ושחוטה אינה בטילה בנבילה שאפשר לנבילה שתעשה שחוטה דלכי מסרחה פרחה טומאתה
<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Hisda said, Nebelah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , an animal which had died a natural death or was slaughtered in any manner than that prescribed by Jewish ritual law. The carcass may not be eaten (Deut. XIV, 21) , and it conveys uncleanness by carrying and by contact (Lev. XI, 39, 40) .');"><sup>16</sup></span> meat is neutralized in ritually slaughtered meat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a morsel of nebelah meat was confused with a large quantity of ritually slaughtered meat, it is neutralized in the mixture and is regarded as non-existent, so that whosoever touches this mixture in any part thereof remains clean.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah
If it is was mixed with something of the same type and it was spilled, in a case where one can not deal with it to measure it, if it is known that it was majority permissible, [it is] permissible. And if it is not known that it was majority permissible, [it is] forbidden. Rema: And in the matter of "being of the same type" we follow the name, if it is the same then this is "of the same type," but we do not follow the taste if it is the same or not. But if was mixed with something that is not of the same type and it spilled in a case where one can not deal with it to measure it, even it is known that it was majority permissible, [it is] forbidden. And if it was mixed with "of its kind" and with "not of its kind" and it spilled in a case where one can not deal with it to measure it, and it is known that it was majority "of its kind", one views the "not of its kind" as though it were not [present], and the rest, "of its kind" is greater and negates it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
