Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 14

The measure of “the size of an olive” cannot be determined by measuring an average olive today. Instead,. this refers to a measure established by our Sages and is the subject of debate by later Rabbinic authorities. The Pri Chadash (Drach Chayim 486) states that the Rambam considers an olive as one-third the size of an egg with its shell (17.3 grams according to Shiurei Torah 3:13, 24 grams according to Chazon Ish). Tosafot, Chullin 103a, differs and defines an olive as one-half the size of a shelled egg (25.6 grams according to Shiurei Torah 3:12, 36 grams according to Chazon Ish). In practice, with regard to questions of Scriptural Law, the more stringent opinion should be followed. With regard to questions of Rabbinic Law, one may rely on the more lenient view.

Literally, the soul's being cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50, Mo'ed Kattan 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1).

Premature death before the age of 60 (Mo’ed Kattan, loc. cit.).

See Hilchat lssurei Bi’ah 1:7.

The punishment given for the violation of Rabbinic commandments or Scriptural Laws for which there is no specific punishment outlined.

Shiurei Torah suggests including slightly more than 3 grams in the measure of an olive-sized portion to compensate for this factor.

Even though it was not swallowed.

This refers to a situation in which the person ate the vomited food a second time shortly after he ate it the first time. To explain: For a person to be liable, he must eat not only a specific amount (an olive-sized portion), but he must eat it within a specific time: k’dai achilas p‘ras, as explained in Halachah 8.

A sacrifice which the priest thought to have its blood or limbs offered on the altar after the time when they should be offered or have its meat eaten after the time it should be eaten (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 13:1).

Sacrificial meat that remained after the time when it is required to be eaten (op cit. 13:3).

As Menachot 54b states, the size of a portion of food at the time one partakes of it determines whether he is liable or not.

For, at the outset, it was the size of an olive.

For its natural size is not an olive.

Chapter 4, Halachot 16 and 17.

For a treifah is the beginning of a nevelah, as stated there.

For they are all grape products, as stated in Hilchot Nazirut 5:3.

Wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt. Since they are all grain, they are combined to reach the minimum measure.

See Chapter 10 for a definition of this prohibition.

Chapter 4, Halachah 7.
The Ra’avad qualifies the Rambam’s statement, maintaining that it applies only when the types of produce consumed have a similar taste. The Radbaz, however, justifies the Rambam’s view.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazir 6:4), the Rambam states that this leniency applies only with regard to an earthly court. God, however, holds the person liable for each forbidden measure he eats.

For the warnings create a distinction between the· food eaten before and afterwards.

Our translation is based on Hilchot Tumat Tzara‘at 16:6.

This is one of the fundamental concepts with regard to the mitzvot and prohibitions concerning eating. Just as there is a minimum amount, a k’zayit (an olive-sized portion), which one must eat for the mitzvah or prohibition to be fulfilled;. so, too, there is a minimum measure of time, k’dei achilat p‘ras, in which that amount of food must be eaten. If one takes a longer time to eat the prohibited food, partaking of the food does not make him liable, like one who eats less than the minimum amount
Rashi (Pesachim 44a) offers a different view and maintains that this measure is defined as the time it takes to eat four eggs. Shiurei Torah mentions several different opinions from between four minutes until nine minutes for this figure.

The standard liquid measure that applies with regard to the Torah's mitzvot and prohibitions.

The commentaries have noted that in Chapter 6, Halachah 1, the Rambam mentioned that the minimum measure for which one is liable for partaking of blood is an olive-sized portion and question why in this context, a revi‘it is mentioned. It is possible to explain that here the subjects are slightly different, for we are not speaking about the minimum amount for which one is liable, but rather the minimum time period. The commentaries, however, do not see this as a significant enough point.

For if one prolongs his drinking over a longer period, his deed is not considered significant.

The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that other authorities do not accept the concept of “the time it takes to drink a revi‘it” and even with regard to prohibitions that involve drinking speak of k’dei achilat p‘ras. Indeed, the Rambam himself mentions that measure with regard to drinking within the context of the laws of ritual purity (Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTumah 8:11).
The Radbaz explains the Rambam’s ruling here, stating that with regard to the prohibitions against eating, what is important is that one feels significant satisfaction. If he prolongs his drinking longer than that, he will not feel· satisfaction from it. See also the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh to Hilchot Shivitat Esor 2:4 which discusses this issue. Both opinions are quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Drach Chayim 612).

When, however, the Torah uses the term “eating,” that implies that one derives satisfaction in the ordinary manner one derives benefit from food (see the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh to Chapter 8, Halachah 16). Only then is one liable. Needless to say, it is forbidden by Rabbinic Law to partake of a forbidden substance even if one does not derive benefit.

As explained in Chapter 10, Halachah 6, “becom[ing] hallowed” means being “set apart and forbidden.”

Which does not have a pleasant taste.

This concept also applies with regard to wine used as a libation, for Deuteronomy 32:38, the prooftext from which this prohibition is derived, also mentions “eating” [Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 111)].

I.e., even if the unappetizing element of the food is not dependent on them, but on a foreign substance.

This refers to the concept referred to as notein taam lifgam, giving an unfavorable taste. Our Rabbis extend this concept further, explaining that any pot which has not been used for non-kosher food for a day no longer causes the pot to be forbidden according to Scriptural Law, because the forbidden food has already lost its flavor [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 103:5)]. See also Chapter 15, Halachot 28-31.

Generally, a person who violates a transgression without intent is not liable (Shabbat 22a). Here, however, an exception is made, because the person is deriving physical benefit.

Even though he derived pleasure, since he did not act voluntarily and did not desire the forpidden pleasure, he is not held liable.

Although either his desire or hunger causes him pain, he is not considered as if he were compelled to partake of the forbidden food.

As stated in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:6, all prohibitions are superceded by danger to life with the exception of idolatry, murder, and forbidden sexual relations.

A pregnant woman may have severe cravings for food with an attractive aroma. Our Sages feared that if she were not given some of the food she desired, she might miscarry and perhaps even her own life would be endangered. See Yoma 82b.

I.e., less than an olive-sized portion as stated in Halachah 1. Since one is not liable unless one partakes of an olive-sized portion within k’dei achilat pras (see Halachah 8), if we do not fear the situation is overly dangerous, the woman can be fed this minimal amount in intervals. See Hilchot Sh ‘vitat Asar 2:9, Shulchan Aruch (Drach Chayim
617:2).

Since he is sick, his condition is precarious and we are concerned that his craving may place his life in danger. See Ketubot 61a.

This refers to a state of infirmity that overcomes a person because of lack of nourishment. He becomes dizzy, faint, and unable to focus his eyes.

Out of fear that the delay may be crucial to his life.

Produce from which terumah and the tithes have not been separated.

This applies when the terumot have not been separated from the produce. If the terumot have been separated, but the terumot have not been separated, the prohibition is of the same degree of severity as partaking of a nevelah. See Chapter 10, Halachot 19-20.

Hilchot Shemitah ViYovel 4:2.

I.e., produce grown in the Sabbatical year that remains after the time when it is supposed to be disposed of (Rashi, Yoma 83a).

For the prohibition against eating produce cultivated in the Sabbatical year stems from a positive commandment. This is considered as more lenient than a prohibition stemming from a negative commandment, because there is no punishment involved.

Some interpret this as referring to a situation where there is no one who knows how to separate the terumot present. Rashi (loc. cit.) interprets this as referring to a situation where the sick person must eat the entire amount of produce available. It is preferable not to separate the terumot. For even though he will be eating less of a forbidden substance, the prohibition will be more severe because terumah is sanctified.

Hilchot lssurei Bi’ah 17:8-9.

Chapter 5, Halachah 5, gives an example of this concept. When a person rips a limb from a living animal which causes the animal to become treifah and eats it, he is considered to have transgressed two prohibitions: the prohibition ·against eating flesh from a living animal and the prohibition against partaking of an animal that is treifah, for both prohibitions take effect at the same time.

This concept is exemplified in this and the following halachah. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 2, and Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 17:9-10.

This concept is exemplified in Chapter 8, Halachah 6: A person who partakes of a gid hanesheh, a sciatic nerve, of an animal which is treifah is liable for two transgressions. Since when the animal became treifah, its entire body became encompassed in the prohibition, that prohibition also encompasses the gid even though it was prohibited beforehand.

Every sacrifice of which we are allowed to partake has a certain time span - a day and a night or two days and a night - in which we are allowed to partake of it. After that time span, it becomes forbidden because of the prohibition referred to as notar (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:10).

The Rambam also states this concept in Hilchot Shegagot 6:4. There he emphasizes that to be liable for eating on Yorn Kippur, one must add another small portion of food. For one is not liable for eating on Yorn Kippur unless he consumes a date-sized portion. That additional portion, however, need not involve all these different prohibitions.

Before it became notar.