The Case

Rav Hershel Schachter (Nefesh HaRav pages 228-229) relates a fascinating episode involving Rav Chaim Soloveitchik’s incisive resolution of a food mix-up at his son’s wedding around the turn of the twentieth century in Lithuania. The ruling has many twists and turns that yield much insight into how Halacha manages a ta’arovet, a mixture of kosher and non-kosher food.

In those times, almost all Jews were too poor to hire a caterer to prepare wedding food. Instead, each family cooked meat and contributed to the wedding. At one of the homes, trefa meat was mistakenly prepared. The meat was intended for the cat, but by mistake, the trefa meat was placed in the pot with the rest for the wedding meal. A trefa is an animal with one of eighteen defects outlined in Masechet Chullin’s third chapter that renders the animal very likely to die within a year. The Torah forbids us to consume a trefa, but we may feed it to an animal.

It was difficult to determine if there was sixty times more kosher meat than the trefa meat to render it bateil b’shishim, nullified. The question emerged whether one may be lenient in case of doubt.

Step One: Safek Drabbanan L’Kula

At first glance, the pot’s contents should be permissible. While the requirement for shishim for items with different tastes (following the Shach Y.D. 98:6 against the Rama Y.D. 98:2), min b’sh’eino mino, is a Torah requirement (because ta’am k’ikkar), like items, min b’mino, is a rabbinic demand. In such a mixture, a majority of kosher food suffices on a Torah level. Chazal required shishim even for min b’mino to avoid confusing min b’sh’eino mino with min b’mino (Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 98:2).

Our case seems to be min b’mino since meat was mixed with meat. Thus, we have a safek regarding a rabbinic matter where we may be lenient, safek d’rabbanan l’kula.

Step Two: Dam

Not so fast, said Rav Chaim, since the trefa meat was not salted. Thus, it has a forbidden mixture of blood, min b’sh’eino mino, with kosher meat. Since blood is prohibited on a Torah level, we are dealing with a safek d’oraita, regarding which we rule strictly.

Step Three: Dam Sh’bishlo

However, cooked blood, dam sh’bishlo, is only rabbinically forbidden (Shach Y.D. 69:42). Thus, we are dealing with a permitted safek d’rabannan.

Step Four: Yotzei Min HaAsur

Rav Chaim, though, noted that while cooking blood from a kosher animal lowers it from a Biblical to rabbinic prohibition, the blood from a trefa animal remains biblically prohibited since it is yotzei min ha’asur, comparable to milk from a trefa animal. In other words, cooking dam reduces it to a rabbinic prohibition, but it remains biblically forbidden since it is yotzei min ha’asur. The Mishna (Bechorot 1:2) teaches that food that emerges from a non-kosher source is non-kosher (yotzei min hatamei tamei). Thus, since the blood emerged from a trefa, it is prohibited not so much as dam but as an item that emerged from a non-kosher source. Therefore, since it is a Torah-level prohibition, we must rule strictly, as the Pri Megadim states (Seder hanhagot ’issur v’heteir, 2:41).

Step Five: Dam Neveila

On the other hand, Tosafot (Pesachim (22a s.v. v’harei dam) states that dam is not defined as meat. Thus, blood from a neveila (improperly slaughtered kosher animal) is not defined as neveila but rather dam. So too, the dam of a trefa should not be described as a trefa but rather as blood. Since the blood is cooked, it should be forbidden only rabbinically and permitted in case of safek bittul b’shishim.

Step Six: Dam Neveila vs. Dam Trefa

Rav Chaim Soloveitchik concluded the matter with a strict ruling by distinguishing between dam nevela and dam trefa, following Tosafot Beitza 6b s.v. beitzim. Dam neveila is not considered yotzei min hatamei since once the animal is rendered a neveila, it does not generate blood (since it is dead). However, dam trefa is defined as yotzei min hatamei, since the trefa generates the blood while it is alive. Thus, a safek regarding a Torah matter pertains to which we must rule strictly.

Conclusion

Rav Chaim displayed great Talmudic acuity in his resolution and great integrity. He forbade a large pot of meat prepared for his son’s wedding. The financial loss was enormous by the time’s standards and significantly impacted the wedding meal’s quality. Despite it being his son’s wedding, Rav Chaim ruled against his temporal interests, displaying great fidelity to Hashem and His Torah.

A lesson emerges from the mishap. Non-kosher food in a Jewish home should not be welcome under almost all circumstances. Proper labeling and designation could have prevented this mishap from occurring. Regarding kashrut, eiranut mona’at ason, alertness, and organization prevent Halachic disasters.

Postscript

One wonders why we do not assume that while there was not clearly 60 times kosher meat than non-kosher meat, there were 60 times kosher meat than the blood with the non-kosher slab. We must consider shishim against the entire slab of meat since we cannot determine how much blood emerged from the meat (Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 69:11).

Rabbi Jachter serves as the rav of Congregation Shaarei Orah, rebbe at Torah Academy of Bergen County, and a get administrator with the Beth Din of Elizabeth. Rabbi Jachter’s 17 books may be purchased at Amazon and Judaica House.