1) A MIXTURE OF "PIGUL," "NOSAR," AND "TAMEI"
OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes Reish Lakish who states that if one eats a dish containing a mixture of Pigul and Nosar (and Tamei, according to the text of our Gemara and some Rishonim), he is not punished with Malkus for transgressing these two (or three) prohibitions, although the mixture certainly is forbidden. Reish Lakish presumably is discussing a case in which the person received warning (Hasra'ah) against transgressing these prohibitions, and even so Reish Lakish rules that the sinner does not receive Malkus.
The Gemara says that three Halachos may be learned from Reish Lakish's statement: items of Isur can be Mevatel each other; the presence of the taste of a forbidden item in a mixture with a majority of a permitted item (Nosen Ta'am in a Rov) does not prohibit the mixture mid'Oraisa; and a Hasra'as Safek (the warning given to a person who is about to commit a sin when it is not certain that the potential punishment will be applicable to his sin) is not a valid Hasra'ah.
What exactly is the case which Reish Lakish discusses, and what is the logic behind his ruling?
(a) RASHI (DH Iy Efshar) writes that the reason why this sinner does not receive Malkus is that he eats from a mixture of various prohibited foods, and there is no way to know whether the majority of food in his mouth is Pigul or Nosar. If it would be possible to know what the majority in his mouth is at any given moment, then he could be warned with a proper Hasra'ah and be punished with Malkus for transgressing that prohibition. However, since there is a doubt about which food is the majority in his mouth at any given moment, the witnesses who give him Hasra'ah have no definite knowledge of the exact Isur that he is transgressing.
Rashi clearly learns that the reason why Malkus cannot be administered is that the Hasra'ah in this case is a Hasra'as Safek.
(b) TOSFOS (DH ha'Pigul) asks a number of questions on Rashi's explanation. Tosfos asks that according to Rashi's depiction of the case, the case does not entail a problem of Hasra'as Safek. Hasra'as Safek occurs when, at the time of the warning, there is a doubt about whether the person will ever commit the Isur by doing the sin he intends to do. Although he eventually commits the Isur, at the time of the Hasra'ah it was not known that he would ever do so. In this case, however, the witnesses clearly see that he is about to transgress the prohibitions of Pigul and Nosar; the only doubt is when exactly he will transgress these prohibitions. The witnesses have no doubt that if he does what he intends to do, he definitely will transgress all of these prohibitions. When the witnesses warn him not to do all of these Isurim, that is a proper Hasra'ah and not Hasra'as Safek.
Tosfos instead explains that the case of the Gemara is one in which there are two separate food items. One is a mixture of two k'Zeisim of Pigul and one k'Zayis of Nosar, and the other is a mixture of two k'Zeisim of Nosar and one k'Zayis of Pigul. It is unknown now which mixture is which. When the sinner takes the first mixture in order to eat it, the witnesses warn him not to eat Pigul. This obviously is a Hasra'as Safek, since this mixture might be the one that contains a Rov of Nosar, in which case the person will not transgress the prohibition of Pigul for eating the mixture, but rather that of Nosar (since the Pigul is Batel to the Nosar). Even when the person proceeds to eat the second mixture and the same warning is given not to eat Pigul, there is still no certainty that he is eating the mixture that contains the majority of Pigul, since the second mixture that he eats might be the one with a majority of Nosar. The Hasra'ah in this case is a Hasra'as Safek, because there is a doubt at the time of each warning whether the person will commit the Isur of eating Pigul through his action.
(c) Tosfos gives a third explanation, but Tosfos' intention is not clear. The TZON KODASHIM and BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH explain that Tosfos is suggesting that the case is one in which the person first set aside two k'Zeisim of one Isur, such as Pigul. He then took another four k'Zeisim from two types of Isurim (such as two k'Zeisim each from Pigul and Nosar) and mixed them together in a separate bowl. He then decided to eat all of this in two stages; in each stage, he intended to eat one k'Zayis of the definite Pigul with two k'Zeisim from the second mixture. He was warned before his first meal that he was transgressing the Isur of Pigul, and he was warned before his second meal that he was transgressing the Isur of Nosar. In both situations, there is a doubt about what the Rov is that he is eating. His definite Pigul might be mixed with a Rov of Nosar (from the mixture of four k'Zeisim that he made), or it might be mixed with more Pigul, creating a Rov of Pigul. In any case, each Hasra'ah that he receives is a Hasra'as Safek. (This explanation in Tosfos maintains that giving the same Hasra'ah for the same Isur in both stages of the case would not entail a Hasra'as Safek.)
The CHOK NASAN explains that Tosfos is suggesting a different case. The person takes two k'Zeisim of one type of Isur, and he mixes it with four k'Zeisim of another type of Isur, and then he divides the mixture in half. The rest of the case is as described above. The YAD BINYAMIN says that most commentaries understand that this is the intention of Tosfos. (Y. MONTROSE)
2) ONE PROHIBITION ANNULS ANOTHER
OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes Reish Lakish who states that if one eats a dish containing a mixture of Pigul and Nosar he is not punished with Malkus for transgressing these two prohibitions, although the mixture certainly is forbidden, because "each type annuls the other." RASHI (see previous Insight) explains that Reish Lakish refers to a case in which a k'Zayis of Pigul became mixed with a k'Zayis of Nosar, and the person ate the entire mixture. The reason why he does not receive Malkus is that he eats from a mixture of various prohibited foods, and there is no way to know whether the majority of food in his mouth is Pigul or Nosar at any given moment. If it would be possible to know what the majority in his mouth is at any given moment, then he could be warned with a proper Hasra'ah and be punished with Malkus for transgressing that prohibition. However, since there is a doubt about which food is the majority in his mouth at any given moment, the witnesses who give him Hasra'ah have no definite knowledge of the exact Isur that he is transgressing.
The Gemara says that one of the things we learn from Reish Lakish's statement is that items of Isur can be Mevatel each other. In this case, for example, when there is a majority of Pigul in the person's mouth and a minority of Nosar, the Pigul is Mevatel the Nosar. The only reason why he does not receive Malkus for the Pigul is because the Hasra'ah is a Hasra'as Safek.
According to the principle that one Isur is Mevatel another, what is the law in a case in which there are three different types of Isur mixed together, such as Pigul, Nosar, and Tamei (this is according to the Girsa which omits the word "Tamei" from the text of Reish Lakish's statement)? Since there are two other Isurim in each mouthful to be Mevatel the third Isur, the majority should annul the minority. Consequently, the Pigul and Nosar should be Mevatel the Tamei, the Nosar and Tamei should be Mevatel the Pigul, and the Pigul and Tamei should be Mevatel the Nosar, and the entire mixture should be permitted, l'Chatchilah, to eat! Obviously, this is not the Halachah; the mixture certainly remains forbidden. It is illogical to permit the mixture because there is an additional prohibition in it. Rather, only an item of Heter can be Mevatel an Isur and make it permissible like itself; an Isur cannot make another Isur become permitted. Why, then, does Reish Lakish teach that an Isur can be Mevatel another Isur with regard to Malkus?
ANSWER: Although it is true that a majority of one Isur cannot be Mevatel another Isur to make it permitted, it can be Mevatel the specific status of the other Isur, such that it no longer retains the specific title of Nosar, for example. It retains, however, its general state of being prohibited. Thus, Hasra'ah against eating the "annulled" Isur is not effective, because Hasra'ah must be given for a specific type of Isur, the identity of which is clear. An Isur whose specific identity became annulled due to Bitul in a majority of other Isurim is not subject to Hasra'ah. Accordingly, Malkus cannot be given in the case of three Isurim that became mixed together, but, nonetheless, the mixture remains prohibited to eat. (See VA'YIZRA YITZCHAK 98:9.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
3) "NOSAR" THAT TURNS INTO "PIGUL"
QUESTION: The Gemara derives three Halachos from Reish Lakish's statement: items of Isur can be Mevatel each other; the presence of the taste of a forbidden item in a mixture with a majority of a permitted item (Nosen Ta'am in a Rov) does not prohibit the mixture mid'Oraisa; and a Hasra'as Safek is not a valid Hasra'ah.
Rashi, in his comments on the second Halachah implied by Reish Lakish's statement (that a Hasra'as Safek is not a valid Hasra'ah), infers that if the witnesses would know for certain that the person is placing into his mouth a k'Zayis comprised of a majority of Pigul and a minority of Nosar, then they would be able to give a proper Hasra'ah (and Malkus would be given). Since the witnesses do not know what quantities of each Isur are in the k'Zayis that he is placing into his mouth at this moment, the Hasra'ah is only a Hasra'as Safek.
TOSFOS questions this explanation. Even if it is known that the k'Zayis that he places into his mouth contains a majority of Pigul and a minority of Nosar, how can Bitul cause the Nosar to join the Pigul to form a k'Zayis of Isur, for which the person will receive Malkus for eating? The end result remains less than a k'Zayis of Pigul and less than a k'Zayis of annulled Nosar, and a person does not receive Malkus for eating less than a k'Zayis of Isur!
Some Acharonim (see SHA'AREI YOSHER 3:15) understand that Rashi and Tosfos disagree about the following point. Rashi maintains that Bitul causes the minority to acquire the status of the majority. Consequently, the minority of Nosar actually becomes Pigul, as it were. Tosfos, on the other hand, maintains that Bitul merely removes the specific status of an item (such as when an item of Isur becomes mixed with a majority of Heter, the majority removes the status of Isur from the item), but it does not give a new status to the minority (such as giving the minority of Nosar the status of Pigul).
The actual function of Bitul is discussed at length by the Acharonim. Most Poskim (see ONEG YOM TOV OC #4) maintain that Bitul b'Rov cannot give a new status to the minority. One practical question which depends on this issue is a case of five Matzos that were not baked Lishmah that became mixed with ten Matzos that were baked Lishmah. May all fifteen Matzos be used for the Mitzvah? The MESHIV DAVAR (#34) rules that all of them may be used. Proof for his ruling is cited from Rashi here, who maintains that Bitul b'Rov causes the minority to acquire the status of the majority. Thus, the five Matzos that were not baked Lishmah become Batel to the ten Matzos that were baked Lishmah and acquire the status of having been baked Lishmah. Most Poskim, however, disagree with the Meshiv Davar. How do they answer the proof from the words of Rashi?
ANSWER: The SHA'AREI YOSHER (3:16) points out that the case of the Gemara here is different, and Rashi's words here do not prove that in other cases of Bitul the minority acquires the Halachic status of the majority. In the case of the Gemara here, there definitely is a k'Zayis of prohibited food in the mixture; Bitul is not needed in order to reach a k'Zayis. Rather, Bitul is needed for purposes of Hasra'as Vadai. For this, Rov may suffice.
This is consistent with what we explained earlier (see previous Insight). The concept of "Isurin Mevatlin Zeh Es Zeh" means that the specific identity, relevant to whether a proper Hasra'ah may be given and Malkus administered, is annulled, or "blurred," but the Isur remains.
Accordingly, there is no proof from Rashi here that Rov can give a new status to the minority such that the minority would turn into the type that comprises the majority to complete a k'Zayis. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
4) THE INFERENCE THAT REISH LAKISH MAINTAINS THAT "HASRA'AS SAFEK" IS A VALID "HASRA'AH"
QUESTION: The Gemara derives three Halachos from Reish Lakish's statement: items of Isur can be Mevatel each other; the presence of the taste of a forbidden item in a mixture with a majority of a permitted item (Nosen Ta'am in a Rov) does not prohibit the mixture mid'Oraisa; and a Hasra'as Safek is not a valid Hasra'ah.
Why does the Gemara need to infer the second law from the words of Reish Lakish here, when Reish Lakish elsewhere (see, for example, Makos 16a) explicitly states that a Hasra'as Safek is not a valid Hasra'ah? (SHIVAS TZIYON #88)
ANSWER: The SHIVAS TZIYON answers as follows. The LECHEM MISHNEH (Hilchos Shevu'os 5:2) writes that the witnesses must include mention of the specific Lav in their Hasra'ah. When they are not sure which Lav the sinner is about to transgress, their Hasra'ah is not a valid Hasra'ah, according to all opinions. The argument about whether Hasra'as Safek is a valid Hasra'ah or not applies only in a case in which the witnesses know which Lav the sinner is potentially going to transgress, but they are not sure, at the time of the Hasra'ah, about whether the sinner is actually transgressing the Lav.
The Gemara here does not refer to the normal case of Hasra'as Safek, in which the witnesses know the Lav that the sinner is about to transgress, but they are unsure about whether he is actually transgressing it or not. In the case of the Gemara here, the sinner is certainly going to transgress an Isur. However, the doubt is what Isur he is transgressing -- the Isur of Pigul or the Isur of Nosar. This type of Hasra'as Safek is not the same type that Reish Lakish discusses elsewhere. The Gemara here is teaching that everyone, including Rebbi Yochanan (Makos 16a) -- who maintains that the normal type of Hasra'as Safek is a valid Hasra'ah, agrees that this type of Hasra'as Safek, where an Isur is certainly being transgressed but the exact Isur is subject to doubt, is not considered a valid Hasra'ah. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)
78b----------------------------------------78b
5) THE GEMARA'S CHALLENGE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF "BITUL B'ROV"
QUESTION: The Gemara explains that there is a difference between a mixture of two items that are of different types (Min b'she'Eino Mino) and a mixture of two items that are the same type (Min b'Mino). A mixture of two different types of items, where one is permitted and one is forbidden, retains the identity (and status) of the forbidden type if the taste of that item is discernible in the mixture. In contrast, a mixture of two of the same type of items, where one is permitted and one is forbidden, retains the identity (and status) of the food which constitutes the majority of the mixture.
The Gemara asks why this is so; why should a mixture of Min b'Mino not be judged by its taste, just as a mixture of Min b'she'Eino Mino is judged by its taste? If the forbidden item in the mixture of Min b'Mino gives its taste to the mixture, then it should prohibit the mixture even when there is a Rov of Heter. Even though it is not possible to discern the taste of the forbidden item in the mixture of Min b'Mino because it tastes exactly the same as the permitted item, RASHI (DH v'Nisha'er) explains that it is possible to determine how much of the forbidden item would give taste if it were a different type (or mixed with a different type). If a discernible taste is the standard to forbid a mixture, then why does the Halachah permit the mixture based on Rov?
The Gemara's discussion seems difficult to understand. The concepts of Nosen Ta'am and Bitul b'Rov are mentioned numerous times throughout the Gemara with regard to many other Torah laws, and nowhere else is the Gemara bothered by the application of the principle of Bitul b'Rov. Why specifically here does the Gemara challenge the foundations of this principle?
ANSWERS:
(a) The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (Hashmatos #1) answers in the name of RABEINU SHMUEL that the Gemara is bothered by the statement of Reish Lakish, who says that the principle of Bitul b'Rov exempts a person who eats a mixture of Pigul, Nosar, and Tamei (see previous Insight) from the punishment of Malkus. The Gemara here is asking that in a case of a mixture of different types of Isur, the Halachah should be more stringent, since there is a precedent for setting aside the principle of Bitul b'Rov, such as in cases of blood of Kodshim and things that are offered on the Mizbe'ach (see 81a). The Gemara is asking why the principle of Bitul b'Rov is not set aside in this case as well.
(b) The Shitah Mekubetzes cites a different explanation in the name of his teacher ("Mori"). He explains that the source for the principle of Bitul b'Rov is the verse, "Acharei Rabim l'Hatos" (Shemos 23:2). The verse teaches that we follow the majority to decide the law, and, similarly, in a case of a mixture, we say that the majority of permitted food annuls the minority of forbidden food. However, the verse does not refer to cases in which the determination of the majority is not based on actual mass but rather on appearance or taste (such as in the case of the Mishnah here, and the case of the Mikvah later, and Reish Lakish's case in which the two components are both forbidden). Since the Gemara is discussing atypical cases, it asks why the rule of Bitul b'Rov is followed in these cases as well. This explanation is given by the MEROMEI SADEH as well.
(c) The Shitah Mekubetzes suggests a third explanation. The verse of "Acharei Rabim l'Hatos" teaches that Bitul b'Rov changes the status of the minority to that of the Rov. For example, in a mixture of pieces of meat, where most are permitted and some are forbidden, all of the meat may be eaten, because Bitul b'Rov teaches that the forbidden meat becomes permitted meat. However, Kodshim are different. Even if one container of Kodshim blood was mixed with two containers of ordinary blood, it is logical to say that if the blood from every container was sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach, then the owner of the Korban achieved his atonement, because the blood from his Korban certainly was sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach. This blood of Kodshim never acquires the status of ordinary blood. The Gemara, therefore, is asking that the law in the case of Kodshim does not have to be the same as the law in the case of other Isurim. (Y. MONTROSE)