|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From And The
Word of G-d From (Isaiah 2:3) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rabbi Yehudah Deri's Shiurim on Yorah Deah Shiur 3 - "Liver" Translated and transcribed by: Gemora: Chulin
110
·
Abaya
answered that it is possible to explain the second case of the Mishah differently. In that case the liver ossers
the other meat because it is treife liver and therefore expels the fat of
the treife
which is absorbed by the other meat. However, regular kosher liver will not osser
other meat.]
Shitot of the Rishonim:
There are two ways of
understanding this sugia
and the din of
liver. 1. Tosfos holds that the din
of liver is more "chumre"
(strict) than other meat. With other meat we are sure that salting with the
proper amount of salt and for the proper time period will remove all the
blood. With liver, however, we are in doubt if salting will be effective
since liver is "all blood", or has "so much blood". Thus,
in the sugia,
Abaya's question about meat cooked with liver dealt with liver which was
already salted .His problem being, since liver is "all blood" or
"full of blood" perhaps salting will not remove all the blood. According to Tosfos, it is clear that the meat is certainly osser
when cooked with unsalted liver. However, the liver when cooked alone, does not create a problem. For even though the
blood expelled during cooking is osser, even when the liver was salted, this blood is not re-absorbed
into the liver because of the principle - aidi d’tored liflot, aino bolea (since it is busy expelling blood, it
does not re-absorb). The problem concerns the other meat. If salting does not
remove all the blood then the other meat will absorb the blood that is left
in the liver during the cooking process. 2. Rabbeinu Tam holds that the din of liver is lenient (kula). In his view the blood of
liver, even when expelled, is not like other blood and is permitted by the
Torah. Abaya's question was whether the liver will osser the other meat, even without
the liver having been salted. Liver cooked on its own is clearly permitted
because there is no issur.
The question is when it is cooked with other meat, and is whether in that
case the Rabbanim make a "gezara"
(Rabbinical decree) because of "mares
ayin" (false assumptions). Do they
say one must not cook unsalted liver with other meat in case someone would
come to cook unsalted regular meat with other meat. Kashot (Difficulties) 1. The Ktav Sofer's difficulty with Rabbeinu Tam: If we make a gezara of mares ayin,
what then is the difference between other meat and the liver itself. In other
words, if we osser
cooking unsalted liver with other meat because someone may come to cook
unsalted regular meat with other meat, we should also osser cooking unsalted
liver on its own. This, however, we do not do because someone may come to
cook unsalted regular meat on its own. The Ktav Sofer answers by making a distinction between "shinui teva"
(a physical difference) and "shinui din" (a legal difference). The
explanation of this distinction is based on the assertion that people know
that liver, which is "all blood" or "full of blood", is
physically different than meat. Therefore they would believe that the reason
why it is permitted to cook unsalted liver is because the liver expels and
does not re-absorb, even if they did not know that the blood of liver was mutar.
But if we allowed other meat to be cooked with the unsalted liver, not
everyone would know that it was because of the din that the blood of liver is mutar
and therefore might come to think that it was permitted to cook regular
unsalted meat with other meat. The Ktav Sofer brings a proof to
his svora
from the Mishna in Trumas.
According to Rabbeinu Tam, Abaya holds that the
blood of liver is muttar.
In that case, how would Abaya know to make a distinction between liver itself
and other meat cooked with it. Why should the liver
be mutar
and the meat cooked with it be osser from the Rabbonon,
according to the simple understanding of the Mishah.
In other words why do we make a gazerah in one case and
not the other, it must be because one is a change in nature and the other a
change in the din. 2. Kashe on Tosefos. If we hold that salting does
not remove all the blood from liver, why is cooked liver permitted at all?
Further, we learn from the Gemora that Rav Nachman told his wife Chakira :
1. The first is the
Torah's definition (gezaras hacosuv) of
forbidden blood. The Torah forbids blood that "is spilled like
water" and "falls on the ground". "Blood that spills like
water" means blood that is poresh and is
forbidden. However, solidified blood, the liver itself, is not forbidden.
This is the reason brought by the Lavush. 2. The second reason
is based on the korbonot
(sacrifices). The Torah forbids us to eat certain parts of the korban,
including the forbidden fat and the fat on the extension to the liver. The
liver itself is permitted. Since the Torah expressly permits us to eat the
liver of sacrifices, although it is "all blood", it follows that
the liver is in general permitted. It is clear that this explanation (svara) must hold that the blood of
the liver is permitted even though the liver was not salted.
Differences between Rabbeinu Tam and Tosfos:
Shitas Rashi:
There seems a
contradiction in Rashi: At first Rashi states that expelled blood is forbidden. Therefore,
only when it is perush
is it forbidden, but if it remains in the liver it is permitted. This is shitas
Tosefos. But later in the suggiah
(in the statement that begins shmumanit) he explains that the blood of liver is
permitted in all cases. This being like Rabbeinu
Tam. The Rosh holds that Rashi learns that the Gemora is
talking after salting, and his shita is that of Tosefos.
Source Material
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Diaspora
Yeshiva
|
You will need Adobe Reader on your computer to read
this file.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
