This Halacha is an excerpt from our Sefer
Buy me here or on Amazon.com
Check out our state of the art Online Taaruvos course
The law of Chaticha Hareuya Lihiskabed
1. The law of an item which is Charal?
The definition of Charal: Charal is an acronym for Chaticha Hareuya Lihiskabed. A piece of Issur, whether permitted or forbidden in benefit, which is large enough to be served to [respectable and honorable] guests is considered a food of importance [Davar Chashuv] and hence receives the same law as a Berya that it is never nullified even in 1000x. This applies even if the Issur is only Rabbinically forbidden.
Do the laws of Charal apply equally to mixtures of Mino and Eino Mino? Yes. The law of Charal applies equally to mixtures of Min Bemino and Min Beino Mino.
If the Charal Issur is forbidden in benefit does the rest of the mixture also become forbidden in benefit? Yes, in such a case the entire mixture is forbidden in benefit irrelevant of the ratio. However one may sell the entire mixture to a gentile diminishing the worth of the Issur piece from the sale price.
What is the law if one is unsure whether an Issur piece is honorable for a guest or not? If one is in doubt regarding if a certain Issur fits the criteria of Charal and it fell into his food then he may be lenient to permit the food with 60x even if the Issur is Biblically forbidden. The reason for this is because the law that Charal is never nullified is merely a Rabbinical injunction and in a case of doubt we are lenient by a Rabbinical ruling.
What is the law if one is in doubt whether a Charal food is Kosher: If one is in doubt regarding if a certain food which fits the criteria of Charal is permitted or forbidden and this food fell into other Kosher foods then [if the food is a possible Biblical Issur] we are stringent and the entire mixture is forbidden irrelevant of ratio. [If however the food is only Rabbinically forbidden then in a case of doubt we are lenient.]
2. What is the definition of Charal?
An Issur food is only considered Charal if it fulfills all of the following criteria:
- Issur Machmas Atzmo
- The food is fit to be served in its current state
- Large enough to be fit to be served to guests
The following are the details of each one of these conditions:
Condition #1: Issur Machmas Atzmo:
In order for an Issur to be defined as Charal it must be intrinsically forbidden, as opposed to being forbidden due to absorbing Issur. Thus a piece of Neveila or Basar Bechalavcan become Charal, while a piece of Kosher meat which absorbed Issur taste and did not have 60x cannot become Charal despite it now being forbidden. This applies even according to those opinions which apply the rule of Chanan to all Issurim.
Kosher meat that was not salted for blood: Meat which was not salted for its blood is not considered Charal even if it is a dignified piece being that it is only forbidden due to its absorbed blood, and this blood in it of itself is not fit for guests.
If only a peels worth of the food is forbidden:A piece of food which its external peel is forbidden to eat is not considered Charal even if it is a dignified piece as the peel itself is not dignified to be served. [If however the peel itself is large enough to be dignified if it were to be cut off from the piece then it is considered Charal and is not nullified.]
Condition #2: The piece of Issur is fit in its current state to be served to a guest:
A. First Opinion:
The piece of Issur must be fit to serve to guests in its current state in order for it to be defined as Charal. Thus the following Issurim are not considered Charal and are nullified, being that they are not able to be served in their current state:
Condition #3: Large enough to be fit for guests:
- A chicken with feathers.
- A raw piece of meat which needs to be cooked in order to be edible.
- A whole sheep [even if it has been skinned] is not considered Charal as it is not etiquette to serve a whole sheep to a guest.
A piece of Issur which is too large to serve is not considered Charal
What is the law if after the mixture occurred the Issur became ready for serving: In all the above cases even if after the occurring of the mixture, the Issur becomes fit to be served to guests, such as the feathers were removed from all the chickens, or all the raw meats were cooked, nevertheless the Issur chicken is not considered Charal, and is thus nullified.
B. Second Opinion:
Even if the Issur is not fit in its current state to be served it is considered Charal: There are those which argue on the above and rule that even if the piece is not fit to be served to guests in its current state it is still considered Charal.
The reason: This opinion rules that the definition of “fit for a guests” is not that the food must be currently fit to be served to a guest but rather that it is large enough to potentially be served to a guest. Thus in their opinion it only excludes that the portion of Issur is too small for serving.
C. The Final Ruling:
Practically the custom is like the latter opinion to consider foods Charal even if they are not fit in their current state to be served to guests. Thus a whole sheep [which has been skinned] is considered Charal. Nevertheless this is with exception to the following cases, mentioned in the examples below, in which the Issur is not considered Charal as it is not of significance and is hence nullified. [As a final rule regarding these matters the Shach states that whether a certain food is considered Charal depends on the current custom of cuisine in ones community and hence no definite rule may be given to a given food.]
- Chicken with feathers: An Issur chicken that contains feathers is not Charal being that it lacks a great action to make it ready to be served. [If however the chicken does not have feathers then even if it is still whole with its intestines it is considered Charal, as needing to remove the intestines is not considered that it is lacking a great action.] See Halacha E regarding whether a chicken with feathers is considered a Davar Shebiminyan!
- Head and legs of animals: The head and legs of an Issur animal [Biheima Gasa] which have not had their hair scalded off are not considered Charal. If however their hair has been scalded then they are considered Charal even if they have not been salted for their blood [and even if their hooves have not been removed]. [The head of a calf and the tongue of an animal is considered Charal.]
- Issur which was not salted for its blood? An Issur piece which is large enough to be served to guests but has not yet been salted for it blood is nevertheless considered Charal.
- Sheep with skin: A sheep which is still found in its skin is not considered Charal.
- Legs of fowl: The legs of fowl, other than geese, and the legs of a Beheima Daka are not considered significant in these countries and hence are able to be nullified. [i.e. not Charal]. However the legs of geese are considered Charal [if their skin has been scorched from their legs. If however the legs were not scorched as is common to be done in these countries then it is not considered Charal.]
- Head of chicken: The head of an Issur chicken is not considered of any significance and hence is not considered Charal.
- Fat of the Kanta: The fat of the Kanta is not considered Charal [However some write that the Hadra Dekanta together with its fat is considered Charal. Others write that the Hadra Dekanta of a calf is considered Charal. Practically this depends on the current custom one one’s community. In the times of the Taz the Hadra Dekanta of a calf was considered Charal.]
- Fat of geese: The fat of geese is considered Charal. [This applies even if the fat was cut into small strips. However some Poskim rule that the fat of geese is never considered Charal. Practically these matters depend on the current custom of cuisine in ones community and hence no definite rule may be given as to whether or not it is considered Charal.]
- Korkavun and intestinal track: The Korkavun [i.e. the gizzard] as well as any of the other intestinal organs are not considered Charal. [This applies even to the gizzard of a goose. However others rule that the gizzard of a goose is Charal. Practically this is dependent on the current custom of one’s country.]
- Goose breast meat: The meat on the chest of a goose is considered Charal. However there are opinions which rule it is not Charal due to it not being a part of the whole goose. Practically the Taz negates this opinion.
- Liver: The liver of a fatty goose is Charal.
E. Is a whole chicken with feathers considered a Davar Shebiminyan:
A whole Issur chicken which contains feathers is not considered either Charal or a Davar Shebiminyan. The reason for this is because since it lacks a great action of removing the feathers it is therefore not considered an item of importance. However there are Poskim which rule that although it is not considered Charal, it is nevertheless considered a Davar Shebiminyan and is hence not nullified.
An Issur is only considered Charal if it is whole [meaning that it is large enough of a piece to be fit to be served to guests].
How to define whether a piece is large enough to be served to guests: This matter is determined by the current custom of cuisine within ones community.
The law if a Charal Issur broke into pieces within the mixture: If a Charal Issur piece broke apart [to the point that no single piece remains that is fit to be served to guests], then it is nullified within the mixture. This applies even if it occurred after it became mixed with the Heter. Furthermore even if one discovered that the Issur mixed into the Heter while the Issur was still whole it nevertheless now becomes nullified after it falls apart. 
May one intentionally break the Issur apart after it mixed into Heter? The above law only applies if the Issur broke apart due to cooking or unintentionally. However if one intentionally cut or broke the Issur into small pieces in order so it lose its Charal status then the mixture is forbidden towards him, [his household] and anyone else that this food was intended to be eaten by. However other people may eat the mixture.
The law if some of the pieces of the mixture fell apart and others remain whole: If a Charal Issur piece mixed into other foods and one cannot tell the difference between the pieces, and some of the pieces broke apart while others remained whole then all the broken pieces are nullified [in 60x], while all the other pieces are forbidden. The reason for why the larger pieces remain prohibited is because we suspect that perhaps one of the remaining whole pieces is the Issur piece which cannot be nullified due to it being Charal. However the smaller pieces are permitted as even if one of them is the Issur piece, since it loses its status of Charal it is nullified in 60x and may be eaten. This law applies even if majority of the pieces have broken apart and are no longer Charal, nevertheless only the broken pieces are permitted with nullification, while the minority of Charal pieces remain forbidden.
3. Is forbidden cheese considered Charal:
A. How is it possible to have Issur cheese?
There are four possibilities of non-Kosher cheese:
- Cheese made from the milk of an animal which comes from a Kosher species but the animal is a Treifa [has an illness or injury which renders it not Kosher]. Such cheese is forbidden as the milk of a Treifa is forbidden to be eaten.
- Cheese made from Kosher milk which was catalyzed with a Kosher animal stomach is forbidden due to Basar Bechalav if the milk did not have 60x the stomach.
- Cheese made from Kosher milk which was catalyzed with milk of a Treifa or with a non-Kosher animal stomach is always forbidden irrelevant of ratio.
- Cheese made from a mixture of Kosher milk and milk of a non-Kosher species. This can occur in one of two cases: One used milk of a non-Kosher species to catalyze the Kosher milk, or he simply mixed it in with Kosher milk. Now although in the latter case the non Kosher milk cannot turn into cheese, nevertheless the cheese is forbidden as we suspect there is some remainder of the non-Kosher milk within the crevices of the cheese.
B. Are any of the above cheeses considered Charal if they become mixed with other Kosher cheese?
- Rashal:Cheese is never considered Charal, as it is not considered a dignified food which can be served as a meal to a guest. The reason is as follows: Soft cheese is not a dignified servable food, while hard cheese, although it is dignified, it is unhealthy to eat to the point of satiation, and thus may not be served as a meal portion to a guest. For these reasons neither soft nor hard cheese in any of the above four scenarios is considered Charal.
- Rama in Shulchan Aruch:Cheese made from the milk of an animal which had a Treifa invalidation prior to the milking is considered Charal and is thus not nullified even in 1000x.
- Rama in Toras Chatas:Cheeses which are forbidden due to being catalyzed with non-Kosher milk [Case 4] are not Charal. The Taz explains that the reason for this is because the cheese contains only absorbed Issur taste and by absorbed Issur taste we do not apply the rule of Charal, as stated above.
- Issur Viheter; Bach:Cheeses which are forbidden due to having been catalyzed with non-Kosher milk [Case 4] are Charal. [The Nekudos Hakesef however explains the Issur Viheter to be referring to a different case, a case that the cheese was made by non-Jews and not to a case of that the cheese was catalyzed with non-Kosher milk.]
- Toras Habayis:Cheeses which have been made from the milk of a Treifa are considered Charal.
The Taz argues on the Rashal and rules that cheese can become Charal as proven from the above ruling in the Toras Habayis. Nevertheless if the cheese became forbidden due to being catalyzed with milk of a Treifa or having milk of a non-Kosher species added to it, then it does not become Charal. The reason for this is because the non-Kosher milk itself can never curd into cheese and hence there is no actual body of non-Kosher Issur which is fit to serve to guests.
C. Summary of cases and opinions:
Case 1: Cheese made from milk of a Treifa is Charal. However there are opinions which say cheese is never Charal.
Case 2: Cheese that was catalyzed with a stomach of a Kosher animal and the milk did not have 60x, is Charal. However there are opinions which say cheese is never Charal.
Case 3: Cheese that was catalyzed with the milk of a Treifa or with the stomach of a non-Kosher species is never Charal.
Case 4: Cheese that was made with milk of a non-Kosher animal is not Charal.
D. Is a common piece of cheese of a gentile considered Charal?
If one knows for certain that the gentiles in one’s area do not use stomachs of Kosher species to catalyze the milk then the cheese is not Charal. We do not suspect that the cheese was made from a Treifa animal being that majority of animals do not carry the Treifa invalidations. However if one is uncertain towards the type of catalyst that is used by the gentiles in ones areas then the cheese is considered Charal.
4. A punctured Korkavan [Gizzard]:
One who slaughters a chicken and finds a punctured gizzard the chicken is deemed a Treifa. If that chicken then becomes mixed with other chickens one is to take the gizzard and try to match the color of its fat with the color of the fat that is opposite the gizzard of each chicken to try to determine the Issur chicken. If one finds an exact match of color then all the other chickens are Kosher. However some Poskim write we no longer rely on these verifications unless we know it is a certain match.
5. If one slaughtered a number of animals and then found a Treifa in one of the detached heads what is the law of the mixture?
One is to try to match the head with the bodies of the animals and if he finds an exact match the remaining animals are Kosher. However some Poskim write we no longer rely on these verifications unless it is a certain match.
6. Water in the brain of a sheep:
If one slaughtered a number of sheep and then found water in the brain of one of the heads the Bach rules it is possible to determine which sheep the head belongs to by checking the spinal cords of the sheep, and the sheep which contains water in the spinal cord is a certain match for this head. Practically the Taz negates this method of verification under the claim it is not sourced in the Talmud or Poskim.
 The novelty of this addition of the Michaber is as follows: One may say that only if the piece of Issur is currently able to be served to gentile guests is it considered fit for guests. If however the Issur is forbidden in benefit then it is forbidden for even gentiles to be given it to eat in one’s home and hence it is not considered fit for guests. Hence the novelty of the Michaber is that even in such a case it is considered fit for guests as if we were to allow this Issur to be nullified it would be fit for guests, and hence it receives the same laws. [See Tosafus Chulin 100a “Shany; P”M 101 S.D. 1]
 Peri Megadim 101 M.Z. 1
 Michaber 101/1
 Rama ibid
 Rama 101/6; Shach 101/18; Taz 101/12
Other opinions: The Issur Viheter rules that the law of Charal only applies to mixtures of Min Bemino. However in mixtures of Eino Mino he rules that they are nullified just like every other Issur. His reasoning is because we see the Sages applied the rule of Davar Sheyeish Lo Matrim [see chapter 102] only to cases of Min Bemino, hence he learns that all Issurim follow this ruling. The Shach 101/18 and Taz 101/12 reject the ruling of the Issur Viheter and defend the ruling of the Rama. The Taz ibid explains that one cannot compare the Issur of Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin to other Issurim of Dvarim Chashuvim.
The opinion of the Michaber: The Michaber in 110/1 rules that the law of all Dvarim Chashuvim applies to mixtures of Min Bemino, [thus implying that in mixtures of Eino Mino he rules that they are nullified just like every other Issur]. The Shach 110/1 however explains that this wording of the Michaber is not to be taken literally. This can further be proven from the fact the Michaber rules [100/3] regarding a Berya that if a fly falls into a soup and cannot be found that all the confusable solids are forbidden. Thus we clearly see that he too holds that a Davar Chashuv is not nullified even in Eino Mino.
How it is possible to have a case of Min Beino Mino and still not recognize the Issur? The Shach [109/8] writes that it is possible to have such a case if one has several types of meat (goat, lamb, steer) that are identical in appearance, but have different tastes, and one of these meats is forbidden and is either a Berya [Eiver Min Hachaiy] or Charal.
Why did the Rama place his gloss of this Halacha in Halacha 6 and not Halacha 1? The Taz [101/12] addresses this point and concludes that it is a misprint and in truth belongs under the first Halacha of the Michaber written in this chapter.
 Shach 101/1
 Rama ibid; Taz 100/1; Shach 101/13
 Rama ibid
 Shach 101/2; Taz 100/1; 101/2
 Shach 101/2; Taz 100/1
 Taz 101/1; 102/3
 Taz 101/1; 102/3. See however Shach ibid which does not differentiate between a Biblical or Rabbinical prohibition
 Michaber 101/2
 A piece of meat which absorbed hot milk becomes Chanan and is considered an intrinsic Issur, and is not considered like a food which has absorbed Issur. The reason for this is because both milk and meat on their own are permitted foods and it is only their mixture which forms a new prohibition. [Shach 101/3] The proof for this is from the fact that if one ate a total of a half Kezayis of meat and half Kezayis of cheese that were cooked together he nevertheless receives lashes even though he did not eat a full Kezayis of either food. This is because as stated above the mixture has become an intrinsic prohibition. [Taz 101/3]
 The reason for why an absorbed Issur is not considered Charal even if it is a dignified piece that is fit for guests is because the Issur taste itself is not fit to be served to guests and thus the piece cannot be considered Charal. [Shach 101/4; Taz 101/4] This is opposed to Basar Bechalav which although became forbidden due to absorption it nevertheless becomes Charal as explained in the previous footnote.
 Michaber 101/2
 Rama 101/2
 Rama 101/2
 Such as a piece of meat which had hot milk poured onto it. However if a Heter had an Issur poured onto it, it would not become Charal due to that it is an absorbed Issur. [Shach 101/6]
 Shach 101/6
The Shach records a number of opinions in Rishonim with some siding that a peel cannot become Charal [Hagahos Maimanis] while others [Kol Bo; Rabeinu Yerucham] stating it can. He concludes that there is no dispute and those Rishonim that are stringent refer to a case that the peel itself is fit to be served to guests.
 Michaber 101/3
 Shach 101/9
 Michaber ibid;
As once the Issur became mixed in a state that it is able to be nullified [i.e. not Charal], it becomes nullified and cannot become resurrected into Charal when it becomes servable. [Shach 101/8 in name of Smag]
 Second opinion in Michaber, and so rules Rama
 Tur in name of Rosh
 Michaber ibid
 Taz 101/5
 Rama ibid
 Shach 101/10; Taz 101/6 and so rules Rashal
 Shach 101/13
 Rama ibid
 Taz 101/6
 A Biheima Gasa refers to a large animal such as a cow or ox.
 Taz 101/7; As the removal of the hooves is not considered a great action. [ibid]
 Taz 101/8 in name of Rashal
This can be learned from Avraham Avinu which served tongue to the guests. [ibid]
 Shach 101/10; Taz 101/6 and so rules Rashal.
This is learned from the case of chicken with feathers in which we rule it is not Charal.
 Shach 101/11
 The Kanta is the external part of the small intestines of an animal. It contains two parts, an intestine and fat. The Hadara Dekanta is the external intestine. The Suman Hakanta [fat of the Kanta] is an inner layer of fat which is between the inner wall of the Kanta and the remainder of the small intestines.
 Michaber 101/4
 Piskeiy Tosafus Nedarim brought in Shach 101/12
 Rashal brought in Taz 101/9
 Shach 101/12; Taz 101/9
 Taz ibid
 Rama 101/4
 Rashal; Taz 101/10;
The fat of geese is especially servable to guests when it is cut into strips and fried. Thus it is certainly considered Charal if cut into strips.
Other Opinions: The Issur Viheter [brought in Toras Chatas] rules the strips of geese fat is not Charal. The Rasdhal and Taz ibid argue on his ruling.
 Rashal brought in Shach 101/13
 Shach 101/13
 Shach 101/14
Other Opinions: The Rashal rules that the Korkavan [of geese] is considered Charal. The Shach negates his opinion and concludes it is all dependent on the current custom in ones country.
 The Rashal [Perek Gid Hanashe 50 brought in Taz 101/11 and Shach 101/14] rules that the Korkavan of geese is considered Charal. The Shach negates his opinion and concludes it is all dependent on the current custom in ones country.
 Shach ibid
 Taz 101/11
 Rashal Perek Gid Hanashe 50 brought in Taz 101/11
 The Rashal compares this to a Berya which has lost some of its wholeness and is thus no longer of significance. Similarly the breast meat has been removed from the whole goose and thus loses its significance that it had while part of the goose together with its skin.
 As the status of Charal differs from a Berya as by Charal it is irrelevant whether the food is whole and complete, and rather the only aspect that matters is whether it can be served to dignified guests. Hence goose breast meat is considered Charal. [Taz ibid]
 Taz 101/11 in name of Levush
 Shach 101/7
 Shach 101/7 as he learns to be implied from Michaber and other Poskim, and so rules Rashal, Mordechai; Bach
 Rama in Toras Chatas Klal 40, and so rules Rama in 110 that it is considered a Davar Shebiminyan.
 Michaber 101/6
 See Shach 101/15
 Shach 101/13
 Shach 101/15 in name of Toras Chatas Klal 40
 Michaber 101/6
 Rama ibid
 Michaber ibid
 Michaber 101/7
 Taz 101/13 in name of Issur Viheter Klal 25
 Now although we generally rule that we follow the majority, and hence in this case we should assume that the Issur is found in the majority section of the meat, which is amongst the broken pieces, nevertheless here one can also use this rule [separating from majority] in the opposite form to say that the pieces which broke apart separated from the majority of the mixture, which is Kosher food, while the Issur which is a minority remained with the mixture that did not break apart. [Taz 101/14] In other words on every piece of meat that broke apart one can apply the rule of Kol Diparish Merubo Parish, that it separated from the majority and hence that piece was a Kosher piece.
 Taz 101/4
 Cheese can only be formed from Kosher milk thus the question is asked as to how cheese would be not Kosher.
 See 81/2
 See 87/11
 See 87/11
 However in the former case it is certainly forbidden as is always the law by a Mamad [non-Kosher catalyst] as explained in 87/11.
 The Sages received a tradition that only milk which derives from Kosher animals can curd into cheese.
 Klal 40
 Klal 25
 Taz ibid in name of Toras Habayis
 Based on Taz ibid and 87/11
 Taz ibid
 Taz ibid towards end
 Taz 101/15 explains that the match here refers to matching the colors of the fats and not to matching to see if the gizzard and opposite fat fit properly adjacent to each other.
 Issur Viheter Klal 52 brought in Taz 101/15
 Michaber 101/9
 In this case it does not suffice to compare colors as one is able to also match the heads which is a more reliable method of verification. [Taz 101/15]
 Issur Viheter Klal 52 brought in Taz 101/15
 Taz 101/15
Leave A Comment?
You must be logged in to post a comment.