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
This chapter will discuss the law if an Issur Balua became cooked with Heter. What is the required ratio against the Issur? Does the Issur Balua join the Heter to meet the required ratio against its absorbed Issur? Does the Issur Balua itself become permitted if the desired ratio is met against its absorbed Issur? Another issue discussed in this chapter is with regards to removing food from a pot that an Issur became mixed into. Must one wait for the pot to cool down prior to removing the food?
The above two matters are disputed between the Michaber and the Rama and relates to their dispute regarding whether we apply the rule of Chanan by other Issurim.
1. Issur Balua which fell into Heter:
A. Solid Issur Balua:
Example: 30 grams of Kosher meat absorbed 10 grams of Cheilev, thus becoming forbidden. This piece of now forbidden meat then became cooked with Heter. Does the Heter require 60x the 10 grams of Cheilev, or 60x the 30 grams of meat? If the Heter contains 60x does the original piece of meat become permitted?
In the above case one requires 60x versus the original absorbed Issur [i.e. 10 grams] and not versus the actual piece of Issur Balua [i.e. 30 grams]. Furthermore the original piece which had absorbed the Issur joins the Heter food in the pot to attain a combined ratio of 60x versus its absorbed Issur. [Thus in the above example the 30 grams of meat joins the Heter to grant a total of 60x the 10 grams of Issur.]
The law of the Issur Balua: Even if the Heter contains 60x versus the Issur the original piece itself which had absorbed the Issur remains forbidden and thus must be removed from the mixture. [This ruling that the original piece remains prohibited is the main Halachic opinion unlike the opinion brought by the Michaber in chapter 92/4.]
Being that we hold of Chanan by all Issurim therefore one requires 60x versus the entire piece that absorbed the Issur [in our case 30 grams], and this piece does not join the rest of the Heter to have 60x. The law of the original piece if there is 60x: Even if there is 60x the piece, this original piece always remains forbidden being that it has become Chanan. Thus if one recognizes the original piece that fell in it must be removed from the mixture.
If one does not recognize the Issur piece: If this piece that absorbed the Issur is not recognizable, then if this is due to disintegration, it is nullified in 60x. If it is whole and one simply cannot tell the difference between the Issur piece and other solid Kosher pieces then it is nullified in majority [1:2]. [This applies even if the Issur is Charal, as by an Issur Balua the Halachic status of Charal does not apply.] However [if the piece became forbidden due to Basar Bechalav then] if the piece is Charal the Issur is not nullified even in 1000x. [Thus if one does not recognize the Issur all the solid pieces are forbidden, while the liquid is permitted so long as there was 60x.]
B. Liquid Issur Balua:
Example: 10 Milliliters of blood became mixed into 30 milliliters of kosher gravy. The gravy then fell into ones stew. Does the Heter require 60x the 10 milliliters of blood, or 60x the entire mixture [40 mil.] of gravy? If the Heter contains 60x does the gravy become permitted?
- Michaber: If the Heter contains 60x versus the original blood [in our case 10 mil.] then everything is Kosher, including the gravy. The 30 milliliters of Kosher gravy joins the Heter for a combined ratio of 60x against the blood.
Being that we hold of Chanan by all Issurim, and even by liquid mixtures, therefore one requires 60x versus the entire mixture that fell in [in our case 40 milliliters]. If there is 60x then the entire mixture is Kosher. [In a case of great loss one may be lenient to not consider the original liquid mixture Chanan and rather may measure 60x versus the original Issur, which in the example above is 10 milliliters of blood. However this only applies by mixtures of other Issurim, as by a mixture of Basar Bechalav we are stringent even in a case of great loss.]
2. When Issur solid falls into Heter and becomes nullified in 60x must one wait for the pot to cool down prior to removing any of the food content?
A. Removing the Issur:
If a piece of Issur fell into a pot that contains 60x one may remove the Issur from the pot and discard it even if the pot is still hot. However if the Issur that fell into the pot was attached [Davuk] to a piece of Heter, such a piece of meat which had Cheilev attached to it that fell into one’s stew, then one must wait until the pot cools down before removing the piece that contains the Issur. The reason for this is because if one removes the piece and its attached Issur while it is still hot the Heter part of the piece will now absorb the Issur taste from its attached Cheilev and become forbidden.
In all cases one may remove the Issur while hot, even in a case of Issur Davuk [i.e. piece attached to Cheilev]. The reason for this is because [according to the Rama] which holds of Chanan by other Issurim the piece that was attached to the Issur has already become forbidden, and hence there is no ramification of whether it is removed while hot or cold.
B. Removing the Heter from the pot:
If a piece of Issur fell into a pot that contains 60x one may not remove any Heter food from the pot prior to [either removing the Issur from the pot-see above] or waiting for the food to cool down below Yad Soledes. [If there is no more Issur remaining then one may remove food from the pot even prior to it cooling down.]
The reason: As if one were to remove food from the pot while it is still hot and prior to removing the Issur, it is possible that the remaining Heter will no longer contain 60x the Issur that is still inside the pot, and this remaining food will become forbidden.
C. Example-Meat with Cheilev fell into a stew:
According to the Michaber one must wait until the pot cools down, and only then may he remove any food [whether Heter or Issur] from the pot.
According to the Rama one may remove the piece with Cheilev from the pot even while it is still hot, and once the Issur has been removed he may then remove the Heter, even prior to the pot cooling down.
 The reason for this is because the Michaber does not hold of Chanan by other Issurim. Hence there is no need to have 60x the piece that fell in and rather 60x the original Issur suffices. [Shach 106/1]
 The Reason why we must remove the Issur Balua even if there is 60x: Although according to the Michaber the Issur Balua [i.e. the 30 grams of meat] is not considered Chanan, nevertheless it must be removed because the Issur which it absorbed does not fully dissipate into the Heter and hence we suspect that some concentrated Issur taste has still remained within the food. [Michaber ibid]
Source of ruling of Michaber: The Rashba [Toras Habayis 98] rules that even according to Rabbeinu Efraim that rules we do not say Chanan by other Issurim nevertheless we say “Efshar Lishochto” that some Issur taste always remains inside the original piece. So write many Poskim and so agree the Achronim. Nevertheless there are opinions [Tur] that hold the original piece becomes permitted. We do not hold like this opinion. [Shach 106/2]
Opinion of Tur: The Taz [106/1] brings the Tur which argues on the ruling of the Michaber and rules that the Issur Balua becomes permitted if there is 60x. The Taz discusses this matter in length explaining the sources of both opinions in the Gemara regarding the law of an utter. He explains that the basis of their argument is the way the Gemara there is understood, whether like Tosafus or like the Rashba, and whether it is a general rule for all Issurim or only for Basar Bechalav.
 Rama 106/1
The contradiction between the ruling of Michaber here in Chapter 106 and his ruling in Chapter 92: In chapter 92/4 the Michaber rules that the original Issur Balua piece itself becomes permitted when there is 60x. The Rama ibid understands this to be a clear contradiction and concludes that the main opinion is to follow the ruling in 106 in which the Michaber rules that the piece of Issur Balua always remains forbidden. However the Shach [92/11] explains that there is no contradiction. He explains the ruling in 92/4 of the Michaber is referring to a case that the Issur Balua which fell in is no longer recognizable and it is thus nullified 1:2. However in 106/1 the Michaber is referring to a case that one can recognize the piece that fell in, and in such a case it is forbidden to eat that piece because we suspect perhaps some of the Issur which it absorbed has remained there without spreading and becoming nullified.
 Shach 106/4 as rules Rama in 101/2
 Shach 106/4 in his explanation of the Rama. See next footnote!
 Rama ibid
At first glance the Rama here [106/1] seems to rule that an Issur Balua is only nullified in majority if it is not Charal. This contradicts the earlier ruling of the Rama in 101/2 that an Issur Balua never becomes Chanan. The Shach thus interprets the Rama to be referring to only a case of Basar Bechalav. He explains that the entire Rama here is trying to tell us the one case where Basar Bechalav and other Issurim differ in Chanan, which is if the piece if Charal.
 As everything has become mixed and hence it is not necessary to require the removal of the gravy, as was required in the previous case of a solid Issur Balua. [Michaber ibid]
 Shach 106/3-4 as rules Rama in 92/4
 However if one waits for the pot to cool down and then removes the Issur piece, then according to the Michaber which does not say Chanan by other Issurim, even the Heter which is attached to the Cheilev is permitted. This is not similar to the previous case in which the Michaber ruled that the Heter which absorbed the Issur remains forbidden, despite it not becoming Chanan, as there the Heter originally absorbed the Issur without 60x. However here the Heter that is attached to the Issur is being cooked for its first time, and since there is other food in the pot it all joins to spread the Issur taste equally and there is thus no Issur taste remaining in the attached Heter piece if there is 60x in the pot. [Taz 106/2; Shach 106/6] Now although one must say that this piece with attached Cheilev was salted for its blood prior to entering into the pot [as otherwise one would require 60x versus the entire piece and not merely 60x the Cheilev] and thus the piece of meat absorbed the Issur Cheilev even prior to the cooking, nevertheless one can answer that this Cheilev was very lean and hence only forbade a peels worth of the meat. Alternatively the meat was very large when it was salted and contained 60x the Cheilev and prior to cooking it was cut up smaller that it no longer contains 60x. [Shach ibid]