4

The Shulchan Aruch in Y.D. 110:7 writes (based on Zevachim 74a and 77b, as explained by Rashi):

דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּטֵל מֵחֲמַת חֲשִׁיבוּתוֹ, כְּגוֹן בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים וּבְרִיָּה, וַחֲתִיכָה הָרְאוּיָה לְהִתְכַּבֵּד, וְדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין, שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בָּאֲחֵרִים וְנֶאֱכַל אֶחָד מֵהֶם בְּשׁוֹגֵג, בֵּין שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ עַצְמוֹ בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין שֶׁאֲכָלוּהוּ אֲחֵרִים בְּשׁוֹגֵג, (ת''ה סִימָן קע''ה) אוֹ נָפַל מֵעַצְמוֹ לַיָּם בְּעִנְיָן שֶׁנֶּאֱבַד מִן הָעוֹלָם, הֻתְּרוּ כָּל הָאֲחֵרִים, שֶׁאָנוּ תּוֹלִין לוֹמַר הָאִסוּר הָלַךְ לוֹ. וְדַוְקָא כְּשֶׁאוֹכֵל הַנִּשְׁאָרוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם בְּיַחַד, דְּמִמַּה נַּפְשָׁךְ אִכָּא חֲדָא דְּהֶתֵּרָא, אֲבָל לְאָכְלָם אַחַת אַחַת, אָסוּר. הַגָּה: וַאֲפִלּוּ לְאָכְלָם שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם, אָסוּר לְאָדָם אֶחָד לֶאֱכֹל אֶת כֻּלָּם. וְאֲפִלּוּ ב' בְּנֵי אָדָם, אֵין לְאָכְלָם כֻּלָּם בְּבַת אַחַת (בֵּית יוֹסֵף לָדַעַת טוּר).

If something which can't become Battel gets mixed with other things and one of them is accidentally destroyed you are allowed to eat all of the rest of them because you can assume that the other got destroyed, but you have to eat them two at a time because you need the Svara Rashi brings in Zevachim 77b of " מיגו דהאי לאו דאיסורא הוא דהאי נמי לאו איסורא הוא... אבל אחד אחד דליכא מיגו לא:" 'because one of them has to be Mutar the other one must be Mutar as well.'

How does that make sense? Why does one of them being Mutar mean that the other one is Mutar? The fact that one of them is Mutar has nothing to do with the other one. If anything the fact that one of them is Mutar makes it slightly more likely that the other one is the Assur one, not less likely.

(There is a decent Svara why this is true by Kadshim from the Steipler based on Aseh Docheh Lo Saaseh, but why should this be true by Chullin? I found an answer in Daf Al Hadaf based on the Din of Chaticha Mishtei Chatichos by an Asham Talui but that answer leaves much to be desired.)

  • The transaltion "the other must be Mutar as well", it is not correct, it is better to translate it as "we may assume". Since we know that part of what he is eating is Mutar, we can allow an assumption that it is all Mutar, but if he eats only one piece there is no guarantee that he may eat it at all. – simyou Jul 19 at 9:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .