ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
in memory of Reb David ben Aharon Ha'Levi Rosenwald z"l
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) With reference to our Mishnah, we ask why a Gid ha'Nasheh that is cooked together with the thigh is not Bateil be'Rov - assuming that it is no longer recognizable (since something that is recognizable is not Bateil).
(b) We answer that it cannot become Bateil - because it is a Beryah (as we already explained), which does not become Bateil (see also Tosfos DH 'Beryah Sha'ani).
(c) Again with reference to our Mishnah, we ask why a piece of Neveilah or of a Tamei fish is not Bateil in other pieces, though this is not a Kashya according to those who hold 'Kol she'Darko Limanos Shaninu' - i.e. anything that is sometimes sold by numbers (such as large pieces of meat (which a host will purchase to serve his guests), is not Bateil.
(d) The Kashya remains however, according to those who hold 'es she'Darko Limanos Shaninu' - i.e. only those things that are sold exclusively by numbers (which is not the cases by large pieces of meat) are not Bateil.
(a) The large piece of meat or fish in our Mishnah is not Bateil - because it is a 'Chatichah ha'Re'uyah Lehiskabed Lifnei ha'Orchim' (a piece which one would serve an important guest) which does not become Bateil.
(b) The Tana finds it necessary to teach us that both a Gid ha'Nasheh (Beryah) and a large piece of meat or fish (Chatichah ha'Re'uyah Lehaskabeid ... ) are not Bateil - because each S'vara is independent, and we would not be able to learn one from the other.
(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah Darshened that a piece of Neveilah or of a Tamei fish which is cooked together with pieces of Kasher meat, will only render them Asur - if it adds taste to all the ingredients of the pot (to the gravy and the sediment, as well as to the pieces).
(b) Rav appointed an Amora to Darshen that a piece of Kasher meat that is cooked next to a piece of Neveilah which gives it taste - becomes Neveilah, and renders Asur any other pieces that are in the same pot or that are added later.
(c) Initially, we interpret his reason 'Mipnei she'Hein Miynah' - as being based on the principle 'Miyn be'Miyno Lo Bateil' (like Rebbi Yehudah), even if there is Shishim in the pot against the two pieces.
(d) In which case, Rav Safra asked Abaye - why Rav needed to mention that the piece of Neveilah gave taste to the piece of Kasher meat with which it was first cooked?
(a) In answer to Rav Safra's Kashya, Abaye establishes Rav 'be'she'Kadam ve'Silko', which means - that he removed the piece of Neveilah together with the gravy, before adding the other pieces. Consequently, unless the first piece of Kasher meat became 'Neveilah', there would be nothing to render the other pieces Asur.
(b) And Rav would then be coming to teach us - the principle of 'Chatichah Na'asis Neveilah'.
(a) Rava establishes Rav even where he did not remove the piece of Neveilah first. And the reason that the pieces in the pot do not become Asur if the piece of Neveilah does not give taste to the first piece, is due to the principle 'Miyn u'Miyno ve'Davar Acher, Saleik es Miyno ke'Mi she'Eino, ve'she'Ein Miyno Rabah alav u'Mevatlo' (In a case of Miyno, Miyno and Eino Miyno, one ignores the second Miyno, thereby allowing the Eino Miyno to be Mevatel the initial Miyno).
(b) With regard to our case, this means - that if the first piece of Shechutah did not become Neveilah, we would put the Neveilah aside, and measure the other contents of the pot (the gravy and the sediment which are considered Ein Miyno) against the piece of Shechutah. If they contain Shishim, they will all be permitted.
(c) But now that Rav has taught us Chatichah Na'asis Neveilah - Bitul cannot apply unless the pot contains sufficient gravy and sediment to be Mevateil both pieces.
(a) According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh does not apply to a Beheimah Teme'ah - irrespective of whether 'Yesh' or 'Ein be'Gidin be'Nosen Ta'am'.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah holds that it does, and he proves it from the fact - that the Torah inserts it in Vayishlach, when Ya'akov and his sons were still B'nei No'ach (since they only became B'nei Yisrael at Har Sinai), and had not yet been commanded the Isur of Beheimah Teme'ah.
(c) The Tana Kama maintains however - that the Mitzvah of Gid ha'Nasheh was given at Har Sinai, and Moshe only inserted it here because the incident of Ya'akov is the source of the Isur.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Emor "Neveilah u'Tereifah Lo Yochal le'Tam'ah bah" - that someone who eats a Nivlas Of Tahor, becomes Tamei, as do the clothes that he is wearing.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa confines this ruling to the Neveilah of a Tahor bird. He precludes that of a Tamei bird from the same Pasuk - which implies that it only pertains exclusively to where only the Neveilah is Asur, but not to where the bird is Asur even when it is Shechted.
(c) This teaches us the principle of - 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur' ...
(d) ... a Kashya on (the same) Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, who includes a Beheimah Teme'ah in the Din of Gid ha'Nasheh, implying that the Isur Gid takes effect on that of Beheimah Teme'ah (in which case, he holds 'Isur Chal al Isur).
(a) So we suggest that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Ein be'Gidin be'Nosen Ta'am' - in which case, he will only be Chayav for Gid ha'Nasheh, and not Beheimah Teme'ah (eliminating the Kashya from 'Ein Isur Chal al Isur').
(b) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah sentences someone who eats the Gid ha'Nasheh of a Beheimah Teme'ah to two sets of Malkos - Rebbi Shimon exempts him from even one.
(c) This Beraisa proves - that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Yesh be'Gidin be'Nosen Ta'am', refuting our previous suggestion to answer the Kashya on Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah.
(d) So we conclude that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Yesh be'Gidin be'Nosen Ta'am', but he also holds that the Isur extends to a Sh'lil - where the Isur of Beheimah Teme'ah and that of Gid ha'Nasheh will take effect simultaneously, (in which case 'Isur Chal al Isur' will not apply).
(a) We reconcile the previous statement of Rebbi Yehudah with the Mishnah above, where Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Eino Noheg bi'Shelil' - by confining the latter to the Sh'lil of a Beheimah Tehorah, which is permitted via its mother's Shechitah, whereas his current ruling refers to the Sh'lil of a Beheimah Teme'ah.
(b) The problem with the Mishnah in Nazir, which lists among the things that a Nazir must shave for (should he form an Ohel over them) a Meis and a k'Zayis from a Meis is - that having mentioned a k'Zayis from a Meis, why does the Tana need to add a complte Meis?
(c) Rebbi Yochanan resolves the problem by establishing 'Meis' as a stillborn baby, whose body is formed, but not his Gidin.
(d) This refutes the current answer (that our Mishnah is speaking where the Isur Beheimah Teme'ah and that of Gid take effect simultaneously) - since we now see that the limbs of a person (and presumably of an animal, too) are formed before his Gidin, in which case, the Isur of Beheimah inevitably precedes that of Gid ha'Nasheh.
(a) So we answer that the Isur Gid nevertheless takes effect on that of Beheimah Teme'ah, because it is Chamur, according to Rebbi Yehudah - in that it already applied to the B'nei Yisrael before Matan Torah, when they were still B'nei No'ach.
(b) And we support this answer from Rebbi Yehudah's own words in our Mishnah - 'va'ha'Lo mi'B'nei Ya'akov Ne'esar Gid ha'Nasheh, va'Adayin Beheimah Teme'ah Muteres'.