The theme of this chapter is to discuss details of the law mentioned in the previous chapter that an Issur is nullified in 60x. What foods and items in the pot join the Heter as part of the 60x against the Issur? What parts of the Issur must be nullified? May one initially nullify an Issur into 60x of Heter?
How to measure 60x-What parts join the Heter to help nullify the Issur [Halachas 1-5]
1. Do bones join the Kosher food to nullify the Issur:
A. Kosher Bones:
All Kosher bones found in the food join the Kosher food to nullify the Issur in 60x. This applies even according to the opinion that bones of Issur do not join the Kosher food to nullify the Issur.
B. Issur Bones:
The Case: A Kezayis of Issur meat which contains a bone fell into one’s pot of hot Kosher food. The pot contains 59 Kizeisim of Kosher food and one Kezayis of Issur meat and one Kezayis of the Issur bone. Does the Issur bone join the Kosher food to nullify the Issur meat in 60x?
All bones, including bones of Issur, join the Kosher food to help nullify the Issur in 60x.
Bone marrow: The above only refers to the bone itself however bone marrow is considered part of the Issur and requires 60x against it.
There are those opinions which are stringent to not allow the bones of Issur to join the Heter to help nullify the Issur meat in 60x. [According to all however the Issur bones do not join the Issur and thus do not require nullification.] Practically, in a case of loss one may rely on the lenient opinion that allows joining the Issur bones to the Heter, as so is the main opinion.
In a case that a piece of Issur meat with a bone fell into Heter why do we not say that the bone becomes Chanan? Although whenever Issur is attached to Heter the Rama holds that the Heter becomes Chanan , nevertheless in our case the bone does not become Chanan being that it is like a vessel and we do not hold of the rule of Chanan by vessels which do not contain any taste and can have the absorbed Issur taste removed through Hagala.
If a cooked piece of Issur meat and its bone fell into hot Kosher food: In such a case one requires 60x versus the meat and the bone, as the bone had absorbed non-Kosher taste when it was cooked with the Issur, and now it releases that taste into the Kosher food.
Summary of Bones:
Kosher bones: Kosher bones join the Heter food to help nullify the Issur in 60x.
Issur bones: Issur bones do not join either the Heter or the Issur in the calculation of 60x. However in a case of loss one may be lenient to join the Issur bones to the Heter.
Issur bones with marrow: Issur bones that are soft and contain marrow are considered part of the Issur and require nullification. If the bones are hard and contain marrow, then the bones themselves do not join the Issur or the Heter, although the marrow is part of the Issur and requires nullification. In a case of loss one may have hard bones of Issur join the Heter to nullify the Issur, although any marrow it contains is considered part of the Issur.
Cooked Issur bones: If the Issur bone had been previously cooked with Issur and then fell into Heter, one requires 60x versus the entire bone.
2. The pot-Does the pot join the Kosher food to help nullify the Issur?
The material of the pot does not join either the Issur or the Heter in the calculation of the ratio of 60x. Thus if Issur falls into a pot of Heter one must have 60x in the actual food versus the Issur. Likewise if Heter fell into a [non-Ben Yomo] pot which had Issur cooking inside it one only needs 60x versus that Issur and not also versus the pot.
The material of the pot does not join the Issur or the Heter.
3. If a piece of Heter which became forbidden due to absorbing Issur fell into Heter, does this piece join the Heter to help nullify the Treif taste which it absorbed?
Example: A Kezayis of Heter absorbed hot Issur and then fell in to 59 Kizeisim of Heter. Does the original Kezayis of Heter join the 59 Kizeisim of Heter for a total of 60x against the Issur which the original Heter carried into the pot, or does the original piece of Heter not join the Issur?
Basar Bechalav: In a case involving meat and milk, that a piece of meat absorbed hot milk, and this piece then fell into a hot pot of Kosher meat stew, this original meat does not join the rest of the food in the pot to help nullify the milk. The reason for this is because once the meat absorbed milk it became an intrinsic Issur [Chanan], and hence it itself now requires nullification and not just its absorbed taste.
In a case involving other Issurim, such as a piece of Kosher meat absorbed hot Issur gravy and then fell into a pot of Kosher Heter, that original piece joins the Heter to help nullify its carried Issur within 60x. Hence in the above example the food would be permitted. The reason for this is because according to the Michaber the rule of Chanan does not apply by Issurim other than Basar Bechalav. Therefore the originally Kosher piece is viewed no different than any of the others Kosher foods in the pot. [Nevertheless, the original piece itself still remains forbidden to be eaten due to suspicion that perhaps not all of its absorbed Issur taste has dissipated.]
The original piece does not join the Heter to help nullify its carried Issur within 60x. Hence in the above example the food would be forbidden. The reason for this is because according to the Rama the rule of Chanan applies by all Issurim and hence the original piece itself has become an intrinsic Issur upon absorbing the Issur taste and now requires nullification. Accordingly even if the pot contains 60x versus the Issur the Issur itself would still remain forbidden.
Summary of a piece which absorbed Issur and then fell in to Heter:
One requires 60x the entire piece and the piece itself does not join the Heter. The piece itself must be removed even if there is 60x.
4. Does gravy and food residue on the bottom of the pot join to nullify the Issur?
5. Does one measure 60x in accordance to the current size of the Heter or in accordance to its original size that it was when entered into the pot? 
Example: One placed 2500 grams of meat and water into his pot and due to the cooking the mixture shrunk to 1700 grams. A 40 gram piece of Issur then fell into the stew. Does one measure 60x versus the 2,500 grams of original Heter, hence deeming the food Kosher, or does one measure the 60x versus its current size of 1,700 grams hence deeming the food forbidden?
A. Min Beino Mino:
In a mixture involving a Heter and Issur of different species [Min Beino Mino] one measures versus the current size of the Heter. Hence in the above example the food would be forbidden. [However there are opinions which rule that if one knows the amount of original Issur that fell into the pot then one measures that amount of Issur versus all the Heter in the pot, including the Heter that became absorbed within the pot. Practically we do not follow this ruling.]
Although the pot has absorbed some of the Heter food throughout the cooking process, nevertheless it is not possible to know the exact amount it has absorbed. Therefore we do not allow one to estimate an amount of Heter absorbed within the pot as at times this estimation will be erroneous and he will come to permit the mixture with less than 60x. Now although this is a case of doubt, nevertheless one must be stringent, as by a case of Min Beino Mino 60x is Biblically required and hence to avoid the doubt one can only measure versus its current size.
- Tur; Rashi ;Rosh:
Alternatively since at times the Issur itself has also shrunk due to the cooking [and one cannot measure versus the original size due to lack of knowledge] therefore as a rule we only measure based on current size of both the Issur and Heter.
B. Min Bemino:
In a mixture involving a Heter and Issur of the same species [Min Bemino] one may estimate the amount of food that became absorbed into the pot due to the cooking and add this amount to the current amount of food that remains. This total amount is then used to measure the 60x. The amount of food that one estimates has evaporated due to the cooking may not be added to the measuring of 60x, and hence one may not measure versus the original size of the Heter even in a case of Min Bemino. Using the previous example, if one estimates that 200 grams became absorbed within the walls of the pot while 600 grams have evaporated then he may only join 200 grams to the current 1700 grams that remain.
The reason for the leniency by Min Bemino: A mixture of Min Bemino is Biblically permitted if it contains majority of Heter and only Rabbinically is 60x required. Thus we are lenient to allow one to estimate the amount of Heter absorbed within the walls to measure 60x, as the fact that his estimation may be inaccurate is a doubt regarding a Rabbinical matter.
In all cases, including mixtures of Min Bemino, one measures only versus the current size and not over an estimation of its original size.
The reason: Although the pot has absorbed some of the Heter food throughout the cooking process, nevertheless it is not possible to know the exact amount it has absorbed. Therefore we do not allow one to estimate an amount of Heter absorbed within the pot as at times this estimation will be erroneous and he will come to permit an Issur.
The measurement always follows the current size of both the Issur and Heter and not the size they originally were before cooking.
If Min Beino Mino requires 60x Biblically why do we permit a pot that has 60x the Issur, perhaps the Issur was larger when it fell in and hence in truth the food does not have 60x?
A rule in Kashrus is that Ein Machzikin Issura which means we do not assume the existence of an Issur until we see it in front of us. Therefore we do not assume that the Issur was any larger than its current size.
May one initially nullify an Issur within 60x of Heter? Halacha 6-7
6. To take an Issur and place it into Heter of 60x:
It is forbidden to initially nullify any Issur within 60x of Heter. This applies even if the Issur is only Rabbinically forbidden. [There are opinions which say that it is Biblically forbidden to initially nullify an Issur, while others rule it is only Rabbinically forbidden.]
B. Bedieved if one went ahead and placed an Issur within 60x of Heter:
Beshogeg: If one nullified an Issur by placing it into 60x of Heter, then if this was done without prior knowledge of the prohibition [Beshogeg], the mixture is permitted to be eaten even by the person himself. This applies even if the Issur is a Biblical prohibition.
Bimeizid: If one nullified an Issur with prior knowledge of the prohibition [Bemeizid], then if the perpetrator owns the food, it is forbidden for him as well as for anyone else whom he planned on feeding the food to. However for all other people the food is permitted.
The definition of Shogeg and Meizid: The Taz defines Shogeg as one who did not have knowledge that it is prohibited to initially nullify an Issur. However it is implied from the Tur that he learns that if one intended to nullify the Issur, even if he did not know that doing so is forbidden, then it is defined as Meizid. Practically the Taz negates this understanding based on several reasons. One of his proofs is the ruling regarding Shabbos that if one did not know a certain Melacha is forbidden on Shabbos it is considered Shogeg. He hence concludes that in truth even the Tur intends to say that Shogeg means one who did not have knowledge of the prohibition even if he did intend to nullify the Issur.
What is the reason that Bemeizid the food is permitted for others, but forbidden for the dependants: Although the food is Kosher being that it contains 60x against the Issur nevertheless the Sages fined and forbade the mixture to all people that the mixture was meant to be eaten by. This is because if this food were to be permitted for them there is suspicion that anyone who desires to nullify an Issur within his food would simply ask a gentile or slave to place the Issur in the food for them and then they could eat it. Thus to prevent this from occurring the Sages also forbade the food for anyone who was planning to eat from it.
If one did not know that the Issur was nullified on their behalf, may he eat from the mixture: Members of the persons household may never eat from the mixture even if they had no knowledge of the Issur and were against it being mixed in. However a non-household member, such as a friend, if he had no knowledge of the Issur or had knowledge but was against it being placed into the food, then it is permitted for him to eat the food even if the owner had him in mind to eat this food. [This follows the opinion of the Rashal brought in Taz. However the Peri Chadash rules that the mixture is always forbidden to everyone that the food was intended for even if they had no knowledge of the Issur or were against it mixing in. Practically the Peri Toar rules like the Taz and Rashal.]
If the person who threw in the Issur did not own the food and had no intent to eat it: In such a case the food is forbidden for those that the food was intended for [if those people had requested or consented to this being done]. However the food is permitted for him to eat as he did not gain anything through entering the Issur into the food, and hence there is no need to fine him.
In a case that the food is forbidden may the perpetrator sell the food? If one nullified an Issur Bimeizid it is even forbidden for him to sell the food to another Jew, as the Sages fined him from receiving any benefit from this mixture. However it is permitted to sell it to a gentile being that he gains no benefit from his actions when selling to a gentile. Furthermore, if the Jew is offering to pay the same amount of money as a gentile, or less money than a gentile, then it is permitted to sell it to the Jew as there is no benefit being received from having specifically the Jew buy it.
C. Cooking honey in order to filter bugs:
It is permitted to cook honey that contains bugs in order to liquefy the honey and strain the bugs out. [This however is only allowed if there is no other way of removing the bugs from the honey.]
The reason that this is allowed despite the fact that by doing so one is nullifying the Issur in 60x: Heating the honey with the bugs is not considered as if one is initially nullifying an Issur as one has no intent to nullify the Issur but rather to make the honey edible.
Summary-Placing an Issur into 60x Heter :
Lechatchilah: It is forbidden to initially nullify any Issur by placing it into Heter. This applies whether the Issur is Biblical or Rabbinical.
Bedieved if one placed the Issur into 60x: If the Issur was added with prior knowledge of the prohibition then the food is forbidden for the person who nullified it, his household, and anyone else for whom the food was intended for and had consented to this act. If the Issur was added without prior knowledge of the prohibition [Beshogeg] then it is permitted for all.
7. If an Issur accidently fell into Heter which contains less than 60x, may one add more Heter to the mixture to reach a 60x ratio?
If a Biblical Issur fell into a pot of Heter that contains less than 60x, it is initially forbidden to add any more Heter to the pot, and thus the mixture is to remain forbidden.
If a Rabbinical Issur fell into a pot of Heter that contains less than 60x the Issur, it is permitted to add more Heter to the pot in order to gain a total of a 60x ratio, and hence permit the mixture.
There are opinions which say it is forbidden to add more Heter to the pot even in a case that involves a Rabbinical Issur just like is the law regarding a Biblical Issur. Practically so is the custom and one may not swerve from it. [This applies even in those cases that we do not apply the rule of Chanan.]
The Shach rules like the Rama that it is forbidden to add Heter to any Issur.
Nullifying Muktzah wood on Yom Tov: If Muktzah wood became mixed with non-Muktzah wood on Yom Tov one may add more Non-Muktzah wood to the mixture to nullify the Muktzah wood in 60x. This mixture may then be used for fuel. This ruling is a proof to the Michaber’s opinion which allows adding more Heter to nullify a Rabbinical Issur. According to the ruling of the Rama that it is forbidden to add Heter even to Rabbinical Issurim, this ruling regarding Muktzah wood is explained to be an exception to the rule, in which case the Sages did not forbid adding Heter. The difference between this case of wood and food related Rabbinical Issurim is that by allowing the wood to be used as fuel one does not directly benefit from the Muktzah wood as the benefit is only received from its ash. This is unlike food mixtures in which one would benefit from the actual food if we were to allow one to add Heter to the Rabbinical Issur. Thus in the case of wood the Sages did not forbid adding more wood to the mixture. Alternatively the reason why by wood it is permitted to add more non-Muktzah wood is because one is not directly benefiting from the wood but rather from the food which was cooked using the wood. By such a form of indirect benefit the Sages did not decree against adding more Heter to nullify the Issur.
According to the Michaber why is Chanukah oil not able to be nullified: The Shach suggests that items which are forbidden in benefit due to sacrilege [i.e. using Mitzvah oil for mundane activity] are more severe in their laws then a regular Rabbinical Issur. Nevertheless the Shach concludes with a Tzaruch Iyun. The Magen Avraham suggests that perhaps Chanukah oil is more stringent as it has a status of Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin. Some Poskim however question this assertion.
B. Bedieved if one added more Heter:
Added more Heter to a mixture with a Biblical Issur: According to the Michaber one who transgressed and added more Heter to a dish that contains a Biblical Issur in order to nullify the Issur in 60x is considered as if he has initially placed an Issur into Heter and hence follows all the laws explained above [Halacha 6] which differentiate between Shogeg and Meizid. [This however is with exception to a case of Basar Bechalav as in such a case according to all the food has become Chanan before any more Heter is added. For example if 10 grams of milk fell into 500 grams of meat and one then added 150 more grams of meat, the entire mixture is forbidden, as once the milk fell inside the meat without 60x the entire mixture became Chanan.]
According to the Rama who holds of the rule of Chanan by other Issurim it would never be of benefit to add more Heter to the mixture if that mixture is considered to have become Chanan. The rule of Chanan would define the current mixture as a complete forbidden entity due to that it did not have 60x at the original time that the Issur fell into it. Hence adding more Heter to this mixture would be tantamount to placing Kosher food in a pot of forbidden foods. Nevertheless in those cases that even according to the Rama the rule of Chanan does not apply then the law would follow the ruling of the Michaber which differentiates between whether one added more Heter knowingly or unknowingly. The following are a list of mixtures and their relevant law:
- Issur became cooked with Heter:
According to the Rama in all cases that the Issur [whether Biblical or Rabbinical] became cooked together with the Heter [if one knew about the Issur then] the mixture becomes Chanan and it thus no longer helps to add more Heter to bring the ratio to 60x. The food hence will remain forbidden even if more Heter was added, and even this Heter itself will now become forbidden [unless one adds 60x of Heter versus the entire amount of food in the pot].
Lo Noda Beintayim in a case the Issur became cooked with Heter:
There is a dispute regarding whether one must know about the Issur falling in or not for a food to become Chanan.
- Issur Viheter; Rama:
If one only found out that the Issur fell in to the Heter after he already added more Heter to the pot then even according to the Rama the mixture was never considered Chanan prior to adding more Heter and thus mixture is Kosher as is the law by Shogeg. [This applies by both a Biblical and Rabbinical prohibition.]
The Shach argues on the Issur Viheter and Rama and rules that the rule of Chanan applies even in a case of Lo Noda Beintayim as there is no logic to differentiate between whether one knew of the Issur in between or not, as either way taste of the Issur has already been transferred to the food.
- Issur Viheter; Rama:
- Cold mixtures of Yaveish Beyaveish and Lach Belach:
Regarding a mixture of cold Yaveish Beyaveish, or a mixture of cold Lach Belach [that involves Issurim other than Basar Bechalav and involves a great loss], even the Rama agrees that we do not apply the rule of Chanan and thus if one added more Heter to the mixture it follows the same laws as the Michaber which differentiates between Shogeg and Meizid. [This applies by both a Biblical and Rabbinical prohibition.]
Other opinions by Yaveish Beyaveish and Lach Belach when Nodah Beintayim: There is an opinion that says that even by mixtures of Yaveish Beyaveish and Lach Belach [in a case of great loss], in which we do not apply the rule of Chanan, nevertheless adding Heter only helps to nullify the Issur, if Lo Noda Beintayim [i.e. one did not know that the Issur fell in at the time he added the Heter]. However if one did know that Issur fell into Heter and one then added more Heter to the mixture, the mixture remains forbidden even by mixtures which we do not apply the rule of Chanan.
Practical ruling: The Rama concludes this Halacha stating “it is not accustomed to do so”. The Levush understands this statement of the Rama to mean that the custom is not like the above opinion brought that differentiates between Noda and Lo Noda, and hence even if one added Heter after he knew of the Issur, by the above mixtures the food is permitted if he did so Beshogeg. However the Shach differs with this understanding of the Levush in the Rama and states that according to the Rama we rule like this opinion that differentiates between Noda and Lo Noda and the words “it is not accustomed to do so” is going on the last statement of whether a Rav is required to inquire if more Heter was added as explained next. Practically the Shach himself concludes that we do not rule like this opinion that differentiates between Noda and Lo Noda and rather there is never a difference of when the Heter was added, before after he knew of the Issur.
Must a Rav inquire if more Heter was added to the pot after the Issur fell in?
According to the above ruling the Rav who is asked if there is 60x in a pot of food should have to inquire whether more Heter was added in after the Issur fell inside. Likewise according to the opinion mentioned above that differentiates between Noda and Lo Noda, in a case that more Heter was added the Rav must inquire if one knew about the Issur before adding more Heter. Practically the Rama concludes that this is not the custom [as seen from the fact that Rabbanim do not inquire by these questions if more Heter was added, if before one knew about the Issur or after]. The reason for why the Rav is not required to inquire of the above is because we do not assume an Issur [Ein Machzikin Issur] and hence we judge the pot by how it is found when brought to the Rav. [However the Taz rules that if the Rav knows that more Heter was added to the pot, after the Issur fell in, then he must inquire as to when it was added, before he knew about the Issur or after.]
Complete summary of nullifying Issur:
Note: The summary follows the final ruling of the Rama. The opinion of the Michaber in those cases that he differs with the Rama is brought in the footnotes.
Lechatchilah: It is forbidden to initially nullify any Issur, including a Rabbinical Issur, whether by placing the Issur within 60x, or by adding more Heter to a mixture which Issur already fell into.
Bedieved if one placed the Issur into 60x: If the Issur was added with prior knowledge of the prohibition [Bimeizid] then it is forbidden for the person who nullified it, his household, and anyone else for whom the food was intended for and had consented to this. If the Issur was added without prior knowledge of the prohibition [Beshogeg] then it is permitted for all. This applies by both a Biblical and Rabbinical prohibition.
Bedieved if added more Heter to a mixture that an Issur fell into for a total of 60x versus the Issur: If the Issur had become cooked with the Heter, and one added the Heter after knowing that the Issur had fallen in, everything is forbidden. If the Heter was added before one knew that the Issur fell in then according to some Poskim the food is permitted while according to others it nevertheless remains forbidden. If the Issur had not been cooked together with the Heter, such as a case of cold Yaveish Beyaveish, or Lach Belach in a case of great loss, then the food has the same laws as does Issur which was initially placed within 60x, in which if done Beshogeg it is permitted for all. However according to some Poskim if the Heter was added to even these mixtures after knowing that Issur fell in then it is forbidden for all.
In what case do we forbid a food for someone who nullified an Issur Beshogeg because he may come to do it some other time Bemazid (intentionally)?
In chapter 110 Halacha 7 it is explained that if an Issur that is never nullified becomes mixed with Heter and one of the pieces of the mixture somehow passively gets destroyed [such as it becomes eaten by a dog or falls into the sea] one may eat the rest of the mixture in pairs. If however one actively removed and destroyed one of the foods in the mixture, even if this was done Beshogeg, the remainder of the mixture remains forbidden. The reason for why we penalize the person, even if it was done Beshogeg, is because he may come to do so Bimeizid and then claim it was done Beshogeg. Thus we see in this case we decreed a case of Shogeg due to Meizid.
The Taz explains that the reason for why in this case we decree Shogeg due to Meizid, in contrast to the case that one nullified an Issur Beshogeg, is because in this case the person is asking to permit the mixture based on his actions of destroying the piece, and without his information the Rav would forbid the mixture. Hence in such a case we decree Shogeg due to Meizid. However in a case that one added more Heter to the mixture Beshogeg since the mixture would have been permitted by the Rav even if the person would have not revealed this information, therefore we do not decree a case of Shogeg due to Meizid in this scenario.
May one initially place into a Heter, a food that is forbidden due to Maaras Ayin?
Example: May one enter fish blood into a Kosher food.
Some Poskim lean to say it is permitted to do so.
According to the Michaber may one add more water to a chicken soup that had milk fall inside of it?
Some Poskim rule that even according to the Michaber one may not add more food to a mixture of chicken and milk to attain a ratio of 60x. Other Poskim however rule that according to the Michaber one may even initially add more food to the mixture to attain 60x versus the milk. Practically even those that follow the Michaber are to be stringent unless it is a case of great loss, great need, or is needed for Kavod Shabbos.
8. Chozer Veniur- What is the law if two of the same Issurim fell into a pot one after the other?
Example: One Kezayis of Cheilev fell into 60 Kizeisim of Heter and then another Kezayis of Cheilev fell into this pot. Does the pot remain Kosher due to it still having 60x the next piece of Cheilev or do we now say the pot requires 60x versus both Kizeisim of Cheilev combined, and thus requires a total of 120 Kosher Kizeisim in the pot?
The law: If two of the same Issurim fell into the same pot, whether they fell in simultaneously or one after the other, one requires 60x versus both Issurim combined [or 120x that Issur if both Issurim are the same size]. This applies in all a cases, whether the Issurim fell into Min Bemino, Min Beino Mino, Lach Belach, Yaveish Beyaveish, whether Noda Beintayim or Lo Noda Beintayim. Thus in the above example one would require 60x two Kizeisim of Cheilev for a total of 120 Kosher Kizeisim in the pot, and hence in the case given the food would be forbidden. The reason why one requires 60x also versus the first Issur that fell into the pot even though it was already nullified in 60x is because when the second Issur of the same species falls in, the taste of the first Issur now becomes resurrected [Chozer Veniur] and one thus needs 60x both Issurim put together. In a case however that two different Issurim [different tastes] fell into the pot then one is not required to have 60x versus both Issurim combined but rather 60x against each Issur individually, as explained in the previous Chapter 98/9.
How does one determine if two Issurim are of the same species: If they contain the same taste they are considered the same Issur. If they do not have the same taste they are considered two different Issurim.
Opinion of Shach by a case of Min Bemino which is Yaveish Beyaveish and Nodah Beintayim: The Shach rules that in a case of Min Bemino Yaveish Beyaveish which involves a great loss one may be lenient if Noda Beintayim [knew the first Issur fell in before the second Issur fell in] to only nullify the second Issur which fell in.
Why does the Rama rule that when a milk spoon was stuck twice into meat one only needs 60x? Since by the spoon case there is no actual new body of Issur being placed in, and rather it is like placing the same body of the Issur twice into the food, therefore the Rama holds that there is no resurrection.
If two of the same Issurim fall into Heter one requires 60x of both Issurim combined even if they fell in one after the other. However in a case of great loss one may be lenient by a mixture of Min Bemino Yaveish Beyaveish which was Nodah Beintayim.
9. If a drop of milk fell into water and that water then fell into meat what is the law?
Example: 10 milliliters of milk fell into 650 milliliters of water and that entire amount of water then fell into 100 grams of meat stew what is the law?
The law: If the water contained 60x versus the milk then the meat is kosher being that the drop of milk was already nullified in the water prior to it entering the meat. This applies even if the meat itself does not have 60x the original milk. Thus in the above example the meat is Kosher. [Furthermore one may even initially add this water to the meat.] If however the water did not have 60x versus the milk, then if the meat does not have 60x versus the milk the mixture is forbidden.
10. May one cook food of 60x within a Treif pot?
If a vessel absorbed a small amount of Issur, then if the vessel is only used for cooking a large amount of Heter [which will have a 60:1 ratio over this Issur] it may be used for cooking Kosher foods. In such a case it is permitted to cook in this vessel even if the vessel is Ben Yomo. If however one occasionally cooks a small amount of food [which is less than 60:1 of the Issur] in this vessel then it is forbidden to cook any food within the vessel, even if one desires to cook an amount of food which has a 60:1 ratio to the Issur. The reason for this is because if one were allowed to cook a large amount in this pot he may come to also cook a small amount within it being that this is its occasional usage.
The Taz rules that in all cases that the Issur taste in the vessel is not Pagum [i.e. the pot is still Ben Yomo] it is forbidden to cook in it at all, even if one always cooks plentiful of food within this pot to the point it is guaranteed to have 60x. However in a case that the pot is no longer Ben Yom then the ruling of the Michaber applies.
Some Poskim rule one may use a Ben Yomo Issur pot to cook a large amount of Heter [contains 60x] if it is common to only cook this amount in such a pot. Others rule it is only permitted to be done if the Issur is already Pagum such as the pot is no longer Ben Yomo.
 Michaber 99/1
 The reason for this is because even bones absorb the flavor of the Issur and thus help dissipate and nullify its taste in 60x. [Taz 99/1]
 Shach 99/2; Hagahos Sheid 55 in name of Oar Zarua
 The reason why the Issur bone joins the Heter: Bones of Issur meat is not Treif as they are inedible. Furthermore when a bone falls into a pot of food it absorbs the taste of that food, therefore when an Issur bone falls into Heter since it helps dissipate the flavor of the Issur, it joins the Heter in the nullification process. [Taz 99/1]
 Oar Zarua brought in Shiyurei Dorah
 Shach 99/2
 Shach 99/3; Taz 99/1
The Rama rules that we apply the rule of Chanan by other Issurim by Issur Davuk. This means that if an Issur is attached to a Heter and it then mixes in with Kosher food, we view the entire Heter that was attached to the Issur as actual Issur and hence one requires 60x versus the entire Issur and Heter piece within the Kosher food. The Bach and Perisha hence ask on the Rama why is this case any different. Why are the bones not considered an Issur Davuk to the Issur meat and hence become Chanan, thus requiring 60x also versus the bones?
 Vessels made from bones are able to be Kashered through Hagala, unlike earthenware. [ibid]
Thus neither according to the Mordechaiy brought in Rama 98/5 or the Rashba brought in Michaber 98/5 would the bone become Chanan as it is neither earthenware and is not Ben Yomo. [See Chapter 98]
 Shach 99/1 in name of Riei and Ran
 This is because due their marrow and softness such bones dissipate gravy into the food. [Shach ibid]
 Michaber 99/2
 Michaber 99/1. This applies even according to the stringent opinion in the Rama [Shach 2]
 Rama 99/1, as opposed to Michaber ibid which always allows Issur bones to join the Heter.
 Shach 99/1
 Rama ibid, however according to Michaber they join the Heter.
 Michaber ibid
 Rama ibid
 If however Issur was cooking in a Ben Yomo Issur pot then the food would also require 60x versus the pot. Furthermore even if the pot was Ben Yomo from Kosher foods the Heter would require 60x also versus the pot as when the Issur was cooked inside it the absorbed taste within the pot has become Chanan, as explained in chapter 98/4-5. [See Taz 99/2]
 Michaber 99/3
 Shach 99/4 in name of Rashba and Michaber 106
 Shach 99/5 based on chapter 106
 Rama 98/3; unlike Michaber which rules that the piece which absorbed the Issur joins the Heter to nullify its absorbed taste.
 Michaber 99/4
 Michaber 99/4
 Rashba; Ran brought in Taz 99/4
 Taz 99/4
 Shach 99/6; Taz 99/4
 Brought in Shach and Taz ibid
 As certainly some of the liquid has evaporated and left the pot entirely.
 Taz 99/5
 Brought in Shach ibid and Taz 99/5
 As one only noticed the size of the Issur when removed from the pot, as one never initially places Issur into a pot and hence does not notice its original size.
 Taz 99/6
 99/4 and 6
 Based on Rashal Perek Gid Hanashe 34 brought in Taz 99/4 and Shach 99/6
 Taz 99/4 unlike ruling of Michaber which allows by Min Bemino to measure versus the original Heter.
 Taz 99/5
 Michaber 99/5, 99/6 regarding Rabbinical.
 Michaber 99/5
 Michaber 99/6
 Rashba Toras Habayis 4/3; Tosefos; Ran Perek Gid Hanashe; Rame 57
 Shach 99/7
 Michaber 99/5 and 99/6 regarding Rabbinical Issurim
 Taz 99/7 and 99/9
 Taz 99/7 and 99/9
 Shach 99/11
 Taz 99/10 in name of Rashal Perek Gid Hanashe
 Thus in such a case he is viewed just like those people which were not intended to eat the food in which case the food is permitted for them.
 Peri Megadim 99 M”Z 10
 Shach 99/10 in name of Beis Yosef
 As was explained in the previous Halacha. However based on that which is explained in the Shach, brought in the next footnote, in a case that it was done against the will of the owner perhaps one should fine the perpetrator to disallow him from eating from the mixture as his actions were beneficial. Vetzaruch Iyun.
 It seems from the Shach that the explanation is as follows: There is only a need to fine the perpetrator if without a fine there would be benefit in his actions. Thus since in this case the food is forbidden for those that were intended to eat the food it thus results that the intended benefit of the perpetrator is not met. Hence the Sages in truth fined the perpetrator that his intends would be foiled. Now regarding himself it was never his intent to benefit from the mixture and thus there is no need to fine him from benefiting from it being this was not his intent to begin with.
 Rama 99/5
 Rama 99/5
Other Opinions: The Peri Chadash rules that it is permitted to sell the food to a Jew even if he desires to pay more money for the food than a gentile. [See Peri Megadim 99 S.D. 12]
 So is implied from Rama and so rules Rama in Darkei Moshe 99 in name of Issur Viheter Klal 24
The reason it is permitted to sell to a gentile: As one may even sell Issur itself to a gentile, and certainly he may sell Issur that is mixed with Heter. Hence his actions made no difference in regards to this sale.
 Shach 99/12
Other Opinions: The Issur Viheter seems to rule that one may never sell the mixture to a Jew and thus writes “rather one is to give it to him for free”. The Shach ibid writes that this is not to be taken literally. The Peir Shulchan [99/36] writes that in truth one may never sell it to a Jew as one nevertheless receives satisfaction that he benefited another Jew to eat this Issur food.
 Taz 99/7; Michaber 84/13
 Taz 99/7
 Shach 84/38; Taz 84/18
 Taz ibid
 Michaber 99/5 and 6
 Michaber 99/5
 Michaber 99/6; Rashba; Rashal brought in Taz 99/12
 This follows the opinion of the Rosh;
Although the Rama and Shach all rule that Chanan apply by other Issurim, and hence the discussion in the Rama of whether one is initially allowed to add more Issur seems superfluous, nevertheless there are ramifications such as in cases that the rule of Chanan does not apply. [Such as Yaveish Beyaveish or Lo Nodah Beintayim-See “A Semicha Aid for Learning the Laws of Basar Bechalav” Chapter 94 Halacha 6.]
 Such as Lo Noda Beintayim; or Yaveish Beyaveish, or Lach Belach in a case of great loss. See B below
 Shach 99/17 based on that which he explained in length in his Sefer Haaruch 99
There he explains the difference between a Rabbinical Issur that is sourced in a Biblical precept, and a new Rabbinical Issur. Nevertheless he concludes to be stringent like the Rama in either case.
 Taz 99/12
 Wood that has been cut on Yom Tov is Muktzah. However regular wood that was cut before Yom Tov is not Muktzah as it may be used to fuel a fire.
 And ash is not considered like the body of the Issur.
 Taz 99/12
 Based on Admur Orach Chaim 507/3 in his reasoning for why it is allowed to cook food near the fire even before the wood has become ash.
 In Orach Chaim 677/4 it is ruled that leftover oil of the Chanukah candles Rabbinically may not be used for any other purpose. The Michaber brings a sole opinion which rules that if that oil mixed in with other oil and there was not 60x one may not add more Kosher oil to nullify it. This seemingly contradicts his ruling here 99/6 that one may add Heter to nullify a Rabbinical Issur. [Taz 99/12]
 The Shach questions this answer based on the fact that the source of the stringent opinion brought by the Michaber in 677/4 is the Mahram Miratenburg which is proven to hold like the Rama that one may not add Heter to even Rabbinical Issurim.
 As the oil will become permitted next year by Chanukah.
 The Beir Heiytiv [Yoreh Deah 99/14; Orach Chaim 677/5] and Rav Akiva Eiger ask on this answer of the Magen Avraham that if in truth the oil were a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin then it would never be nullified even in a 1000x while the Michaber suggests that if there were 60x it would be nullified.
 Shach 99/9
Chicken and milk: Vetzaruch Iyun what the law would be according to the Michaber in a case of chicken and milk, of which we apply the rule of Chanan, although it is a case of a Rabbinical Issur.
 See Shach 99/9
 Klal 24
 99/5 based on the understanding of Shach 99/15 here in Rama and so rules the Rama in Toras Chatas Klal 85 and Darkei Moshe.
The Shach interprets the Rama here to mean to say that not only is there a difference between Nodah and Lo Nodah by Chanan mixtures but even by non-Chanan mixtures. The Shach however mentions that perhaps from the fact the Rama in Shulchan Aruch never explicitly states like the Issur Viheter that by Lo Noda the mixture does not become Chanan perhaps he has retracted his ruling from the Darkei Moshe and Toras Chatas.
 Such as one piece of Issur became mixed within one piece of Heter and one added more Heter to the mixture.
 Such as 10 milliliters of cold Issur gravy fell into 500 milliliters of Heter gravy and one added 100 more milliliters of Heter gravy.
 Shach 99/13; However if no great loss is involved then the Rama is stringent to apply Chanan even by a mixture of Lach Belach.
 Issur Viheter Klal 24 brought in Rama ibid
 This is how the Shach explains the Levush, however Tzaruch Iyun Gadol as the Levush [99/6] writes the exact wording of the Rama, and hence why does he interpret the Levush in this manner. [See Peri Megadim 99 S.D. 16]
 That there is a difference in whether Heter was added to the pot after the Issur fell in or not and if whether one knew of the Issur or not before adding Heter.
 And so rules Tur even regarding Basar Bechalav mixtures. See Taz 99/8
 Meaning that when a pot of food is brought to the Rav to Pasken regarding 60x they are not accustomed to inquire whether all the Heter was already in the pot or some of it was added, and if some was added then was it added before or after the Issur was known about. [So explains Shach 99/16] However the Levush explains that the meaning of the Rama’s statement that “this is not the custom” is going on this opinion and not the inquiring of the Rav. The Shach negates this opinion. [Shach ibid]
 Shach 99/16; Taz 99/8 and 11
Other Opinions: The Rashal rules that the Rav must always ask the person who brought the pot if more Heter was added after the Issur already fell in. The Taz 99/11 negates this opinion stating that this is not the custom of Rabbanim.
 Michaber 99/5 and 6
 Michaber 99/5 regarding a Biblical Issur that fell in; Rama 99/6 and Shach 17 regarding even a Rabbinical Issur that fell in. However the Michaber rules that one may add Heter to nullify a mixture of a Rabbinical Issur [99/6], and adding Heter is only forbidden by a Biblical Issur [99/5]
 Michaber 99/5
 Rama 99/5, However according to Michaber the food is permitted to all if done Beshogeg and to everyone else if done Bemeizid.
 Shach 99/15
 Rama ibid
 Second opinion brought in Rama
 Taz 99/8
 See Imrei Taam 118; Mateh Reuvein 223
 See Kaf Hachaim 92/23; 99/63
 Erech Hashulchan 92/6; Koheles Yehuda 92/4 that so is the opinion of the Besi Yosef in chapter 100; see Taz 98/5 that chicken with milk has the same status as meat with milk which is Biblical, and hence, accordingly, it would be forbidden to add food to the mixture.
 The reason: As in their opinion we apply the rule of Chanan by all Basar Bechalav mixtures, even of Rabbinical nature, even according to the Michaber. [ibid]
 Rambam Machalos Assuros 15; Peri Chadash 92/17; Peri Toar 99/11
 The reason: As in their opinion we do not apply the rule of Chanan by any Rabbinical mixture, even of Basar Bechalav. [ibid]
 Kaf Hachaim ibid
 Rama 99/6
 Shach 99/20; Taz 99/13
 Shach 99/20
 Shach 99/21
The Rama [written above] rules that in all cases the first Issur becomes resurrected and combines with the second Issur to require nullification. The Shach proves that in a case of a mixture of Min Bemino which is Yaveish Beyaveish then if one knew that the first Issur fell in before the second Issur fell in not only does the first Issur not join the second Issur but possibly helps nullify it. His reasoning is because an Issur is nullified 1:2 by Yaveish Beyaveish Min Bemino and hence the first Issur has already become Kosher. Practically the Shach concludes that he does not have the courage to be lenient against the Rama and Rashal and other great Poskim to permit the food in this case unless it involves a great loss.
 Taz 99/14
In chapter 94/2 the Rama rules that when a dairy spoon is inserted twice into the same pot of meat one only requires 60x the spoon. The question asked is why here does the Rama rule that when two of the same Issurim fall into Heter do the Issurim combine if there the Rama ruled differently.
 Rama 99/6
 Shach 99/21
 Rama 99/6
 Shach 99/22 in name of Toras Chatas 85
 As the Issur taste within the pot will never be able to give taste to the Heter as it is a 60:1 ratio.
 Vetzaruch Iyun as to why is this not forbidden due to that it is forbidden to initially nullify an Issur?
 99/15; So rules also the Ramban; Ran; Tur; Levush; Bach
 Michaber 99/7
 Taz 99/15