# Semicha-Taaruvos-Chapter 111

## Buy me here or on Amazon.com

Check out our state of the art Online Taaruvos course

________________________________________________________

Introduction:

In the previous chapter the laws of Safek were discussed. In this chapter the laws regarding if there is a doubt whether an Issur fell into a pot is discussed. This can apply in a case that one has two pots, and an Issur fell into one of the doubts and one is unable to determine which pot it fell into.

Two pots one of Heter and one of Issur

1. An Issur pot and Heter pot are cooking on a stove and an Issur piece fell into one pot while a Heter piece fell into another pot and one does not know into which pot it fell into:

Example: One is cooking Kosher chicken soup and Issur [Niveila] chicken soup on the same stove. One has two pieces of chicken on the counter, one Issur [Niveila] and one Heter. Both pieces then fell into the pots, one piece into each pot and one does not know into which pot the Issur fell.

A. The Issur is a Rabbinical Issur:[1]

If the Issur is a Rabbinical Issur, such as the fat of the sciatic nerve [or cheese of a gentile[2]] then if there is more Heter in the pot than the possible Issur that might have fallen in, the Heter remains permitted as we assume the Issur fell into the Issur pot while the Heter fell into the Heter pot. Furthermore even if there is an equal amount of Heter and Issur the Heter remains permitted.[3] If however there is more Issur than Heter, then the Heter is forbidden.[4] [This applies even according to the Shach.[5]]

Issur Mashehu:[6] There are opinions[7] which say that if the Issur is an Issur Mashehu [i.e. is never nullified even in 1000x] then we are stringent to prohibit the Heter pot even if the Issur is a Rabbinical prohibition, unless there is more Heter then Issur. Thus if there is more Heter than Issur in the pot we permit the Heter pot even if the Issur was a Rabbinical Issur Mashehu. If however they are an equal amount then the Heter pot is forbidden even if the Issur is a Rabbinical Issur. [However the Peri Chadash[8] rules that even by a Rabbinical Issur Mashehu we rule leniently if there was an equal amount of Heter and Issur.]

The law if the two pieces mixed prior to falling in:[9] If the Heter and Issur piece became mixed together prior to them falling into the pots and one no longer knows which piece is the Heter and which is the Issur, then although both pieces are forbidden, nevertheless the above law still applies. Hence if in this case one of the pieces fell into one pot and the other piece into the other pot, by a Rabbinical prohibition we are lenient to permit the Heter pot if there wasn’t more Issur than Heter.[10]

The Issur is Charal:[11] Even if the Issur was Charal which is never nullified even in 1000x nevertheless if the Issur is a Rabbinical Issur the Heter pot is permitted if there wasn’t more Issur than Heter.[12]

B. The Issur is a Biblical Issur:[13]

Min Bemino: If there is more Heter in the pot than the possible Issur that might have fallen in, [and the Heter and Issur are of the same species (i.e. Min Bemino)[14]] then the Heter remains Kosher even if the Issur is a Biblical Issur. The reason for this is because in such a case even if the Issur did fall into the Heter pot, it is Biblically nullified in majority while 60x is only Rabbinically required[15]. If however there is an equal amount of Heter and Issur, and certainly if there is more Issur than Heter, then the Heter pot is forbidden.

Min Beino Mino: If the Heter pot and Issur piece are not of the same species and the Issur is a Biblical Issur then the Heter pot is forbidden unless it contains 60x versus the possible Issur piece that might have fallen in.

Min Bemino and Eino Mino:[16] If the Heter pot contains foods which are the same species as the Issur and foods that are not the same species as the Issur, then it follows the same law as Min Bemino and is permitted if there is majority of Mino over the Issur. [See Chapter 98 regarding if the Eino Mino is also Kosher in such a case]

Is there any ramification if the two pots are the same species or not?[17] There is no relevance in law in whether the Issur and Heter pots that are cooking are of the same species or not.

The Issur is Charal:[18] Even if the Issur was Charal which is never nullified even in 1000x nevertheless in a case of Min Bemino the Heter pot is permitted if there is more Heter than Issur in the pot. In a case of Eino Mino it is permitted with 60x.[19]

2. Two pots and one piece of Issur:

Example: One is cooking Kosher chicken soup and Issur [Niveila] chicken soup on the same stove. One has a piece of Issur [Niveila] chicken on the counter. The piece fell into one of the pots and one does not know into which pot the Issur fell into.

The Issur is a Rabbinical Issur:[20] Has the same law as two pots and two pieces mentioned in 1A!

Issur Mashehu: Has the same law as two pots and two pieces mentioned in 1A!

The Issur is a Biblical Issur:[21] Has the same law as two pots and two pieces mentioned in 1B!

The Issur is Charal: Has the same law as two pots and two pieces mentioned in 1A and 1B!

In the above case of two pots and one piece why can’t one simply check if there is more food in the Heter pot in order to determine into which pot it fell?

• Taz:[22]

This case is discussing that one does not know the exact amount of Heter that there was in the pot, although he did know if it was more than the Issur or not. For example he heard from someone whether the Heter is the greater amount or the Issur, although was not told the exact measurements. Hence now that one of the pieces fell into one of the pots it is not possible to determine which pot it fell into as perhaps the amount of Heter currently in the pot is the amount that was there originally.

• Shach:[23]

This case is discussing that the Issur was removed from the pot before one got a chance to determine which pot it fell into. Hence it is not possible to measure if the Heter pot now has a larger amount.

• Derisha:[24]

The case is dealing with solid pieces of Heter and Issur and one knows the amount of Issur but not the amount of Heter or knows the amount of Heter and not the amount of Issur. For example one knows the Issur piece was 100 grams but does not know how many pieces are in the Heter pot or the Issur pot. The Issur piece then fell into one of the pots and after checking he sees two pieces in each the Issur and Heter pot. One piece is 100 grams and another is 50 grams. Thus he knows for certain that the 50 gram piece in the Heter pot is Kosher but is unsure if the 100 gram piece was already there or is the Issur 100 gram piece that fell in. Hence in such a case the 100 gram piece in the Heter pot is forbidden as it is larger than the Heter piece. If however one knew the Heter piece in the pot was 100 grams and was unsure of the size of the Issur piece, then since one knows for certain the larger piece is Kosher and is simply in doubt regarding the smaller piece, then both pieces in the Heter pot are permitted being there is more Heter than Issur there.

3. One pot and one piece of Heter and one piece of Issur:

Example: One is cooking Kosher chicken soup. One has two pieces of chicken on the counter, one Issur and one Heter. One piece fell into the pot and one does not know if that piece was the Issur or the Heter.

The Issur is a Rabbinical Issur:[25] If the Issur is a Rabbinical Issur then if there is more Heter in the pot than the possible Issur that might have fallen in, the Heter remains permitted as we assume the Heter piece fell into the Heter pot and the Issur piece did not fall in. Furthermore even if there is an equal amount of Heter and Issur the Heter remains permitted.[26] If however there is more Issur than Heter, then the Heter pot is forbidden. [This follows the ruling of the Michaber. However the Shach[27] rules that in this case the Heter pot remains permitted even if there is more Issur than Heter.]

The law if the two pieces mixed prior to falling in:[28] The Shach rules that if the Heter and Issur piece became mixed together prior to them falling into the pot and one no longer knows which piece is the Heter and which is the Issur, then since both pieces are forbidden, if one piece falls into the pot we are stringent to prohibit the Heter pot.[29] [Thus according to the Shach the above ruling of Michaber only applies if the Issur and Heter piece were individually recognizable prior to falling into the pots and once they fell in they are no longer recognizable. However the Peri Chadash[30] and other Poskim[31] argue on this ruling of the Shach and say there is no difference whether the pieces became mixed together prior to falling into the pot and either way the Heter pot is permitted if the conditions are met.]

Issur Mashehu: Has the same law as two pots and two pieces mentioned in 1A!

The Issur is a Biblical Issur:[32] Has the same law as two pots and two pieces mentioned in 1B in which case there is a difference in whether the mixture is Min Bemino or Min Beino Mino!

The Issur is Charal: Has the same law as two pots and two pieces mentioned in 1!

Summary of 1-3

The Heter pot is always permitted if it contains 60x versus the Issur even if the Issur was Charal. If it does not contain 60x but contains majority over the Issur then the Heter pot is permitted if the mixture is Min Bemino or the Issur is Rabbinical. If the Issur and Heter are of the same amount then if it is a Rabbinical Issur it is permitted. If it is a Biblical Issur it is forbidden. If there is more Issur than Heter then the Heter pot is forbidden even if the Issur is Rabbinical, although there are Poskim that are lenient in a case of one pot and two pieces.

 Chart: 60x More than Issur Same amount Less than Issur Biblical Issur Eino Mino Permitted Forbidden Forbidden Forbidden Biblical Issur Min Bemino Permitted Permitted Forbidden Forbidden Rabbinical Issur Permitted Permitted Permitted Forbidden; Dispute in case of one pot

Two Pots of Heter

4. Two Heter pots and one piece of Issur and one piece of Heter:[33]

Example: One is cooking two pots of Kosher chicken soup on the same stove. One has two pieces of chicken on the counter, one Issur [Niveila] and one Heter. Both pieces then fell into the pots, one piece into each pot and one does not know into which pot the Issur fell.

The Law: If neither pot contains enough Heter to nullify the Issur [in 60x[34]] then both pots are forbidden.[35] This applies even if the Issur was a Rabbinical prohibition. If however one of the pots contains enough Heter to nullify the Issur [in 60x] then [if the Issur is a Rabbinical Issur[36]] both pots are permitted.[37] [If however the Issur is Biblical then the second pot is forbidden[38], unless it is a case of Min Bemino and the second pot contains majority over the Issur.[39]]

If one pot is a larger than the other:[40] Even if one of the pots is larger than the other, both pots are forbidden and we do not assume the Issur fell into the smaller pot.[41] However the Issur Viheter[42] rules that in such a case the larger pot is permitted.

If both pots together have 60x versus the Issur:[43] The Bach and Rashal rule that in this case even if the two pots are owned by a one person nevertheless since the case involves two pieces one Heter and one Issur[44], therefore we are not lenient to allow the two pots to join to nullify the Issur in 60x. However the Shach and Taz[45] rule that even in this case if the pots are owned by a single person they join to nullify the Issur and hence according to the Michaber if both pots together have 60x the Issur they are both permitted.[46] For the full details of this law refer to Halacha 6!

If the pots are owned by two different people:[47] The Tur and Rashba rule there is no difference in whether the pots are owned by one person or two people. However the Ramban rules that when owned by two people then if they come to ask a Rav one after the other, as opposed to simultaneously, the Rav may permit both pots. The Shach concludes that the opinion of the Ramban is the main opinion. [However this only applies by a Rabbinical Issur while by a Biblical Issur the Ramban agrees that we are stringent.[48] This is similar to the ruling of the Bach as the Bach[49] rules that by a Biblical Issur we are stringent to rule that both pots are forbidden even if the owners ask the Rav one after the other. However by a Rabbinical Issur we are lenient to permit both pots if they are owned by two people and the owners ask the Rav one after the other.[50]]

Summary:

Both pots are permitted if:

1. One pot contains 60x the Issur.
2. The Issur is a Rabbinical Issur, or the Issur is Biblical but it is Min Bemino with the second pot and the second pot contains majority.
3. Some rule if both pots are owned by one person and will eventually be mixed then in a time of great loss one may be lenient to permit both foods even if the pots do not individually contain 60x the Issur but when joined together they have 60x.
4. The pots are owned by two different people and the Issur is Rabbinical and they come to ask the Rav one after the other as opposed to simultaneously.

5. Two pots of Heter and Issur fell into one of the pots and then another Issur fell in:[51]

A. One knows into which pot the first Issur fell into:

Example: One is cooking two pots of Kosher chicken soup on the same stove, one on the right burner and another on the left burner. One has two pieces of Issur chicken on the counter. One piece fell into the pot sitting on the right burner. The second piece then fell into one of the pots and one does not know into which pot the second piece fell.

The Law: We assume that the second Issur fell into the same pot that the first Issur fell in, and hence the pot sitting on the left side of the stove is Kosher.[52] If however the pot in which the first Issur fell [i.e. the pot on the right burner] had 60x versus the Issur and hence remained Kosher then we do not assume the second Issur fell into that pot [and hence it follows the same law as the previous case that both pots are forbidden unless one of the pots contain 60x versus the second Issur].

Does the above law apply even by a Biblical Issur?[53] The Bach rules that the above law applies even by a Biblical prohibition and hence the pot on the left burner remains Kosher even if the second Issur was Biblically forbidden [and the left pot does not have majority versus the Issur[54]]. However the Shach and Taz[55] rule that by a Biblical Issur we are stringent to prohibit the second pot due to a Biblical doubt unless it contains majority versus the Issur [in a case of Min Bemino and 60x in a case of Eino Mino].

B. One knows into which pot the second Issur fell in:

Example: One is cooking two pots of Kosher chicken soup on the same stove, one on the right burner and another on the left burner. One has two pieces of Issur chicken on the counter. One piece fell into one of the pots and one does not know into which pot it fell. The second piece then fell into the pot sitting on the right burner.

The Law: Both pots are forbidden [unless it fulfills the conditions mentioned in Halacha 5 regarding two pots of Heter].[56]

Summary:

We assume that both pieces of Issur fell into the same pot if all the following conditions are fulfilled:

1. One knows into which pot the first Issur fell into
2. The Issur is a Rabbinical Issur or a Biblical Issur of Min Bemino and both pots have majority.
3. The pot did not contain 60x versus the first Issur, or did but contains 60x also versus the second Issur.

6. Two pots of Heter and one piece of Issur:[57]

Example: One is cooking two pots of Kosher chicken soup on the same stove. One has one piece of Issur chicken on the counter. The Issur falls into one of the pots and one does not know into which pot the Issur fell.

*Important note: This law involves a number of details and hence it is imperative to read the entire Halacha prior to deducing the final ruling.

A. The Law:

If neither pot contains enough Heter to nullify the Issur [in 60x[58]] then both pots are forbidden.[59] This applies even if the Issur was a Rabbinical prohibition. If however one of the pots contains enough Heter to nullify the Issur [in 60x] then [if the Issur is a Rabbinical Issur[60]] both pots are permitted.[61] [If however the Issur is Biblical then the second pot is forbidden[62] unless it is a case of Min Bemino and the second pot contains majority over the Issur.[63]] Regarding if both pots together contain 60x the Issur, see next!

If one pot is a larger than the other:[64] Follows the same law as Halacha 4!

B. If both pots together have 60x versus the Issur:

• Michaber:

Both pots join if belong to one person: If both pots when joined together contain 60x the Issur then if they both belong to the same person they join to nullify the Issur and both pots are permitted. This applies even if the two pots are in different areas such as one pot is in the attic while another is in the house. Furthermore this applies even by 100 [meaning even by Issurim that require 100x, such as Teruma, that if the two pots together contain 100x the Issur they are permitted.[65] Alternatively this applies even if there are 100 pots and when joined together they have 60x the Issur.]

The pots are owned by two different people: The above only applies if both pots are owned by the same person as in any case the food content will eventually become mixed together. However if they are owned by two different people then they do not join and both pots are forbidden if they don’t individually contain 60x the Issur. [However see Shach which argues on this ruling of Michaber.]

• Rama:

Join only in a case of great loss: There are those which are stringent and rule one is not to be lenient to join the pots even if they are owned by one person. Practically in a case of [great[66]] loss one may be lenient if the pots belong to one person.

Mixing the pots together prior to eating:[67] One is to mix the two pots together prior to eating from them in order to verify that in truth the Issur is nullified in 60x.

• Taz:[68]

The pots do not have to be joined: The Taz argues on the Rama and rules that if both pots individually contain majority over the Issur [in a case of Min Bemino] the two pots do not need to be mixed in order to be permitted.[69]

By a Biblical doubt we are stringent: The Taz[70] rules that whenever the doubt is a Biblical doubt the pots never join and they are both forbidden. [Such as a case of Biblical Issur that is Min Beino Mino or Min Bemino and one of the pots does not have majority.]

• Shach:

The Shach[71] agrees with the ruling of the Rama that we do not permit the pots unless it is a case of great loss.[72]

By a Biblical doubt we are stringent: The Shach[73] implies that even if the Issur is Biblically forbidden, if both pots alone do not have 60x but together contain 60x, then both are permitted [in a case of Min Bemino[74]], even if one of the pots does not contain majority.

Owned by two different people:[75] The Shach explains that according to the Rashba we are never lenient if the two pots are owned by two different people, even if the Issur is a Rabbinical prohibition and the two owners came to ask the Rav one after the other. This is unlike the understanding of the Bach in the Rashba.[76] However the Ramban rules that by a Rabbinical Issur if the pots are owned by two people then if they come to ask a Rav one after the other the Rav may permit both pots. The Shach concludes that the opinion of the Ramban is the main opinion.

C. The law by a Biblical Issur:[77]

The Shach[78] implies that even if the Issur is Biblically forbidden, if both pots alone do not have 60x but together contain 60x, then both are permitted [in a case of Min Bemino[79]], even if one of the pots does not contain majority. However, the Taz[80] rules that by a Biblical prohibition we never permit the pots if they do not individually contain 60x [in a case of Min Beino Mino and if it does not have majority in a case of Min Bemino]. The Peri Chadash rules like the Taz that whenever there is a Biblical doubt, such as a case of Biblical Issur that is Min Beino Mino or Min Bemino and one of the pots do not have majority, then the pots do not join.

D. The law if the two pots of food cannot become mixed:[81]

If the two foods cooking in the pots are not able to be mixed together, such as one is made of cheese and another of meat then the above allowance does not apply and the pots do not join to nullify the Issur. Hence the pots are forbidden if they do not individually contain 60x the Issur. Likewise if one food is sweet and another is sour and hence one will not come to mix them together, they do not join to nullify the Issur. Likewise if both foods are two different species that will not become mixed they do not join to nullify the Issur.

E. The law if one of the pots has 60x:[82]

If one of the pots has 60x then it does not join the other pot to nullify the Issur. Thus if the Issur is a Biblical Issur then the pot which does not contain 60x is forbidden. If however the Issur is a Rabbinical Issur then both pots are regardless permitted as we assume the Issur fell into the pot which contains 60x [as explained in Halacha 4].

F. Does the above law apply even according to those which hold Chanan by other Issurim?[83]

The Bach rules that according to those opinions which hold of Chanan by other Issurim then the two pots never join, and hence if neither pot contains 60x the Issur they are both forbidden. However the Shach and Taz oppose his ruling and rule the law applies even according to those Poskim which hold of Chanan by other Issurim, and so is the implication of the Poskim.

G. Does the above law apply even by Min Beino Mino?[84]

The Shach brings the Reih which rules that if the Issur is not the same taste as the Heter pots [Min Beino Mino] then we do not join the pots together. Likewise even if the Issur and Heter have the same taste, if it is a mixture that is able to give off taste, such as Lach Belach then the pots do not join. Practically the Shach rules that due to this opinion we do not allow the pots to join even if they belong to one person unless it is a case of great loss.

Summary:

Two pots of Heter which when joined together have 60x the Issur are permitted if all the following conditions are fulfilled:

1. They belong to one person.
2. They are foods that people mix together.
3. The Issur is a Rabbinical Issur or a Biblical Issur of Min Bemino and both pots contain majority
4. Neither pot individually contains 60x the Issur.
5. It is a case of great loss.

Chart of when the pots join if they belong to one person in time of great loss:

 60x in both pots 60x in one pot Majority in both pots Less than Issur in one or both Biblical Issur Eino Mino Permitted Second pot is Forbidden Forbidden Forbidden Biblical Issur Min Bemino Permitted If second pot has majority-permitted Permitted Dispute between Shach and Taz Rabbinical Issur Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted

[1] 111/1-2

[2] Shach 111/2; The Shach writes that this law applies even in a case dealing with a Rabbinical Issur that is based on a Biblical precept and we thus view it as a Rabbinical Issur. [Shach ibid]

[3] The reason for this is because by a Rabbinical Issur we rule leniently. [Shach 111/1]

[4] This follows the ruling of the Rashba in the Gemara Yevamos [Perek Haarul 82a] that if there is equal amount of Heter, the Heter is permitted. However if there is more Issur than Heter then the Heter is forbidden. However the Rieih in Bedek Habayis explains the Gemara there that even if there is more Issur than Heter the Heter is permitted. The Michaber here rules like the Rashba. [Taz 111/1; Shach 111/6]

[5] Shach 111/6 differentiates between this case which requires that the Issur not have majority over the Heter and the case of one pot and two pieces in which it is permitted even if there is majority of Issur. The reason why here we are more stringent is because in this case the Issur certainly fell into one of the pots, as opposed to the latter case of one pot.

[6] Shach 111/3; See Darkei Moshe

[7] Ran in Perek Haarul brought in Darkei Moshe

[8] Brought in Beir Heiytiv 111/2

[9] Shach 111/4

[10] The Perisha 111/2 explains that the reason we are lenient is because each piece has a doubt as to whether it was Heter or Issur and hence we are lenient being it is a Rabbinical prohibition.

[11] Shach 111/5

[12] As the entire concept of Charal not being nullified is a Rabbinical decree, and hence we are lenient in a case of doubt.

[13] 111/3-4

[14] Shach 111/8 as writes Michaber in 111/4, Upashut as otherwise 60x would be required Biblically.

[15] And hence it is a Rabbinical doubt and as already stated above by a Rabbinical doubt we are lenient.

[16] Taz 111/3

[17] Shach 111/9; Taz 111/4

[18] Taz 111/5

[19] As the entire concept of Charal not being nullified is a Rabbinical decree, and hence we are lenient in a case of doubt.

[20] 111/1-2

[21] 111/3-4

[22] 111/2

[23] 111/7

[24] Brought in Taz 111/2 and Shach 111/7

[25] 111/1-2

[26] The reason for this is because by a Rabbinical Issur we rule leniently. [Shach 111/1]

[27] Shach 111/6 differentiates between the previous case of two pots which requires that the Issur not have majority over the Heter, and the case here of one pot and two pieces in which it is permitted even if there is majority of Issur.

[28] Shach 111/4

[29] See Peri Megadim 111 S.D. 4 for the reason why in this case we are stringent as opposed to the previous case of two pots. Vetzrauch Iyun on the differentiation; See also Peri Chadash 111/3 which questions the Shach‘s differentiation between this case and the previous case and concludes unlike the Shach due to this question on his reasoning.

[30] 111/3

[31] Kreisy Upleisy

[32] 111/3-4; Shach 111/10

[33] 111/5

[34] Although the Michaber does not write whether 60x or majority is required, this itself implies that 60x is required as is the normal law of nullification. So writes also Peri Megadim 111 S.D. 12

[35] The reason for this is because only by a case that involves an Issur pot can we assume that the Issur fell into the Issur pot as we are merely continuing the Issur state of the pot and not changing it from its previous status. However here that there are two Heter pots and we must conclude that one of the pots is forbidden, each pot can claim why assume it fell into my pot and change my status quo of permission. Thus one cannot permit one pot over the other and both are forbidden. [Shach 111/11 in name of Rashba]

[36] Shach 111/12

[37] As since the Issur is Rabbinical we assume the Issur fell into the pot that contains enough Heter to nullify it. [Shach 111/12]

[38] Shach 111/12; This is unlike the opinion of the Bach which rules that the above law applies even by a Biblical prohibition.

[39] See Shach 111/14

[40] Shach 111/11

[41] As the reason mentioned above by the Rashba still applies; why permit one pot over the other.

[42] Klal 29/5

[43] Shach 111/13

Background:

In 111/7 the Michaber rules that if both pots are owned by a single person and there is one piece of Issur which fell into one of the pots, then if both of the pots when joined together contain 60x the Issur they are both Kosher even though individually they do not have 60x. The question asked by the codifiers is why the Michaber didn’t in this case also rule that the two pots join.

[44] Meaning only in the case of one piece which is Issur which fell into one of the pots do we rule the pots join. However when there are two pieces, one Heter and one Issur, we are stringent.

[45] 111/6

The Taz gives a lengthy discussion in disproving the theory of the Bach that there is a difference between two pieces and one piece.

[46] As for the reason why the Michaber here does not mention this law the Shach explains because the Michaber here is not dealing at all with the laws of Tziruf but rather only with the concept of “Ani Omer”. Alternatively the Michaber here is discussing a case that the two pots do not join even when owned by one person, as explained in 111/7. [Shach ibid]

[47] Shach 111/13 and 19

[48] 111/19

[49] Brought in Taz 111/6 and Shach 111/19

[50] See Taz 111/6 and Shach 111/19 which although rules like the Bach, argues on this understanding of the Bach in the Rashba.

[51] 111/6

[52] Michaber ibid

[53] Shach 111/14; Taz 111/7

Background:

The question addressed by the codifiers on this case is as follows: What is the novelty of the ruling of the Michaber here. If earlier in 111/1 the Michaber ruled that by two pots one of Issur and one of Heter we assume the Issur fell into the Issur pot, certainly here that already one piece fell into the pot on the right and made it forbidden should we assume that the second piece also fell into that pot. [In other words in this case there are two reasons to assume that the Issur fell into the pot which is on the right burner; 1) The pot is now an Issur pot and is similar to the case of one pot of Issur and one of Heter discussed in Halacha 1. 2) The first Issur fell into the pot on the right burner and hence we can assume the second piece followed its same path. Hence what novelty is there in this ruling?]

The Bach hence answers that the novelty is that in this case even if the Issur is a Biblical prohibition we assume it fell into the right burner pot even if the other pot does not have enough Heter to Biblically nullify the Issur. [Such as it does not have majority if Min Bemino and does not have 60x if Min Beino Mino]

The Shach and Taz however argue on his conclusion and rule by a Biblical Issur we are always stringent to prohibit both pots.

The Taz 111/7 rules that the novelty in this case is that despite the fact that the right burner pot may have had majority versus the first Issur and hence Biblically it remains Kosher by mixtures of Min Bemino, nevertheless we still assume the second Rabbinical Issur fell into this pot. Furthermore, even if the first Issur was a Rabbinical Issur we assume the second Issur fell into it.

The Shach 111/14 answers that the novelty is that although the right burner pot was Heter and simply became forbidden due to the first food that fell into it nevertheless we assume that the second Rabbinical Issur followed its path.

Opinion of Issur Viheter: The Issur Viheter rules that all the laws in this chapter apply equally to both a Rabbinical and Biblical Issur. The Bach hence understood from the Issur Viheter that even if the second pot does not have majority over a Biblical Issur we assume it fell into the Issur pot. The Shach and Taz argue on this understanding and explain that the Issur Viheter never meant to permit such a case, and rather refers to a case that both pots have majority, and hence even by a Biblical Issur we assume it fell into the Issur pot being that it is Biblically nullified in majority.

[54] As otherwise even in the first case of Michaber in 111/1 we would rule that the second pot is permitted as it is now a Rabbinical Safek.

[55] 111/7

[56] We do not assume in this case that the first Issur fell into the same pot as the second Issur and rather it has the same status as the case in Halacha 5. [Shach 111/15]

[57] 111/7

[58] Although the Michaber does not write whether 60x or majority is required, thus itself implies that 60x is required as is the normal law of nullification. So writes also Peri Megadim 111 S.D. 12

[59] The reason for this is because only by a case that involves an Issur pot can we assume that the Issur fell into the Issur pot as we are merely continuing the Issur state of the pot and not changing it from  its previous status. However here that there are two Heter pots and we must conclude that one of the pots is forbidden, each pot can claim why assume it fell into my pot and change my status quo of permission. Thus one cannot permit one pot over the other and both are forbidden. [Shach 111/11 in name of Rashba]

[60] Shach 111/12

[61] As since the Issur is Rabbinical we assume the Issur fell into the pot that contains enough Heter to nullify it. [Shach 111/12]

[62] Shach 111/12; This is unlike the opinion of the Bach which rules that the above law applies even by a Biblical prohibition.

[63] See Shach 111/14

[64] Shach 111/11

[65] See Yad Yehuda that explains this statement of the Michaber to be referring to Issurim that are not nullified in 60x, and not to 100 pots as even if there are three pots they are nullified to each other Yaveish Beyaveish and hence the above law of Tziruf would not be necessary.

[66] Shach 111/20

[67] Rama in name of Issur Viheter

[68] 111/10

[69] His reasoning is because Biblically majority suffices to nullify the Issur, and hence since both pots individually contain majority, the Issur is nullified. Now although Rabbinically one requires 60x and if the pots are not mixed there is definitely not 60x the Issur in one of the pots, nevertheless since it is a doubt as to which pot the Issur fell into therefore we permit each pot on the basis of Safek Derabanan Lekula, even before they become mixed.

[70] 111/7; So rules also Peri Chadash in his glosses on the Shulchan Aruch here

[71] Shach 111/20

[72] The Shach brings the Reih which rules that if the Issur is not the same taste as the Heter pots [Min Beino Mino] then we do not join the pots together. Likewise even if the Issur and Heter have the same taste, if it is a mixture that is able to give off taste, such as Lach Belach then the pots do not join. Practically the Shach rules that due to this opinion we do not allow the pots to join even if they belong to one person unless it is a case of great loss. [Shach ibid]

[73] Shach 111/16; Peri Megadim 111 S.D. 16; See however Degul Merivava

[74] See Peri Megadim ibid that the Shach rules explicitly in 105/30 that by Min Beino Mino they never mix.

[75] Shach 111/19

[76] The Bach understands that the Rashba is only stringent by a Biblical Issur, however by a Rabbinical Issur the Rashba agrees that we are lenient if the two owners asked the Rav one after the other. The Shach negates this understanding of the Bach in the Rashba. [Shach ibid]

[77] Peri Megadim 111 S.D. 16

[78] Shach 111/16; Peri Megadim 111 S.D. 16; See however Degul Merivava

[79] See Peri Megadim ibid that the Shach rules explicitly in 105/30 that by Min Beino Mino they never mix.

[80] 111/7; Peri Megadim 111 S.D. 16

[81] Taz 111/8; Shach 111/18

[82] Shach 111/16

[83][83] Shach 111/17; Taz 111/10

Background:

The Shach and Taz bring the Bach which rules that the pots never join according to those which hold of Chanan by other Issurim. However the Shach disproves this from the fact that all the Poskim which hold of Chanan by other Issurim wrote this Halacha that the pots join. The Shach and Taz hence conclude that one must say that Chanan only applies when one knows into which pot the Issur fell. However in a case such as here that it is unknown where the Issur fell the law of Chanan does not apply and hence both pots join to nullify the Issur.

[84] Shach 111/20