Halacha
הלכה א
כָּל אִסּוּרֵי מַאֲכָלוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שִׁעוּרָן בִּכְזַיִת בֵּינוֹנִי בֵּין לְמַלְקוֹת בֵּין לְכָרֵת בֵּין לְמִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁכָּל הַמְחֻיָּב כָּרֵת אוֹ מִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם עַל מַאֲכָל לוֹקֶה:
כסף משנה
1.
The minimum measure for which one is liable for partaking of any of the forbidden foods in the Torah is [the size of] an average olive.1The 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 (Orach 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. [This applies] whether for lashes, kerait, 2Literally, 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). or death at the hand of heaven.3Premature death before the age of 60 (Mo'ed Kattan, loc. cit.). We already explained4See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:7. that anyone who is liable for kerait or death at the hand of heaven for [partaking of] forbidden food, should receive lashes.הלכה ב
וְשִׁעוּר זֶה עִם כָּל הַשִּׁעוּרִין הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי הֵם. וְאָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה לֶאֱכל כָּל שֶׁהוּא מִדָּבָר הָאָסוּר. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֶלָּא עַל כְּזַיִת. וְאִם אָכַל כָּל שֶׁהוּא פָּחוֹת מִכַּשִּׁעוּר מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת:
כסף משנה
2.
This measure, as all the other measurements, is a halachah conveyed by Moses from Sinai. It is forbidden by Scriptural Law to eat even the slightest amount of a forbidden substance. Nevertheless, one receives lashes only for an olive-sized portion. If one partakes of any amount less than this measure, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.5The punishment given for the violation of Rabbinic commandments or Scriptural Laws for which there is no specific punishment outlined.הלכה ג
כְּזַיִת שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ חוּץ מִשֶּׁל בֵּין הַשִּׁנַּיִם. אֲבָל מַה שֶּׁל בֵּין הַחֲנִיכַיִם מִצְטָרֵף לְמַה שֶּׁבָּלַע שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶהֱנָה גְּרוֹנוֹ מִכְּזַיִת. אֲפִלּוּ אָכַל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וֶהֱקִיאוֹ וְחָזַר וְאָכַל אוֹתוֹ חֲצִי זַיִת עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהֵקִיא חַיָּב. שֶׁאֵין הַחִיּוּב אֶלָּא עַל הֲנָאַת הַגָּרוֹן בִּכְזַיִת מִדָּבָר הָאָסוּר:
כסף משנה
3.
The measure of "the size of an olive" that we mentioned does not include what is between one's teeth.6Shiurei Torah suggests including slightly more than 3 grams in the measure of an olive-sized portion to compensate for this factor. What is between one's gums,7Even though it was not swallowed. however, is included in what one swallows, for his palate benefited from an olive-sized portion of food.Even if one ate half of an olive-sized portion, vomited it, and then ate the same portion that was half the size of an olive that he vomited, he is liable.8This 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 in a specific time: k'dai achilas p'ras, as explained in Halachah 8. For the liability is for the benefit one's palate receives from a forbidden substance.
הלכה ד
כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב אוֹ נְבֵלָה אוֹ פִּגּוּל אוֹ נוֹתָר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁהִנִּיחוֹ בַּחַמָּה וְנִתְמַעֵט. הָאוֹכְלוֹ פָּטוּר. חָזַר וְהִנִּיחוֹ בַּגְּשָׁמִים וְנִתְפַּח חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת אוֹ מַלְקוֹת. הָיָה פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת מִבַּתְּחִלָּה וְנִתְפַּח וְעָמַד עַל כְּזַיִת אָסוּר וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו:
כסף משנה
4.
When an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat, a nevelah, piggul,9A 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). notar,10Sacrificial meat that remained after the time when it is required to be eaten (op cit. 13:3). or the like was left in the sun and was reduced in volume, one who eats it is not liable.11As Menachot 54b states, the size of a portion of food at the time one partakes of it determines whether he is liable or not.If, afterwards, one left it in the rain and it expanded, one is liable for either kerait or lashes.12For, at the outset, it was the size of an olive. If, originally, it was smaller than an olive-sized portion and then expanded to the size of an olive, it is forbidden to partake of it, but one is not liable for lashes for it.13For its natural size is not an olive.
הלכה ה
כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁכָּל אִסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לִכְזַיִת. חוּץ מִבְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה עִם בְּשַׂר טְרֵפָה וְאִסּוּרֵי נָזִיר שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֲרוּ בִּמְקוֹמָן. וַחֲמֵשֶׁת מִינֵי תְּבוּאָה וּקְמָחִין שֶׁלָּהֶן וְהַבְּצֵקוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן הַכּל מִצְטָרְפִים לִכְזַיִת בֵּין לְאִסּוּר חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח. בֵּין לְאִסּוּר חָדָשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי הָעֹמֶר. בֵּין לְאִסּוּרֵי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וּתְרוּמוֹת:
כסף משנה
5.
We already explained14Chapter 4, Halachot 16 and 17. that all of the forbidden substances in the Torah are not combined with each other to reach the minimum measure of the size of an olive with the exception of the meat of a nevelah and the meat of a trefe15For a trefe is the beginning of a nevelah, as stated there. and the prohibitions involving a nazirite,16For they are all grape products, as stated in Hilchot Nazirut 5:3. as explained in the appropriate places. The five types of grain,17Wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt. Since they are all grain, they are combined to reach the minimum measure. their flour, and the dough made from them all can be combined with each other to reach the minimum measure of the size of an olive with regard to the prohibition against leaven on Pesach, the prohibition against partaking of chadash before the offering of the omer,18See Chapter 10 for a definition of this prohibition. and the prohibitions involving the second tithe and the terumot.הלכה ו
יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁכָּל הַחַיָּב בִּתְרוּמָה וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת מִצְטָרֵף לִכְזַיִת בְּטֶבֶל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא שֵׁם אֶחָד. הָא לְמַה זֶּה דּוֹמֶה לְנִבְלַת הַשּׁוֹר וְנִבְלַת הַשֶּׂה וְנִבְלַת הַצְּבִי שֶׁהֵן מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְזַיִת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:
כסף משנה
6.
It appears to me that all [produce] from which we are required to separate terumah and tithes can be combined to reach the minimum measure of the size of an olive with regard to [the prohibition against] tevel because a single prohibition is involved. To what can the matter be compared? To [meat from] the corpse of an ox, the corpse of a sheep, and the corpse of a deer which can be combined to reach the minimum measure of the size of an olive as we explained.19Chapter 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.
הלכה ז
הָאוֹכֵל אֲכִילָה גְּדוֹלָה מִדָּבָר אָסוּר אֵין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ מַלְקוֹת אוֹ כָּרֵת עַל כָּל כְּזַיִת וּכְזַיִת אֶלָּא חִיּוּב אֶחָד לְכָל הָאֲכִילָה. וְאִם הָיוּ הָעֵדִים מַתְרִים בּוֹ בִּשְׁעַת אֲכִילָה עַל כָּל כְּזַיִת וּכְזַיִת חַיָּב עַל כָּל הַתְרָאָה וְהַתְרָאָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא אֲכִילָה אַחַת וְלֹא הִפְסִיק:
כסף משנה
7.
When a person partakes of a large amount of food from a forbidden substance, he is not liable for lashes or kerait for every olive-sized portion he eats. Instead, he is liable once for all he ate.20In 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. If, however, the witness gave him a warning for every olive-sized portion, he is liable for every warning even though he ate it in one sitting, without interruption.21For the warnings create a distinction between the food eaten before and afterwards.הלכה ח
הָאוֹכֵל כִּשְׂעוֹרָה אוֹ כְּחַרְדָּל מֵאֶחָד מִכָּל מַאֲכָלוֹת הָאֲסוּרִים וְשָׁהָה מְעַט וְחָזַר וְאָכַל כְּחַרְדָּל. וְכֵן עַד שֶׁהִשְׁלִים כְּזַיִת. בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד. אִם שָׁהָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף כְּדֵי אֲכִילַת שָׁלֹשׁ בֵּיצִים יִצְטָרֵף הַכּל וַהֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב כָּרֵת אוֹ מַלְקוֹת אוֹ קָרְבָּן כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת בְּבַת אַחַת. וְאִם שָׁהָה יֶתֶר מִזֶּה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהָה בֵּינֵיהֶן אֶלָּא אָכַל כְּחַרְדָּל אַחַר כְּחַרְדָּל הוֹאִיל וְלֹא הִשְׁלִים כְּזַיִת אֶלָּא בְּיֶתֶר מִכְּדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין וּפָטוּר:
כסף משנה
8.
[The following rules apply when] a person partakes of a barley-corn or mustard-seed-sized portion of any forbidden food, waits, and then partakes of another mustard-seed-sized portion whether inadvertently or intentionally. If he waited from the beginning to the end the time it takes to eat a portion of bread with relish the size of three eggs22Our translation is based on Hilchot Tumat Tzara'at 16:6. [or less], everything [he ate] is combined.23This 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, his eating is not significant, 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. He is liable for kerait, lashes, or a sacrifice as if he ate an olive-sized portion at one time. If he waits a longer time from the beginning to the end, [the small portions] are not combined. Since he completed the olive-sized portion only in a longer time than k'dei achilat p'ras, he is not liable even if he did not wait at all, but continued eating mustard-seed-sized portion after mustard-seed-sized portion.
הלכה ט
וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹתֶה רְבִיעִית שֶׁל סְתָם יֵינָם מְעַט מְעַט. אוֹ שֶׁהִמְחָה אֶת הֶחָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח אוֹ אֶת הַחֵלֶב וּגְמָעוֹ מְעַט מְעַט. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁתָה מִן הַדָּם מְעַט מְעַט. אִם שָׁהָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף כְּדֵי שְׁתִיַּת רְבִיעִית מִצְטָרְפִין. וְאִם לָאו אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין:
כסף משנה
9.
Similar [laws apply when] a person who drinks a revi'it24The standard liquid measure that applies with regard to the Torah's mitzvot and prohibitions. of ordinary gentile wine little by little, swallows liquefied leaven on Pesach or fat little by little, or drinks blood25The 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. little by little. If he waits from the beginning until the end the time it takes to drink a revi'it, [all of the sipping] is combined.26For if one prolongs his drinking over a longer period, his deed is not considered significant. If not, it is not combined.27The 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.The Radbaz explains the Rambam's ruling here, stating that with regard to the prohibitions against eating, what is important is that one feel 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.
הלכה י
כָּל הָאֳכָלִין הָאֲסוּרִין אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עֲלֵיהֶם עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל אוֹתָן דֶּרֶךְ הֲנָאָה חוּץ מִבָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר בָּהֶן אֲכִילָה אֶלָּא הוֹצִיא אִסּוּר אֲכִילָתָן בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֶרֶת בִּלְשׁוֹן בִּשּׁוּל וּבִלְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ לֶאֱסוֹר אוֹתָן וַאֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּדֶרֶךְ הֲנָיָה:
כסף משנה
10.
One is not liable for partaking of any of the prohibited foods unless one partakes of them in a manner in which one derives satisfaction with the exception of a mixture of meat and milk and mixed species grown in a vineyard. [The rationale is that with regard to these prohibitions, the Torah] does not use the term "eating,"28When, 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. but instead conveys the prohibition against partaking of them in other terms. [With regard to meat and milk, it uses] the term "cooking" and [with regard to mixed species grown in a vineyard, it uses the term] "become hallowed."29As explained in Chapter 10, Halachah 6, "becom[ing] hallowed" means being "set apart and forbidden." [This implies] that they are forbidden even when one does not derive satisfaction.הלכה יא
כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁהִמְחָה אֶת הַחֵלֶב וּגְמָעוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא חַם עַד שֶׁנִּכְוָה גְּרוֹנוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָכַל חֵלֶב חַי. אוֹ שֶׁעֵרֵב דְּבָרִים מָרִים כְּגוֹן רֹאשׁ וְלַעֲנָה לְתוֹךְ יֵין נֶסֶךְ אוֹ לְתוֹךְ קְדֵרָה שֶׁל נְבֵלָה וַאֲכָלָן כְּשֶׁהֵן מָרִין. אוֹ שֶׁאָכַל אֹכֶל הָאָסוּר אַחַר שֶׁהִסְרִיחַ וְהִבְאִישׁ וּבָטַל מֵאֹכֶל אָדָם הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. וְאִם עֵרֵב דָּבָר מַר בְּתוֹךְ קְדֵרָה שֶׁל בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב אוֹ בְּיֵין כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם וַאֲכָלוֹ חַיָּב:
כסף משנה
11.
What is implied? When one liquefied fat and swallowed it when it was so hot that his throat was burned from it, he eat raw fat,30Which does not have a pleasant taste. mixed bitter substances like gall or wormwood into wine31This 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)]. or into a pot [where meat from] a nevelah [is cooking] and he partook of it while they were bitter,32I.e., even if the unappetizing element of the food is not dependent on them, but on a foreign substance. or he ate a forbidden food after it became decayed, spoiled, and unfit for human consumption, he is not liable.33This 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. If, by contrast, he mixed a bitter substance into a a pot [where meat and milk are cooking] or into wine from a vineyard where mixed species are growing and partook of it, he is liable.הלכה יב
הָאוֹכֵל מַאֲכָל מִמַּאֲכָלוֹת הָאֲסוּרוֹת דֶּרֶךְ שְׂחוֹק אוֹ כְּמִתְעַסֵּק. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּן לְגוּף הָאֲכִילָה. הוֹאִיל וְנֶהֱנָה חַיָּב כְּמִי שֶׁמִּתְכַּוֵּן לְעַצְמָהּ שֶׁל אֲכִילָה. וַהֲנָיָה הַבָּאָה לוֹ לְאָדָם בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ בְּאִסּוּר מִכָּל הָאִסּוּרִין אִם נִתְכַּוֵּן אָסוּר וְאִם לֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן מֻתָּר:
כסף משנה
12.
When a person partakes of one of the forbidden food in a frivolous manner or as one who is acting purposelessly, he is liable. Even though he did not intend to actually partake of the food, since he derived pleasure, it is considered as if he intended to actually partake of the food.34Generally, 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. When, [by contrast,] a person is forced to derive [forbidden] pleasure, if he focuses his intent on it, he is liable. If he does not, it is permitted.35Even though he derived pleasure, since he did not act voluntarily and did not desire the forbidden pleasure, he is not held liable.הלכה יג
הָאוֹכֵל מַאֲכָל אָסוּר לְתֵאָבוֹן אוֹ מִפְּנֵי הָרָעָב חַיָּב. וְאִם הָיָה תּוֹעֶה בַּמִּדְבָּר וְאֵין לוֹ מַה יֹּאכַל אֶלָּא דְּבַר אִסּוּר הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת:
כסף משנה
13.
When a person partakes of a forbidden food because of desire or because of hunger, he is liable.36Although either his desire or hunger causes him pain, he is not considered as if he was compelled to partake of the forbidden food. If he was wandering in the desert and he has nothing to eat but a forbidden substance, it is permitted, because of the danger to his life.37As stated in Hilchot Yesodei Torah 5:6, all prohibitions are superceded by danger to life with the exception of idolatry, murder, and forbidden sexual relations.הלכה יד
עֻבָּרָה שֶׁהֵרִיחָה מַאֲכָל אָסוּר כְּגוֹן בְּשַׂר קֹדֶשׁ אוֹ בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר. מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתָהּ מִן הַמָּרָק. אִם נִתְיַשְּׁבָה דַּעְתָּהּ מוּטָב. וְאִם לָאו מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתָהּ פָּחוֹת מִכַּשִּׁעוּר. וְאִם לֹא נִתְיַשְּׁבָה דַּעְתָּהּ מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתָהּ עַד שֶׁתִּתְיַשֵּׁב דַּעְתָּהּ:
כסף משנה
14.
When a pregnant woman smells a forbidden food [and is overcome by desire for it],38A 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. e.g., consecrated meat or ham, she should be given some of the gravy. If her mind becomes settled, that is commendable. If not, we feed her less than the forbidden measure39I.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 Asor 2:9, Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 617:2). [of the meat itself]. If her mind does not become settled, we feed her until her mind becomes settled.הלכה טו
וְכֵן הַחוֹלֶה שֶׁהֵרִיחַ דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חֹמֶץ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ מִדְּבָרִים שֶׁמְּעַרְעֲרִין אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ דִּינוֹ כְּעֻבָּרָה:
כסף משנה
15.
Similarly, when a sick person smells food that contains vinegar or the like, [i.e.,] substances that arouse a soul's [desire], he is governed by the same laws that apply to a pregnant woman.40Since he is sick, his condition is precarious and we are concerned that his craving may place his life in danger. See Ketubot 61a.הלכה טז
מִי שֶׁאָחֲזוֹ בֻּלְמוֹס מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ דְּבָרִים הָאֲסוּרִים מִיָּד עַד שֶׁיֵּאוֹרוּ עֵינָיו. וְאֵין מְחַזְּרִין עַל דָּבָר הַמֻּתָּר אֶלָּא מְמַהֲרִין בַּנִּמְצָא. וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ הַקַּל הַקַּל תְּחִלָּה. אִם הֵאִירוּ עֵינָיו דַּיּוֹ. וְאִם לָאו מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ הֶחָמוּר:
כסף משנה
16.
When a person is overcome by severe hunger,41This 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. he may be fed forbidden food immediately until his eyesight clears. We do not seek permitted food. Instead, we hurry to feed him what is available.42Out of fear that the delay may be crucial to his life. Similarly, we do not try first giving him the gravy and then smaller portions as in the previous halachot (Kessef Mishneh). Needless to say, if kosher food is available, there is no reason to give him non-kosher food.We feed him substances bound by more lenient prohibitions first. If his sight clears, that is sufficient. If not, we feed him the substances bound by the more severe prohibitions.
הלכה יז
כֵּיצַד. הָיוּ לְפָנֵינוּ טֶבֶל וּנְבֵלָה מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ נְבֵלָה תְּחִלָּה שֶׁהַטֶּבֶל בְּמִיתָה. נְבֵלָה וּסְפִיחֵי שְׁבִיעִית מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ סְפִיחֵי שְׁבִיעִית שֶׁאֲסוּרִין מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁמִטָּה. טֶבֶל וּשְׁבִיעִית מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ שְׁבִיעִית. טֶבֶל וּתְרוּמָה אִם אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְתַקֵּן הַטֶּבֶל מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ טֶבֶל שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ כִּתְרוּמָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
כסף משנה
17.
What is implied? If there is tevel43Produce from which terumah and the tithes have not been separated. and a nevelah, we feed him the nevelah first. {The rationale is] that [partaking of] tevel is punishable by death [at the hand of heaven].44This applies when the terumot have not been separated from the produce. If the terumot have been separated, but the tithes have not been separated, the prohibition is of the same degree of severity as partaking of a nevelah. See Chapter 10, Halachot 19-20. If [the choice is between] a nevelah and produce that grows on its own during the Sabbatical year, we feed him the produce, for it is forbidden [only] by Rabbinic decree, as will be explained in Hilchot Shemitah.45Hilchot Shemitah ViYovel 4:2.If [the choice is between] tevel and produce grown during the Sabbatical year,46I.e., produce grown in the Sabbatical year that remains after the time when it is supposed to be disposed of (Rashi, Yoma 83a). we feed him the produce grown during the Sabbatical year.47For 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. If [the choice is between] tevel and terumah, if it is impossible to make the tevel acceptable,48Some 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. we feed him the tevel. [The rationale is] that it is not sanctified as terumah is. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
הלכה יח
כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁאֵין אִסּוּר חָל עַל אִסּוּר אֶלָּא אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵי הָאִסּוּרִין בָּאִין כְּאַחַת אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אִסּוּר מוֹסִיף אוֹ אִסּוּר כּוֹלֵל. לְפִיכָךְ יֵשׁ אוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת אֶחָד וְלוֹקֶה עָלָיו חָמֵשׁ מַלְקִיּוֹת. וְהוּא שֶׁהִתְרוּ בּוֹ בַּחֲמִשָּׁה אִסּוּרִין שֶׁנִּתְקַבְּצוּ בּוֹ. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב שֶׁנּוֹתַר מִן הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁים בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל חֵלֶב. וּמִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל נוֹתָר. וּמִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. וּמִשּׁוּם טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל קֹדֶשׁ. וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה מִן הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּמָעַל:
כסף משנה
18.
We have already explained49Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:8-9. that one prohibition does not take effect when another prohibition is in effect unless both of the prohibitions take effect at the same time,50Chapter 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 trefe, 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 trefe, for both prohibitions take effect at the same time. the latter prohibition forbids additional entities,51This concept is exemplified in this and the following halachah. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 2, and Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:9-10. or the [latter] prohibition encompasses other entities.52This concept is exemplified in Chapter 8, Halachah 6: A person who partakes of a gid hanesheh, a sciatic nerve, of an animal which is trefe is liable for two transgressions. Since when the animal became trefe, its entire body became encompassed in the prohibition, that prohibition also encompasses the gid even though it was prohibited beforehand.Accordingly, [it is possible] for there to be a person who eats one olive-sized portion of forbidden food and yet, he will be liable for five [sets of] lashes for it, provided he was warned for all five prohibitions that accumulated.
What is implied? For example, on Yom Kippur, a person who was ritually impure ate an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat from a consecrated animal that remained after its prescribed time.53Every 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. He is liable for lashes because he partook of forbidden fat, notar, because he ate on Yom Kippur,54The Rambam also states this concept in Hilchot Shegagot 6:4. There he emphasizes that to be liable for eating on Yom Kippur, one must add another small portion of food. For one is not liable for eating on Yom Kippur unless he consumes a date-sized portion. That additional portion, however, need not involve all these different prohibitions. because he partook of consecrated food while ritually impure, and because he derived benefit from consecrated food, thus [violating the prohibition of] me'ilah.
הלכה יט
וְלָמָּה חָל כָּאן אִסּוּר עַל אִסּוּר. שֶׁבְּהֵמָה זוֹ הָיָה חֶלְבָּהּ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּמֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה. הִקְדִּישָׁהּ נֶאֱסַר חֶלְבָּהּ בַּהֲנָיָה וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנּוֹסַף בּוֹ אִסּוּר הֲנָיָה נוֹסַף עָלָיו אִסּוּר קָדָשִׁים. וַעֲדַיִן הָיָה חֵלֶב זֶה מֻתָּר לְגָבוֹהַּ וְאָסוּר לְהֶדְיוֹט. נַעֲשָׂה נוֹתָר מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנּוֹסַף בּוֹ אִסּוּר לְגָבוֹהַּ נֶאֱסַר לְהֶדְיוֹט. וְהָאוֹכֵל הַזֶּה הָיָה מֻתָּר בִּבְשַׂר הַבְּהֵמָה וְאָסוּר בְּחֶלְבָּהּ. נִטְמָא נֶאֱסַר אַף בִּבְשָׂרָהּ נוֹסַף לוֹ אִסּוּר עַל הַחֵלֶב. בָּא יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים כָּלַל כָּל הָאֳכָלִין. וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱסַר אַף בְּחֻלִּין נוֹסַף אִסּוּרוֹ בְּחֵלֶב זֶה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
כסף משנה
19.
Why do these prohibitions fall on each other? Because although it was forbidden to partake of the fat of this animal, it was permitted to benefit from it. Once he consecrated it, it became forbidden to benefit from the fat. Since the prohibition to benefit from it was added to it, the prohibition against [benefiting from] consecrated articles became added to it.Although this fat was forbidden to an ordinary person, it was still permitted to be offered to the One on High. When it became notar, since it became forbidden to the One on High, [that] prohibition was added to an ordinary person.
This person was permitted to partake of the meat of the animal,55Before it became notar. although he was forbidden to partake of its fat. When he became impure, since its meat became forbidden an additional prohibition was added to its fat. When Yom Kippur commenced, all food became included [in the prohibition], since this prohibition affects non-consecrated food, it adds a prohibition to this fat. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.