Search

Din & Daf

Din & Daf: Does a Statistical Minority (Mi’ut) Matter? – Mi’ut HaMatzui – A Prevalent Minority

08.07.2025 | י״ג באב תשפ״ה

Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain

 

Why do we check our vegetables for bugs if most of those vegetables will not have bugs? Don’t we follow the majority, and the majority of a given vegetable species does not have bugs? 

 

Questions? Comments? Email dinanddaf@gmail.com 

Avodah Zarah 34b, 40b –חיישינן למיעוטא

Printable sources

 

Listen here:

Watch here:

Sources: 

      • חולין ט.-: 

      אמר רב הונא בהמה בחייה בחזקת איסור עומדת עד שיודע לך במה נשחטה נשחטה בחזקת היתר עומדת עד שיודע לך במה נטרפה ולימא נשחטה הותרה הא קמ”ל דאע”ג דאיתיליד בה ריעותא

      Rav Huna says: An animal during its lifetime exists with the presumptive status of prohibition until it will become known to you in what manner it was slaughtered. Once the animal was slaughtered, it exists with the presumptive status of permissibility until it will become known to you in what manner it was rendered a tereifa. The Gemara challenges this: And let us say that once the animal was slaughtered, it became permitted, instead of saying that it exists with the presumptive status of permissibility. The Gemara explains: This teaches us that even if a flaw developed in the animal that raises uncertainty with regard to its permitted status, it retains its presumptive status of permissibility.

      כדבעא מיניה רבי אבא מרב הונא בא זאב ונטל בני מעים מהו

      As Rabbi Abba raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: If a wolf came and took the innards of a slaughtered animal, what is the halakha?

      נטל הא ליתנהו אלא נקב בני מעים מהו נקב הא קא חזינן דהוא נקבינהו אלא נטלן והחזירן כשהן נקובין מהו מי חיישי’ שמא במקום נקב נקב או לא

      The Gemara asks: Took? In that case the innards are not there, and therefore there is no way of seeing an indication of a flaw. Rather, the dilemma is: In a case where a wolf perforated the innards of a slaughtered animal, what is the halakha? The Gemara challenges: Perforated? We see that the wolf perforated them and in that case too there is no indication of a flaw. Rather, the dilemma is: In a case where a wolf took the innards and returned them when they are perforated, what is the halakha? Are we concerned that perhaps the wolf perforated the innards in the place of a preexisting perforation and the animal was a tereifa from the outset, or is that possibility not a concern?

      א”ל אין חוששין שמא במקום נקב נקב

      Rav Huna said to Rabbi Abba: One is not concerned that perhaps the wolf perforated the innards in the place of a preexisting perforation, because one relies on the 

      presumptive status of permissibility.

      • ירושלמי ביצה ג:ג, יד עמוד א’

      הלכה: רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן. שְׁחָטָהּ וְאָכְלוּ זְאֵיבִים בְּנֵי מֵיעֵיהָ כְשֵׁירָה. שֶׁחֶזְקַת בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים לַכּוֹשֶׁר. וְחָשׁ לוֹמַר. שֶׁמָּא נִיקְבוּ. חֶזְקַת בְּנֵי מֵיעַיִם כְּשֵׁירִין.

      HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba in the name of the rabbis there: If he slaughtered it and wolves ate its intestines it is qualified *Even though punctured intestines make the animal terefa and forbidden for consumption, this is when the defect has been noted. The only organ which must be checked is the lung., for the presumption of intestines is qualification *Babli Ḥulin 9a.. Should one not worry that maybe they were punctured? The presumption of intestines is that they are qualified.

      • בדין בדיקת הריאה שו”ע יו”ד סי’ לט סעי’ א-ב

      א אין צריך לבדוק אחר שום טריפות מן הסתם חוץ מן הריאה צריך לבדוק בבהמה וחיה אם יש בה סירכה (ריב”ש ור”י ן’ חביב וע”פ) וכל הפורץ גדר לאכול בלא בדיקה ישכנו נחש:

      הגה: ונהגו ג”כ לנפוח כל ריאה אפילו לית בה ריעותא (ש”ד סימן צ”ב ובדיקות וע”פ) ובקצת מקומות מקילין שלא לנפחה רק אם היתה בה סירכא עוברת על ידי משמוש וכן עיקר (רמב”ם פי”א מרדכי וע”פ):

      1 – It is not necessary to examine an animal for any disqualifying blemishes (causes of terefa), except for the lung. One must examine the animal or beast to see if it has a an adhesion (Rivash and R.I. ibn Habib, etc.) and anyone who “breaks a fence” (=i.e., trasngressing the standard) to eat without examining it will be punished:

      1. Moshe Isserles: And it was customary to inflate every lung, even if it has a if it had no concerning indications (S.D. 92, etc.) and in some places they are lenient not to inflate it unless it had a temporary adhesion by feeling it, and this is the proper ruling (Rambam chapter 11; Mordechai, etc.)

      ב מי שקרע בטן הבהמה וקודם שתבדק הריאה בא כלב או עובד כוכבים ונטלה והלך לו הרי זו מותרת ואין אומרים שמא נקובה או סרוכה היתה:

      הגה: ויש מחמירין אם נאבדה הריאה (בה”ג וראב”ן ור”י הלוי ומרדכי והג”א וע”פ) ואין להתיר רק במקום הפסד גדול או בגדיים וטלאים וחיות שאין סרכות מצויות בהם (טור בשם בעה”ת):

      2 – If someone tore open the belly of an animal and before the lung was examined, a dog or a pagan came and took it away, the animal is permissible, and we do not say that perhaps it was punctured or torn:

      1. Moshe Isserles: And some are stricter if the lung was lost (Behag, Ra’avan, R.I. Halevi, Mordechai, and G”a, etc.); and one should not permit except in the case of major financial loss or in kids, lambs and wild animals, as adhesions are not prevalent among them (Tur in the name of author of the Sefer HaTerumah)

      What is considered a “prevalent minority?” 

      • שו”ת ריב”ש (רב יצחק בן ששת פרפת 14th c. ) קצ”א Close to 50%  

      שמעוט מצוי ר”ל שהוא קרוב למחצה ורגיל להיות דומיא דמעוט מצוי המוזכר למפרשי’ ז”ל בסירכות הריאה דאע”ג דאזלי’ בתר רובא ואחזוקי אסור’ לא מחזקינן אפ”ה צריך לבדוק בסירכות הריאה מפני שהוא מעוט מצוי וגם בזה דוקא היכא דאפשר לעמוד על ספיקו בבדיקה אבל בא זאב ונטל בני מעיה כשרה…

      For a prevalent minority refers to something that happens close to half the time like adhesions on an animal’s lung; for even though we generally follow the majority, and there is no legal presumption of prohibition, nonetheless one must check the adhesions on the lung because it is prevalent minority. And this is only when there is a possibility to check; but if a wolf came and stole the innards (=therefore, one could not check the lungs for adhesions), the animal is kosher…

      • עיינו במשכנות יעקב R. Yaakov ben Aharon of Karlin, 19th c. – יורה דעה טז-יז 10% 

      א – משנה בבא בתרא ו:ב 

      הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּרוֹת לַחֲבֵרוֹ…מַרְתֵּף שֶׁל יַיִן, מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֶשֶׂר קוֹסְסוֹת לְמֵאָה…

      With regard to one who sells produce…a cellar containing barrels of wine, the buyer accepts that up to ten barrels of souring wine may be present in each hundred barrels purchased…

      ב- משנה גיטין ג:ח

      הַמַּנִּיחַ פֵּרוֹת לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן תְּרוּמָה וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת, מָעוֹת לִהְיוֹת מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, מַפְרִישׁ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהֵן קַיָּמִין…רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה פְרָקִים בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הַיַּיִן, בְּקָדִים שֶׁל מוֹצָאֵי הֶחָג, וּבְהוֹצָאַת סְמָדַר, וּבִשְׁעַת כְּנִיסַת מַיִם בַּבֹּסֶר:

      One who sets aside produce planning to use them to separate terumot and tithes from among them…may later verbally declare the separation of teruma or tithe from them, based on the presumption that they are still extant…Rabbi Yehuda says: One checks the wine that is set aside to be used for separating terumot and tithes for other wine to see if it has turned to vinegar, which would render it unfit for this purpose, at three times during the year: When the east wind blows at the conclusion of the festival of Sukkot, and when the blossoms fall and the grape buds emerge and appear as small clusters, and at the time when water enters and fills the unripe grape. (Since there is a change in the weather at these times, one should check to ensure that the wine has not turned to vinegar.)

      • שו”ע יו”ד סי’ פד סעי’ ח

      כל מיני פירות שדרכן להתליע כשהם מחוברים לא יאכל עד שיבדוק הפרי מתוכו שמא יש בו תולעת ואם שהה הפרי אחר שנעקר י”ב חדש אוכל בלא בדיקה שכל בריה שאין בה עצם אינו מתקיים י”ב חדש ומכל מקום צריך לבדקן להשליך התולעים הנמצאים ביניהם בחוץ או על גבי הפרי ואף לאחר שישליך הנמצאים בחוץ יש לחוש שמא כשיתנם במים בתוך הקדירה יצאו לחוץ וירחשו (תרגום “השרץ השורץ” – רחשא דרחיש) במים או בדופני הקדרה או על גבי הפרי הלכך הבא לבשל לאחר י”ב חדש פירות שהתליעו יתנם לתוך מים צוננים המתולעים והמנוקבים יעלו למעלה ואחר כך יתנם בקדרת מים רותחים שאם נשאר בו תולעת ימות מיד.

      (ולא מהני בהם אם בדק הרוב אלא צריך לבדוק כולם דהוי מיעוט דשכיח) (רשב”א בת”ה ובתשובה סימן רע”ד):

      All types of fruits that typically have worms while they are still attached to the ground should not be eaten until the fruit is checked inside to see if there is a worm. If the fruit was left after it was detached for twelve months, it may be eaten without inspection because any living creature without a spine does not survive twelve months. Nonetheless, one must still inspect them to remove any worms found on the outside or on the fruit. Even after removing those found outside, there is concern that when placed in water in the pot, they may come out and wriggle (translation of “reshisha derachish”) in the water or on the sides of the pot or on the fruit. Therefore, one who wishes to cook fruits that have been left for more than twelve months should place them in cold water; the worms and larvae will rise to the surface. Afterward, they should be placed in a pot of boiling water, so if there is any worm left, it will die immediately.

      (It does not suffice if the majority is checked; one must check all of them because the minority is common) (Responsa of the Rashba, Section 5 and in Responsa Section 274).

      • שו”ת הרשב”א חלק א’ רעד

      You asked about what I wrote regarding the preparation of foods – lentils, beans and olives that often have bugs in them while they are still attached to the ground, and therefore require checking. And you were uncertain whether, if someone checked some and didn’t find any bugs, where we should presume that they are a species that has not bugs found among them when attached to the ground. And then one would not need to check further, or should one still check each and every one?

      Answer: There is not doubt that among these species bugs are found, and therefore even if one already checked some of them, checking some does not render the others pure; because in truth the bugs will not be in the majority, and yet there is a prevalent minority, and where there is a prevalent minority we do not rely on checking some or even the majority. And the exemplar of this is checking the lung (where a disqualifying adhesion) is (only) a prevalent minority, and yet we do not rely on checking only some or even the majority of animals.


Hadran’s Beyond the Daf shiurim are also available by podcast on

Spotify

Apple Podcasts 

YouTube

Beyond the Daf is where you will discover enlightening shiurim led by remarkable women, delving deep into the intricacies of Talmudic teachings, and exploring relevant and thought-provoking topics that arise from the Daf.

You liked Din & Daf? Follow to get more content:

240420251745481781.png

Dr. Elana Stein Hain

Dr. Elana Stein Hain is the Rosh Beit Midrash and a senior research fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America. Passionate about bringing Torah into conversation with contemporary life, she teaches Talmud from the Balcony, an occasional learning seminar exposing the big ideas, questions, and issues motivating talmudic discussions; she authored Circumventing the Law: Rabbinic Perspectives on Legal Loopholes and Integrity (pre-order discount code: PENN-ESHAIN30) which uses halakhic loopholes as a lens for understanding rabbinic views on law and ethics; and she co-hosts For Heaven’s Sake, a bi-weekly podcast with Donniel Hartman and Yossi Klein Halevi, exploring contemporary issues related to Israel and the Jewish world. In mid-January, Elana will be starting a new podcast called TEXTing, where she and guest scholars study Torah texts that engage issues of the moment for the Jewish world. She lives in Manhattan with her beloved family.

Get Beyond the Daf via podcast

Want to follow content and continue where you left off?

Create an account today to track your progress, mark what you’ve learned, and follow the shiurim that speak to you.

Clear all items from this list?

This will remove ALL the items in this section. You will lose any progress or history connected to them. This is irreversible.

Cancel
Yes, clear all

Are you sure you want to delete this item?

You will lose any progress or history connected to this item.

Cancel
Yes, delete