Hello Everyone,

I want to thank you all for making the effort to attend the shiur on a fast-day. I hope that the zechut of our learning today will help speed up the גאולה.

Today we began the study of one of the most subtle concepts in Halacha- the concept of “frequent” (מילתא דשכיח, מיעוט המצוי).  We learned last week that when we need to make decisions about the permissibility of something, for example if an animal is kosher or treifah ( in the narrow technical sense that we are studying) the Torah allows us to decide on the basis of the “majority.” In this case since the majority of animals are not treifot I may assume that the animal in question is not a treifah.  Based on this majority we are excused from having to examine the animal that we wish to eat to ascertain that it possesses any of the 18 defects which would render it a treifah.

We also learned last week that there is one exception to this rule. We are required to examine the lungs of animal for lesions. And this is so even though the majority of animals do not suffer from lung adhesions. There are three reasons for this requirement:

1.   a) examining the animal’s lungs is not inordinately difficult[1]
2. b) not to examine the animal’s lungs would give the appearance that we are shirking our religious obligations
3.   c) lesions of the lungs are “common.”

This last reason has generated much controversy- how common is “common?” At what point may I no longer rely on the “rov”| and have to examine what I eat? We saw one example from the laws regarding insects. Fruits or vegetables which are “commonly” infested must be examined individually for infestation, and even if most of my sample is insect-free I must examine the remainder as well. The ש”ך writes that ruling of the Rema is based on the precedent  regarding the inspection of the lungs.

So we need to ask again, how common is “common?”

We saw two opinions today on this matter ( and bli neder we will see more next week). The first opinion is that of Rav Yakov of Karlin, author of the [2]משכנות יעקב. Rav Yakov provides a numerical value to the concept of “common”-it equals an incidence of 10%. When the incidence of a “problem” is greater than 10% it cannot be ignored.

Rav Yakov derives this figure from the area of commercial law. The law states that when a person buys a large number of barrels of wine he must assume that a certain number of barrels will contain wine that has gone bad. He must assume this risk and cannot claim that if even one barrel is bad he was the victim of fraud. The law is that the purchaser assumes the risk that 10% of the barrels contain wine that has gone bad. It follows that if a purchaser of wine cannot claim that a 10% spoilage rate is unexpected (and therefore cannot ask for his money back) if I know that a certain form of treifah occurs in 10% ( or more) of animals I cannot pretend that its incidence is unexpected. Instead I must search for it whenever I wish to eat meat.

Rav Shmuel Wosner[3] shlitah is the author of the works שבט הלוי. He disagrees with the position of the משכנות יעקב. He questions the comparison of wine souring to treifot in general. He also points out that none of the early authorities provided a quantifiable definition for the term “common” which is something that we could have expected.

Rav  Wosner’s definition of “common” is is not mathematical. He writes that an occurrence can be defined as “common” if it occurs spontaneously, and is neither place nor time dependent. The only time that we can be lenient is when the occurrence is exceptionally rare     ( מיעוטא דלא שכיח). Rav Wosner bases this assertion on the Gemarah[4] which says that even though animals are squeezed as they pass through the birth canal, we are not concerned that animals are made into treifot by the possible compression of vital internal organs. Even though such treifot may occur, their incidence can be ignored.

Rav Wosner’s interpretation obviously leads to requiring  a more stringent level of examination for treifot.

Next week , bli neder, we will see more ideas on this subject.

[1] Most of the shiur was devoted to defining “common.” We also spent some time discussing the parameters for the concept of “difficult.” We saw the teshuvah of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l who wrote, based on the Rambam that to examine a chicken for treifot  would be considered “difficult’

[2] He lived in the 18th  century but unfortunately has no entry in Wikipedia

[3] Shmuel Wosner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shmuel (HaLevi) Wosner (Hebrew: הרב שמואל הלוי וואזנר; born 6 September[1] 1913) is a Haredi rabbi and posek (“decisor of Jewish law“) living in Bnei Brak, Israel.

Wosner was born in 1913 in Vienna, Austro-Hungary and studied in the Yeshivas Chachmei Lublin of Poland led by Rabbi Meir Shapiro. He was also a student of Rabbi Shimon of Zelicov who was the official supervisor at the Yeshiva. In Vienna, he had known and befriended the Rabbi Chanoch Dov Padwa of Galicia.[2]

He married and immigrated to Palestine before the Holocaust and dwelled in Jerusalem where he studied at the Dushinsky Yeshiva. It was in that time that, in spite of his young age, he became a member of the Edah HaChareidis. When he relocated to Bnei Brak, upon the incentive of the Chazon Ish, Rabbi Dov Berish Widenfeld of Tshebin, Rabbi Isser Zalman Meltzer and RabbiYitzhak HaLevi Herzog he established his “Yeshiva Chachmei Lublin” bearing the same name as the one in Lublin where he studied in his youth.[3]

He is the author of several works of Jewish law, such as Shevet HaLevi (“The Tribe of Levi”), a comprehensive series of Halachic rulings and responsa on Jewish laws comprising ten volumes and several other Torah books all bearing the same name.

His sons include Rabbi Chaim Wosner, formerly dayan of London‘s Satmar community, who has since moved to Bnei Brak to assist his father in the management of the Yeshiva. He has another son Rabbi Bentzion Wosner of Monsey, New York, who is the av bet din of the Shevet Halevi beis din.[4]

Wosner had a sister, Sophie Welwart, living in Deerfield Beach, Florida and Staten Island, New York.[5] Welwart died on 22 January 2011 in New Jersey[6]

On May 20, 2012, Ichud HaKehillos LeTohar HaMachane ran an “asifa” (gathering), at Citifield in New York City, on the dangers of the Internet. There Wosner spoke via live hookup from Israel to 60,000 Orthodox Jews. He barred unfiltered Internet use for the Jewish community except for business purposes so that people can still earn a living.

[4] And the interpretation of ר”ן.