בס"ד
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. Chachamim-
not 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
(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
> 67:1 שו"ע- Only dam that’s assur is if it is yotzei lichutz or mimakom limakom
(against רא"ש,)רשב"א. Can eat raw meat without melicha.
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.
* 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).
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. 69:1 שו"ע-
1. מחבר: Have to do hadacha before the melicha (and if butcher did it, eino tzarich
lihadicho babayis).
(a) 1 ש"ך- 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) 3 ש"ך- 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. 69:2 שו"ע-
1. 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) 14 ש"ך- 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. 69:1 רע"א- What if the meat is very cold, do you have to use hot
water? Also depends on this machlokes.
V. Can you do hadacha with fruit juice (also taluy on whether hold like ר"ןor smak)?
A. – רמ"א שו"תIn 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.
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
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.
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.
* 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.
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.
#4 שיעור-
Inyanei Melicha II- More Yesodos B’inyanei Melicha
* 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.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
9
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 ( רא"ש.( ראב"דasks: 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.
B. מחבר-69:16 שו"ע: If used kli she’eino menukav, can’t use it for roseiach, like רא"ש.
17-
ש"ך- lichatchila even by shaar keilim, and bidieved heter extends even to kli cheres.
Fill in שו"ע.
* 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].
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. ( רא"ש שו"תklal 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.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
11
* 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)
* 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.
B. מחבר-69:8 שו"ע: 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. 69:10 שו"ע-
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
14
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. רמ"א-69:9 שו"ע: quotes this din that need 60 even by kli sheini.
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. 8:38 רא"ש- adds that in this case the meat had not had hadacha basraysa done to it.
- 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. 69:47 ט"ז- 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.
* 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.
C. 69:20 טור- 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.
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?
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.
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.
B. 2 ר"ןA 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
B. 76:4 שו"ע-
1. 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.
B. 76:6 שו"ע- Quotes this din that shouldn’t put kli underneath until its already nitzle to
the amount that ppl can eat it.
1. 25 ש"ך- 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.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
19
1. 39 רי"ףB- 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.
B. 73:1 שו"ע-
1. 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.
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).
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’ Shimon-
time 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. 23:2 שו"ע-
1. מחבר שיעורshehiya 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.
(c) 3:4 'רמ- 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. 23:5 שו"ע-
(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.
B. 24:1 שו"ע-
1. 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).
[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. 2:5 רא"ש- 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. 24:7-11 שו"ע:
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. 8 רמ"א: Be careful to remove thick wool on sheep so that don’t come lidei
chalada.
3. 10 רמ"א: 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. 3:13 'רמ- 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. 24:12-14 שו"ע
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. רמ"א-24:15 שו"ע: 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
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.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
24
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.
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. 2:11 מחבר- Yisrael and Pasul shechting together, shechita is pasul.
1. 30 ש"ך- 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
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.
#12 שיעור
Ben Pakua
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.
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.
* 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) רמ- 'כ"מis 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.
VI. E/one agrees that the dam of ben pakua is assur. Why?
A. 4:6 רא"ש- 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.)
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
30
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.
[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. 110 ש"ך- 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. #12) ש"ךin 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. רא"ש שו"ת: 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
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 ר"ת/ גר"אb/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.
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.
C. שו"עYD 110:5-
1. 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, רשב"א/)ר"ן, but
can’t buy from that store again, even chaticha she’eina reuya l’hiskabeid.
D. 110:7-
1. 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) 47 ש"ך- 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.
(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).
*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
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’ Schachter-
Like a geirus on the keilim).
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.
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.
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.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
39
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.
* 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.
C. 123:1 טור- 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. 123:1 שו"ע-
1. 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.
* 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.
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.
42
* These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are the notes I took during the shiurim.