Shev Shmateta, Shmatta 4 2

פרק ב' דנדה דף י"ח ע"א, אמר ר' יוחנן בשלשה מקומות הלכו בו חכמים אחר הרוב ועשאום כודאי, מקור שליא חתיכה, ופריך ותו ליכא והא איכא תשע חנויות מוכרות בשר שחוטה ואחת מוכרת בשר נבילה ולקח מאחת מהן ואינו יודע מאיזה מהם לקח ספיקו אסור ובנמצא הלך אחר הרוב, וכתבו שם תוס' ד"ה אחר הרוב וז"ל, הכא איכא חזקה כנגד הרוב, דבהמה בחזקת איסור עומדת, דאי לא הוי חזקה כנגד הרוב לא הוי פריך מידי, דמצינו לומר דרבי יוחנן לא חשיב אלא היכא דאיכא חזקה כנגד הרוב עכ"ל. In chapter 2, Niddah.18a, R. Yohanan says, "In three places, the sages followed the majority and made them as definite: uterus¹i.e. blood found in the "corridor" (cervix, or introitus) causes the woman to be considered as definitely impure even though the blood might possibly not have come from the uterus, afterbirth²if a woman discharges an empty sac, she is considered definitely impure from birthing, because we assume that there was a fetus, but it decomposed, and (body) part³similarly if a woman discharges a body part such as a hand, she is considered definitely impure from birthing, because we assume that there was a fetus, but it decomposed. The Gemara asks, "And are there no more? Is there not also the case of nine stores selling (properly) slaughtered meat and one store selling non-slaughtered meat, and (he) bought from one (of the stores), but does not know from which store he bought, the doubtful meat is forbidden, but if the meat was found (in the street), then we follow the majority (and the meat is permitted for eating)." Tosafot ad loc (leading words "achar harov") says, here there is a strong assumption (chazakah) opposing the majority, because an animal is presumed forbidden (until we know it has been properly slaughtered). For if there were no strong assumption opposing the majority, the question would not be valid, for we could say that R. Yohanan was only enumerating cases in which there is a strong assumption (chazakah) opposing the majority.

ומבואר מדבריהם דכה"ג הו"ל חזקת איסור שאינו זבוח, כיון שאנו מסופקים שמא נבילה היא זאת החתיכה והיא היתה בחזקת שאינו זבוח, אלא משום דרובא עדיף מחזקה, וא"כ לפ"ז שני חתיכות אחת שחוטה ואחת נבילה שנתערבו חד בחד, הו"ל ודאי איסור משום חזקת איסור שאינו זבוח דאיתא בכל חתיכה וחתיכה, ובמנחות דף כ"ג ע"א אמר רב חסדא נבילה בטלה בשחוטה שאי אפשר לשחוטה שתעשה נבילה, ושחוטה אינה בטילה בנבילה שאפשר לנבילה שתעשה שחוטה, דלכי מסרחה פרחה לטומאתה, ופירש רש"י שחוטה אינה בטילה בנבילה, אם שני חתיכות נבילה ואחת שחוטה ביניהם אינה בטילה, ואם נגעה אחת מהן בתרומה אינה נשרפת עליה, ותוס' פירשו היכא דקבעי ברה"ר ואינו יודע באיזו מהם נגע ספיקו טהור ע"ש. It is apparent from their words that in similar situations there is a strong assumption (chazaka) of (the meat being) non-slaughtered. We have a doubt whether this piece (of meat) is non-slaughtered (nevelah), and (because) it previously (i.e. while still alive) was in a non-slaughtered state, except that since majority (9 out of 10 stores) takes precedence over strong assumption (chazaka). Accordingly in a mixture of two pieces of meat, one (kosher) slaughtered and one non-slaughtered, it would be definitely forbidden because each piece has a strong assumption of being non-slaughtered ²because the chazaka of being non-slaughtered existed before slaughtering, and because there is no majority (rov) to counteract the chazaka. In Menachot.23a R. Hisda said, "non-slaughtered meat (nevelah) becomes nullified (if mixed in a larger amount of) properly slaughtered meat, for slaughtered meat cannot become nevelah (in terms of transmitting levitical impurity by being carried), but slaughtered meat is NOT nullified in (a larger amount of) non-slaughtered meat because nevelah CAN become as slaughtered meat (in terms of impurity) for when the non-slaughtered meat becomes rotten to the point of not being edible, the impurity flies away. Rashi explains regarding slaughtered meat not being nullified in non-slaughtered meat, that if there were two pieces of nevelah, and one piece of slaughtered meat mixed in, (the slaughtered meat) is not nullified, and if one of the pieces of meat touches Teruma (heave offering), it is (considered impure, but) not to be burnt ³Teruma which becomes impure on a biblical level must be burnt. In this case, however, since the teruma may have touched only the kosher meat, which does not impart impurity, it cannot be burnt, because it is not definitely impure. On the other hand, if we had said that the kosher meat IS nullified by the nevelah meat, then we would have viewed all the meat as nevelah, and teruma would need to be burned.. Tosafot (on the other hand), explained that when the meat mixture has a fixed location in a public location, and it is not known which piece of meat touched the teruma, the doubtful teruma is considered levitically pure ⁴For doubt in a fixed location (i.e. Kavua) is considered as half vs. half. We then apply the standard rule of doubtful impurity in a public place, and it is considered pure. This rule is derived from Sotah. Public location for this rule only requires 3 people, and not the public area as defined for the Sabbath. This explanation is as per Shmait'ta Mevueret, by R. Moshe Leib Look.

וקשה לפי מה שמבואר דחתיכת נבילה שנתערבה חד בחד עם חתיכה כשירה הו"ל כל א' ודאי איסור ומשום חזקת איסור שאינו זבוח, וכמו כן קיי"ל בשני כתי עדים המכחישות זא"ז דכל כת וכת מוקמינן בחזקת כשרות דמעיקרא, א"כ מאי נפקא לן דשחוטה אינה בטילה בנבילה, כיון דאפילו חד בחד הו"ל ודאי נבילה מחמת חזקה שאינו זבוח. There is difficulty in this (statement of Tosafot) that when a piece of nevelah is mixed with a single piece of kosher meat, both are considered definitely forbidden because of the strong assumption (i.e. chazaka of maintaining the pre-existing forbidden status) that it was not slaughtered in a kosher manner. Similarly, it is established law (Shevuot.47b) that two sets of witnesses who contradict one another with respect to one testimony, each set remains established in its pre-existing chazaka of being kosher witnesses (despite the obvious conclusion that one of the sets has just testified falsely). If so (that we accept Tosafot's contention that the chazaka of being non-slaughtered is maintained), what then are the practical ramifications of the statement (by R. Hisda) that kosher slaughtered meat is not nullified in (a larger quantity of) non-slaughtered meat? Even if the kosher meat was mixed with just a single piece of non-kosher meat we would consider both pieces of meat as definitely non-slaughtered because of the pre-existing chazaka of being non-slaughtered!⁵If the kosher meat mixed one on one with nevelah meat transmits impurity because of the chazaka of being unslaughtered, then certainly if one piece of kosher meat mixed in two pieces of nevelah meat will transmit impurity. This would apply even in public locations, because according to the understanding of Tosafot, the chazaka of being non-slaughtered causes us to treat all the pieces of meat as definite nevela and not as doubtful, and therefore the rule of treating doubtful impurity in public places as pure does not apply.

ואין לומר דחזקה שאינו זבוח לא מהני אלא לאיסור אכילה אבל לטומאה ליכא חזקה, דהא בחולין דף י' גבי לא בדק בסימנים דפליגי אמוראי שם בחזקת איסור אמרינן בחזקת טומאה לא, ואנן קיי"ל כמ"ד שם דמטמאה במשא, וכ"כ הרי"ף שם ע"ש, ואפילו למ"ד שם דאינה מטמאה במשא, כתבו תוס' ז"ל משום דרוב פעמים שוחט שפיר ושריא מדאורייתא לכן לא החמירו בו לעשותו נבילה ע"ש, ומבואר דאם היה ספק תורה היה מטמאה לכו"ע במשא ומשום חזקה שאינו זבוח, וכל שאינו זבוח מטמאה במשא, וא"כ מאי נ"מ דשחוטה אינה בטילה בנבילה, ואפילו ברה"ר כל שהוא ודאי משום חזקה הרי היא מטמאה. We cannot resolve the difficulty by saying that the chazaka (strong assumption) of being non-slaughtered is applied only with respect to the issue of kashruth for eating, but with respect to the laws of impurity, there is no strong assumption (of being non-slaughtered). For in Chullin.9a ⁶Text says Chullin 10, but pagination of the Talmud has changed with editions. The author, R. Heller ZT"L passed away in 1812, but the Vilna Shas did not start appearing until the 1870's. in a case of a butcher who did not check the signs (trachea and esophagus, for evidence of possible incorrect slaughtering), there is a dispute between two Amoraim, one opinion saying that the chazaka (of not having been slaughtered) applies only to being forbidden for eating, but not with respect to impurity (of nevelah), but we establish the law according to the opinion that the animal imparts impurity by carrying (as with any nevelah ⁷This applies to domesticated animals and wild animals, whether kosher or non-kosher, but not to birds or "sherazim" - smaller creeping animals). So also writes the Rif (Rabbenu Yitzhak Alfasi, topics/rif) there (in Chullin). Even according to the (other) opinion that (meat from an unchecked shechita slaughtering) does not impart ritual impurity, Tosafot explained that most times the ritual slaughter was done properly and the meat is permitted by Biblical law, and therefore (the Rabbis) were not stringent to apply the status of nevelah (and make it impart impurity. It is understood that if there was a (true) Biblical doubt (regarding validity of slaughtering) it WOULD impart impurity accoring to all opinions, because of the (prior) chazaka (strong assumption) of being non-slaughtered, and any (dead animal) that has not been properly slaughtered imparts impurity by carrying. That being the case, (the author reiterates,) what are the practical ramifications of the statement (by R. Hisda) that kosher slaughtered meat is not nullified in (a larger quantity of) non-slaughtered meat? Even in the public domain, any meat which is assumed by chazaka to be non-slaughtered will impart impurity!

ולכן נראה דלא כתבו תוס' דכה"ג הו"ל חזקה שאינו זבוח אלא בפירש אחת מהם, וכיון דבחתיכה זו שפירש מעולם לא אתברר אם יצאתה מחזקתה שאינו זבוח מוקמינן לה בחזקתה קמייתא, אבל בחתיכה נבילה שנתערבה חד בחד עם שחוטה, כיון דנתברר שאחת מן החתיכות כבר נשחטה ויצאה מחזקת איסור שאינו זבוח אלא שאינו ידוע איזו, בזה לא מוקי לה בחזקת שאינו זבוח, כיון דאחת מן החתיכות בודאי יצאתה מחזקתה וכמ"ש. Therefore it appears that Tosafot (Niddah.18a) applies the chazaka (strong assumption) of meat being non-slaughtered only when one piece of meat separated (from the butcher shops). Since it was never clarified for this piece of meat whether it had escaped from its chazaka of being non-slaughtered, we apply (i.e. it keeps) the chazaka of its original (non-slaughtered) state. However, with respect to a piece of nevelah (non-slaughtered animal) that became mixed one-to-one with a piece of (kosher) slaughtered meat, since it has been clarified already that one of the (two) pieces was properly slaughtered, and it had left the prior status of being non-slaughtered, except that we don't know which piece (was properly slaughtered), in this case we do NOT apply the chazaka of being non-slaughtered, since one of the pieces definitely left that status.