Responsa for Chullin 133:24

מאי טעמא דמאן דאמר

And why should I not accept the reverse argument?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the argument by the principle of amplification and limitation is to a certain extent arbitrary, for on what ground should one thing be excluded rather than the other? Consequently the last argument ra1sed in the text by way of objection could well be adopted, and as for the rejoinder, 'what does the verse: These ye may eat of all that are in the waters, teach us'? it would refer to creeping things found in gutters and trenches, and would reach us that even these would be free from the restriction of fins and scales. On the other hand, it would be said that the scope of the amplification would be extended to bring creeping things found in cisterns etc. under the restriction! This hypothetical reasoning is, however, nullified by the analytic argument of R. Mattithiah below.');"><sup>4</sup></span>

Shut min haShamayim

Regarding the permissibility of soaked beans that don't contain worms. Some forbid these because there is a part that seems to move when they are wet. I asked [in my dream] whether in this case we should be concerned for the opinion of those who forbid¹This is the opinion of Rabbeinu Yerucham 15:27, , or should we say that they are permitted, since when they are dried nothing is to be found.²The question discussed in Chullin 67a:15 is whether insects that grow inside detached fruit are forbidden under the category of 'those that swarm upon the earth" (Leviticus 11:41). See Tosafot on Chullin 67b:5, where Rabbeinu Tam and Rabbeinu Netanel reject this distinction, and cite Halakhot Gedolot 62 and Sheiltot of Rav Achai as supporting it. Nonetheless, the source in Tosafot add that 'beans known as pois are permitted by all'. This is also the opinion of a responsum of Rashi cited in Beit Yosef Yoreh Deah 84.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse