2

In the Mishna Chullin 8.3 there are two versions. The issue is about a drop of milk that fell on a pot of meat on the fire.

First version:

טיפת חלב שנפלה על החתיכה, אם יש בה בנותן טעם באותה חתיכה, אסור. ניער את הקדרה, אם יש בה בנותן טעם באותה קדרה, אסור.‏

Rambam's version :

טיפת חלב שנפלה על חתיכה אם יש בה בנותן טעם באותה חתיכה נוער את הקדירה אם יש בה בנותן טעם באותה הקדירה אסור

In Rambam's version, the Mishna says that one needs to shake the pot (נוער את הקדירה). In other rishonim's version, it doesn't address this rule. Mishna only speaks about the case they already did shake (the version is ניער את הקדרה). Is it a machloket in Halacha? Is it universally accepted that one can shake milk that fell on one of the pieces of meat? It seems that the Rambam's version allows to augment the amount of meat in contact with the milk drops, to lead to annulation of the milk after its already present. In Isur deorayta, all poskim in YD seems to prohibit this.

I noticed this Rambam version of Mishna recently. I am familiar with the other version, it's the version in standard Gemara, in Rashi and Tosfot. Reading the post of @mbloch I sudenly realized that the Shulchan Aruch rules the Halacha following the Girsa of Rambam on Mishnayot. Poskim, Taz, Shach explain the Rambam source is a Mishna in Teruma (5.12) saying that isur that fell in one of two containers, and no one of them can annul it alone. Because we don't know in which it fell, the two together annul the Isur. Peri Megadim has a great pilpul in siman 92 and 111. Poskim don't speak about the different versions of the Mishna. Perhaps they did'nt know the version of Rambam?

Here is the version of other rishonim in English (Sefaria).

A drop of milk which fell on a piece [of meat], if there is enough of it to give flavor into that piece, it is forbidden. [If] one stirred the pot, if there is enough of it to give flavor to the [contents] of that pot, it is forbidden.

  • See this topic – kouty Feb 21 at 5:05
  • @ba is it clearer now? Thanks for edit. – kouty Feb 21 at 16:18
  • Yes, but I think some of the explanation in the answer would be better placed in the question itself – b a Feb 21 at 16:30
  • I don’t understand ...annulate... – Dr. Shmuel Feb 21 at 19:54
  • @Dr.Shmuel fixed I hope – kouty Feb 21 at 21:07
2

Yes the different versions show lechaora a machloket regarding the definition of Bitul Isur Lechatechilla.

טיפת חלב שנפלה על החתיכה, אם יש בה בנותן טעם באותה חתיכה, אסור. ניער את הקדרה, אם יש בה בנותן טעם באותה קדרה, אסור.‏

A drop of milk, that fell on a piece of meat, if its able to give taste in this piece, it's prohibited. If he shook the pot, if it's able to give taste in the pot, it's prohibited.

The version of the Mishna following the Rambam is different.

ח,ג  טיפת חלב שנפלה על חתיכה--אם יש בה בנותן טעם באותה< חתיכה, נוער את הקדירה; אם יש בה בנותן טעם באותה הקדירה, אסור.‏

A drop of milk, that fell on a piece of meat, if its able to give taste in this piece, one needs to shake the pot, if it's able to give taste in the pot, it's prohibited.

Two differences:

  1. The first statement, ruling that if the milk drop is able to give taste in the meat piece, it prohibits (or the piece only, or the whole pot's content),
  2. One is allowed to shake the pot, even if one knows that this action lead to the annulment of an isur which is now happening.

We can assume that what is recommended in the second version isn't following the supporters of the first version.

The Bartenura, following Rashi, comments on the second statement of the Mishna according to the first version.

ניער את הקדירה - שהגיס בה מיד קודם שקבלה החתיכה טעם מן הטפה, דהשתא נתערבה הטיפה בכולן:‏

Shaking the pot is useful when one shake immediately, before the drop impregnated the meat piece.

אם יש בנותן טעם באותה קדירה - כלומר אין כח בטפה לאסור כולן אא"כ יש בה טעם ליתן בכל הקדירה: ‏

In consequence,it is consistent that Mishna says that the result of shaking depends if the whole pot is great enough to annul the milk drop. All is allowed or all is prohibited.

The first statement of the Mishna describes what is the rule when one has not been fast enough to shake the pot immediately. Bartenura says:

כלומר אם אין באותה חתיכה לבדה ששים לבטל הטפה, מיד נאסרת החתיכה, ואוסרת חברותיה וצריך ששים כנגד כל החתיכה

If the meat piece on which fell the milk drop is not (volumetrically) sixty time bigger than the milk drop, the piece is immediately prohibited. In consequence, if the rest of the content of the pot is not sixty time bigger than this piece, the whole pot is prohibited. The meat piece prohibits the entire pot because one shaked the pot after it absorbed the milk (Tosfot Yom Tov explains this from the Gemara) .

In summary, the Mishna enumerates two laws depending on whether the shaking was before or after the time needed for the drop to give taste in the meat piece.

But the Mishna according to the Rambam gives advice what to do to avoid to make tref the pot (Dikduke sofrim).

I am pretty sure that the version of the Rambam vehicles a "novelty" not universally accepted, regarding the topic "one does not annulate an isur Lechatechilla".

The same statement of Rambam is in Mishne Tora (Maachalot Asurot 9.10), and is quoted in Shulchan Aruch(YD 92.2).

I found the Machloket (that I presented as Machloket Girsaot) it in the Sifte Cohen sk 8. We see that poskim searched the source of the chiddush of Rambam, and didn't know his Girsa.

ואין להקשות היאך ינער הקדרה שיתערב הכל דלמא יש טעם בחתיכה אחת ואיך יבטל איסור לכתחלה וא"כ הוי ליה למימר שיטעום העובד כוכבים כל חתיכה וחתיכה בפני עצמו יש לומר דכיון דלא נודע לאיזה נפל הרי נכנס כל הקדרה בספק ואין כאן משום מבטל איסור וגם דמי למה שכתב מהרא"י בת"ה סימן קע"א ואין זה מבטל איסור לכתחלה כיון שספק הוא אם יתערב שום איסור כלל עכ"ל והבאתיו בסי' פ"ד ס"ק ל"ח וכן לקמן סימן קט"ז ס"ק כ"ח וה"נ ספק הוא אם יש טעם בחתיכה זו ונראה דגם הטור הבין דעת הרמב"ם כן אלא ס"ל כיון דאפשר למיקם עלה דמילתא א"כ לא נכנס הכל בספק שהרי יודע הדבר על ידי שיטעום העובד כוכבים כל חתיכה וחתיכה בפני עצמה והלכך כיון שחתיכה א' היתה מתבררת בודאי שהיא אסורה א"כ מאי מועיל ניעור אח"כ

Shach objects (Tur and Rema hold this objection) against this practice (to shake lechatechilla) that it may be a problem of annulling isur Lechatechilla (1). And answers that the whole set of pieces it in safek isur situation, perhaps the drop of milk is already annulled in the first meat piece. So this is annulment of a safek isur. And with safek isur there is no bitul isur Lechatechilla. But for the Tur and Rema, the objection is due to the possibility to verify each of the meat pieces (there are upper the water's level) if one piece have milk taste it's "nevela". When one can check the situation, the din is not safek. So shaking is mevatel isur Lechatechilla.

See in Peri Megadim who addresses the issue of bitul isur Lechatechilla on his comment on the Shach called Sifte Daat. There are a lot of details in the Sugia, e.g. the different steps of the shaking.

I just wanted to point that the version of the Mishna of the Rambam is not mentioned in poskim as a source, but seems to be the for the Din of Rambam, despite that Poskim didn't address it. Perhaps they wasn't aware of this version


(1): To be more precise. If the drop of milk fell on a small piece of meat, there are two possibilities of problems. 1) If it didn't still be absorbed, when one shake it, we add meat to annul it. 2) If it's still absorbed, we have a prohibited piece of meat that "became nevela" as says the Gemara, and we annul it with the others pieces.

But we don't know what happened. The first problem is treated as obvious by the Mahari Ben Chaviv, may be, no problem because there is no isur at all at this stage. The second is discussed. I will expose two terutsim. The teruts of the Magid Mishne is that when we cannot identify the piece, there is no din "piece became nevela". The teruts of Mahari Ben Chaviv is that because he cannot identify the piece, the pieces are seen as mixed and one can shake them.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .