechita accomplishes two things: Makes the animal kosher to eat and it makes the
animal tahor b/c otherwise neveila is mitamei (Vayikra 11:39). And even a treifa is
mitaheir midei neveila.
A. Gm Chullin 72B- How do I know that shechting a treifa is mitaheir midei neveila?
And gm explains b/c it has a shaas kosher, etc.
1. '‫ רמ‬Avos HaTuma 2:6- explains how shechita is mitaheir even treifa which is
assura to eat.
II. What about shechita of a non-Jew?
A. Mishna Chullin 13A- Shechita of Oved Kochavim is neveila and mitamei b’masa.
Why?
1. '‫ תוס‬Chullin 3b- “V’zavachta”, that which you can shecht you can eat. Only
someone who is a bar zevicha b/c he himself requires shechita in order to eat, liafukei an
oved avoda zara. And even a mumar l’echol neveilos l’hachis (R’ Shachter- he would
choose the non-kosher meat even if there is kosher meat right there) will be considered
lav bar zevicha.
2. '‫ רמ‬Avos haTuma 2:10- Din that mitamei b’masa is only midivrei sofrim b/c
tuma of AZ and tikroves AZ is only midivrei sofrim (we’ll assume that means dirabanan
for now). And it was on account of AZ that the kusim were pushed away and pasuled
from shechita. And even though the issur achila is doraysa, not everything that’s assur
b’achila is mitamei b/c treifa is assura and its tehora! Pashtus is that '‫ רמ‬doesn’t learn like
'‫תוס‬. Focusing more on AZ aspect.
III. Pshat in shitas '‫הרמ‬:
A. Shemos 34:11- Have to get rid of the 7 Nations b/c otherwise will end up following
after their minhagim and eating their shechita.
B. '‫ רמ‬Shechita 4:11- Akum who shechts, shechita is neveila, etc. B/c pasuk warns us
“v’achalta mizivcho”. 4:12- a big geder was made that even shechita of akum that isn’t
oved AZ shechitaso neveila. (However, only a real oveid AZ’s shechita creates issur
achila midoraysa).
1. ‫כ"מ‬- see from here that '‫ רמ‬thinks that if not oved az only issur dirabanan
(maybe even the achila). But ‫ אה"נ‬the shechita of a real oveid AZ would be issur doraysa
to eat.
 See that could be that they are barei zevicha, it’s just that the Torah tells us their
shechita is not a good shechita b/c we treat their shechita as if its cheftza shel AZ. And
AZ is also mitamei. Now we can understand why '‫ רמ‬thinks the tuma of shechitas akum
is only midirabanan b/c it comes altz the tumas AZ which is only midirabanan.
C. But what’s the '‫’רמ‬s source?
1. Mechilta D’Rashbi- quotes this issur of shechitas Akum by the pasuk in
shemos. But never says here that the tuma is only dirabanan, that is the '‫’רמ‬s assumption
that since the tuma is b/c of AZ, should only be midirabanan.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
24
IV. Halacha Limaaseh
A. ‫ שו"ע‬2:1- Shechita of Akum is neveila even if he’s not an oved AZ mamash.
1. ‫ ש"ך‬2- Thinks ‫ כ"מ‬had faulty nusach of '‫רמ‬. Correct girsa is that even a kusi
who isn’t oved AZ, his shechita is dirabanan. B/c Kusim were really Jewish and Chazal
were mafkia their kedushas yisrael (Chullin 6A), so issur of their shechita is only
midirabanan, and that’s what the '‫ רמ‬was talking about. But ‫ אה"נ‬all shechita of non-Jews
is issur doraysa.
2. ‫ ט"ז‬1- agrees with the pshat of the ‫כ"מ‬. And there is a ‫ נ"מ‬l’inyan ger toshav b/c
they are not Jewish but agree not to be oved AZ.
B. MiPeninei HaRav (R’ Schachter) –The Rav used to say in the name of ‫ר' חיים‬: asu
syag l’Torah, make gedarim like the Torah did. That sometimes there are dinim doraysa
which themselves are dinei doraysa. Im kein, could understand the '‫ רמ‬of geder gadru
could just be a geder doraysa that even a goy who doesn’t worship AZ his shechita is
assur. (could be possible teretx to kasha of ‫)ש"ך‬.
V. Another ‫ נ"מ‬btwn '‫ רמ‬and '‫תוס‬: Oso v’es b’no
A. Chidushei ‫רע"א‬- If goy shechted the mother cow, is there din oso v’es bno for you
not to shecht the baby?
1. '‫רמ‬- Goy’s shechita had chalos shechita, would be assur
2. '‫תוס‬- Goy’s shechita is not a shechita at all, no issur.
VI. Jew and Goy holding the knife together (Two Jews: good shechita)?
 Might have said that acc to '‫תוס‬, goy is nothing, maybe e/thing is good. But acc to '‫רמ‬,
he makes negative contribution, pasul.
A. Tosefta: Shechita is ksheira in that case.
B. Mishna Chullin 39B: Two ppl shechting, one w/ good kavana, one w/ kavana to AZ,
no good.
C. ‫ מחבר‬2:11- Yisrael and Pasul shechting together, shechita is pasul.
1. ‫ ש"ך‬30- Quotes Maharshal that case of Mishna Chullin is different b/c one
person has specific kavana l’shem AZ, ‫ משא"כ‬when dealing with regular goy who is pasul
only b/c he’s lav bar zevicha ('‫)תוס‬, so if a bar zevicha is w/ him then it should be mutar.
D. Sefer Mishkan Ahron: presents this discussion as well.
**Brisker Rav- What’s the '‫’רמ‬s proof that the tuma of this animal is only midirabanan
from treifa (which also isn’t tamei midoraysa, and not even midirabanan)? Treifa isn’t
tamei b/c it has a good shechita, but this animal is a neveila, has a psul in the shechita
itself?
Answered: Treifa means there is a chisaron in the chiyus of the animal. It’s not that the
shechita you did is a good shechita and it happens to be a treifa, ela, the fact that it
doesn’t have full chiyus makes the shechita incomplete. Therefore, it is good raya
that even though there is a chisaron in the shechita ‫ מ"מ‬it’s not mitamei, so, too,
shechitas akum which has chisaron in the shechita itself and nevertheless not
mitamei. (Based on '‫ רמ‬MA 4:17).
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
25
‫ שיעור‬#11- 6.19.08/ 16 Sivan 5768
Shechitas Katan
I. Source of the Din and Svaros
A. Mishna Chullin 2A- Everyone can shecht, except cheresh, shote, and katan shema
yikalkilu es haShechita. Mashma that they are barei zevicha, just worried he’ll mess it
up.
B. Gittin 45B- Katan cannot write tefillin b/c only those who are mechuyav in ukshartem
are kosher for uksavtem (mashma not shayach to the mitzva at all).
1. ‫ רא"ש‬Chullin- Only katan who is pasul for shechita is if he’s lo higia
l’chinuch, so he can’t do it appropriately, doesn’t have the proper skill.
2. ‫ שו"ע‬1:5- Katan who doesn’t have appropriate skills necessary for shechita
shouldn’t shecht lichatchila, even with someone watching him, but bidieved its good.
But if he knows how, then with others watching it’s mutar even lichatchila. No one
watching, pasul even bidieved, even if you know he knows hilchos shechita.
(a) ‫ ש"ך‬27- This is b/c katan doesn’t have neemanus, so can’t trust him
that his shechita was good if no one else saw it. Not like the Ateres Zahav (Livush) who
said that since he hasn’t yet reached age to have chiyuv shechita, he’s a lav bar zevicha,
in a sense.
(b) Livush- Even though he’s not a bar zevicha, if gadol is omed al gabav,
he’s shechting al daas the gadol, who is mitzuve. Not just standing there to make sure he
does it correctly, ela making use of the daas of the gadol, which makes it k’ilu he is
metzuve.
(c) ‫ ש"ך‬27- But katan is different from a goy b/c a goy has no shaychus to
din of shechita, but katan cannot be fed maachalos assuros. So he is connected to kashrus
in a sense, so in that sense he is a bar zevicha, just no neemanus.
3. Pri Megadim Pesicha HaKolleles- also asks this kasha, what’s the difference
btwn katan and goy: By mitzvas asei, katan is not mechuyav, that’s why not shayach to
teffilin at all. Doesn’t wear tefillin and cannot write tefillin. But by lo saasei, not that
he’s mufka, just lav bar deia. Im kein, he has shaychus to shechita. Goy has no shaychus
to any of this.
II. More discussion of chiluk btwn aseis and l’s when it comes to chiyuv of katan
A. Vayikra 19:20- parsha of shifcha charufa. Starts out as not Jewish, bought by two
owners, and are migayeir her lishem shifchus, goes to mikva. Now one owner frees her,
one doesn’t, so she’s chatzi full Jew, chatzi shifcha. And now a man is mikadesh her, so
part of her has full kiddushin, for part of her kiddushin isn’t tofeis. So she is partial
eishes ish. So if she’s mizane, what do we do? She brings a korban, and we read psukim
to her, give her a mussar schmooze, meaning give her malkus. This is al pi the gm as
well.
1. '‫ רמ‬Shgagos 9:3- If 9 yr old is mizane with a shifcha charufa, she gets malkus
(b/c his bia is real bia for her), and he is chayav korban, but should only bring it when he
becomes a gadol.
**See chiyuv for maaseh aveira of the katan!
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
26
2. '‫ רמ‬Sota 2:4- kitana gets married at age of 10 and is then mizane. He says she
is neeseres libaala, like any eishis ish shezinsa.
(a) ‫ראב"ד‬- gm says in Yevamos that when kitana is seduced its considered
ones!?
(b) Mishkenos Yaakov – quotes Gm Sanhedrin 55B- if person is
shocheiv w/ beheima, kill the person, and we kill the beheima. Either b/c it brought a
takala or b/c it will bring embarrassment b/c ppl will see this animal and talk about what
happened. Gm asks if need both requirements, tries to answer that when kitana or katan
is with beheima, still kill it, even though embarrassment, but no takala, but answers, no,
there is takala, but rachmana was chas on the katan, not on the beheima.
Mishkenos Yaakov explains that the '‫ רמ‬in sota paskens like the sugya in
Sanhedrin that the katan did have a chiyuv, just the Torah had rachmanus on him. See
that meizid of katan is considered meizid. And by shogeig of the katan '‫ רמ‬says don’t kill
the beheima. So see that he thinks the meizid of katan is meizid. Im kein, if kitana is
mizane should be neeseres libaala b/c considered meizid, not ones.
B. Gm Gittin 2B- Hakol ksheirim to write a get, even a katan, even though he’s not bar
daas b/c gadol omed al gabav.
1. ‫רש"י‬- B/c no lishma by katan, so gadol will tell him to do it lishma.
2. '‫תוס‬- But kitanim are lav bnei krisus!? Can’t give a get, shouldn’t be able to
write one!? Answers: When katan is older, he will be able to give a get, so right now
considered bar krisus (gadol omed al gabav is only there for the lishma aspect).
(a) Binas Adam 1:1- Asks why the Mishkenos Yaakov and ‫ ש"ך‬didn’t just
say this klal of ‫ ?תוס‬Explains that ukshartem and uksavtem means that you have to be
able to be involved in it now, ‫ משא"כ‬to be a bar krisus just means your shayach to the
parsha.
(b) R’ Zalman Nechemia Goldberg- When its mitzva chiyuvi, only
considered in the parsha when you are actually nitztave, but when its simply a mitzva
kiyumis, won’t necessarily ever do it, never a tzivui, can be considered in the parsha even
if not nichlal yet. This is why get and shechita are fundamentally different and katan can
be included, both mitzvos kiyumiyos.
III. Katan being considered bar zvicha b/c he’s mikabel tuma and shechita works to be
mitaheir midei neveila:
A. Kovetz Inyanim (R’ Elchanan) - mentions this possibility (see inside).
B. Igros Moshe YD 1:3- Uses this explanation to explain why katan is bar zevicha as
opposed to an akum. Before this, discusses shaychus b/c can’t feed him treifus, but says
this is only true if you assume that is an issur doraysa and it may not be. Also says, since
katan is shayach to issurim, then v’zavachta can be speaking to the katan as well. Similar
to the '‫רמ‬/ gm sanhedrin, has issur just Torah is chas on the katan. However, by
Ukshartam, Torah is not speaking to the katan.
**Chelkas Yoav O”Ch 1:1- By mitzvos asei, katan has no chiyuv. And by lo
saaseis, katan’s maaseh is not a maaseh. K’ilu its done b’misaseik. If it’s chalavim and
arayos, so then katan is bar chiyuva b/c when misaseik in these issurim is chayav shekein
nehene (this would answer the '‫ רמ‬by shifcha charufa). And ‫ הה"נ‬for issurim that are lav
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
27
she’ein bo maaseh. Also brings that there is issur of chametz she’avar alav haPesach by
chametz of a katan.
‫ שיעור‬#12
Ben Pakua
I. Source of the Din
A. Gm Chullin 69B- Two lishonos of beheima, gm learns beheim b’beheima, one w/in
the other (dvarim 14:6), mutar b’achila.
B. Mishna 68A- If animal already stuck its head out, even though goes back in, not nitar
b’shechitas ha’eim, but if that happens with the arm it is nitar w/ shechita of the mother.
1. Gm- If fetus stuck out an arm, even though it went back in, and rest of animal
is nitar v’shechitas ha’eim, the arm won’t be nitar w/ the shechita. Learned from pasuk
of “basar basade treifa lo socheilu” not just treifa, but anything that comes out of the
mechitzos (basade) will have din of treifa. So if eat this arm of the animal will be over
on this lav, even though not a “treifa” at all.
II. If fetus found inside is already nine months old
A. Mishna 74A- R’ Meir: Not nitar b’shechitas ha’eim. Chachamim: ninth month is
same as everything else, nitar b’shechitas ha’eim. R’ Shimon Shezuri: can even be 5 yrs
old and choreish basade still the shechita of the mother is mitaheir.
1. Gm 75B- What’s ‫ נ"מ‬btwn Chachamim and R’ Shimon Shezuri? Hifris al
gabei karka ikar beinahu. Acc to chachamim, as long as the animal has walked on the
ground now have to shecht it mishum maris ayin. However, acc to R’ Shimon Shezuri no
such gzeira.
- Question of what the status of that shechita is when its only mishum maris ayin? (‫ר"ן‬
Brachos: don’t make bracha on neiros chanuka lit mishum chashad).
B. Gm continues: Abaye: If ben pakua’s hooves are not split, e/one agrees that its still
mutar, din maris ayin won’t apply, e/one will recognize that this is that ben pakua b/c
stands out so much, others say it has to be that the mother and child have such a siman,
only then e/one will know and no worry about maris ayin.
III. Children of Ben Pakua
A. Gm 75B: Whenever have halachos of oso v’es bno, some say only applies to mother
and child and animal father not considered related. Others say choshishin l’zera ha’av
and even he is related. So acc to 2nd deia, if ben pakua is ba on regular beheima, the child
has no takana b/c the father is already considered shechted. (Ben pakua and bas pakua,
child has din pakua as well, and ‫ הה"נ‬if mother is pakua and not choshesh for zera ha’av,
but if only father is pakua and choshesh to his relation, no takana).
Why?
1. ‫רש"י‬- k’ilu each parent gives each siman to the child, father gave a shechted
siman and mother gave non-shechted siman. Im kein, when do shechita this will be
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
28
shehiya, and ein shehiya gadol mizu b/c one siman was g’shochted from time it was
created and this next siman isn’t shechted till much later.
2. '‫תוס‬- as if each parent gave ½ of every siman, so ben pakua gave 50% of
shechted simanim, so when shecht the next 50% not enough, need rov, and can never get
it.
B. Gm 75A bottom: If shecht the mother and it’s a treifa, and find ben 9 alive: Acc to R’
Meir who says it’s a separate unit, it’s mutar. Acc to Chachamim who said it is nichlal in
shechitas ha’eim, now the ben pakua will be considered treifa as well. Rava: Even acc to
the chachamim it will be mutar b/c 4 simanim achsher bei rachmana. Meaning, Ben
pakua has two ways to be mutar, either the mother’s two simanim or it’s own two
simanim.
 This will be relevant to the sugya of ben pakua sheba al beheima m’alyasa. B/c if hold
4 simanim achshirei rachamana why should there be no takan for the vlad? This is why
‫ רש"י‬there writes that that this man d’amar doesn’t hold from 4 simanim achshirei
rachmana. '‫תוס‬, on the other hand, holds that 4 simanim was only said in the case where
the mother is a treifa, but never applies to regular case, so has nothing to do with that
other sugya.
C. Vort in Kovetz Beis Hatalmud: Ben Pakua shechted as Korban Pesach not a good
Korban Pesach.
1. ‫רש"י‬- pasul b/c it’s a yotzei dofen and korban Pesach has to be yivaleid
2. '‫תוס‬- shechted shelo lishma
 Wants to say ‫ רש"י‬and '‫ תוס‬lishitasam: Acc to ‫רש"י‬, could have said 4 simanim so no
problem of lishma. But acc to '‫תוס‬, only say 4 simanim when mother is a treifa, not
shayach here, so can say simple teretz that shechted shelo lishma.
IV. What about the other issurim inside the ben pakua (dam, chelev, gid hanashe)?
A. Gm 74B- R’ Meir- gid hanashe and chelev are noheig even in fetus. R’ Yehuda- Gid
HaNashe is not noheig in fetus and chelev is mutar. R’ Oshaya- this machlokes is only by
ben 9 alive (where have machlokes Tk and R’ Meir whether considered ben pakua or
not). However, by any other ben pakua, e/one agrees it will be mutar.
1. '‫ רמ‬MA 5:14- Paskens like Tk against R’ Meir, that even 9 month old fetus
doesn’t need shechita, but once starts to walk on the ground, now needs shechita
[midirabanan altz maris ayin]. So would expect '‫ רמ‬to pasken like R’ Yehuda when it
comes to chelev and gid hanashe.
2. MA 7:3- shecht beheima and find a fetus, the chelev is mutar. However, if
shalmu lo chadashav (ben 9), issur chelev! Says same thing in peirush mishnayos
Chullin 4:5.
(a) ‫ כ"מ‬- '‫ רמ‬is clearly against the gm b/c the issur chelev is only R’ Meir
lishitaso who holds that the ben 9 is animal bifnei atzmo?! Answers that '‫ רמ‬thought this
gm was not the only possibility as to why the chelev could be mutar, don’t have to hold
like R’ Meir to assur the chelev.
- But where does this idea come from that the chelev should be mutar b/c of the shechitas
ha’eim? And even if it is, why should that only be up until ben 9?
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
29
B. Zera Avraham (R’ Menachem Zembe) - Classic chakira by ben pakua: Is it that
when shecht the mother now k’ilu you shechted the baby. Or no, vlad is an ever of the
mother, so when mother becomes mutar, e/thing in the mother is mutar, including the
baby. If considered shechted, no reason to matir the chelev of the baby. But if
considered ever imo, so matir for the baby in general, can come to be matir even its
chelev and gid hanashe.
- Wants to say that the '‫ רמ‬thought both tzdadim were correct: If baby is less than 9
months, considered an ever of the mother, special matir, e/thing is mutar. However, once
its ben 9, now full animal on its own, will say the shechita is chal on baby, but not a
special matir, so treat baby as shechted animal and chelev and gid hanashe are still assur.
V. Does din Ben Pakua matir Treifus?
A. Ohr Zarua- Quotes machlokes rishonim.
B. ‫ רשב"א‬Thb (B’mutarin b’lo shechita 49A)- Thinks no issur b/c not a live animal to
have din treifa, considered shechted already, already dead. And only reason for shechita
on this animal is altz maris ayin, and in those cases even if are over on the psulei shechita
still mutar b/c as long as do something that looks like shechita no longer worried about
maris ayin. ‫הה"נ‬, no worry about maris ayin if the animal is a treifa.
C. ‫רא"ה‬- upset with this last point in ‫ רשב"א‬b/c if allow ppl to use sakin pagum in this
case worried this will spread.
VI. E/one agrees that the dam of ben pakua is assur. Why?
A. ‫ רא"ש‬4:6- gzh”k that chelev is mutar. And dam is assur b/c considered like dam
eivarim shepiresh from the mother to the baby.
B. ‫ר"ן‬- the whole drasha in the first place was beheima b’beheima socheilu, and this isn’t
achila, this is shesiya.
C. Sefer Otzros Yosef (R’ Yosef Engel on YD) – dam in animal is assur all over the
animal. Chelev is only assur in certain places of the animal. So any chelev in the ubar is
going to be considered chelev shelo bimkomo. ‫ משא"כ‬all dam is assur no matter where it
is.
D. ‫ רשב"א‬Th”b (b’Mutarin b’lo shechita 49A) – Wants to explain why machlokes by
chelev is lishitasam in mach R’ Meir/R’ Yehuda: Pasuk says v’zavachta mib’karcha
v’tzoncha, has to have shem animal. Question is in 9 months does it get that shem. By
chelev it says “shor v’chesev”, has to be chelev of an animal. So if think ben 9 needs its
own shechita then considered shor v’chesev and its chelev has issur chal on it. ‫משא"כ‬, if
not nitar b’shechitas ha’eim, not included in that pasuk, not called chelev shor v’chesev
b/c not a shor yet, so no issur chelev. Thinks this is pshat in the ‫ רי"ף‬who thinks the
chelev of these animals are mutar and their dam is assur (b/c dam doesn’t have to be of
shor v’chesev, etc.)
‫ שיעור‬#13- 6.23.08/ 20 Sivan 5768
Inyanei Sfeik Sfeika (Really found in Taaroves 110)
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
30
I. Two Important Yesodos about when a Sfek Sfeika can be made
A. Gm Kesubos 8B- Man taynas Pesach Pasuach Matzasi (woman was not a besula),
he’s neeman in order to assur her to himself. Gm asks: Why is she assura, isn’t it a s’s?
Safeik whether this happened before she became mikudeshes, and even if was during that
year, safeik ones safeik b’ratzon?! Gm gives two teirutzim:
(1) Eishes Kohein (even if neensa still assura), so only one safeik. But ‫ אה"נ‬if would
have had a s”s would have been able to be matir. (2) Girl became arusa at 3 yrs old, at 4
yrs old there was nisuin (no s”s b/c woman who loses besulim before age 3, they will
grow back, so fact that they are not here, must be it happened afterwards).
1. '‫ תוס‬V’ee bayis eima- Isn’t there still s”s b/c safeik ones, safeik ratzon, and
even if its ratzon, maybe it was when she was a kitana and pitui kitana is always
considered ones?! **Answers: Shem ones chad hu. This isn’t considered a sfeik sfeika
b/c both sfeikos come from the same tzad (Ones vs Ratzon). Real sfek sfeika has to be
two totally separate sfeikos.
B. Gm Kesubos 9b- says that if she’s mizane she loses her kesuba.
1. '‫ תוס‬Ee L’meisiv La- Why don’t we say s”s: 1) Maybe he doesn’t know what it
feels like correctly (eino baki). 2) Safeik ones/ratzon?
'‫ תוס‬Yishanim on the side: This isn’t really a s”s b/c s”s has to be able to be said in both
directions and this one you can’t say b/c once say safeik b’ratzon, doesn’t matter that
he’s not a baki in pesach pasuach b/c already assuming it happened.
II. Source for Din of Sfek Sfeika Likula (even in doraysa’s)
A. Pnei Yehoshua Kesubos 9A- Gm assumes it, but never gives us the makor for this
din. Brings two sources:
1) ‫שו"ת רשב"א‬- Sfek Sfeika is basically azlinan basar rov, at least in terms of
tzdadim. Have 2:1 in possibilities (Maybe mutar maybe assur, and even if think assur,
maybe mutar for another reason, even if in terms of percentages not that way).
2) '‫ רמ‬Tumas Meis 9:12- Tumos that we have been speaking about, when they
are mishum safeik, only midiraban, b/c only tumas vaday is midoraysa. And all sfeikos,
bein by tuma, maachalos assuros, arayos, shabasos, are only midirabanan (safeik doraysa
lichumra is din dirabanan).  Since we say that safeik doraysa l’chumra is only
midirabanan, then when I have a safeik on that din dirababanan, i.e. a s”s, we say safeik
dirabanan likula.
[Brackets in the '‫רמ‬: '‫ רמ‬seems like he’s against a pasuk in Torah about korban asham
taluy, which says that when I have a safeik if I was over on an issur doraysa I bring a
korban. But how could HKBH tell you that if not sure if the meat is kosher or treif, you
can eat it (b/c safeik doraysa likula midoraysa), but bring a korban shema you were over
the issur!? It makes no sense?! So '‫ רמ‬writes that there is special din by kareis, that we
assume safeik doraysa lichumra midoraysa when it comes to kareis b/c this din of asham
taluy is only by something for which would be chayav kareis. *Only problem is that '‫רמ‬
writes k’gon shabasos and arayos, which are also chiyuvei kareis. Could say the brackets
aren’t there and case where chayav asham taluy is acc to other opinion in gm that only
say asham taluy when ischazeik issura (have 2 pieces, one mutar one assur, ate one, don’t
know which one it was).]
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
31
B. Ginas Vradim (Pri Megadim) p.32- brings ‫ נ"מ‬btwn these two mehalchim:
 Safeik kareis b/c '‫ רמ‬was machmir by kareis, ‫ רשב"א‬was not, or ischazeik issura, where
'‫ רמ‬will be machmir as well.
III. Refining of the Klalei Sfek Sfeika found in the Gedolei Achronim
A. ‫ ש"ך‬110- brings all the klalim of s’s:
- Quotes Trumas HaDeshen (Psakim and Ksavim) 129:
Twin animals are born, don’t know which was born first (even an issue b’zman
haze- minhag is to make a shutfus with a goy before b’chor is born, so he’ll have a chelek
in the animal, and won’t have its kedushas b’chor.), does the issur doraysa to use this
bechor, get any hanaa, etc. apply to these twins?
Wanted to say a s”s that maybe animal B was first and even if A came first, maybe the
mother had already had another baby before hand (b/c mother already had milk before
giving birth to these children and rov beheimos only give milk after having a child,
assumption that there had been some baby before these). But says, isn’t this against
'‫’תוס‬s klal that need shtei shemos b/c in this case always just asking is this the 1st or was
there a previous birth?
Answers: If one of the sfeikos is more overarching, its scope of leniency is greater, even
if it’s from the same reason, not called Shem Echad. Meaning, if there was a previous
birth before these twins, then that would patur both these animals in one fell swoop. So
that’s not considered another safeik from the same tzad.
**However, if twins are boy/girl, then this won’t work b/c no longer more overarching
b/c saying there was some other earlier birth only paturs the boy, and saying the girl is
first also only paturs the boy, so that would be shem echad, and we wouldn’t have a sfeik
sfeika (mentions that could probably still find a heter for this case).
1. '‫ תוס‬AZ 38B- Stam keilim are eb’y. How do we know this? S’s, safeik used
today or yesterday, and even today, maybe used for something that would be pogeim
your food.  Isn’t this shem echad b/c both heterim are altz nt”l?
2. ‫( ש"ך‬#12 in the klalim) explains that the yesod of Trumas haDeshen is in
effect here, b/c first heter of eb”y is more overarching b/c no matter what food they used
it will be mutar.
B. Pleisi (Kuntrus Beis HaSafeik) – Everyone may not hold from this klal that can’t be
mishem echad. And im kein, don’t need these fancy teirutzim. Says the '‫ רמ‬disagrees
with '‫’תוס‬s yesod that can’t be mishem echad. B/c '‫ תוס‬had to say this b/c wanted to know
why no s’s by the naara meurasa that was mizane b/c of pitui kitana ones hu. And '‫רמ‬
holds that this isn’t sfeik sfeika b/c he holds pitui kitana is not ones. Im kein, '‫רמ‬
wouldn’t have to hold that s’s has to be said mishtei shemos.
C. ‫שו"ת רא"ש‬: How can we drink beer, maybe its chadash (Chadash is assur even in
Chutz La’Aretz)?
Answers: S”S. Maybe from this year’s produce, maybe last year’s. And even if from
this year, maybe was hishrish before Pesach, in which case it also becomes mutar
immediately w/ hakravas ha’omer.
1. ‫ רמ"א‬YD 293:3 quotes this din.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
32
(a) ‫רע"א‬: This is shem echad!?
2. Chachmas Adam (Taaroves klal 63:17) - Takes Trumas HaDeshen a step
further. As long as one of the heterim is more overarching, even just in theory, also not
Shem Echad (would be matir even boy/girl). If the 1st safeik makes it as if there was no
shayla at all, and 2nd safeik says there’s a safeik, but we have a safeik lihakeil, that’s also
a good sfeik sfeika. Having a previous birth makes it as if there is no shayla at all, so that
works as S”S even though might have said it was Shem Echad. I.e. If the produce is from
last year, no shayla at all, so not Shem echad.
- But asks, what about '‫’תוס‬s safeik? Safeik ones/ratzon, and even if ratzon, maybe
kitana. Couldn’t we say that if she was a kitana then no shayla at all and this is really
overarching!? Answers that this is still called shem echad. Why? Since kitana can’t have
ratzon, ela kitana = ones, not being mechadeish anything new, not considered more
overarching (not totally clear to me).
D. Igros Moshe O”ch 4:62- Chidush by Bein HaShmashos (baby born 5 min after
shkia)
- Discusses shitos by Bein haShmashos:
1. ‫גר"א‬- After shkia, 13.5 (3/4 mil) min is Bh”s, then tzeis, which is layla
mamash.
2. ‫ר"ת‬- Shkia until 58.5 min after shkia is yom gamur, and 58.5 min until 72 min
(4 mil) is Bh”s, and 72 min, layla mamash.
**Most assume that the times are longer in America than ‫גר"א‬/‫ ר"ת‬b/c they were talking
about Eretz yisrael and Bavel, which is closer to the equator than NYC, so assume its
more. (42 min in US is just to make one uniform time for all year acc to ‫גר"א‬.)
R’ Moshe- 50 min in NYC is most you would ever have to wait, even acc to ‫ר"ת‬. B/c
Minchas Kohein says that the zman of ‫ ר"ת‬is a time at which if don’t see any stars can
assume they’re all out, and in NYC thought after 50 min, no more stars. But acc to R’
Moshe, the ‫ גר"א‬is only 9 min after shkia (b/c 50 min is 4 mil, then ¾ of a mil is 9 min).
And says can’t follow ‫גר"א‬, impossible.
- Continues this chidush: For first 9 min after shkia, have s’s is this vaday yom or bh’s.
And even if the ‫ גר"א‬is right, Bh’s itself might be Day. So for first 9 min after shkia can
assume its still that day. However, in terms of this causing a bris to come out on
Shabbos, doesn’t want to be meikil, but says those who want to be someich on this
l’inyan shabbos, ein limchos b’yadam. And R’ Moshe says this isn’t Shem echad b/c if
‫ ר"ת‬is right, first 9 min are vaday yom, bichlal no shayla, like the Chachmas Adam
R’ Simon: By Bris Mila, scary psak b/c if do bris mila early not bris mila at all. But ppl
use this as well by davening mincha up until 9 min after shkia and hefsek tahara as well.
(I have heard that R’ Tendler uses this to allow people to begin Shalosh Seudos up to 9
min after shkia as well)
E. ‫ שו"ת‬Radvaz 1,353 (282) - Shayla of the baby born safeik after 58.5 min but before
72. Says maybe s’s, maybe born before bh’s and even if born bh’s maybe bh’s is yom.
Says can’t use this S’S. B/c says can’t be mitzareif safeik of bh”s to a s’s. B/c Bh’s is
not just safeik yom safeik layla, ela there’s 3rd possibility that part of bhs is yom, part is
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
33
layla, so there are two tzdadim to negate the claim that this is yom. Im kein, not a safeik
that is raui to be used in a s’s. This would be against R’ Moshe.
‫ שיעור‬#14- 6.24.08/ 21 Sivan 5768
Kavua/ Basar Shenisaleim Min ha’ayin
I. Source of Din that Kol Kavua K’mechtze al mechtze Dami
A. Dvarim 19:11, 12- Premeditated murder. “V’arav lo V’kam Alav”.
B. Gm Kesubos 15A- What is the chidush of this phrase? Comes to include
premeditated murder, and excludes a case where he just throws rock into the crowd,
which he’s patur for, b/c wasn’t mechavein to kill any particular person.
- Gm wants to know what the case is: Generally, kavana follows the rov, as long as aren’t
rov Jews not chayav misa, pasuk comes to teach me that even if there are 9 Jews and 1
goy, still patur This is kavua = 50/50 (Goy is the miut, but since he’s sitting in the
crowd, don’t follow rov but consider it 50/50).
II. When do we apply Rov and when we apply Kavua?
A. Gm Kesubos 15A (top) - 9 stores sell Kosher meat, 1 sells treif meat. If find meat in
the street, can eat that meat b/c since rov of butcher stores are kosher, assume it’s from
the kosher store (kol d’parish meruba parish). However, if you went into the store
yourself, you bought it, and now you don’t remember if you bought it from the kosher or
non-kosher store, then we don’t say rov b/c leidas haSafeik goes back to the makom
haKvius (the store), consider this kavua, so now it’s 50/50.
.
1. ‫ רשב"א‬Thb 4:1, 14b- explains this yesod. But if you see him bring it out of the
store, that’s considered kavua b/c you first come into contact with the meat at its makom
kvius.
2. ‫ שטמ"ק‬Kesubos- Doesn’t matter that you know that originally it was taken
from the store, we only care about where you initially come into contact with it. (Shev
Shmaatza quotes this yesod as well).
B. Gm Pesachim 9b- have 10 piles, 9 matza, 1 chametz, and mouse came and took one
and don’t know which one he took. This is the same din as the 9 stores. If found it on
the street considered meruba parish, if found in the store, considered kavua
C. Gm Nazir 11B- Man makes shliach to be mikadesh a woman for him stam, this man
is now assur to all women in the world b/c might marry her relative b/c we have a
chazaka that shliach is ose shlichuso. (Shliach died and we can’t find out who he was
mikadesh).
1. '‫ תוס‬Assur- Explains that e/one else can follow rov that the woman you’re
being mikadesh is not the mikudeshes woman, just special knas on the mikadesh for
doing such a silly thing.
Q. E/ girl you’re going to find should be considered kavua?!
Answers: Only say kavua when the issur and heter are nikarim l’atzman. Meaning, in
kosher butcher store, nikar that this is kosher store. And in treif store, know it’s a treif
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
34
store. Just now once we’re outside, have to be dan on the piece. Here it’s never nikar
who the eishes ish is and who is the muteres girl. So whole din of kavua doesn’t apply.
['‫ תוס‬Gittin 64A Dh Assur (parallel gemara) - has a different explanation: Other
ppl getting married not a problem b/c she knows if she was niskadeshes already and
won’t accept kiddushin again. But this guy might be mikadesh a karov and neither of
them will know. ]
2. ‫ ר"ן‬Gittin (?)- Doesn’t hold from this yesod that kavua has to be nikar
bimkomo.
3. Sefer HaKrisus (Rabbeinu Shimshon MiKanon) 5:199- How can you plant
anywhere in Eretz Yisrael, shouldn’t you be worried that egla arufa was brought in that
area? Explains that even though might have said this is kavua, it’s not nikar bimkomo,
there’s no siman that egla arufa was brought here, so follow regular rov that this wasn’t
place that egla arufa was brought.
III. Kavua Limafreia
A. ‫ ר"ן‬Chullin 33B/ ‫ רשב"א‬Thb 29B: Have discussion about nikar bimkomo limafreia:
- All the butcher stores were kosher and find out there was non-kosher delivery that
morning in one of the stores, but you’re not sure which store you went to. Do Not
have to be worried that your piece is assur altz kavua b/c since there was no
shayla at time you bought it, don’t consider that kavua. Don’t say kavua
l’mafreia.
B. ‫ רא"ה‬Thb 4:2, 29b- Disagrees, the safeik was there at the time I took it, I just didn’t
know about it. Im kein, the safeik was there and should have regular din of mikomo.
C. ‫ שו"ע‬YD 110:51. ‫מחבר‬: If took basar from store, and then found out later that there were treifos
in that store, can eat the piece you have now (don’t say kavua limafreia, ‫ר"ן‬/‫)רשב"א‬, but
can’t buy from that store again, even chaticha she’eina reuya l’hiskabeid.
D. 110:71. ‫מחבר‬: S/thing that isn’t batel b/c of its chashivus (Chh”l, birya, dsyl”m, etc.)
and s/one ate it b’shogeig, or it falls out, now can be tole that he ate the assur piece and
the rest will become mutar (if its b’meizid won’t allow chotei niskar). But this is only to
eat two at a time, so that always have at least one kosher.
(a) ‫ ש"ך‬47- and then can say since this one is mutar, the other is mutar as
well). (R’ Simon never understood the svara behind this din.)
2. ‫רמ"א‬: And even eating them two at a time is only ok for more than one person,
and even two people shouldn’t eat them all at once.
IV. Other people bringing the meat out of the store (goy/katan)?
A. Gm Chullin 95a- What if goy took it from the store and your first connection is
outside the store, you didn’t see him leave? Since he’s not bound by mitzvos, so no
leidas haSafeik for him b’kviuso, so the leidas haSafeik begins in the street. So called
parish.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
35
1. Pri Chadash 110:16- What if a katan bought it at a store? Thinks this is not
the same case, ela this is called kavua b/c he is Yisrael and shayach for him to have a
leidas haSafeik.
V. Basar Shenisaleim min ha’Ayin
- Even if the meat is mutar b/c it’s parish, but shouldn’t it be a problem of basar
shenisaleim min ha’Ayin?
A. Gm Chullin 95A- Brings this halacha, and asks, what about the case of finding piece
of meat in the street with 9 kosher stores and 1 non-kosher? Gm says that’s case where it
was nimtza by a non-Jew. And at end of the gm, Levi says Basar shenisaleim min
haAyin is mutar.
1. '‫ רמ‬MA 8:12- Midoraysa, basar found in hands of goy is mutar if rov sellers are
kosher stores, but chachamim were gozer on all basar found whether in shuk or b’yad
Akum. And not only that, but if bought it and left it out in your house assur unless there
is a siman or there is tvias ayin (you know what it looks like), or know b’vadaus that it’s
the same piece.
B. ‫ שו"ע‬YD 63:1, 21. ‫מחבר‬: Quotes '‫רמ‬. At end of seif 2: Yesh omrim that basar shenisaleim min
ha’ayin is mutar if find it in place where you left it.
2. ‫רמ"א‬: And minhag is to be meikil like this last svara even if was b’yad akum in
a place where all the mochrim are Yisraelim.
*And even the machmirim will agree that it’s mutar as long as have a siman on it or tvias
ayin.
(Only get involved in these shayla if someone else is in your house and you left the meat
there. But if no one else is in the apartment, obviously nothing to worry about).
‫ שיעור‬#15- 6.25.08/ 22 Sivan 5768
Tvilas Keilim
 Only talking about Metal and Glass. Glass is lower level (dirabanan or lower). Also,
only when buy it from a non-Jew. But when using a goyishe kli (as long as no other
kashrus issues) no need to be tovel the kli.
I. Source of the Din
A. Bamidbar 31:22, 23- When defeated Midyan, had to do hagala and libun, but pasuk
also says place them in Mei Nida. Why the need to place them in Mei Nida?
1. ‫רש"י‬:
a) Putting Para Aduma water on them to be mitaheir from tuma.
b) Rabboseinu Darshu- have to do a tvilas keilim in a mikva, which is mei
nida b/c it’s mayim that a nida is toveles in.
*Ppl make mistake and think keilim mikva and Women’s mikva are halachically
different. They are exactly the same; just often look different for sanitary reasons. Both
just need 40 Seah of rain water. The only kind of mikva that is different is a men’s mikva
for takanas Ezra, which only needs 40 Seah of mayim sheuvim.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
36
-
R’ Soloveitchik thought that men shouldn’t go to a men’s mikva on erev YK b/c
may not just be for takanas Ezra, but b/c “lifnei Hashem Titharu” and no tahara in
40 Seah of mayim sheuvim.
B. Gm AZ 75B- Gm has this drasha. That’s where ‫ רש"י‬was quoting from. Gm then has
HA to even require tvila by scissors? Gm answers: The din is only by kli seuda.
C. Mordechai Chullin- Knife used for shechita is not considered kli seuda, so doesn’t
need tevila.
D. ‫ שו"ע‬YD 120:5- knife for shechita doesn’t need tevila ‫רמ"א‬: Yesh cholkin, so should
be tovel w/out a bracha.
E. Yerushalmi AZ 37B – Someone got silver from a goy, and R’ Yirmiyahu said have to
be tovel. Why? B/c it left the tuma of the nachri and is nichnas to kedushas Yisrael.
1. Issur V’heter 58:76- Have to be tovel them to bring them into the higher level
of kedusha, like a goy that is being migayeri through going to the mikva (R’ SchachterLike a geirus on the keilim).
II. Doraysa or Dirabanan?
A. ‫ רמב"ן‬Bamidbar 31:23- Asmachta b’alma, only dirabanan b/c pasuk is really talking
about para aduma water.
B. '‫ רמ‬MA 17:5- Thinks this din is not b/c of tuma, ela Midivrei Sofrim. If think that
means dirabanan, then the '‫ רמ‬agrees with the ‫רמב"ן‬.
C. ‫ רשב"א‬Thb, Heter V’issur Keilim 35A- Quotes case of gm there by mashkon. And
safeik there whether assume the goy is going to come back and get it, or does it belong to
me. '‫ רמ‬thinks that mashkon doesn’t need tevila, but says how can he say that? It’s
doraysa and should say safeik doraysa lichumra!?  He thinks this is din doraysa.
III. Is there issur hishtamshus w/out tevila or is it a mitzva to do but w/out it no lav?
2 kinds of mitzvas asei:
1) Matza: Should eat it, if don’t, mivatel mitzvas asei
2) Shechita: If want to eat meat, have to do it in a certain way.
A. Sefer Rokeach- uses lashon of Assur when don’t do tevila. But could just mean you
were mivatel the mitzva.
B. Raavya- case of mashkon is left as teiku, but not teiku of issura b/c no issur, and also
not mitzva like matza b/c no chiyuv per se b/c could just use one kli all the time and not
use these other keilim. Ela, it’s kind of mitzva that if want to use the kli have to do a
tevila.
**‫נ"מ‬: What about a kli that can’t be tovel w/out destroying it?
- If it’s an issur, then have no right to use it w/out tevila, but if it’s a mitzva, may have
room to say you are patur from the mitzva.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
37
C. Mordechai by tzitzis: Can’t wear begged that has 4 kanfos w/out tzitzis, but since it is
just a mitzva and I can’t be mikayeim the mitzva on shabbos (can’t make the knots), then
no issur of wearing 4 cornered garment on shabbos even w/out tzitzis.
IV. Tevilas Keilim Temeim b’shabbos and implications to Regular Tevilas Keilim
A. Gm Beitza 17B- Can’t be tovel keilim temeim on shabbos, and gm gives 4 reasons:
1. Might carry it
2. Might come to sechita (shirt, etc.)
3. May wait to do it until shabbos and ‫ יו"ט‬and not do it during the week and
might come to takala b/c leaving tamei keilim around the house.
4. K’misakein kli.
B. ‫ רי"ף‬Beitza 10A- quotes 2 reasons: 1) Sechita 2) Procrastination (shema yishe).
1. ‫רא"ש‬(a) Why is he talking about this at all? Only deals with Halacha
limaaseh and this is tuma/tahara?
(b) Why didn’t he bring the other two reasons?
 Explains that this could be nogeia limaaseh when it comes to doing regular tevilas
keilim bizman haze. ‫ רי"ף‬quotes only the reasons to assur which are shayach by tuma
(sechita and shema yishe), but not shayach to regular tevilas keilim. Im kein, see that
tevilas keilim bizman haze is mutar on Shabbos. ‫ רא"ש‬doesn’t like it, thinks should be
worried about Gzeira d’Raba (Carrying 4 amos in Rh”r) and even keilim chadashim are
assur to be tovel on shabbos.
C. ‫ שו"ע‬O”ch 323:7- Mutar to be tovel new keilim on shabbos, some assur, and yirei
shamayim will give it to a goy and then borrow it from him.
1. Beiur Halacha- quotes the whole discussion.
D. Avnei Nezer ties this discussion of Mitzva vs. Issur:
Quotes Shaagas Aryeh: Only have gzeira d’Raba by chiyuvim, like Lulav and Shofar,
which ppl will be worried about, so have this very serious gzeira which removes the
mitzva. But by something which has no pressure, no absolute requirement, then we have
no right to make a gzeira to knock out the mitzva. However, by keilim temeim, only
taking away a little, b/c can just do the tevila tomorrow, so can have gzeira d’Raba in that
case.
However, says the Avnei Nezer, when it comes to keilim chadashim, if would
apply gzeira d’Raba, ppl would make mistake and think that this is like tzitzis, and that
since can’t be mikayeim it on shabbos, could use the keilim on shabbos w/out tevila.
Therefore, in effect the gzeira d’raba in this case will end up taking away a big din from a
small chashash.
V. Electric Appliances
- Could assume that it’s a mitzva and don’t need tevila at all b/c only a mitzva and if it
would ruin the kli maybe no chiyuv.
- Another option is to be tovel it and let it dry. But this answer won’t always be niskabel.
So there are other options:
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
38
A. Gidulei Tahara: Maybe any kli that can only be used when its mechubar l’karka
doesn’t have the din of a kli that needs tevila. Talks about keilim that they used to attach
to the oven. Says that he thinks that l’gabei halachos that require status as a kli, has to be
used b’talush to be considered a kli.
B. Aruch HaShulchan 120:39,40- Discusses these things as well that used while
attached but are detachable and says ppl aren’t tovel them. And says but don’t we know
that talush and sof chibro still has din talush l’gabei many other halachos?! Says ‫ מ"מ‬not
considered kli seuda b/c it’s not moved from place to place, rather called a kli otzar.
Also says by tevilas keilim would follow rov tashmish. So even if once in a while use the
kli for an apple even though usually used to cut paper, no need for tevila.
C. R’ Abadie- Make a shutfus with an akum (but have to know how to make this
shutfus).
D. Igros Moshe YD 3:24- Toasters don’t require tevila b/c anything put in toaster is
already ready to be eaten and doesn’t really do anything to the food. (Big chidush).
VI. What about eating at someone’s house who isn’t tovel their keilim?
A. Gm AZ 75B- tevilas keilim is only when you buy it, but if sheulim, don’t need to be
tovel.
1. '‫ תוס‬Aval- quotes R’ Shmuel that if Jew borrows from a Yisrael who bought it
from a goy, then Jew still has chiyuv b/c was ba lidei chiyuv in hands of the original Jew.
 This is why this heter of eating at someone else’s house who isn’t tovel is shaky.
2. R’ Abadie thinks those who want to be matir are totally incorrect.
3. Igros Moshe YD 3:22 – In a place where they weren’t tovel the keilim, can use
the plate only when you’re eating something that doesn’t really need the plate, like
chicken b/c don’t really need the kli, so there is a heter to pick it up and eat with your
hands. But things that actually need the kli (i.e. Soup), for sure assur to use if weren’t
tovel.
VII. Restaurant Owners
A. ‫ טור‬120:8 quotes din of Jew borrowing from Jew who bought from goy, have chiyuv
tevila b/c was chiyuv tevila when Jew bought it.
1. Beis Yosef 120:8- If Jew bought knife from goy to cut paper and another Jew
borrows from him to use for seuda, no chiyuv tevila b/c there as no original chiyuv on the
Jew who bought it from the goy. This is from the Hagahos Ashri. And the Beis Yosef
adds that if a Jew bought from goy for business purposes and then Jew buys it from him
for seuda, no chiyuv tevila b/c was never chayav in tevila b’yad first Jew who bought
from the goy. And thinks this would be true based on the hagahos Ashri. But then says
maybe not b/c maybe that kula was only by shoel, but if I buy it myself then I should be
chayav.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
39
2. R’ Ovadya (Yichave Daas 4:44): A Restaurant is called Sechora, just for
business. Restaurant owner bought the keilim strictly for sechora and the people who
come into the restaurant are like shoalim at best, so no chiyuv tevila for them to eat with
those keilim. And says same thing by a juice store and buy glasses to give the people,
don’t need tevila.
3. 120:8 ‫רמ"א‬- The original buyer is for sure assur to use it for himself for seuda
even if he bought it for sechora even derech aray.  Im kein, the owner of the restaurant
himself wouldn’t be allowed to use the keilim in the restaurant.
VIII. Snapple Bottle
A. Maharil Diskin- if buy drink from a goy and in a bottle, can drink from the bottle b/c
no difference between emptying it out into a cup or emptying it out into your mouth, so
no chiyuv tevila b/c only have the chiyuv by kum v’asei.
R’ Abadie thinks that Maharil Diskin is correct meIkar haDin.
- Added that any time someone pours you into your glass that wasn’t toveled can now
drink it, based on this Maharil Diskin, only a problem kum v’asei.
B. R’ Schachter disagrees, feels that even to drink from the Snapple bottle would be a
problem.
C. Igros Moshe YD 2:40 – Can even use the bottle again. Quotes mishna Maaser Sheini
that when buy wine with maser sheini money and part of that is buying the barrel, but
that’s mutar. B/c the barrel is considered batel to the wine. Im kein, when buy the
Snapple, the bottle is batel to the drink that is inside, so not considered like you bought a
kli from a goy, and no chiyuv tevila, even if want to use them again. B/c once you want
to reuse it, its naaseh kli al yidei yisrael, and that doesn’t require tevila.
[Ohr Yerushalayim website: R’ Asher Balenson- R’ Shlomo Zalman was meikil to
allow ppl to use non-toveled keilim in s/one else’s house b/c the baal habayis wouldn’t
allow you to take his keilim to the mikva. Also heard that R’ Neuberger quoted in
Tevilas Keilim Shiurim that ‫ חזו"א‬thought the chiyuv was only on the baal habayis, but R’
Simon did not mention these kulas.]
‫ שיעור‬#16- 6.26.08/ 23 Sivan 5768
Yayin Nesech and Stam Yeinam
I. Source of the Issur of Yayin Nesech
A. Dvarim 32:38- just like you’ll eat the chelev of their zevach, you’ll also drink yayin
nischeihem.
B. Gm AZ 29B- Has limud from this pasuk that not only is their zevach assur, but even
their yayin is assur. Gm ?? also says they were gozer all of their wine mishum
bnoseihem (chasnus)
C. '‫ רמ‬MA 11:1- Says you get malkus for drinking yayin nesech.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
40
1. ‫ כ"מ‬not sure how '‫ רמ‬knows you get malkus and ends up saying learn it from
“pen tichros bris, etc.”
D. '‫ רמ‬MA 11:3- stam yeinam is wine that don’t know if it was nisnaseich l’AZ, assur
b’hanaa as well, but this is only miGzeiras Sofrim. And get makas Mardus.
II. When did this gzeira start?
A. Pirkei D’R’ Eliezer- started with Pinchas.
B. Daniel 1:8- Seems to imply that Daniel made this gzeira.
1. ‫ רמב"ן‬AZ 36B- what do I need special din, just say safeik doraysa l’Chumra?
Answers, b/c Ruba D’Ruba are not nisnaseich, so too far a chashash to be gozer altz
safeik Torah.
C. ‫ טור‬123:1- Yayin nesech is assur b’hanaa, and assured stam yeinam mishum
bnoseihem, but assured it even b’hanaa b/c it is connected to yayin nesech as well which
is assur b’hanaa, so assured this b’hanaa midirabanan. And assur even if they just touch
our wine. But Geonim held that nowadays stam yeinam is not assur b’hanaa b/c goyim
nowadays are not nisnaseich to AZ so much. So just issur shtia.
D. ‫ שו"ע‬123:11. ‫ מחבר‬Stam wine is assur b’hanaa and even if they just touch it.
2. ‫רמ"א‬: But nowadays not assur b’hanaa, whether they touch ours, and even just
to have theirs. And can be meikil, especially in case of hefsed meruba. However,
shouldn’t buy it lichatchila to sell it for business, and there are meikilim even on this, but
rauy lihachmir.
III. Yayin Mevushal
A. Gm AZ 30A- Case where there was a goy who touched wine and the amora didn’t
want to go near it, and they tell him don’t worry, no din of stam yeinam on yayin
mevushal.
1. ‫רא"ש‬- If issur is b/c bnoseihem, what does being mivashel it do? If its b/c
they won’t bring that on their mizbeach, so then should have same kula when water it
down? Answers that mevushal is not matzui, so weren’t gozer on davar she’eino
shchiach. Also quotes '‫ רמ‬that if mixed honey or se’or in it, also not stam yeinam b/c not
rauy for mizbeach, but says ein lismoch alav. And says ‫ רמב"ן‬agrees as well not to be
somech on this b/c if worried about their nisuch, they do bring sweet wines on their
mizbeach!
2. Chidushei ‫רע"א‬- says doesn’t understand the kasha of the ‫ רא"ש‬in terms of
yayin mazug b/c maybe the goyim do bring yayin mevushal on their mizbeach.
*Pashtus is that when you are mivashel the wine that is mikalkel it, and that’s why it
wouldn’t be brought on the mizbeach, so wasn’t bichlal the gzeira at all.
What is the ‫ שיעור‬bishul?
A. ‫ שו"ע‬123:3- If Yayin mevushal, no gzeira, and need resicha al gabei ha”eish.
1. ‫ ש"ך‬7- some of the wine has to evaporate.
(a) Igros Moshe YD 3:31- Yad soledes bo-160’s. And pasteurizing gets
that high.
(b) Tzelemer Rav: Boiling mamash- 212.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
41
*When they put mivushal on a bottle, that’s only when it’s the higher ‫שיעור‬.
(c) R’ Shlomo Zalman (Minchas Shlomo 25) - Also thinks me’ikar
hadin, pasteurized is ok. And says based on this, many are meikil. However, R’ Shlomo
Zalman thinks the heter of yayin mevushal doesn’t apply bizman haze b/c the idea is that
as a result of the bishul, the fumes come up and the taste of wine becomes inferior.
That’s when they did it in an open area and fumes would come out. But nowadays they
do it in these pipes which are closed and no loss of taam (‫ מאירי‬thought it was din in the
taam). So says, but am I making a new gzeira? And answers no, b/c there was nothing
about bishul per se, it was always about shinui taam, and this wasn’t the bishul they
spoke about. Therefore, holds that pasteurization is not bishul (not clear what he would
say by bishul that isn’t pasteurization, could depend on what the metzius of that bishul
is).
2. '‫ רמ‬Issurei Mizbeach 6:9- Says that psulei of yayin mizbeach, seems to have
separate psul of bishul and that of bishul that ruins the taam. But ‫צ"ע‬.
IV. How does the goy assur the wine? (Containers)
A. Gm AZ 60A- goy is carrying wine in a pouch. If it was full, won’t move around
inside, mutar, if it’s not so full, assur b/c moves around. When it comes to a barrel, if
full, assur b/c goy might have touched it, and not so full, mutar. And R’ Ashi says even
by the pouch always mutar b/c not derech nisuch b’kach.
B. '‫ רמ‬MA 12:4- a kli that is closed has no problem of goy carrying it even though the
wine will move around.
C. ‫רשב"א‬- it doesn’t have to be closed, as long as holding it in a way that he won’t touch
it, holding the top so no chashash negia, and not derech nisuch b’kach.
D. '‫ רמ‬12:1- In order for wine to be assur, the goy has to touch the wine itself, by putting
hand in the wine and move it around, but if puts his hand in and doesn’t move it around
and then takes it out, no problem. However, if he pours it, didn’t touch it but ba miKocho,
that’s a problem. But if just picked it up and wasn’t sichseich mutar.
‫ שו"ע‬123:18, 8-11- Fill in.
All kocho has to be b’kavana.
(Also, mistama once the goy pours wine from the bottle all the wine in the bottle is assur
b/c had kavana to move it around and all the wine in the bottle moves).
V. What’s the ‫ שיעור‬bitul by Yayin nesech and Stam yeinam?
-Yayin nesech is assur b’mashehu, but but stam yeinam is batel.
A. ‫ שו"ע‬YD 134:5- Only need 6:1 and then mutar even b’shtia b/c at this point taam is no
longer nirgash.
B. 114:41. ‫מחבר‬: Assur to buy many kinds of beverages from goyim
2. ‫רמ"א‬: b/c may not have 60 kineged the yayin.
(a) ‫ט"ז‬- Why is he mentioning 60? Didn’t we just say only need 6:1?
Explains that the ‫ רמ"א‬is quoting a shita that holds that need 60, but ‫ אה"נ‬if we hold like
‫ רמ"א‬only need 6.
(b) Nekudas HaKesef- ‫ רמ"א‬really meant 60 b/c ‫ שיעור‬of 6 is only by
water, but shaar mashkim won’t be mivatel the taam w/out 60.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
42
 Comes out with big ‫ נ"מ‬when it comes to Whiskey:
C. R’ Bleich (Contemporary halachic Problems Vol. 5)- Quotes R’ Teitz who found
out that Whiskey often has up to 2.5% sherry wine, and don’t have to put that on the
label.
1. Igros Moshe- wrote a teshuva to R’ Teitz that he thought it was ok b/c there
was 6:1, relied on the ‫ט"ז‬.
2. R’ Schachter- thought meikar hadin its fine, but brings reasons to be machmir.
(a) Quotes ‫שו"ת רשב"א‬- Could be that bitul is only when its derech mikre.
But if put things in as ingredients, part of the recipe but so little that would be bitul,
maybe don’t have din bitul on such a thing.
VI. Issur of Drinking in the Beis Nachri
A. Chachmas Adam- brings gzeira not to drink beer in goy’s house. Matirs when
staying at a non-Jewish inn to drink there, and matirs drinking coffee. But at then end
says that anyone who has reiach Torah should distance himself from going to their houses
to drink anything.
B. R’ Schachter thinks this applies even to commercial settings (hotel lounge,
[Starbuck’s(?)]).
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.