Nullifying the taste of an Issur within a Heter food
1. What is the law if a non-Kosher food fell into a pot of Kosher food?
If a forbidden food fell into a pot of hot Kosher food then if the Kosher food contains the taste of the forbidden food, the entire food is forbidden. [See footnote for source]
Does taste of the forbidden food within the Kosher food render the mixture Biblically forbidden or merely Rabbinically?
This matter is disputed amongst Rishonim:
- Rashi and possibly Rambam: The taste of forbidden foods is Biblically permitted although Rabbinically it is forbidden.
- Tosafus; Rosh; Tur; Rashba:
The taste of forbidden foods is Biblically forbidden.
Final ruling: The Shulchan Aruch rules that forbidden taste if Biblically forbidden.
2. How does one measure whether or not the taste of the forbidden food has become nullified? May one rely on the opinion of a gentile?
A. Min Beino Mino:
If a forbidden food fell into a hot pot that contained a permitted food of a different species [Min Beino Mino; i.e. Cheilev fell into meat] one is required to verify whether the forbidden food has given a taste to the mixture by having a gentile taste the food. If there is no gentile available to taste the food, then one determines whether there is any taste of the forbidden food within the mixture by measuring the ratio of the Kosher food to the forbidden food that fell into it. If the ratio of the Kosher food is 60:1 against the prohibited food then the mixture remains Kosher.
When is the opinion of a gentile valid: The gentile’s opinion is only valid if he is a cook by profession [i.e. “Kfeila” or a Chef] or is “Masiach Lefi Tumo”. A chef is trusted to give an honest view about the taste of the food because he fears ruining his profession by an erroneous evaluation. Furthermore even a gentile that is not a cook by profession is trusted if he gives a non-biased opinion [“Masiach Lefi Tumo”]. It is considered a non-biased opinion if the gentile who is asked to taste the food does not know the purpose of why he is being asked to taste it. In the above case if the gentile replies that there isn’t a taste of the prohibited food within the mixture, then the food is permitted. [Refer to the Q&A for the full discussion of this topic!]
- Rama: Today we no longer rely on the tasting of gentiles to determine whether a Kosher food contains taste of a forbidden food that mixed into it. Rather we always determine if there is taste of the prohibited food within the mixture by measuring the ratio of Kosher food against the prohibited food that mixed into it. If the ratio of the Kosher food is 60:1 against the prohibited food then the mixture remains Kosher.
It is never permitted to rely on a gentile regarding a Biblical prohibition, even when he is speaking out of innocence. Thus a gentile may not be trusted to taste a food to determine whether it contains a forbidden taste.
B. Min Bemino:
If a forbidden food fell into a hot pot that contained permitted food of the same species [Min Bemino] then according to all opinions, since the Issur does not have a distinct taste, one can only determine whether there is any taste of the forbidden food within the mixture by measuring the ratio of the Kosher food to the forbidden food that fell into it. If the ratio of the Kosher food is 60:1 against the prohibited food then the mixture remains Kosher.
3. May a gentile be trusted regarding a Biblical prohibition?
- Michaber:The Michaber rules that the opinion of a gentile is trusted even regarding Biblical prohibitions. Nevertheless the gentile may only be trusted if he speaks “Masiach Lefi Tumo” or is a professional cook, as explained above.
It is never permitted to rely on a gentile regarding a Biblical prohibition, even when he is speaking out of innocence. The reason for this is because the Sages never believed a gentile that is Masiach Lefi Tumo by Biblical prohibitions with exception to testimony regarding the death of a husband [Eidus Isha]. This is proven from the fact that a gentile is not believed to testify regarding the status of a Bechor animal even if he is Masiach Lefi Tumo.
One may rely on a gentile if he is Masiach Lefi Tumo even by Biblical prohibitions, if the matter can be verified through other sources as well. Thus the gentile is trusted regarding the taste of a food being one can also verify the taste of the food through giving it to a chef to verify.
4. How does the Michaber rely on the opinion of a gentile if the Gemara states that we can only rely on a gentile which is Masiach Lefi Tumo in a case of Aguna?
- Taz: The Taz explains the reason why the Michaber rules that one can rely on the taste of a gentile is because in truth it is not required for the gentile to testify [“Eidus”] but rather simply to verify the taste of the mixture [“Giluiy Milsa”] and it is only when testimony is required that the sages invalidated a gentile and not by a mere verification. Nonetheless, the Taz himself concludes that we cannot rely on the opinion of a gentile that is Masiach Lefi Tumo regarding Biblical prohibitions, as explained above.
A gentile which is Masiach Lefi Tumo is believed in all case that one can also verify the matter from other sources such as by also asking a professional chef to taste the food. It is only regarding testimony which is solely dependent on the gentile that we do not rely on his opinion by Biblical prohibitions.
The opinions of the Rishonim regarding the trustworthiness of a gentile:
- Rambam-Every gentile is believed: The Rambam rules that every gentile is believed even if he is not a chef and is not Masiach Lefi Tumo.
- Rashba-Only a chef or Masiach Lefi Tumo: The Rashba rules that any gentile which is Masiach Lefi Tumo may be trusted. Furthermore if he is a chef then even if he is not Masiach Lefi Tumo, which means he understands the Halachic ramifications of his answer, he may nevertheless be relied upon.
- Ran-Only a chef: The Ran rules that only a gentile which is a chef by profession is believed. In such a case he is believed whether he is Masiach Lefi Tumo or not. However a gentile that is not a chef by profession is never believed even if he is Masiach Lefi Tumo.
- Rosh-Only if is both a chef and Masiach Lefi Tumo: The Rosh validates a gentile that is Masiach Lefi Tumo although it is unclear if according to the Rosh the gentile must also be a chef. The Beis Yosef writes that the Rosh does not require him to also be a chef while the Taz writes that according to the Rosh the gentile must also be a chef.
- Rashi-Only if there is 60x and a chef: Rashi rules that a gentile is only believed if he is a chef and only in a case that one has measured the food to contain 60x the Issur. In such a case we trust a professional chef that is a gentile to verify whether the forbidden food has given taste past 60x its ratio.
- Ramban-Only if the forbidden food is removed: The Ramban rules that if the Issur is still present within the mixture then one requires 60x and a gentile’s opinion is not relied upon. If the Issur has been removed one may rely on the taste of a chef, even if it does not contain 60x the Issur.
Q&A on the opinion of the Michaber that a gentile may taste the food:
According to the Michaber if there is over 60x in the food against the Issur, must a reliable gentile still be given the food to taste? 
It is implied from the Michaber that if there is a reliable gentile available to taste the food, then it must be tasted even if there is more than 60x within the mixture.
According to the Michaber if there is less than 60x in the mixture, can the food still be permitted if a gentile tastes it and says that it does not contain taste of Issur?
Yes. According to the Michaber if the gentile tastes the dish and says it does not contain a taste of Issur then it is permitted even if it does not have 60x the Issur. [However according to the Rama if the mixture does not contain 60x it is forbidden.]
According to the Michaber may one rely on the taste of a professional cook even if the cook knows the Halachic ramifications of his answer?
A professional cook is always believed even if he knows the Halachic ramifications of his answer.
Is there any opinion which requires that the gentile being asked be both a chef and Masiach Lefi Tumo?
The Tur brings that according to the Rosh the gentile is only believed if he is both a chef and Masiach Lefi Tumo.
What is the definition of Masiach Lefi Tumo?
This means that the gentile being asked does not know the Halachic ramifications of his answer. If he knows that based on his answer is dependent whether the Jew will eat the food then his opinion is invalid unless he is a professional chef, as explained above.
Q&A on Rama
What is the reason that according to the Rama we no longer rely on the taste of gentiles?
Rav Akivah Eiger writes that “I do not know the proper reason for this, although one can say the reason is because we suspect for all the stringent opinions regarding the definition of a biased gentile, and of a professional cook, and thus avoid relying on them.”
Practical Final Ruling
How does one measure whether or not the taste of the forbidden food has become nullified?
One may not rely on a gentile to taste whether a mixture contains the taste of a non-Kosher food, and one is rather to always measure 60x. Today this ruling is followed also by Sefaradim.
The concept of “Shishim” 60x
The source for Shishim [60x]:
The concept that a food can give taste to another food that is up to 59x its amount but does not give taste to a food that is 60x its amount is learned from the verse which requires the ram of the Nazir to be cooked whole. The ram of the Nazir contained an arm which was Kodesh and was thus only Biblically allowed to be eaten by Kohanim. Nevertheless the Torah says the arm is to be cooked together with the entire ram, even though the rest of the ram will be eaten by the Nazir which may be a Levite or Yisrael. Hence from here we learn the concept of that the taste of Issur becomes nullified in 60x as a ram contains 60x the amount of meat that it has on its arm.
How does one measure 60x?
The measurement is done based on volume and not weight. The measurement is done as follows: One takes the Issur out from the mixture and places it into a vessel that is filled with water to full capacity. The excess water that spills out of the vessel upon entering the Issur into it is the volume of the Issur. If one has 60x that volume in the volume of the Kosher food the food is Kosher.
May one be stringent and avoid eating mixtures that had an Issur nullified in them?
Some Poskim rule one is allowed to be stringent against eating a mixture that had an Issur nullified in it. Others however negate this practice, and rule one is not allowed to be stringent against eating it. Others rule one is allowed to be stringent by mixtures of Min Bemino.
May one rely on the testing of a chemical laboratory to determine whether a food contains Issur?
Most Poskim rule one may not rely on a gentile chemist to verify the components of a food. However in certain circumstances some Poskim are lenient.
5. Do we rely on the tasting of a Jew?
Example 1: If Teruma fell into Chulin may a Kohen taste the mixture to verify if it contains taste of the Teruma food in order to permit it to be eaten by a Yisrael?
Example 2: If wine fell into the food of a Nazir may a non-Nazir taste it to see if the food contains a taste of wine?
- Rama; Shach:
We rely on a Jew to taste the mixture and determine whether it is permitted or forbidden for others. It is not required for the Jew to speak Masiach Lefi Tumo as presumably a Jew will not lie about the taste.
- Levush; Taz:
We no longer rely on tasting at all, even the tasting of a Jew.
Example 3: A spicy food was cut with a meat or dairy knife, may one taste it to see if it absorbed meat or milk taste to determine if it may be used for the opposite food?
- Michaber:According to the Michaber [and Rama], one may taste the food to determine if it has absorbed any taste from the knife, and if it does not contain any taste then it may be washed and used for the opposite food.
- Taz: Today we are no longer experts in tasting and thus we do not rely on tasting the food to determine if it absorbed taste from the knife and hence we always assume taste was absorbed.
Initially one is not to rely on taste in such a case to determine whether the spicy food may be used for the opposite dish. However after the fact, if one already tasted the spicy food and based on his taste he went ahead and cooked it with the opposite food, then one may rely on his tasting to not prohibit the food.
If a Jew accidently tasted a dish that an Issur fell into and did not notice an Issur taste within the food, is the food Kosher?
Some Poskim rule that in such a case the food is Kosher as if a Jew does not feel an Issur taste when eating it then it is a sign that the taste is unrecognizable and has become nullified.
Others however rule the food remains forbidden as the Jew did not eat the food for the purpose of tasting the Issur and hence possibly did not pay attention to its taste.
If however many people ate the food and testified it does not have the taste of Issur then it is permitted.
6. Is it permitted to lick a forbidden food?
It is forbidden to lick any Issur even if one plans to spit it out and not swallow any part of it.
It is however disputed amongst the Poskim if this applies even if the Issur is only questionably forbidden:
- Derisha:The Derisha forbids tasting even a food which is only questionably forbidden [Safek Issur].
- Taz: The Taz rules it is permitted for one to use his tongue to lick a food which is only questionably forbidden [Safek Issur]. However a definitive forbidden food is forbidden to taste even through licking. The above is only regarding licking a questionable Issur however to chew a questionable Issur is forbidden.
The Shach rules it is forbidden to taste even a questionable prohibition.
Final Ruling: 
It is forbidden to lick a food which is questionably Treif. This applies even if one desires to lick it in order to verify if it contains forbidden taste.
May one lick a Rabbinical Issur?
Some Poskim rule it is allowed. Others rule it is forbidden.
7. What is the law if a forbidden food fell into a mixture and the mixture spilled and it is thus no longer viable to measure 60x?
Introduction: The matter in question is as follows: If an Issur fell into a Heter and before one got a chance to measure the ratio of Heter versus the Issur the food spilled and is no longer able to be measured due to a loss of the food, may one be lenient and permit the mixture due to it being a case of doubt? Or do we rule stringently by a doubt regarding an Issur taste? In essence the question comes down to the following: Is the prohibition of eating food that contains the taste of a non-Kosher food a Biblical or Rabbinical prohibition? If it is a Biblical prohibition then in a case of doubt we rule stringently following the rule “Safek Deoraisa Lechumra”. If it is a Rabbinical prohibition then in a case of doubt we rule leniently following the rule “Safek Derabanan Lekulah”. Practically certain mixtures are Biblically forbidden while others Rabbinically as will be explained.
A. Min Bemino [Same species mixtures]:
If the Heter is of the same species as the Issur and the mixture spilled [after removing the Issur or after the pot cooled off] then if majority of the mixture is of the Kosher food the entire mixture remains Kosher. If there isn’t majority of Heter versus Issur within the mixture then the entire mixture is forbidden. [If the mixture spilled while the pot was still hot and the Issur remained inside the pot, then one must measure in accordance to the amount the pot currently contains and if it does not contain 60x the Issur everything is forbidden.]
The reason why majority of Heter suffices if one is in doubt if there is 60x: According to Biblical law same species mixtures [Min Bemino] only require to have majority of Heter versus the Issur and not 60x. It is merely due to a Rabbinical injunction that 60x is required. Therefore in a scenario where it is questionable whether the mixture contains 60x the Issur, and it is not possible to verify due spillage, then if it contains majority of Heter the entire mixture is permitted, as Safek Derabanan Lekula.
If Cheilev fell into a pot of Kosher fat and before one managed to measure the mixture it spilled and became immeasurable, then if one knows for certain there was majority of Kosher fat versus the Cheilev and there is doubt whether there is 60x, the mixture remains permitted.
B. Min Beino Mino
If the Heter and Issur are of two different species, and the mixture spilled in a way it is now immeasurable then the entire mixture is forbidden even if one is certain that it contains majority of permitted food.
The reason: According to Biblical law different species mixtures [Min Beino Mino] require 60x of Heter versus the Issur. This is because it is Biblically forbidden for a Heter to contain taste of an Issur and an Issur has the ability to give taste up to 60x its ratio. Therefore in a scenario where it is questionable whether the mixture contains 60x the Issur, and it is not possible to verify the ratio due to spillage, then the entire mixture is forbidden, as Safek Deoraysa Lechumra.
If non-Kosher meat fell into a pot of soup and before one managed to measure the soup, the soup spilled and became immeasurable, then if there is doubt whether there was 60x of soup versus the meat, the mixture is forbidden.
C. Min Bemino Vieino Mino:
The definition: An Issur fell into a pot of hot food which contains food of the same species [Mino] and also food of a different species [Eino Mino]. The pot then partially spilled prior to measuring whether it contains 60x.
The Law: If one knows for certain that the Kosher Mino [same species food] contains majority in it of itself over the non-Kosher Mino which fell into it, then we view the other Kosher Eino Mino as non-existent and it [the Kosher Mino, and according to the Taz also the Kosher Eino Mino-see below] is Kosher.  However if the Kosher Mino does not have majority in it of itself against the Issur Mino the entire mixture is forbidden even if combined the Kosher Mino and Kosher Eino Mino contain majority over the Issur Mino. [The above is all referring to if the mixture spilled after removing the Issur or after the pot cooling down below Yad Soledes. If however the mixture spilled while the pot was still hot and the Issur remained inside the pot, then one must measure in accordance to the amount the pot currently contains and if it does not contain 60x the Issur everything is forbidden.]
Is the Eino Mino food Kosher when the Kosher Mino has majority over the non-Kosher Mino:
- Rashba: We view the Eino Mino as non-existent [and thus the entire mixture is Kosher].
- Shach; Rashal: Only Mino is permitted: The Mino food is permitted while the Kosher Eino Mino food is forbidden. The reason the Eino Mino is forbidden is because if there is not 60x in the pot versus the Issur Mino then the Issur Mino transfers taste to the Eino Mino and it becomes Biblically forbidden. Thus here since the mixture spilled and the ratio of 60x cannot be ascertained the Eino Mino food is viewed as a case of Biblical doubt in which we rule stringently as stated above. However the Kosher Mino remains permitted as it Biblically does not require 60x an Issur Mino.
- Taz; Bach:
Both Mino and Eino Mino are permitted: If the Kosher Mino contains majority over the Issur Mino then both the Mino and Eino Mino foods are Kosher.
D. The Issur fell into Eino Mino and then fell into Mino and then spilled:
- Example: A piece of Cheilev fell into a vegetable soup and the soup did not contain 60x, thus rendering the vegetable soup as Issur. The vegetable soup then spilled into a pot of Kosher fat. Some of the fat spilled out prior to having a chance to measure the ratio and it is thus no longer measurable. The question here is what is the law regarding the fat.
The law: The fat [Mino] is forbidden unless one knows for certain that it contains 60x the amount of vegetable soup [Eino Mino] that spilled into it.
The reason: The reason for this is because when the soup [Eino Mino] becomes forbidden due to the Cheilev [Issur Mino] the soup becomes Chanan. When this soup [Eino Mino] then falls into the Kosher fat [Mino] it gives forbidden taste to the fat, and since it is now intrinsically forbidden one requires 60x versus the actual soup.
Other Opinions by Lo Noda Beintayim: The Issur Viheter rules that if one only became aware that the Issur [i.e. Cheilev] fell into the Eino Mino [i.e. vegetable soup] after the Eino Mino [i.e. vegetable soup] had already fell into the Mino [i.e. Kosher fat] which spilled, then the Mino [i.e. Kosher fat] is Kosher so long as it has majority against the Issur [i.e. Cheilev]. See Chapter 99 Halacha 3 for further details on Lo Nodah Beintayim!
E. The law if a Rabbinical Issur fell into Kosher Eino Mino which spilled prior to measuring?
Example 1: If milk fell into chicken soup, and some of the chicken soup spilled thus removing one’s ability to measure whether the soup contains 60x the milk, what is the law regarding the soup.
- Toras Chatas: The entire mixture is forbidden, as forbidden taste Biblically requires 60x to be nullified [and thus since here there is forbidden taste of milk in the chicken we require that there must be 60x].
- Taz: In general, in a case that involves a Rabbinical prohibition and the food spilled, the food is permitted if it contains majority against the Issur. Nevertheless in the above case of milk and chicken we are stringent to prohibit the food even in a case that there is majority of chicken but there is doubt regarding whether it contains 60x.
Whenever the Issur involved is merely Rabbinical, including the above case of milk and chicken, the mixture is permitted. Those which ruled in the above case of chicken and milk, that it is nevertheless forbidden, it is due to that they rule that chicken and milk are indeed a Biblical prohibition.
- Important note: The above is all referring to if the mixture spilled after removing the Issur or after the pot cooling down below Yad Soledes. If however the mixture spilled while the pot was still hot and the Issur remained inside the pot, then according to all even by a Rabbinical prohibition one must measure in accordance to the amount the pot currently contains and if it does not contain 60x the Issur everything is forbidden.
Case: Issur fell into Heter and the pot spilled, causing the ratio of 60x to no longer be measurable.
Important note: The above case is referring to that the mixture spilled after removing the Issur or after the pot cooled down to below Yad Soledes. If however the mixture spilled while the pot was still hot and the Issur remained inside the pot, then according to all, even by a Rabbinical prohibition, one must measure the amount the pot currently contains and if it does not contain 60x the Issur everything is forbidden.
A Biblical Issur: If the Issur is Biblically forbidden, then if the Kosher food is of the same species [taste] as that of the Issur, then it remains Kosher so long as one knows for certain that the Kosher food was the majority [and it only spilled after removing the Issur or after the pot cooled down]. However if the Kosher food is of another species, then the mixture is forbidden.
If the mixture contained both Kosher food of the same species and Kosher food of a different species then the same species food is Kosher [while the different species food is disputed whether it may be eaten].
A Rabbinical Issur: If the Issur is Rabbinically forbidden then the mixture is permitted, irrelevant of the form of mixture [Mino or Eino Mino], so long as one knows for certain that it contains majority of Kosher food over the Issur.
Chicken and milk: In a case that milk fell into chicken and it spilled thus removing one’s ability to measure it, then if one knows for certain the chicken contains majority over the milk it is disputed whether the mixture is Kosher or becomes forbidden.
What is the law if one separated Challah and it then fell inside of a food and one no longer has the Challah to measure 60x against it?
If there is doubt as to whether the food contains 60x versus the Challah then one may be lenient as today Challah is merely a Rabbinical prohibition.
8. What determines whether two foods are considered the same species [Min Bemino] or not; do we follow the same taste or the same marketing name?
- Rama; Taz:
If two foods maintain the same name, even if they contain different tastes, they are considered the same species [Min Bemino]. [However some understand the Rama to learn that only if the two foods have both the same name and taste are they defined as the same species. ]
- Shach: Introduction to understand the Shach in this Halacha: Although most forbidden foods are nullified in 60x, there are some foods which when they are mixed with their same species, are not nullified in 60x and rather require more than 60x, or are not nullified at all. An example of such foods that are not nullified in 60x is Yayin Nesech [never nullified in wine]; Tevel [never nullified]; Teruma [1:100]; Arla [1:200].
The definition of Min Bemino by Issurim that are nullified in 60x: In all mixtures that the Issur is able to be nullified in 60x when they become mixed with their Kosher counterpart of the same species then Min Bemino is determined by whether the two foods have the same taste. Thus if the two foods have the same taste then they are Biblically nullified in majority and only Rabbinically require 60x and thus in a case of doubt, such as the spillage case discussed above, we are lenient to follow majority.
- Example: If milk of a cow that is a Treifa mixed into Kosher cow milk then since the ruling is that if there is 60x of Kosher milk versus the milk of a Treifa everything remains permitted,therefore we determine whether or not the two milks are considered Min Bemino based on whether they have the same taste.The definition of Min Bemino by Issurim that are not nullified in 60x: By mixtures which the Issur is not nullified in 60x when they fall into their same species and rather they require more than 60x, or are not nullified at all [Oser Bemashehu] , then we determine if the two foods are considered the same species based on their name and not their taste. If the Issur and Heter food have the same name, irrelevant if whether they have the same taste, then they are considered Min Bemino and the Issur is not nullified in 60x. If the Issur and Heter do not have the same name, even though they have the same taste, it is considered a mixture of Min Beino Mino and the Issur is thus nullified in 60x.
- Example: A Tevel onion fell into a different species of Kosher onions. If they have the same name then it’s considered Min Bemino and the Issur is not nullified irrelevant of the ratio. If they do not have the same name, then even if they taste alike, the mixture is considered Min Beino Mino and the Issur is nullified in 60x.The definition of Min Bemino by mixtures of Yaveish Beyaveish: The Issur Viheter rules that by mixtures of Yaveish Beyaveish, Min Bemino is determined by name and not by taste. The Shach negates this ruling and concludes as do most Poskim that even by mixtures of Yaveish Beyaveish taste is a factor and hence Min Bemino is determined by taste and not by name. [See next Halacha!]
- The final ruling:
The Shach writes that many Gedolei Yisrael have seen his view and agreed to it as opposed to the opinion of the Rama. So concludes also the Peri Chadash and so is the final Halachic ruling.
Whenever an Issur is able to be nullified in 60x within a same species mixture [Min Bemino], the definition of Min Bemino is determined by if the two foods maintain the same taste irrelevant of whether they have the same name. However an Issur which cannot be nullified in 60x if it were to fall into its same species, then the definition of Min Bemino is determined by whether they have the same name irrelevant if they maintain the same taste.
Is meat with chicken considered Min Bemino?
Some Poskim rule it is considered like Min Bemino as they have similar tastes. Others rule they are not considered Min Bemino.
9. Mixtures of Yaveish Beyaveish-What is the law if a cold and dry Treif solid food became mixed with Kosher cold and dry solid foods and one cannot tell the difference between the two foods?
This law is based on that which is explained in Shach 98/6 in relevance to the previous law. The full details of this subject of Yaveish Beyaveish mixtures is found in chapter 109 see there!
A. Min Bemino:
The Issur is nullified in majority.
B. Min Beino Mino:
Biblically: The Issur is nullified in majority.
Rabbinically: The Issur requires 60x of Kosher food against it in order for the mixture to be permitted.
The reason the Sages required 60x by an Eino Mino mixture of Yaveish Beyaveish:
- Shach: Since the Issur is not the same species as the Heter and if it were to give taste to the Heter it would Biblically forbid the mixture if there isn’t 60x, therefore the Sages decreed that it must always have 60x, even when it is a dry mixture that has not been cooked together. This is due to fear that one may come to cook the mixture together if we were to permit it with less than 60x while it is still a dry uncooked mixture.
- Issur v’Heter: In truth even if one were to cook the Yaveish Beyaveish Min Beino Mino mixture it would be permitted even if it does not contain 60x so long as there was majority of Heter over the Issur. The reason for this is because once the Issur has become nullified in majority to the Heter prior to the cooking, the Issur is considered like Heter and no longer can give off non-Kosher taste. Nevertheless the Sages decreed that the mixture must always contain 60x the Issur, whether the mixture is dry or cooked, due to the fact that a non same species dry mixture can technically be fixed by having the Issur species removed.
- The ramifications between the two reasons: If Issur became mixed within majority of Heter in a mixture of Yaveish Beyaveish Eino Mino, and after revealing that the Issur mixed into the Heter one cooked the mixture, the following ramification applies. If the mixture spilled prior to having a chance to measure if it contains 60x, according to the Shach the mixture is forbidden being it is a case of Safek Deoraisa, as the Issur gives taste to the Heter. However according to the Issur Viheter since the Issur is considered like Heter once it became nullified in majority prior to cooking, and it is only Rabbinically that 60x is required, therefore it is a case of Safek Derabanan of which we rule leniently and the mixture is permitted.
- The Final Ruling:
We follow the opinion of the Shach, as is evident from all the Achronim and Poskim that discuss the ruling of requiring 60x by Eino Mino mixtures of Yaveish Beyaveish.
10. What is the law if Issur fell into Heter and one does not have knowledge in how to measure whether it contains 60x? 
Whenever the doubt of whether the mixture contains 60x is due to ignorance of how to measure and not due to a technical impossibility of measurement, then the mixture is forbidden even if the 60x is only Rabbinically required, and even if one knows for certain that it contains majority Heter. Thus even by mixtures of Min Bemino, or a Rabbinical Issur it would be forbidden.
The Reason: As a doubt due to ignorance is not considered a doubt, but is rather Daas Shotim [the opinion of the dumb]. This is in contrast to when the mixture was spilled and it is impossible to measure if there is 60x. The Ran however explains the reason is because if we were to be lenient in this case people would learn to be lenient in measuring and each would measure as he sees fit, and people would find an allowance for everything. Thus only by the rare case of spillage were the Sages lenient in a case of doubt being that it is not a common occurrence which people would learn a leniency from.
Is a doubt which is due to general ignorance, that no person in the world has yet attained the knowledge in, considered a doubt? Yes. When no one has knowledge of a certain matter and thus everyone is in doubt, then it is considered a true doubt, and we are lenient in a case of a Rabbinical prohibition. This can be proven from the ruling of the Michaber regarding the cheese of a cow which was found to have a Sircha. The Michaber rules that the cheese is permitted due to a doubt within a doubt [Safek Sfeika]; perhaps the Sircha occurred only after the milking and even if it occurred before the milking perhaps it is not covering a hole in the lung which would render it Treif. Now, although it is possible to check if there is a hole under the Sircha, nevertheless since today we are no longer knowledgeable in this matter therefore it is considered a real doubt.
The ruling by a Kchal: Despite the above rule of that a doubt due to ignorance of the whole world is considered a doubt nevertheless by a Kchal [utter] we are stringent even though there is real doubt as to how much one must measure against, and this doubt is only Rabbinical. The reason for this is because as we are only lenient in Rabbinical Issurim if the doubt is whether the food is now permitted or forbidden and there is no way for anyone to verify this matter. If however the doubt is with regards to how much to measure against, then even though no one has knowledge of how much to measure against, since it is possible to measure against the larger amount and thus Kasher the food, we therefore require this to be done even by a Rabbinical prohibition.
Summary of Halacha 10:
The food is forbidden even by Min Bemino as any doubt which is due to ignorance is not considered a true doubt.
What is the law if one does not know the amount of Issur that fell into the food?
This is considered a true doubt, as one cannot be expected to be a prophet to know of the unknown, and hence in a case of a Rabbinical Issur the mixture is permitted if one knows for certain that it contains majority of Heter.
11. If one removed the entire Issur piece from the mixture must the food still contain 60x?
Example: If non-Kosher meat fell into ones chicken soup and was then promptly removed, must the chicken soup still contain 60x versus the Issur?
The law: One must measure 60x against the entire Issur as the Issur has transferred taste to the food and since one does not know how much taste has been transferred one must therefore measure versus the entire Issur.
What is the law if an Issur fell into a hot food and one immediately removed it?
Some Poskim rule the food remains permitted even without 60x as the Issur did not have time to dissipate taste to the food. However majority of Poskim argue that in all cases 60x is required.
12. Chanan by vessels-The law if one used a Treif vessel for Kosher foods:
- Ramban; Michaber:The reason for why 61x is required, and 60x does not suffice, is because eggs are of different sizes, and we thus suspect that perhaps the Issur egg is slightly larger than some of the other eggs and hence 60 eggs does not necessarily contain 60x the Issur
- Rambam:The reason the sages required 61x is because they desired to make an egg distinguished in its law
in order to indicate that an egg has the status of a Berya.
The practical ramification between the two reasons:
- If a Kezayis of milk and then a Kezayis of meat fall into 59 Kizeisim of Heter?According to all opinions the food is permitted even if they fell in one after the other as the meat and milk join the Heter to nullify each other’s taste.
- If there were two pots with 29 Kizeisim of Heter in one pot and thirty Kizeisim in another pot and then one Kezayis of blood fell into one pot while a Kezayis of Cheilev fell into another pot and the pots were then accidently mixed together:
- Important Note: Due to the complexity of this law with its various opinions we have summarized it in three different formats for the benefit of the reader. The first format below follows the final summary and Halachic ruling of the entire Halacha. The boxed summary is a quick overview of the opinion of the Rishonim and Michaber/Rama/Shach/Taz.
- The ramification of Chanan by vessels: Whenever a vessel is Chanan the food requires 60x the vessel. Whenever the vessel is not Chanan then if one knows the amount of Issur the vessel absorbed it suffices to measure 60x versus the Issur rather than the vessel.
Whenever a Ben Yomo Issur vessel has been used for Kosher food the question arises in how to measure the 60x. Is it measured against the vessel or against the original Issur food that the vessel absorbed?
The ruling on this matter is dependent on the following factors:
- Are you aware of the amount of Issur that the Treif vessel originally absorbed?
- Is the size of the Issur less than the size of the vessel?
- What material is the vessel made of?
- Was the vessel Ben Yomo at the time it became Treif?
- Is the Issur involved an Issur of Basar Bechalav or of other Issurim?
A. If one is unaware of the amount of Issur which the vessel was originally cooked with:
Treif Pot: If one cooked Kosher food in a Ben Yomo Treif pot and one is unaware of the amount of Treif food cooked in the pot within the past 24 hours, then one must measure 60x against the entire pot.
Treif spoon: If one entered a Ben Yomo Treif spoon into a hot pot of Kosher food and one does not know the amount of Issur the spoon was used with within the past 24 hours he must measure 60x versus the area of the spoon that was inserted into the pot. [There is a dispute amongst Poskim if this means the amount inserted into the pot or the amount inserted into the food in the pot.] However there is an opinion which is stringent regarding a metal spoon to require 60x versus the entire spoon irrelevant to how much of the spoon was inserted. Practically the custom is to follow the former, lenient, opinion.
B. If one is aware of the amount of Issur which the utensil had originally absorbed:
If the size of the Issur is larger than the size of the utensil: Then one measures against the utensil and does not need to measure against the Issur as it is not possible for the utensil to hold more taste than its actual size. [Thus the remaining details of this law is only dealing with a case that the amount of Issur used was less than the size of the utensil and one thus wants to know if he may measure versus the original Issur which is of a lesser amount.]
If the size of the Issur is less than the size of the utensil:
- If the utensil was not Ben Yomo at the time that it originally absorbed the Issur: In such a case one measures 60x versus the amount of Issur which the vessel had absorbed, as we do not apply the rule of Chanan by vessels that absorbed Issur. Earthenware: There are opinions which say that by earthenware vessels we do apply the rule of Chanan and thus whenever an earthenware vessel has absorbed Issur, even if the vessel was new and is larger than the size of the Issur, the vessel itself becomes Niveila and one thus must measure 60x versus the entire vessel. Practically one is to be stringent like this opinion. However others rule that even according to this opinion earthenware does not become Chanan unless it has other taste which it absorbed within 24 hours from absorbing the Issur. If however it was not Ben Yomo at the time it absorbed the Issur then even by earthenware all agree that it does not become Chanan.
- If the utensil was Ben Yomo at the time it originally absorbed the Issur: Then all the previous absorbed taste within the vessel now becomes Niveila [Chanan] and one thus must measure 60x versus the amount of the vessel which was inserted into the pot. However there is an opinion which rules that even in such a case we measure 60x versus the original Issur, as according to this opinion we do not say Chanan by taste absorbed within vessels. Practically the main Halachic opinion is like the first opinion, as we see from the ruling of the Michaber in the laws of Basar Bechalav, which rules that when a drop of milk falls onto the side of a pot above food level, then that area becomes Chanan. However the Poskim conclude that in a case of loss one may be lenient like the second opinion in a case of Issurim other than Basar Bechalav. However by a case of Basar Bechalav the Shach rules one is to be stringent even in a case of loss, unless it involves a case of great loss and the material is not made of earthenware.
Third opinion-The law by earthenware vessels: There are opinions which hold that we never say Chanan by vessels which are able to be kashered from their Treif absorption, even if they were Ben Yomo at the time that they were used with hot Issur. However by earthenware since its taste cannot be removed through Kashering we apply the rule of Chanan, even if the vessel was new or not Ben Yomo when it absorbed the Issur food. Practically one is to be stringent like this opinion to always consider earthenware Chanan. However others rule that even according to this opinion the earthenware only becomes Chanan if it was Ben Yomo when it had originally absorbed the Issur. The Shach concludes that by earthenware material that was Ben Yomo at the time it absorbed the Issur one is to be stringent in a case of Basar Bechalav even in a case of great loss,. In a case of other Issurim one may be lenient even by earthenware in a case that involves loss.
C. Example of above by Basar Bechalav:
- Example 1: If one used a 150 gram Parev spoon, or non-Ben Yomo meat spoon, for 50 grams of hot milk and then used it for hot meat must one measure 60x versus the 150 gram spoon or versus the 50 grams of meat?Ruling: One measures 60x versus the 50 grams of milk.
Example 2: If one used a 150 gram Ben Yomo meat spoon, for 50 grams of hot milk and then used it for hot meat must one measure 60x versus the 150 gram spoon or versus the 50 grams of milk?
Ruling: One is to measure 60x versus the amount of spoon inserted into the meat pot. According to the Shach one may be lenient in a case of great loss to measure 60x only versus the 50 grams of milk if the spoon is not made of earthenware.
Summary of opinions regarding Chanan by vessels:
Opinions of Rishonim:
- Rashba; First and main opinion of Michaber; Final ruling of Rama:We apply Chanan by all vessels that are Ben Yomo: If one used a Treif Ben Yomo vessel with hot Kosher food, then if the vessel was Ben Yomo at the time that it originally absorbed the Issur one must measure 60x versus the entire vessel even if the size of the vessel is larger than the size of the original Issur.
- Ramban; Second opinion in Michaber:We do not apply Chanan by vessels even if they are Ben Yomo: If one used a Treif Ben Yomo vessel with hot Kosher food one is to measure 60x versus the Issur even if the size of the vessel is larger than the size of the original Issur and the vessel was Ben Yomo at the time that it originally absorbed the Issur.
- Mordechai as explains the Rama: We apply Chanan to earthenware vessels in all cases, and never apply Chanan to other vessels even if they are Ben Yomo: If one used a Treif Ben Yomo vessel with hot Kosher food then if the material of the vessel is not earthenware one is to measure 60x versus the Issur even if the size of the vessel is larger than the size of the original Issur and the vessel was Ben Yomo at the time that it originally absorbed the Issur. If the material is earthenware one must measure 60x versus the entire vessel even if the size of the vessel is larger than the size of the original Issur and the vessel was new.
- Mordechai as explains the Shach: We apply Chanan to earthenware vessels that are Ben Yomo, and never apply Chanan to other vessels even if they are Ben Yomo: If one used a Treif Ben Yomo vessel with hot Kosher food then if the material of the vessel is not earthenware one is to measure 60x versus the Issur even if the size of the vessel is larger than the size of the original Issur and the vessel was Ben Yomo at the time that it originally absorbed the Issur. If the material is earthenware, then if the vessel was Ben Yomo at the time that it originally absorbed the Issur one must measure 60x versus the entire vessel even if the size of the vessel is larger than the size of the original Issur.
- Mordechai as explains the Taz:We apply Chanan to all vessels that are Ben Yomo, and to earthenware vessels even if they are not Ben Yomo: If one used a Treif Ben Yomo vessel with hot Kosher food then if the vessel was Ben Yomo at the time that it originally absorbed the Issur one is to measure 60x versus the vessel even if the size of the vessel is larger than the size of the original Issur. If the material is earthenware, then one must always measure 60x versus the entire vessel even if the vessel is new, and had never been used before prior to this first use with Issur.
Opinions of Poskim:
- Michaber:Brings the opinion of Rashba as the main opinion and the opinion of the Ramban as the secondary opinion. The Michaber only holds of Chanan by Basar Bechalav and never by other Issurim hence according to the Michaber the stringent view is only by a case of Basar Bechalav.
- Rama:Rules like Rashba, and is stringent like Mordechai by earthenware vessels even if they are new. According to the Rama this law applies by both Basar Bechalav and other Issurim. However in Toras Chatas he rules one may be lenient like the Ramban by other Issurim in a case of loss.
- Shach:Rules like Rashba however is lenient like Ramban in a case of loss in following circumstances:
Basar Bechalav: In a case dealing with the Issur of Basar Bechalav we rule that the spoon has become Chanan and thus one must measure 60x versus the spoon, unless it is a case great loss in which case one may be lenient if the vessel is made of metal or wood. If however it is made of earthenware then one must be stringent even in such a case.
Other Issurim: By other Issurim [according to the Rama which holds of Chanan by other Issurim] one needs to measure 60x versus the entire vessel, unless it is a case of loss in which case one may be lenient to measure 60x versus the original Issur rather than the spoon.
Rules like Rashba and is stringent like Mordechai by earthenware vessels even if they are new. Rules that by other Issurim may be lenient [in a case of loss] by all materials.
Final Halachic Ruling
If one used a Ben Yomo Treif vessel for hot Kosher food one is to measure 60x versus the vessel if he does not know how much Issur the Treif vessel absorbed, or if the amount of Issur it absorbed is larger than the size of the vessel. If the amount of Issur is less than the size of the vessel, then if the vessel was Ben Yomo at the time of its original absorption of the Issur, then one must measure 60x versus the vessel. In a case of loss however one may be lenient by other Issurim to measure 60x versus the Issur [unless the material is made of earthenware in which case one needs a great loss]. According to the Shach even by Basar Bechalav one may be lenient in a case of great loss by all materials other than earthenware. If the vessel was not Ben Yomo at the time of its original absorption of the Issur, then one may measure 60x versus the Issur. However by earthenware vessels some Poskim are stringent to require 60x versus the vessel even if the vessel was new at the time it absorbed the Issur. Other Poskim are lenient.
13. If an Issur food was salted in a vessel and that vessel was then used within 24 hours with hot Kosher food what is the law?
The food requires 60x versus a peels worth of the vessel and not versus the entire vessel. [However some Poskim require 60x versus the entire thickness of the vessel that the food contacted and so seems to be the opinion of Admur.]
14. If a vessel absorbed Issur through Kevisha/pickling and was then used within 24 hours with hot Kosher food what is the law?
The food requires 60x versus the entire vessel as Kevisha [pickling] penetrates the vessel entirely.
15. If a vessel absorbed Issur through Iruiy Keli Rishon and was then used within 24 hours with hot Kosher food what is the law?
The food requires 60x versus a peels worth of the vessel and not versus the entire vessel.
16. In a case that one has 60x versus the Issur must one nevertheless remove the Issur from the mixture?
In all cases that it is possible to remove the Issur one must do so even when the mixture contains 60x ratio against it.
17. What is the law if forbidden fat [Cheilev] fell into ones food:
Even in a case that one has 60x of Kosher food versus the forbidden fats nevertheless, based on the previous Halacha, one is required to remove the fat through pouring cold water into the dish, hence causing the fat to congeal and float to the top of the water.
The reason: Since it is possible to remove the forbidden fat through the above method, it is considered as if it is still recognizable within the food and thus must be removed even if there is 60x.
What is the law if the food did not have 60x versus the fat and one removed the fat from the dish using cold water: Even in a case that the forbidden fat has been removed from the food in the above mentioned method, the food remains forbidden unless it contains 60x the fat which entered into the food. This is because the taste of the fat has entered into the food and hence requires 60x to become nullified, irrelevant to whether the fat has been removed. [This is unlike the ruling of the Bach which rules that whenever the fat has been removed from the food, the food is now Kosher even if it does not contain 60x the fat. This is because according to his opinion once the fat has been removed the taste is also considered removed. The Shach and Taz both negate this opinion of the Bach.]
Summary of opinions:
Case: Removed Issur fat and the pot does not contain 60x:
- Shach; Taz; Issur Viheter; Toras Chatas:Everything is forbidden.
- Bach; Hagaos Issur Viheter in name of Mordechai
The food is permitted.
If butter fell into chicken soup and there is 60x what is the law?
One is to remove the butter by placing cold water in the soup hence having the butter float to the top and then removed.
18. If an Issur which fell into a pot of food that contained 60x was removed and then fell into a second pot, does the second pot require 60x if one removes the Issur?
The second pot likewise requires 60x versus the Issur in order to nullify its taste. This ruling likewise applies to each subsequent pot that this Issur falls into it, even if it is the hundredth pot, it nevertheless requires 60x.
19. What is the law if an Issur fell into the same pot twice does one need 60x or 120x?
Even in a case that an Issur fell twice into the same pot of food, nevertheless one only requires 60x the Issur, as the maximum amount of taste that the Issur can possibly dissipate into the food cannot be larger than its own size.
20. If less than a k’zayis of Issur fell into a pot, does one require 60x?
One always requires 60x versus the Issur even if the Issur is less than the size of a Kezayis which is the Torah measurement for an Issur to receive the penalty of Malkus. This is because even less than a Kezayis is Biblically forbidden to be eaten and it is only with regards to exacting punishment that the measurements were given. This law applies even if the Issur is only Rabbinically forbidden.
21. What is the law if one cooked eggs and found blood or a chick in one of the eggs?
One requires 61 kosher eggs versus the Treif egg in order for the mixture to be permitted. This applies whether the eggs were hard boiled or made into an omelet. The reason for why 61x is required, and 60x does not suffice, is because eggs are of different sizes, and we thus suspect that perhaps the Issur egg is slightly larger than some of the other eggs and hence 60 eggs does not necessarily contain 60x the Issur. Alternatively this is because a whole egg is considered a Berya and hence the Sages always required 61x an egg.
Is the egg itself nullified? An Issur egg that contains a chick is never nullified even with 61 eggs against it as a chick the status of a Berya. However an egg with blood is not considered a Berya.
Summary of Opinions in Rishonim:
Reasons in the Rishonim for why an egg requires 61x and the ramification between the reasons:
- If one scrambled the mixture of eggs the Ramban would still require 61x the Issur egg as eggs are of different sizes.The Rambam would however suffice with 60x as it has now lost its status of Berya.
- If one cooked a whole Treif egg with other foods according to the Rambam we would require 61x while according to the Ramban we would require 60x.
Is the water which the eggs were cooked with considered part of the ratio of 61x required against the eggs?
22. A list of Issurim that are not nullified in 60x:
All the Issurim that are applicable in today’s times, whether Biblical or Rabbinical, are nullified in 60x with the following exceptions:
- Chameitz on Pesach:  Is never nullified, even in 1000x.
- Yayin Nesech:  Is never nullified when it mixes into Mino [i.e. wine]. However in Eino Mino [wine that mixed into other foods] it is nullified in 60x.
- Tevel: Is never nullified.
- Arla:  Is nullified in 200x in Min Bemino.
- Chalah: Is nullified in 100x in Min Bemino.
- Kechal/utter: An utter is nullified in 59x. This means that if an utter was cooked with other meat [without kashering the utter in ways in chapter 90] then it is nullified in 59x. The reason that it does not require 60x, explains the Rashba, is because the utter itself joins to nullify its milk as the utter is also meat. Alternatively the Rambam explains the reason is because all Rabbinical prohibitions are nullified in 59x.
- Rabbinical prohibitions: According to the Rambam all Rabbinical prohibitions are nullified in 59x. However all other Poskim disagree and rule that Rabbinical prohibitions have the same status as Biblical prohibitions, and hence require 60x. [Practically the final ruling is that it requires 60x.]
- Yaveish Beyaveish: There are times that the Issur is never nullified as will be explained in chapter 101 and 110.
- Bishul Akum: Is nullified in majority.
- Chalav Akum: Is nullified in 60x.
If one is stringent to avoid eating a certain food due to Kashrus considerations is 60x required against it if it falls into a mixture?
If the food has tangible Kashrus questionability then one is to be stringent to require 60x versus the food. [If however there are no tangible Kashrus considerations and one simply does not rely on a certain Hashgacha, then one can choose to be lenient.]
May one who only eats Chalav Stam, eat food cooked in the pot of one who eats Chalav Akum?
Those that do not eat Chalav Stam in America, due to them considering it not Kosher, may not eat food that was cooked in such pots if the pot was Ben Yomo at the time of cooking, unless the food contains 60x the Chalav Stam. Those that avoid eating Chalav Stam as a mere stringency are to likewise be stringent to require 60x in the food if the pot was Ben Yomo at the time of cooking. If however one cooked Chalav Yisrael milk in the pot then there is no need for them to be stringent in this matter. If Chalav Akum cheese [and not milk] was cooked in the pot then there is more room to be lenient to eat the food that was cooked in it.
Is the food cooked in a pot of one who is not Makpid on Yashan allowed be eaten by one who is Makpid on Yashan?
If one is stringent to never eat non-Yashan grains then he is to be stringent not to eat food that was cooked in a pot that is Ben Yomo of non-Yashan grains. If however the food is the same species as the non Yashan grain there is no need to be stringent.
23. The law of Issur spices: 
Case: If an Issur added flavor to a kosher food, how much Heter is required to nullify the Issur?
General rule: Any Issur which adds flavor to food, such as forbidden spices and salt, then if they are intrinsically forbidden [including if they are merely Rabbinically forbidden], if the taste of the spice is still felt in the food then the food is [Rabbinically] forbidden irrelevant of the ratio. Hence even if there is 1000x of Heter against the spices it remains forbidden. If however the Issur is not intrinsically forbidden but is rather forbidden due to absorption, [such as salt which absorbed blood], then the spice is nullified in 60x as the taste of the absorbed Issur cannot be felt within 60x, even if the spice is still felt within the dish.
Min Bemino: If an intrinsically forbidden spice fell into another spice of the same species then if they have the same taste the spice is nullified in 60x. However if they have different tastes then even if they share the same name it is never nullified so long as the Issur spice can still be tasted within the food.
A very small amount of Issur spice fell into one’s pot: If a small kernel of intrinsically forbidden spices fell into a large pot of food one can assume that within such a ratio the taste of the spice is nullified and the food is permitted.
If one is in doubt as to whether a food has the taste of an Issur spice may he give the food to a gentile to taste and verify its status? In such a case one may give a gentile the food to taste if the gentile does not understand the ramification of his answer [Masiach Lefi Tumo]. This applies even today that we no longer rely on the taste of gentiles. [However this is only allowed if one knows for certain that the food contains 60x versus the spice and the doubt is only with regards to the taste.]
24. The law of other Issurim that give taste to the food despite having 60x:
If a food contains 60x an Issur [not spices] but the taste of the Issur can still be felt within the food what is the law? The food remains forbidden as whenever the taste of an Issur has remained in a food the food is forbidden irrelevant of the ratio it has to the Issur.
If one’s food contains 60x the Issur but taste of the Issur may still remain is one allowed to taste the food to verify: By non-spicy Issurim one can assume that when there is 60x of Heter against it then its taste is nullified. Thus based on this assumption [Chazaka] one may eat the food and if he feels a taste of the non-Kosher food it then becomes forbidden. However a spicy Issur is not assumed to have its taste nullified even in 1000x, and hence it is forbidden.
Non-Kosher fats: The Taz questions why fat used to flavor food is nullified in 60x as in truth it gives taste even within such a ratio. He suggests that perhaps only spicy Issurim which have a strong taste prohibit past 60x however other Issurim such as fat which have a weak taste are nullified in 60x [even if one feels a weak taste of fat within the mixture]. [If however in truth one tastes a strong taste of Issur fat within the food, then it is forbidden even if the food contained 60x.]
25. What is the law if two different Issurim fall into a hot pot of food?
The definition of two different Issurim: Issurim which have different tastes are considered two different Issurim even if they contain the same name.
Example: A Kezayis of blood and Kezayis of Cheilev fell into a pot of hot food.
Important note: In this Halacha there are differences between the opinion of the Michaber and Rama due to the Rama’s stringent approach of Chanan by other Issurim. Although the Rama does not explicitly state his dissenting opinion here it is explained in length in the Shach [98/34]. The summary below hence takes into account that which is explained in the Shach.
A. The two Issurim fell in simultaneously:
If both Issurim fell into the pot simultaneously then as long as there is a total of 60x versus each individual Issur, the mixture is permitted. Thus using the above example if there was originally 59 Kizeisim of Kosher food in the pot and one Kezayis each of the two different Issurim fell into the pot then the entire mixture is permitted. The reason for this is because each Kezayis of Issur joins the 59 Kizeisim of Heter for a total of 60x to nullify the Kezayis taste of the other Issur. In the above example one Kezayis of blood with the original 59 Kizeisim of Heter is a total of 60x against the Cheilev, and the same applies vice versa to nullify the blood.
B. The two Issurim fell into the pot of food one after the other:
- Michaber: Whether the two Issurim fell simultaneously or one after the other the law remains that the Kezayis of each Issur joins the 59 Kizeisim of Heter to nullify the other Kezayis of Issur, as explained above.
The reason: The reason for why according to the Michaber the Issurim join the Heter even if they fell one after the other, and hence there was a period of time that the food had only 59x total versus the first Issur is because the Michaber does not hold of Chanan by other Issurim. Hence when another Kezayis is added to the pot we reevaluate the ratio to nullify the Issur.
- Rama: The Shach and Taz explain that according to the Rama, and all Ashkenazi Poskim, in a case that the Issurim fell into the pot one after the other the mixture is forbidden if at the time that the first Issur fell in there wasn’t 60x of Heter versus the Issur. The reason for this is because there was a period of time that the food had only 59x versus the first Issur and at that moment the entire pot of food became intrinsically forbidden [Chanan] according to the Rama and other Ashkenazi Poskim.
Cases in which even according to the Rama the Issurim join to nullify each other:
There are four cases where even according to the Rama the Issurim join to nullify each other even if they fell in one after the other, being that the mixture did not become Chanan at the time the first Issur fell in:
- The two Issurim fell in simultaneously as explained in case A.
- If a Kezayis of milk and then a Kezayis of meat fell into 59 Kizeisim of Heter, as explained in case C.
- Lach Belach in a case of great loss: If one had 59 Kezeisim of Kosher liquid into which fell one Kezayis of blood, and then afterwards one Kezayis of Issur gravy, the law is that in a case of great loss the mixture is Kosher even in accordance to the Rama. The reason for this is because as in a case of great loss we are lenient to not apply the rule of Chanan towards mixtures of Lach Belach.
- Lo Noda Beintayim: If one only found out that the first Kezayis of Issur fell in after the second Kezayis of Issur already fell inside, then even according to the Rama the mixture is permitted. The reason or this is because according to the Rama the rule of Chanan only takes effect when one knows of the Issur, and hence in this case the food never became Chanan before the second Issur fell in due to one’s lack of knowledge of the first Issur.Other Opinions: The above is in accordance to the opinion of the Rama. However the Shach rules that the rule of Chanan applies even in a case of Lo Noda Beintayim as will be discussed in the length in Chapter 99.
- One Kezayis of blood fell into 60 Kizeisim of Heter, and then slightly more than a Kezayis of Cheilev fell in.In such a case according to all we don’t require 120x the two Issurim together and rather the Kezayis of blood joins the 60 Kizeisim of Heter to nullify the Cheilev.
C. Examples of cases:
According to the Michaber the mixture is permitted. According to the Rama and other Ashkenazi Poskim the mixture is forbidden, as explained in case B.
D. If two of the same Issur fall into Heter:
See next Chapter
If the Issurim fell in simultaneously, they join to nullify each other. If they fell in one after the other, then if at the time that the first Issur fell in the Heter did not have 60x against it, the entire mixture is forbidden, unless it is a case of Lach Belach and involves great loss. If one did not know about the first Issur falling in until after the second Issur already fell in, it is disputed whether or not the mixture is Kosher. 
 Gemara Nazir 37a; Pesachim 44b; Zevachim 79a; Rambam Hilchos Machalos Assuros 15/1; Michaber 98/1 [Appendix]
 The reason the food is forbidden is because “Taam Ki’ikur”. This means that the taste of a food is viewed like the food itself. Thus if a Kosher food contains the taste of a non-Kosher food it is considered as the non-Kosher food is within the Kosher food and hence the Kosher food is forbidden from being eaten. The source for viewing taste like the actual food is learned in the Gemara in Nazir 37a. According to Rabanan it is learned from the verse [Bamidbar 6/3] “Kol Mishras Anavim Lo Yishteh”. The Torah says in this verse that a Nazir which is forbidden to drink wine may not drink water that had grapes soak in them. Thus we see that a food that has the taste of wine is forbidden for a Nazir. The Gemara ibid expounds that the same applies for all other prohibitions that any food which contains their taste is forbidden, as the taste is viewed like the actual prohibition. According to Rebbe Akivah the Gemara first suggests it is learned from the prohibition of meat and milk. From the fact the Torah prohibits meat that absorbed milk we see that the taste of a food is considered like the actual food. The Gemara however rejects this and rather concludes that according to Rebbe Akivah it is learned from the Torah command [Bamidbar 31/23] to Kasher the vessels of Midyan which contained non-Kosher tastes of foods. This shows the Torah views the taste of non-Kosher just like the forbidden food itself.
 In other words is “Taam Ki’ikur” Derabanan or Deoroisa?
 Shach 98/2 [Appendix]
 Rashi Zevachim 78a
 Shach ibid writes “possibly Rambam” the Taz 98/2 however writes the Rambam rules like Rashi. See Rambam Hilchos Machalos Assuros 15/2
 See Taz 98/2 that the Terumos Hadeshen explains that the Rashba holds like Rashi that Taam Ki’ikur is Rabbinical. However the Taz himself brings from the Beis Yosef who quotes from the Rashba in Toras Habayis that the Rashba agrees it is Biblical.
 Michaber 98/2; See Shach 98/2
 98/1; brought also in 92/2
 See Shach 98/1; Taz 98/1; Peri Megadim 98 M.Z. 1 that fat and meat are considered different species.
 Beis Yosef as explained in Shach 98/2; Taz 98/2
 Meaning that the gentile must give a non-biased opinion, which truly describes the taste of the food. If however the gentile knows that based on his answer will depend whether the Jew will eat the food, then this is considered a biased opinion, and he may not be trusted, unless he is a professional cook, as was explained.
 98/1; brought also in 92/2
 Michaber 98/1
 As the Michaber rules that Taam Ki’ikur is Biblical. [See Shach 98/2] Hence if the forbidden food gives taste to the Kosher food it is Biblically forbidden. Nevertheless he rules one may trust the opinion of a gentile.
 The Sages believed a non-biased gentile to testify that a woman’s husband has passed away to allow her to remarry.
 Refer to Beis Yosef 98
 Shach 98/4
 The reason for this is because at times taste will remain even when there is 60x against it, thus according to Michaber when available one must have a gentile taste it. [Based on Shach ibid]
 Shach 98/4
 As the main point is that there should not be taste of the prohibited food in the mixture, and not whether or not it has 60x.
 Beis Yosef brought in Shach 98/2; Taz 98/2
 Meaning he knows that if he states that it has taste of the forbidden food then the food is forbidden and if he says it does not contain such taste then it would be permitted. The reason for this is because we do not suspect that a cook by profession will lie about the taste of the food, as this will damage his credentials for his business, and he will thus be afraid to lie.
 Tur; Beis Yosef; Taz 98/2
 Beis Yosef
 Glosses on 98
 Rama 98/1; Taz 98/2; unlike Michaber 98/1
This applies even in accordance to Sefaradim as rules Kaf Hachaim 98/2 that today even Sefaradim no longer rely on a gentile tasting the food
 Chulin 98a; Rambam Hilchos Machalos Assuros 15/21
 Hakashrus 10 footnote 8
 Issur Viheter 57/15
 Pischeiy Teshuvah 116/10 mentions it is like heresy to avoid eating such foods. Tziyon Linefesh 62 writes in the name of the Shlah Hakadosh that it is actually a merit to eat foods that had Issur nullified within them as by doing so one elevates the Issur
 Mahrsham brought in Darkei Halacha 98
 Mahrsham 3/215; Chasam Sofer 135; Tiferes Tzevi 19; Livushei Mordechaiy 2/116
 Even Yikara 13 and 82
 Shach 98/5 writes it is implied from the Rama which says that we do not rely on the tasting of a gentile, that we do rely on the tasting of a Jew.
 Brought in Shach 98/5
 96/1 So is also opinion of Tur; Rosh; Rashba
 As learns Shach 98/5
 Taz 96/2
 Shach 97/5
Now although in Shach 98/5 he writes that even initially one may rely on the taste of a Jew [brought above in example 1 and 2]. There it is referring to a case of Bedieved, as without tasting the foods, the person will not be able to eat it. Here however even if one does not taste the food it may still be eaten with the food which we suspect its taste became absorbed, being it milk or being it meat.
 Mahrshag 3/34; See Rav Poalim 1/9
 Mahrsham 3/377
 Mahrsham ibid
 Even if the Issur is permitted in benefit. [Shach 108/24]
 Rama 108/5; Taz 108/9
The reason for the prohibition is due to a decree one may come to swallow it. [Peri Megadim 108 M.Z. 9]
 Brought in Taz 98/2
 98/2; 108/9
 42/4 as explained in Peri Megadim.
 The Shach ibid explains that it is only allowed to taste a liver with one’s tongue to see if it has a taste of the gallbladder because the probability is very high that the gallbladder is present. However in a case of true doubt whether the food is kosher, one may not taste it with his tongue.
 Shach 42/4; Unlike the Taz 98/2 which permits licking questionably forbidden foods.
 Pischeiy Teshuvah 98/1 in name of Tzemach Tzedek 47
 Nodeh Beyehuda Mahdurah Tinyana Yoreh Deah 52; Peri Megadim 108 M.Z. 9
 Michaber 98/2
 Peri Megadim 98 M”Z 5 brought in Kaf Hachaim 98/42
 Chavas Daas brought in Kaf Hachaim 98/42
 Yad Avraham 98/2; Kaf Hachaim ibid
 Shach 98/6; Taz 98/3
 As a same species Issur does not transfer taste to the food, and hence we follow majority as the verse states “Achrei Rabim Lihatos”. [Shach ibid] The Talmudic source for this is the Gemara in Zevachim 79a following the opinion of Rava said in the name of Rabanan, and so is the Halachic ruling. [Rambam Machalos Assuros 15/1]
Other Opinions: Rebbe Yehuda is of the opinion that Min Bemino is never nullified.
 The reason for why the Sages required 60x even by mixtures of Min Bemino is due to a decree of Min Beino Mino. [See chapter 109]
 Tur 98 sights this as an example of Min Bemino.
 Shach 98/6; Taz 98/3
 Michaber 98/2
 Michaber ibid
 Meaning if 30 grams of Issur Mino fell into a pot of food and after the pot spilled there remains 50 grams of Kosher food, 25 being Kosher Mino and 25 being non-Kosher Mino, then nevertheless the entire mixture is forbidden as there is not majority of Kosher Mino over the Issur Mino, even though combined there is more Kosher food then Issur in the pot.
 Yad Avraham 98/2; Peri Megadim 98 M”Z 5 and Chavas Daas brought in Kaf Hachaim 98/42
 Brought in Tur 98; Taz 98/5; Shach 98/8
The source for this ruling of the Rashba is derived from the following case in the Gemara: Rebbe Yehuda [who is of the opinion that “min b’mino aino batel” meaning that if a Mino Issur falls into a Mino Heter the entire mixture is always forbidden irrelevant of the ratio, because the Issur is enhanced by the Heter] rules that when Mino falls into Mino and Eino Mino, then if there is 60x of Eino Mino over the Issur Mino, the entire mixture is permitted including the Kosher Mino. This is despite the fact that normally he rules Min Bemino is never nullified. His reasoning is because once the Issur Mino has nullified within the Kosher Eino Mino it is now viewed as non-existent. The Rashba uses this ruling and reasoning to apply it also to our case in accordance to the opinion of Chachamim [which rule Min BeMino is nullified in majority]. The logic of Rebbe Yehuda’s ruling dictates that since when there is majority of Kosher Mino over the Issur Mino it is nullified [according to Chachamim and the final Halachic stance] we therefore consider the Issur Mino as nullified and non-existent and hence the Eino Mino is Kosher even though it contains the taste of the Issur Mino, as the Issur Mino has become Kosher due to its nullification.
 To note that while the simple understanding of the Rashba is as written above, and so understands the Rashal, Bach and Taz ibid to be the intent of the Rashba, nevertheless in truth the Rashba does not explicitly say that the Eino Mino becomes permitted. The Shach gives a different interpretation of the Rashba and concludes that even according to the Rashba the Eino Mino is forbidden.
 98/8; so rules also Peri Chadash 98
The Shach ibid and Maharshal [brought in Bach 98] question the line of reasoning of the Rashba which applied the ruling of Rebbe Yehuda also to Chachamim. According to Rebbe Yehuda there is logical rationalization to view the Issur Mino as nullified in a case that there is 60x of Kosher Eino Mino against it. This is because according to Rebbe Yehuda the fact that Min Bemino is never nullified is due to a scriptural decree which contains no reasoning. Hence once the Torah states that the Kosher Mino is nullified in the Eino Mino and is viewed as non-existent, there is no longer any Issur Mino in the pot to prohibit the Mino. However in our case which is following the ruling of Chachamim where we say that Min Bemino is Biblically nullified in majority, we cannot extend and say that if there is majority of Kosher Mino then also the Eino Mino remains Kosher even without 60x as the fact is the Issur Mino is possibly giving taste to the Kosher Eino Mino, and hence how can we say we view the Issur Mino as non-existent. [Seemingly this means to say that according to Rebbe Yehuda once Mino becomes nullified in Eino Mino there is nothing left in existence of the Issur Mino within the pot, as it becomes nullified due to the ratio. However if there is not 60x in the Eino Mino then the taste of the Issur Mino still exists within the pot and hence prohibits the Eino Mino irrelevant to whether the Issur Mino is viewed as nullified within the Kosher Mino.]
Thus the Shach concludes that the Michaber means to say that the Kosher Mino nullifies the Issur Mino and hence the Mino remains Kosher. However the Eino Mino is forbidden unless one can verify that there was 60x of Heter versus the Issur before it spilled.
 Brought in Bach 98
 Tur 98 The Bach concludes the final ruling follows the Rashba over the Rashal, as there is an acceptable rationalization to his ruling.
 This is because when the Issur Mino becomes nullified within majority of the Kosher Mino, Biblically the Issur food is now considered Kosher. Thus although its taste may still remain within the Eino Mino, this taste is now considered a Kosher taste. Now even though if the mixture were not to have spilled we would have Rabbinically required 60x the Issur even versus the Mino nevertheless since the mixture is no longer measurable and it possibly contained 60x, the Mino is therefore permitted, as it is merely a Rabbinical doubt, and once we rule the Issur Mino is nullified within majority of the Heter Mino, the taste of the Issur Mino is viewed as Kosher and cannot prohibit the Eino Mino. [Taz ibid; Bach ibid]
 Based on Taz 98/5; Peri Megadim 98 M”Z 5
 Taz ibid
 Chanan is an acronym for Chaticha Nasis Niveila. It refers to a Kosher food which has become intrinsically Treif due to absorbing Treif foods. Since the Kosher food has become Chanan or intrinsically Treif therefore if this food were to now mix into a pot of Kosher food one would require 60x versus the entire piece of food that mixed in, as opposed to merely requiring 60x the original Issur.
- Example: 10 grams of milk became absorbed into a 250 gram hot meat steak. That meat then fell into another pot of meat. The pot of meat requires 60x the entire piece of steak [60x 250 grams] and it does not suffice to have 60x the 10 grams of milk. The reason for this is because once the steak became non-Kosher due to its absorption of milk, it now becomes an intrinsically Treif food. The steak is referred to as Chanan.
 Now although the entire concept of Chanan by other prohibitions is itself Rabbinical [Shach 92/12; Taz 92/11] and hence this is once again a case of Rabbinical doubt of 60x in which case we should rule leniently, nevertheless we are stringent. Perhaps the reason for this is because all Rabbinical prohibitions were enacted in correspondence to their Biblical root, therefore whenever there is Treif taste, whether Biblical or Rabbinical, 60x is required. . [See Peri Megadim 98 M”Z 5 which addresses this point and suggests perhaps the Taz ibid did not want to be lenient in this case as there is opinions that rule Chanan is Biblical even by other prohibitions.]
 Chidushei Hagershoni 98/5 brought in Oatzer Hamifarshim of Shulchan Aruch Habahir
 Klal 24 and so rules Rama in Toras Chatas and Darkei Moshe. See Rama 99/5
 and only then one became aware of the Issur, after the meat stew spilled.
 Klal 85 in name of Issur Viheter brought in Taz 98/5
 Taz 98/5
The Shach and Taz strongly questions the above ruling of the Toras Chatas being that milk is only Rabbinical forbidden within chicken and the doubt of 60x is thus a Rabbinical doubt in which the rule is that we are lenient. Nevertheless, the Taz concludes that in the current example of milk and chicken given by the Toras Chatas one is to be stringent, as the Sages equated chicken to meat regarding all matters so one not come to confusion with the ruling regarding real meat. [Taz ibid]
 So is understood to be the final stance of the Taz in all cases other than milk and chicken. So also implies Beir Heiytiv 98/8 to be the opinion of the Taz. And so explicitly writes Peri Megadim 98 S.D. 7.
The reason for this ruling is because even if the Issur gave taste to the food [i.e. no 60x] this taste is only Rabbinically forbidden. Hence since due to the spillage this taste cannot be verified, therefore one may be lenient due to the doubt following the rule of Safek Derabanan Lekula.
 The reason for this stringency the Taz first suggests is because the source of this ruling [the Issur Viheter] rules that chicken and milk is Biblically forbidden and hence it is a case of Biblical doubt. He however concludes that even according to the Rama in Toras Chatas which rules chicken and milk is Rabbinical there is still due reason to be stringent by milk and chicken as if it were Biblical. This can be seen from the fact the Sages equated all the prohibition of meat and milk also to chicken and milk, such as not eating them on the same table. Thus here too in a case of spillage we equate the ruling of chicken and milk to meat and milk. [Taz ibid]
 Being that it involves a merely Rabbinical forbidden taste, and thus the question of whether the pot contains 60x is a doubt regarding a Rabbinical prohibition in which we rule leniently.
 The Issur Viheter. However the Rama rules that chicken and milk are Rabbinical. Hence the Shach concludes the Rama in Toras Chatas misunderstood the ruling of the Issur Viheter, and his ruling is thus overturned.
 Yad Avraham 98/2; Peri Megadim 98 M”Z 5 and Chavas Daas brought in Kaf Hachaim 98/42
 Yad Avraham 98/2; Peri Megadim 98 M”Z 5 and Chavas Daas brought in Kaf Hachaim 98/42
 Michaber 98/2
 Taz 98/5 rules it is permitted; Shach 98/8 rules that it is forbidden.
 Shach 98/7; Taz 98/5 agrees with Shach although holds that by chicken and milk one is to be stringent as if it were a Biblical Issur. [See Peri Megadim 98 S.D. 7 that all agree, including Rama in Toras Chatas, that by Rabbinical prohibitions the mixture is permitted and only by chicken and milk is there dispute involved.]
 The Issur Viheter, Rama in Toras Chatas and Taz 98/5 rule it is forbidden. The Shach 98/7 rules it is permitted
 Mahrash Engel 2/9
 This law is discussed in Rama 98/2; Shach 98/6
 Taz 98/4 as learns Peri Megadim 98 M”Z 4
 Peri Megadim 987 M”Z 4
 Such an explanation would deflect all the questions of the Shach against the Rama.
 98/6; See also Shach 102/3
 Meaning we don’t say that such an Issur when it mixes with its same species it completely forbids the food even with 60x.
 The reason for this is because Taam Kiikur Deoraisa, hence logic dictates that Min Bemino which is nullified in majority due to lack of taste can only be defined if both foods have the same taste. [Shach ibid]
 The ramification of Min Bemino in this case is to determine the law in a case that the milk spilled prior to measuring the ratio of 60x.
 Such as Arlah and Kilayim [nullified in 1:200], Terumah [nullified in 1:100]
 Such as Chametz on Pesach, Tevel [un-tithed food]; Davar Sheyeish lo Matirin; Yayin Neshech, Takruvos Avoda Zara.
 Brought in Shach 98/6
 As according to the Issur Viheter by Yaveish Beyaveish mixtures taste is not a factor being that according to his opinion Biblically even Min Beino Mino is nullified in a ratio of 1:2 by mixtures of Yaveish Beyaveish.
 Peri Megadim 98 S.D. 6
 Shach 98/6; Peri Megadim 98 S.D. 6; unlike Rama 98/2 which rules that one always follows the same name.
 Peri Megadim in introduction to Taaruvos; Imreiy Yosher 140/2
 Beis Yosef; Chasam Sofer 87;
 End of Klal 23 brought in Shach 98/6
 As since they are not the same species they are not truly unrecognizable, and it is only due to lack of awareness of people to differentiate the two different species that we need to come to the laws of nullification. However by same species mixtures they are truthfully mixed in a way that it is not possible to distinguish between the two.
 See Shach ibid towards the end for a list of proofs from the Poskim for his view against the view of the Issur Viheter.
 Shach 98/9; Taz 98/6
 Taz 98/6
 A sircha is a fatty piece of tissue that grows on the lungs of a cow and at times determines it to be Treif. The Sirchas growth is usually a sign of a puncture in the lung over which it is growing over.
 Taz ibid
 An utter is Rabbinically forbidden to be cooked with its milk. If one cooked it with meat one is required to measure 60x versus the entire utter even though it is in truth a doubt as to how much milk the utter expelled into the meat, and this doubt is relevant to all people of the world.
 Michaber 98/3
 Shach 98/9
 Pischeiy Teshuvah 98/8; Yad Avraham 98/2 based on Emunas Shmuel 28; Peri Chadash;
 Michaber 98/4
 Pischeiy Teshuvah 105/9
 Chamudei Daniel 1
 Yad Yehuda brought in Darkei Tehsuvah 105/65; Mahrash Engel 2/55; Peri Hasadeh 1/36; Tzur Yaakov 8
 Michaber 98/4-5
 Kreisy 94/1; Chavos Daas 94/2; As in the pot above the food there is steam of the food.
 Issur Viheter Klal 37/2; Chochmas Adam 46/6
 Michaber 98/4; In 94/1 the Michaber records two opinions on this matter. The Shach 94/3 concludes that the Michaber’s final ruling follows the lenient opinion as rules the Rama. Their reasoning is because by metal once part of the metal of the spoon becomes hot it transfers the heat to the entire spoon and it is thus considered as if the entire spoon was inserted into the pot. [Michaber ibid]
 Rama 98/4; 94/1
The reason behind the lenient opinion: Although by metal the entire spoon becomes hot upon heating up even a partial area of the spoon, nevertheless only the area of the spoon which was directly heated from the food in the pot has the ability to dissipate the milk taste which it absorbed. [Shach 94/3]
 Either due to being a new vessel that has never been used before, or due to 24 hours having passed since its last use. [Michaber ibid]
 Meaning that there was no taste absorbed in the utensil at the time that one used it with the Treif food. Although now at the time he entered it into his food it is Ben Yomo from the Issur.
 Michaber 98/5
 Rama ibid; As one certainly cannot say that the actual physical material of a vessel becomes a non-Kosher food! [Shach 98/17]
 Mordechai Perek Gid Hanashe brought in Toras Chatas Klal 85
 The reason for this stringency regarding earthenware is because by earthenware the taste of the Issur becomes permanently engrained within its material, hence making earthenware not Kasherable. [ibid]
 Rama ibid; Taz 98/8
 Shach 98/21-22; and so rules Rashal in Yam Shel Shlomo Perek Gid Hanashe; Bach [brought in Shach ibid]
 Thus according to this opinion they are lenient by all other material vessels that can be Kashered through Hagala, even if the vessels were Ben Yomo at the time that they absorbed from the Issur. Accordingly this opinion is the middle opinion between the two opinions brought in the Michaber.
 Used with hot food within 24 hours of it absorbing the Issur.
 According to the Michaber this is referring to a case of that the utensil absorbed meat and then milk and was then placed in kosher food, as by other Issurim the Michaber never holds of Chanan. [See Michaber 92/4]
 As one does not know how much Heter the vessel absorbed within the past 24 hours and thus we view that the entire vessel absorbed Heter which now became Chanan upon absorbing the Issur within 24 hours of the Heter. [Rama ibid] However in truth if one knows how much Heter the vessel absorbed within the past 24 hours, such as it absorbed one Kezayis of Heter and then one Kezayis of Issur, then one must only measure versus the two Kizeisim as opposed to measuring versus the entire vessel [if the vessel is larger than two Kizeisim]. [Shach 98/17]
 Rashba in name of Ramban, brought in Michaber ibid as the second opinion; and so rules also the Mordechai brought in Rama that differentiates between earthenware and other vessels that according to the Mordechai we never say Chanan by other material vessels even if they were Ben Yomo when they originally absorbed the Issur.
 This applies even in a case of Basar Bechalav, as the Michaber which brings this ruling does not hold of Chanan by other Issurim. Thus according to this opinion if one stuck a spoon into meat and then milk and then again into meat food one only needs to measure 60x versus the milk and not versus the entire spoon!
 Shach 98/19.
 Rama ibid; and so concludes Shach 98/21 to be stringent like the first opinion unless it is a case of great loss, and is not an earthenware vessel, as will be explained in the final ruling.
 Taz 98/8; Shach 98/18; Peri Megadim 98 S.D. 21; and so rules Rama in Toras Chatas Klal 51
 Shach 98/21; Peri Megadim 98 S.D. 21
 Brought in Rama ibid
 However even according to this opinion even earthenware only becomes Chanan if it absorbed Issur, or absorbed milk and then absorbed meat. If however a new earthenware vessel absorbed milk or meat it certainly does not become Niveila, as the vessel is still permitted. [Shach 22]
 Rama ibid; Taz 98/8
 Shach 98/21
 While by other Issurim they hold that even if they were Ben Yomo when used with the Issur they do not become Chanan. The final ruling in this matter has already been stated above.
 Shach in 98/18; See Peri Megadim 98 S.D. 21; Taz 98/8; Rama in Toras Chatas Klal 51
 Michaber 98/5; Shach 98/17
 Shach 98/18 and 21; Peri Megadim 98 S.D. 21
 Meaning that one stuck a Ben Yomo dairy spoon into meat and then within 24 hours used this spoon for dairy.
 Shach 98/21
 Such as a spoon was stuck into Kosher food and then within 24 hours was stuck into non-kosher food and was then stuck into Kosher food within 24 hours.
 Shach 98/18
The reason for this is because there are opinions which anyways hold that we never say Chanan by other Issurim, and thus we join this opinion to the opinion which rules that we do not say Chanan by vessels, and one thus can be lenient in a case of loss.
Does the above leniency apply by earthenware? It is implied from Shach 98/18, and so learns Peri Megadim 98 S.D. 21, that the above leniency regarding a case of other Issurim which involves a loss applies even if the vessel is made of earthenware. However it is unclear if we are lenient by earthenware even by a small loss or only by a great loss. It is implied from the Peri Megadim 98 S.D 21 that although we are lenient by earthenware in a case of great loss nevertheless we are stringent in a case of loss even by other Issurim.
 So is implied from the fact he depends his leniency of other Issurim on the ruling of the Rama in Toras Chatas which is only lenient in a case of loss, and so understands Darkei Halacha p. 127
 First and main opinion in Michaber, Final ruling in Rama, Shach 98/21 and Taz 98/8
 Shach in 98/18; See Peri Megadim 98 S.D. 21; Taz 98/8; Rama in Toras Chatas Klal 51
 Does the above leniency apply by earthenware? It is implied from Shach 98/18, and so learns Peri Megadim 98 S.D. 21, that the above leniency regarding a case of other Issurim which involves a loss applies even if the vessel is made of earthenware. However it is unclear if we are lenient by earthenware even by a small loss or only by a great loss. It is implied from the Peri Megadim 98 S.D 21 that although we are lenient by earthenware in a case of great loss nevertheless we are stringent in a case of loss even by other Issurim.
 Rama and Taz 98/8
 Shach 98/21
 Rama 98/4
 The reason for this is because salting only penetrates a Kelipas [peels] worth into a vessel. [Rama ibid] However by food a salted Issur is able to fully penetrate Issur into the food. [Shach 98/14]
 According to the Derisha [98/18] 60x versus the entire vessel is required being that salt is able to penetrate an entire vessel with Issur and not just a Kelipa worth. [Peri Megadim 98 S.D. 13]
 In 447/30 Admur rules that one requires 60x versus the entire thickness of the vessel and not just 60x a peels worth. See Piskeiy Admur Yoreh Deah p. 57.
 Shach 98/13 in name of Toras Chatas Klal 85 in name of Issur Viheter
 Shach 98/13 in name of Toras Chatas Klal 85 in name of Issur Viheter
 The reason for this is because Iruiy Keli Rishon only penetrates a Kelipas [peels] worth into vessel [Shach 98/13]
 Rama 98/4
 As 60x only helps to nullify an Issur that is not recognizable and cannot be separated from the mixture. However a recognizable Issur must always be removed and is never nullified.
 Rama 98/4
 Shach 98/16; Taz 98/7
 So rules Taz ibid; Shach ibid; Rama in Toras Chatas Klal 85/17; Issur Viheter Klal 23/10 in name of Raaven; The Shach concludes that so is also implied from all Poskim that never brought such an alternative to requiring 60x.
 So rules Bach in his Sefer Bayis Chadash, brought in Shach and Taz ibid; His ruling is based on the Glosses of the Issur Viheter Shaar 24/10 in the name of the Mordechai
 Peri Megadim Introduction
 Rama 98/4
 Seemingly the novelty of this ruling is as follows: Although the taste of the Issur was already nullified in the first pot, nevertheless even then we do not know definitively that all of its taste entered the first pot and it is only because of doubt that in the first pot we required 60x versus the entire piece. Thus in the second pot we still require 60x the Issur as here too we are in doubt as to how much taste has remained in the piece from after the first pot and has now entered the second pot.
 Rama 98/4
 See Biur Hagra for an explanation of why we do not say Chanan to the Issur and hence every time it falls in one should require 60x more of that Issur. In short he explains that even if we would say Chanan to the newly absorbed taste of the Issur, nevertheless it would still be a case of Min Bemino and in such a case the Sages did not decree for one to require 60x.
 Michaber ibid
 Shach 98/23
 Taz 98/9
 This refers to blood found on an area of an egg that deems it Biblically forbidden, as explained in chapter 66 and in chapter 107 in this book. If however the blood is only Rabbinical then in certain cases only majority is required.
 Michaber 98/7
 Michaber ibid
 Michaber and Rama 86/5 as explained in Shach 86/16
Other Opinions: According to the Rambam in such a case one would only require 60x. The Shach ibid concludes to be stringent like the Michaber.
 Shach 86/16; Taz 86/12 in name of Ramban and many other Poskim
 Rambam, brought in Shach ibid. The Shach concludes to suspect for both reasons and hence to be stringent to require 61x even when a whole egg was cooked with other foods and even when a mixture of eggs has been scrambled. However a scrambled egg which has entered into other foods according to all one only requires 60x.
 Shach 98/24
 How is it possible to know if an egg contains a chick inside for this question to ever become possible?
If the above case is discussing whether one may cook a mixture of eggs that contains an egg with a chick, how would one know if the egg contains a chick. If the case is discussing after the mixture is already cooked and one found an egg with a chick, then one is to simply throw away the chick. So in what scenario would we need to even nullify an egg with a chick in 60x?
The Peri Megadim [100 S.D. 2] addresses this question and refers the reader to Kreisi u’Pleisi. The Kresi Upleisi 100/3 upholds the above question and hence concludes that the only case it can apply in is in a case that one removed the chick from the egg and the egg then became mixed with other chicks, that we do not say the chick is nullified as it has a status of a Beryah which is never nullified even in 60x.
For further discussion on this matter refer to Chavos Daas Biurim 98/3; and in length in Rav Poalim 2/9
 Peri Megadim 98 S.D. 24
 Peri Megadim 86 S.D. 17
 Shach 98/26
Other Opinions: The Rambam rules that all Rabbinical prohibitions are nullified in 59x as is the ruling by Kchal [utter]. The Rashba argues on this view and explains why Kchal is an exception to the rule and really all prohibitions, even Rabbinical, require 60x. The Shach writes that the Beis Yosef concludes that so is the opinion of all the Poskim, as rules the Rashba, unlike the Rambam. [Shach ibid]
 Rama 98/8;
Translated ruling of Admur Orach Chaim 447/1:
From the night of the 15th of Pesach [the first night of Pesach] until the end of the last day of Pesach any chameitz which enters into any type of mixture, whether Yaveish Beyaveish or Lach Belach, even if there is no chameitz left in the mixture, Rabbinically it does not become nullified, despite its ratio, to the non-chameitz ingredients that it mixed into, and the mixture is therefore prohibited to eat or to receive pleasure from.
The reason for this Rabbinical institution is because the Torah is very strict regarding chameitz, giving it a punishment of Kareis for eating, and a double negative command against owning it, thus being that people are so used to eating chameitz throughout the year and may come to forget about the prohibition, therefore the Rabbis enacted stricter measures regarding chameitz mixtures.
 Rama 98/8; Michaber 134/1-3
 Tur brought in Shach 98/27
 Shach 98/27. The reason for why the Rama omitted Arla is perhaps because the Rama was only mentioning Issurim which are never nullified, or because he did not intend to write a full list.
 Rama 323/1 brought in Gilyon Mharsha
 Michaber 98/8; 90/1
 See Taz 90/2
 Shach 98/26
 Tur, Rashba, Beis Yosef
 Peri Megadim 98 S.D. 26
 Rama 112/14 regarding Pas Akum; Shach 113/21; 115/17; However according to the Rashba one needs 60x [brought in Shach 115/17]
 Shach 115/17; Digul Merivava 115
 See Admur 489/29; Darkei Teshuvah 98/53 in name of Beir Oshek; Nodah Beyehuda; Daas Torah.
 Based on Admur M”A 489/17; 489/29; Darkei Teshuvah 98/53 in name of Beir Oshek; Nodah Beyehuda; Daas Torah.
 As explained in Admur ibid regarding the stringency of Chadash
 As explained in Admur ibid regarding the stringency of Chadash that it is nullified in majority in Min Bemino.
 See Shach 115/17 for a dispute in whether one requires 60x or majority. Now although we rule like the Shach that 60x is required nevertheless perhaps for those that consider Chalav Yisrael in America a mere stringency, perhaps theyc na be lenient. However for those that consier it not Kosher there is certainly o room to be lenient against the Shach.
 Admur 489/29
 Rama 98/8
 Of Arla or Avoda Zara [Shach 98/32]
 Of Avoda Zara
 As opposed to being forbidden due to absorption. [Shach 32]
 Taz 98/12; Shach 98/31 in name of Beis Yosef 112; Teshuvos Harashba; Issur Viheter Klal 22/15
 Shach 98/29 in name of Issur Viheter Klal 25.
Vetzaruch Iyun from Shach 98/6 which rules that “Taam Keiikur Dioraysa” and thus how can it only be a Rabbinical prohibition if taste is felt?
 Now, although any Issur which gives taste, is not nullified. The difference is that by non-spicy foods one can assume that when there is 60x that there is no more taste. However by a spicy Issur since they are pungent we assume that they give taste even with 60x.
 Shach 98/30 in name of Toras Chatas Klal 85
 Shach 98/28
 Issur Viheter Klal 25 brought in Shach 98/29; See Peri Megadim 98 S.D. 29 that explains we are only lenient in this case because there is already 60x.
 Peri Megadim 98 S.D. 29
 Shach 98/28 in name of Rosh; Rashba; Ran
 The concept of 60x is merely a ratio which one can assume has nullified any taste of the Issur. If however it is in truth discovered that the Issur taste has remained then the food remains forbidden. [Shach ibid]
 Taz 98/11; Shach 98/28
 Taz 98/11
 So is implied from Taz. However see Peri Megadim 98 M”Z 11; Chidushei Hagirshuni that imply even by a weak taste it is forbidden
 See Peri Megadim 98 M”Z 11; Chidushei Hagirshuni
 Michaber 98/9
 Based on Shach 98/33
 This scenario is brought in Shach 98/34 as one of the cases in which the Michaber and Rama both agree that each Issur joins to nullify the other Issur.
 As all taste is nullified in 60x and since against each Issur there is 60x of other tasting foods within the pot, therefore the Issur taste is nullified. It makes no difference whether it is a taste of Heter that is nullifying the Issur taste or a taste of Issur. Either way the Issur taste is not in the pot. [Shach 98/33]
 See Taz 98/14
 Shach 98/34
The Shach addresses the dilemma as for why the Rama did not write a gloss on the above ruling of the Michaber, being that the Rama holds of Chanan by other Issurim. The Shach thus suggests four different explanations, the first two being that in certain cases even the Rama agrees that Chanan is not said.
 As explains Rama in 92/4
 In Darkei Moshe and Toras Chatas in name of Issur Viheter, See also Rama 99/5
 Rama ibid
 This applies even in accordance to the Rama as both the meat and milk are Mutar on their own and hence the pot never became Chanan when the meat or milk first fell in.
 Michaber ibid
 Taz 98/14; Shach 98/34 in name of Rama, unlike Michaber which rules it is permitted.
 Shach 98/34 in name of Rama
 Michaber and Rama rule it is permitted, Shach rules it is forbidden
Leave A Comment?
You must be logged in to post a comment.