12TH CYCLE DEDICATIONS:
 
PESACHIM 43 (1 Adar) - dedicated in memory of Mordecai (Marcus) ben Elimelech Shmuel Kornfeld, who perished in the Holocaust along with most of his family. His Yahrzeit is observed on 1 Adar. May his death and the deaths of the other Kedoshim of the Holocaust atone for the sins of Klal Yisrael like Korbanos.

43b----------------------------------------43b

1) "HETER MITZTAREF L'ISUR"
QUESTION: The Gemara introduces the concept of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur." We know that one transgresses the Torah's prohibition against eating a forbidden item only when he eats a certain minimum amount of that item. "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" means that a permissible item can join with the forbidden item to make that minimum size.
RASHI (DH Ein Heter) explains the concept of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" based on the Gemara later (44b). If a Nazir dips his bread (which is permitted to him) into wine (which is forbidden to him) and eats it, and together the bread and the wine have a total volume of a k'Zayis, he is liable.
However, there is another principle called "Ta'am k'Ikar" -- when a forbidden item becomes absorbed in a permissible item, the entire mixture becomes forbidden if the taste of the Isur is perceptible. When a Nazir dips bread into wine, the bread should become forbidden because of "Ta'am k'Ikar," since the taste of the forbidden wine is spread throughout the bread. What, then, is the function of the concept of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur"? The permissible item would become forbidden even without the concept of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur." It would become forbidden because of "Ta'am k'Ikar."
It cannot be that "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" is necessary in a case in which the wine absorbed in the bread is not detectable in the bread, because in such a case the wine would be Batel (nullified) completely and "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" would not apply. This is evident from the Gemara earlier (30a), as the RAMBAN (in Milchamos) points out. The Gemara states that when even a tiny amount of Chametz is mixed with another food item ("Ta'aruvos Chametz"), the mixture is forbidden mid'Rabanan. If "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" applies even when the forbidden item is not detectable in the mixture, then it should make the mixture forbidden mid'Oraisa; the permissible food in the mixture should combine with the fractional Shi'ur of Chametz to make a k'Zayis. It must be that, mid'Oraisa, the small amount of Chametz in the mixture is Batel, and when an Isur is Batel, the concept of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" does not apply. (If the Isur is not Batel, and the taste of the Isur is perceptible in the mixture, then the mixture is forbidden because of "Ta'am k'Ikar," as noted above.) Why, then, is there ever a need for the concept of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur"?
ANSWERS:
(a) RASHI (44b, DH mi'Pas) understands that when a forbidden object imparts its taste to a permitted object, the taste of the Isur makes the entire permissible item in which it is absorbed become an object of Isur. (This is known as "Chatichah Na'asah Neveilah" -- the forbidden taste of Neveilah in a permitted piece of meat makes the entire piece of meat forbidden as if it were a piece of Neveilah. According to Rashi, "Chatichah Na'asah Neveilah" is mid'Oraisa and is part of the concept of "Ta'am k'Ikar." See Chulin 100a.)
According to this understanding, Rashi explains that the concept of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" is necessary in a case in which part of the Heter did not absorb the taste of the Isur. According to the rule of "Ta'am k'Ikar," that part of the Heter is not included in the Shi'ur of the Isur. According to the rule of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur," however, that part of Heter does count towards the Shi'ur, and it is added to the Heter which did absorb the taste of the Isur. Therefore, when a Nazir dipped his bread into wine, the part of the bread that did not absorb the wine combines with the part of the bread that did absorb the wine. In such a case, "Ta'am k'Ikar" does not apply to the entire k'Zayis, because the taste is not present throughout all of the k'Zayis, but only in less than a k'Zayis of the bread. The reason of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" does apply.
For this reason, Rashi (43b, DH Ein Heter) writes that even if one takes two separate objects (one of Isur and one of Heter) and places them into his mouth at the same time, he is liable because of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur."
(b) The RAMBAN (in Milchamos) writes that "Ta'am k'Ikar" applies even to a mixture in which the Isur is not "b'Ein" -- where there are no physical pieces of Isur evident in the mixture, but only the taste of the Isur is absorbed into the food, such as the taste that is absorbed when grapes are soaked in water. If the taste of Isur in the Heter is equivalent to the taste conveyed by a k'Zayis of Isur that is ground into the Heter, then "Ta'am k'Ikar" applies (but not "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur"). However, one is punished with Malkus only if he eats a k'Zayis of Ta'am within Kedei Achilas Peras (the time that it takes to eat half a loaf of bread). That is the function of "Ta'am k'Ikar."
In contrast, the principle of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" applies when the Isur itself is visibly absorbed in the Heter (such as wine absorbed in a piece of bread). The law of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" teaches that in such a case, even if there is not enough of the Isur in the Heter for one to eat a k'Zayis of Isur within Kedei Achilas Peras, one will still be liable. This also appears to be the opinion of TOSFOS (DH k'Man) and most of the Rishonim, who argue with Rashi and maintain that "Chatichah Na'asah Neveilah" is not an inherent part of the principle of "Ta'am k'Ikar."
2) THE VERSE THAT TEACHES "HETER MITZTAREF L'ISUR"
QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the principle of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" (see previous Insight). RASHI (DH Ein Heter) refers to the Gemara later (44b) that demonstrates the application of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" in the case of a Nazir who dips his bread (which is permitted to him) into wine (which is forbidden to him) and eats it. If the bread and wine together have a total volume of a k'Zayis, the Nazir is liable. The Nazir's liability in that case is derived from a verse (Bamidbar 6:3).
Rashi asserts that the verse must be teaching the principle of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur," and that it cannot be teaching merely that a k'Zayis of an Isur absorbed within an item of Heter is forbidden, because this is obvious and no verse is necessary to teach it. (Rashi seems to follow this approach later as well with regard to Chametz on Pesach; see Insights to Pesachim 44:1.)
Rashi means that the principle of "Ta'am k'Ikar" is already derived from a different verse (as the Gemara explains on 44b). Accordingly, the verse that says that a Nazir is liable when he eats bread soaked in wine cannot be teaching the principle of "Ta'am k'Ikar," because another verse already teaches that principle. Rather, the verse regarding Nazir must be teaching the principle of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur."
There is another way to understand the words of Rashi (see NACHALAS DAVID, based on Rashi to 44b, DH Ta'am, and Rashi here, DH Ein Heter). Rashi is not addressing the principle of "Ta'am k'Ikar" at all. Rather, he means that it is obvious on logical grounds that one is liable if he eats a k'Zayis of Isur, even when the entire k'Zayis of Isur is absorbed in another food, as long as he eats it within Kedei Achilas Peras. The verse must be teaching that even when less than a k'Zayis of Isur is absorbed in a permitted food, the permitted food combines with the Isur to make a Shi'ur of a k'Zayis because of "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur."
However, if logic dictates that a mixture that contains a k'Zayis of Isur is forbidden and no verse is necessary, then why does the Gemara earlier say with regard to the Isur of "Bal Taktiru" that a verse is needed to teach that a mixture that contains Isur is forbidden? The Gemara says that one verse is necessary to teach that "Heter Mitztaref l'Isur" in the case of "Bal Taktiru," and a second verse is necessary to teach that when leavened flour (which may not be used in the Minchah offering) is mixed with the unleavened flour of the Minchah offering, it may not be offered upon the Mizbe'ach. Why is the second verse needed to teach that a mixture is forbidden, if, as Rashi says, it is obvious that the mixture is forbidden when a k'Zayis of Isur is mixed with Heter, and no verse is necessary?
ANSWER: The PNEI YEHOSHUA and NACHALAS DAVID explain that it is obvious that a mixture that contains an Isur is forbidden only when the Isur involves something that is forbidden to be eaten. Since one tastes the k'Zayis of Isur in the mixture, the mixture is forbidden, and it does not matter that there is permitted food in the mixture.
The Isur against offering a Minchah that contains Chametz is different. That Isur does not involve eating or tasting an Isur, but rather, offering an Isur upon the Mizbe'ach. In such a case, the principle of "Ta'am k'Ikar" does not apply, and "k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas Peras" is not relevant, because the mixture is not being eaten, but offered on the Mizbe'ach. We might have thought that when the Torah forbids Chametz from being offered as a Minchah offering, it forbids only an offering made entirely of leavened flour. Once the leavened flour is mixed with a permitted form of flour, it is no longer forbidden by the Torah, because the particles of Chametz are not being offered on the Mizbe'ach in one, exclusive act. Therefore, a verse is needed to teach that even a mixture with leavened flour is forbidden to be offered on the Mizbe'ach.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF