Beria

The gemara in Chullin (100a) cites the halakha of “beria.”  Generally, a prohibited item of food which falls into a large quantity of “heter” (here: permissible food) is “batel” (nullified) - transformed into a permissible foodstuff like its host.  In general, if the proportion between heter and issur is 60:1 or greater, the entire mixture may be eaten.  There are, however, exceptions - cases where even minute quantities of issur which fall into permissible food prohibit the entire mixture.  One such example is a beria - a complete and intact item (as opposed to sliced or cut food).  For example, if an ant falls into a pot of soup, the entire pot is forbidden regardless of the quantity of soup.  The standard rules and ratios of bittul do not obtain.

Presumably, this phenomenon might be explained as stemming from the latent SIGNIFICANCE of a beria.  The process of ‘bittul’ is based upon a confrontation between two items of different nature (one permissible, the other prohibited) and the ensuing overpowering of the weaker item.  If an issur is faced with at least 60 times more heter it is overwhelmed and converted.  In general, the STRENGTH of an item is gauged by its concentration.  In the case of beria, however, the absence of quantity is compensated for by another factor; the  quality of “wholeness” confers unparalleled significance to the item.  Even though it becomes mixed with a larger quantity of heter it still resists mutation into the status of its host.

That “wholeness” per se bestows significance upon an item despite its small mass is evident from a parallel discussion of beria.  The mishna in Makkot (13a) cites the position of R. Shimon that one who eats a grain of tevel (food before teruma, the Kohen’s portion, has been dedicated) receives malkut (lashes).  Generally, malkut only applies if one has eaten a significant AMOUNT  of food - a ke-zayit.  In the case of a beria, though a significant quantity has not been eaten, a significant ITEM has been.

Assuming this is true and that a beria, due to its qualitative significance can maintain its halakhic identity within a mixture in the same way as it can mandate malkut, we might expect the definition of beria in the two cases to be identical.  Though R. Shimon considers a grain of wheat to be a beria in the same manner that an ant is, the Chakhamim argue.  They maintain that a beria must be an organism which once supported life and not simply any entire or intact item.  Hence we would expect the same qualification to exist in our instance of ta’arovet (mixtures of forbidden and permissible food) as well.  In other words, according to Chakhamim, beria should only deviate from standard bittul when the classic criteria of beria are present.  To our surprise, this is not the case.  The gemara in Chullin (100) maintains that when a gid ha-nasheh falls into a mixture the entire mixture becomes assur regardless of the relative quantities.  Yet, (as Tosafot in Makkot 17a point out) a gid ha-nasheh was never a live organism, and the gemara does not predicate this statement upon the position of R. Shimon who normally omits the requirement that it be an organism.  Evidently, even the Chakhamim who generally define a beria as an organism, relinquish this stipulation here.  Consequently, we are forced to locate an alternative explanation for the prevention of bittul.  According to Chakhamim, our question would go: if it isn’t an organism, it isn’t chashuv; if it isn’t chashuv, why does bittul not occur?

In attempting to devise an alternate explanation for beria’s prevention of bittul we must consider parallel exceptions.  In several instances bittul is prevented for reasons other than the SIGNIFICANCE of the foreign item; there is some other factor which allows it to resist conversion.  In some instances the item itself, though physically residing within a mixture, is not in any way integrated into that mixture.  In order for bittul to occur, not only must an item be attacked and converted, it must be INCORPORATED within the mixture as a constituent. If the foreign item is so disparate and distinct that no integration occurs, no bittul is possible.  An example of this is a “chatikha ha-re’uya le-hitkhabed” - a prime cut of food with which one might honor a guest.  The gemara informs us that in this case bittul does not apply.  One might view this phenomenon as a function of the non-integration of this item within the overall ta’arovet, for any item which is large enough and respectable enough to honor a guest does not lose its independent identity within a larger mixture.  One practical “nafka mina,” or halakhic manifestation of this reality would apply with regards to the halakha of “marbeh be-shi’urim”: Though one is not permitted to intentionally mix issur with heter to transform the former into heter, in certain instances (particularly items which are only assur mi-derabanan) if the prohibited item has already fallen into a mixture which does not have 60 parts of heter to cancel it, one may add more heter so that the proportions change and the issur becomes batel.  In this case one is not intentionally creating the mixture for the purposes of conversion; one is merely changing the ratio of an already formed mixture.  What might happen, however, when a sizable and superior piece of neveila (non-kosher meat) falls into a mixture?  One might not be allowed to add a quantity of heter to this mixture since in halakhic terms NO ta’arovet exists.  Any sizable and superior piece, by its very nature is not incorporated within the mixture.  It would be the equivalent of placing an issur in a ta’arovet in order to be mevatel it, and hence would be forbidden.  In short, the question as to whether this sizable food IS integrated within the ta’arovet without being canceled, or forever stands alone, influences whether additional heter may be added to overcome it.

This question must now be considered in the case of a beria.  Do we admit that the item has been integrated in the mixture but resists “bittul” because of its intrinsic significance, or do we attach such importance to its being a distinct entity that we do not recognize its integration at any level?  One issue which might be influenced by this theoretical question relates to whether a beria is batel at any level.  Do we merely reject the standard proportions, preferring instead a more overwhelming quantity of heter, or do we maintain that a beria is absolutely never batel in a ta’arovet?  The Rashba in the Torat Ha-bayit cites a machloket Rishonim as to whether a beria of issur which falls into a ta’arovet of 960 times itself (16 times the normal required 60:1) can be canceled.  This possibility is interesting; because if a beria in no way integrates within a ta’arovet we would have expected no bittul whatsoever, even when the proportion of heter is overwhelming.

We asked earlier whether a beria must have once supported life.  Clearly, in the general issues of beria only an item which once supported life might be defined as such.  The fact that it was a self-sufficient organism might confer significance; hence, the prohibition to consume it even in quantities smaller than a ke-zayit.  However, when it comes to ta’arovet a beria’s ability to resist bittul is based upon its incompatibility with the rest of the mixture - it stands out and resists integration.  This might be true of any whole or entire item.  As an independent and complete piece of food it is unlike the rest of the ta’arovet and does not become a constituent part.  Even the Chakhamim who normally require an organism would here view a complete piece of food (e.g. a gid ha-nasheh) as a beria.

(It should be noted that the gemara in Chullin 97a when dealing with the minimum quantity of food necessary to receive malkut, also establishes gid ha-nasheh as a beria which mandates malkut.  Tosafot there raises the question on a more general level: Rebbi Shimon and Chakhamim debate whether beria must be an organism which supported life, yet the gemara in Chullin unanimously defines gid ha-nasheh as beria.  Obviously the question demands a broader reply.  This article referred to Tosafot in Makkot which would appear to ask a more parochial question: What is the difference between beria’s role in preventing bittul and its mandating malkut on less than a ke-zayit.  Tosafot’s answer would also appear to draw a local distinction between bittul and malkut, which might be explained based upon the above logic.)

Another interesting question relates to the mixture into which the beria falls.  There are classically two forms of ta’arovet: one called “min be-mino” and one called “min be-she’eino mino.”  In the former case the prohibited item becomes mixed with identical items - for example non-kosher meat falls into a pot of kosher meat.  In the latter case, the issur falls into dissimilar food - e.g. non-kosher meat falls into chicken soup.  Would we distinguish between these two forms of mixtures regarding the law of beria?  Most poskim do not draw this distinction but there remains a minority opinion which does.  Clearly, if beria’s significance serves to lend it strength to resist being overcome by the surrounding environment we need not distinguish.  If, however, beria is generally viewed as something which is unique and independent even when formal within a mixture, this might be a function of the similarity or dissimilarity of its host.

METHODOLOGICAL POINTS:

-----------------------------------------

1.       Sometimes applications of a particular halakha seem identical (beria with regard to malkut and with regard to ta’arovet).  Scrutinize the various applications for differences which might reflect fundamental dissimilarities.  Beria’s effectiveness in resisting a ta’arovet might be based upon a different factor than the absence of shiur for malkut.

AFTERWORD:

-------------------

1.       What would happen if a beria fell into a ta’arovet of other berias?

2.       There exists a machloket as to whether a berakha acharona would be recited on less than a ke-zayit of food which is also a beria.  Which model of beria would this be based upon?

3.       Most feel that beria’s resistance of bittul is mi-derabanan.  See Tosafot Bava Metzia (6b) who rule that it is de-oraita.  How might this alter our understanding of the mechanism of beria?