QUESTION: The Gemara teaches that a forbidden egg does not impart any taste into the food with which it is cooked. Only when a chick was found in the egg can the egg prohibit the contents of the pot (by imparting the taste of the forbidden chick).

Are there any other situations in which a prohibited egg imparts its taste to the mixture?

ANSWER: TOSFOS (98a, DH b'Veitzas) explains that an egg with a bloodspot also prohibits the mixture (because of the blood). In addition, forbidden eggs that were peeled before they were cooked with the mixture impart their taste to the food. Only eggs in their shells do not give taste to the mixture.

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses a case in which a k'Zayis of forbidden fat fell into a "Dikula." RASHI (DH b'Dikula) explains that a "Dikula" is a pot in which meat is cooked. (See TOSFOS DH d'Nafal, and Bava Basra 74a.)

The Gemara relates that Rav Ashi first wanted to include the Heter absorbed in the walls of the pot when calculating whether there was sixty times more Heter than Isur. The students of Rav Ashi pointed out to him that the pot not only absorbed Heter, but it also absorbed some of the forbidden fat. Accordingly, as Rashi (DH d'Isura) points out, the calculation of sixty times more Heter must be made only according to the Heter and Isur that can be seen.

Rashi's translation of "Dikula" as a pot differs from the meaning of "Dikula" in all other places in the Gemara, where it refers to a basket. It is called "Dikula" because it is made out of branches of a "Dekel" (palm tree). Why does Rashi here not explain that the word "Dikula" means a basket? Perhaps the Gemara refers to a piece of Chelev that fell not into a pot, but into a basket containing salted meat. (See RASHBA, RAN (35a of the pages of the Rif), and TOSFOS to 100a, DH b'she'Kadam.)

ANSWER: The RASHBA explains that Rashi translates "Dikula" as a pot because if the Chelev had fell into a basket containing salted meat, the other pieces of meat in the basket could not be combined to make a volume of sixty times more meat than Chelev. The Halachah states that when a dry piece of Isur falls onto a dry piece of Heter, the taste of the Isur cannot pass through the Heter to another piece of Heter, even when the pieces are hot and touching each other. Only when there is gravy or some other liquid does the taste of the Isur enter multiple pieces of Heter in the container. (This principle is mentioned by TOSFOS later (108a, DH Tipas), who states that milk spreads throughout the entire piece of meat onto which it fell, but it does not spread out to adjacent pieces of meat unless one covers or stirs the contents of the pot.) Therefore, Rashi does not explain that "Dikula" is a basket, because a basket cannot hold gravy. It must be that the Chelev fell into a pot that contained meat and gravy, and thus the Chelev was able to pass to all of the contents of the pot.

The Rashba adds that if the Chelev falls into a basket of food and we do not know onto which piece of food it fell, Rashi would rule that all of the pieces are forbidden, even if there are a thousand pieces in the basket. This is because Rashi later (109a, DH v'Su) writes that the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that a mixture of Min b'Mino is not Batel even when there is only a small amount of Isur. Since the two foods are of the same type, the entire mixture is forbidden. Therefore, Rashi explains here that Rav Ashi is discussing a case in which Chelev fell into a pot, and not into a basket. Since there is gravy in the pot, even Rebbi Yehudah would agree that the mixture is permitted (if there is sixty times more Heter than Isur), because of the principle that when Isur is mixed with Heter of the same type, and a permitted food of a different type (Eino Mino) is also present, the Heter that is the same type of food is considered to have been removed, and the different type of Heter can annul the Isur.

However, even though "Dikula" elsewhere means a basket, Tosfos (98a, DH d'Nafal) defends Rashi's translation here as a pot used for cooking. It could be that such a pot is called a Dikula because of the boiling liquids that it contains, which are called "Dikuli." Tosfos cites the Gemara in Pesachim (end of 39b) that states that on Pesach one should not place two grains of wheat together into boiling hot water, because one grain might enter a crack in the other and the "Dikula" (pillar) of boiling water will not enter that grain from all four sides, and the wheat will become Chametz. Since "Dikula" also means boiling water, it may also refer to a pot used for boiling, as Rashi states. (D. BLOOM)

QUESTION: Rebbi Chelbo rules that in order for a forbidden egg to be annulled (Batel) in a mixture, the amount of permitted food must be sixty-one times more than the size of the forbidden egg.

Most other Isurim are Batel b'Shishim; they are annulled when the amount of permitted food is sixty times more than the Isur (97b). Why are eggs different?

(a) The ROSH explains that there are different sizes of eggs. In order to be certain that there is sixty times more Heter than Isur, the Rabanan decreed that there must be sixty-one eggs of Heter. By requiring sixty-one eggs of Heter, we may be assured that there is sixty times more Heter than Isur, even if some of the eggs of Heter are smaller than the egg of Isur.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 15:19) explains that "since an egg is an independent entity (Biryah Bifnei Atzmah), the Rabanan made it distinguishable by requiring a larger amount to annul the Isur."

The difference between these two explanations is in a case in which the forbidden egg became mixed with another type of food, and not with other eggs. According to the Rosh, in such a case it is not necessary to have sixty-one times more Heter than Isur, because we are not measuring eggs of Heter. According to the Rambam, the stringency to have sixty-one times more Heter than Isur applies even when the forbidden egg became mixed with another type of food. (Z. Wainstein)

OPINIONS: The Gemara derives the Halachah that a forbidden food is Batel b'Shishim from the law of the Zero'a Beshelah of a Nazir (Bamidbar 6:18). Even though the Zero'a -- which is Kodshim and may not be eaten by a non-Kohen -- is cooked with the rest of the animal, it does not prohibit the rest of the animal from being eaten by a non-Kohen, because the Zero'a is annulled by the rest of the animal, which is sixty times the size of the Zero'a.

The Gemara asks that we cannot learn the law of Bitul b'Shishim for other Isurim from the law of Bitul b'Shishim of Zero'a, because the Beraisa says with regard to the Zero'a, "This is the case of something forbidden becoming permitted," implying that only the Isur of Zero'a, and no other Isur, becomes permitted.

Rava answers that the Beraisa is teaching that the taste of the Zero'a absorbed in the ram becomes Batel, which is in contrast to all other cases of Kodshim, where the principle of "Ta'am k'Ikar" teaches that the taste is like the actual Isur itself and is not Batel. The principle of "Ta'am k'Ikar" teaches that when the taste of a forbidden food enters a permitted food, it is considered as though the food item itself has entered the permitted food.

Rava's answer implies that the principle of "Ta'am k'Ikar" is mid'Oraisa with regard to all Kodshim other than the Zero'a of a Nazir. Does this principle apply to Isurim involving ordinary types of food (Chulin) as well?

(a) RASHI (DH l'Ta'am k'Ikar) explains that, mid'Oraisa, "Ta'am k'Ikar" applies only to Kodshim. Mid'Rabanan, it applies to other Isurim as well. Rashi points out that in Avodah Zarah (67a) Rebbi Yochanan is also of the opinion that "Ta'am k'Ikar" does not apply to Chulin. (This is apparent from his statement there that consumption of any Isur in which the taste of the Isur remains but the physical presence of the Isur is not apparent does not warrant Malkus.) Although the Gemara in Pesachim (44a) seems to derive from verses that "Ta'am k'Ikar" is a Torah principle that applies to all prohibitions, Rashi learns that those sources are Asmachtos and not actual Torah laws. This is also the view of the RAMBAN here and the RITVA in Avodah Zarah (67a).

The ROSH here (7:31) quotes RABEINU TAM who refutes the argument of Rashi. He asks that in Nazir (37a), Rebbi Yochanan agrees with the view of Rebbi Akiva that "Ta'am k'Ikar" does apply to other Isurim. He points out that the Gemara there asks a question which implies that "Ta'am k'Ikar" is a Torah principle and not merely mid'Rabanan based on an Asmachta. (See Ritva in Avodah Zarah who refutes the proofs of Rabeinu Tam.)

(b) TOSFOS (DH Rava) and other Rishonim disagree with Rashi. Tosfos maintains that "Ta'am k'Ikar" applies to Kodshim and to Chulin, mid'Oraisa. Rava mentions Kodshim only because that is what the Gemara is discussing (the Korban of a Nazir).

The SHACH (YD 98:6) writes that in a mixture of different types of foods (Min b'she'Eino Mino), the principle of "Ta'am k'Ikar" applies mid'Oraisa. Consequently, when there is a doubt about whether the amount of Heter is sixty times more than the amount of Isur, the mixture is prohibited ("Safek d'Oraisa l'Chumra"). In a mixture of like foods (Min b'Mino), sixty times more Heter than Isur is required only mid'Rabanan, because mid'Oraisa the mixture is permitted when there is a Rov (majority) of Heter. Hence, when there is a doubt about whether the Heter is sixty times more than the Isur, the doubt is a Safek d'Rabanan and we may rely on Rov and permit the mixture. (Z. Wainstein)

QUESTION: The Gemara derives the Halachah that a forbidden food is Batel b'Shishim from the law of the Zero'a Beshelah of a Nazir (Bamidbar 6:18). Even though the Zero'a -- which is Kodshim and may not be eaten by a non-Kohen -- is cooked with the rest of the animal, it does not prohibit the rest of the animal from being eaten by a non-Kohen, because the Zero'a is annulled by the rest of the animal, which is sixty times the size of the Zero'a.

The Gemara asks that we cannot learn the law of Bitul b'Shishim for other Isurim from the law of Bitul b'Shishim of Zero'a, because the Beraisa says with regard to the Zero'a, "This is the case of something forbidden becoming permitted," implying that only the Isur of Zero'a, and no other Isur, becomes permitted.

Rava answers that the Beraisa is teaching that the taste of the Zero'a absorbed in the ram becomes Batel, which is in contrast to all other cases of Kodshim, where the principle of "Ta'am k'Ikar" teaches that the taste is like the actual Isur itself and is not Batel. The principle of "Ta'am k'Ikar" teaches that when the taste of a forbidden food enters a permitted food, it is considered as though the food item itself has entered the permitted food.

RASHI (DH l'Ta'am k'Ikar) emphasizes that according to Rava, the principle of "Ta'am k'Ikar" that applies to Kodshim (except for Zero'a Beshelah) does not apply to Chulin.

This is difficult to understand. The Gemara itself states that we learn the law of Bitul b'Shishim from Zero'a Beshelah to all other Isurim, including an Isur that became mixed with Chulin. If "Ta'am k'Ikar" does not apply to Chulin, then why do we need a law of Bitul b'Shishim?

(a) TOSFOS (DH Rava) explains that when Rashi says that "Ta'am k'Ikar" does not apply to Chulin, he is not referring to the "strong taste" ("Ta'am Gamur") of an Isur in a mixture of Chulin. Such a taste indeed is considered like the Isur itself and prohibits the mixture, and only sixty times of Heter will permit the mixture. Rather, Rashi means a "slight taste" ("Ta'am Kol Dehu") of Isur. Such a slight taste prohibits the food in a mixture of Kodshim, but not in a mixture of Chulin.

(b) We may suggest a more straightforward solution. Rashi's explanation of the Gemara here is based on his own opinion expressed earlier (98a, DH b'Shishim, and DH u'Sheneihem; see also Rashi to 99a, DH Ein Bahen). Rashi explains that the requirement of sixty (or one hundred) times more Heter than Isur is not related at all to taste. Rashi writes that even in a mixture in which the taste of the Isur cannot be discerned, it still is necessary to have sixty times more of Heter in order to annul the Isur. Conversely, when the taste of the Isur is discernible, even sixty times more Heter will not annul the Isur and the mixture remains prohibited.

Accordingly, Rashi here is saying that Kodshim are prohibited because of the taste of Isur that is mixed with them, even when the amount of Heter is much more than sixty times the amount of Isur. A mixture of Isur in Chulin, in contrast, is judged with an entirely different law. Such a mixture is prohibited only when the Heter is less than sixty times the Isur, regardless of the taste of the mixture. (Rashi agrees that mid'Rabanan a mixture of Chulin is prohibited as long as the taste of Isur can be discerned in it; see Rashi to 98a, ibid.) (M. KORNFELD)