Chapter 8: Taaruvos of Basar Bechalav

This article is an excerpt from our Sefer

Buy me here

Chapter 8: Taaruvos of Basar Bechalav

The laws of forbidden mixtures of meat and milk due to contact with food or vessels of the opposite nature

Introduction:

This chapter will discuss mixtures of meat and milk and in which cases the mixture becomes prohibited. In general, a meat or dairy product becomes prohibited if it carries either the substance of the opposite food [i.e. milk spilled into a cold Chulent], or the taste of the opposite food [i.e. hot meat came into contact with cheese]. Likewise, a meat or dairy vessel becomes prohibited if it absorbs the taste of the opposite food [i.e. milk cooked in meat pot]. Thus, in all cases that a mixture has occurred, whether of meat with milk, or of meat and milk utensils, we must negate both the penetration of substance and the penetration of taste in order for the food or vessel to remain Kosher. There exist various rules and cases under discussion, which will determine the question of transference of substance and taste, and when they pose a Halachic issue.

 

Disclaimer:

The subject of this chapter is one of the most intrigued and complex of all the laws found in Shulchan Aruch, and has thus traditionally been singled out to be studied and ruled on by ordained Rabbis. The reason for this is because there exist many scenarios, and details within scenarios, that have Halachic ramifications and requires a person of deep and broad knowledge to properly analyze. This is in addition to a variety of opinions that often exist on a subject, and at times that exist in several different aspects of the scenario, that requires the arbitration of a Rav. This subject has been dealt with in its full length in our corresponding Sefer “A Semicha Aid for The Laws of Basar Bechalav,” and covers five chapters, and the vast bulk of the laws studied for Rabbinical ordination. Due to the detailed complexity of this subject, the reader should by no means feel qualified to rule on these issues prior to the long and in-depth study of that subject, and his consequent ordination. The purpose of this chapter is to give a general overview, and summarized rulings, of scenarios that have already been discussed in the corresponding book, so one can then utilize this general knowledge to know the cases in which a qualified Rav must be contacted.   

1. General rules-The prohibition of taste and how it is transferred:

The taste of an Issur has the same status as the Issur itself.[1] Hence, if the taste of milk/cheese penetrates into meat [or a meat vessel, or vice versa], it can prohibit the meat, or meat vessel, due to the Biblical prohibition of meat and milk, even if no actual substance of milk has entered the meat. This is called Taam Ki’isur Deoraisa. Nonetheless, there are various questions which require analysis in order to determine the cases in which the taste of milk prohibits the meat, such as: a) Under what circumstances can the taste of one food penetrate another food or vessel? b) How far does the penetration reach into the other food? c) Does having 60x suffice? These questions will be analyzed throughout the coming Halachas.

A. The definition of heat-Yad Soledes:

One of the most fundamental principals in dealing with questions of transference of taste from one food to another is heat. Heat is considered the bridge which allows foods to transfer and absorb taste to and from each other. Without heat, the taste of a food cannot be transferred to another food [with exception to cases of Kavush, as explained in Halacha 1C]. What is defined as heat? In addition to the heat of a fire, other items can also generate heat, such as salt. This will be discussed later on in this chapter. Regarding the temperature of heat of a fire that can create the bridge to transfer taste, the ruling stands that the food or foods must be Yad Soledes.[2] If neither food in the mixture is the heat of Yad Soledes then it is not possible for heat to transfer from one to another. Nonetheless, this does not negate the issue of substance, which can be transferred even without heat, and likewise poses an issue of [Rabbinical] Basar Bechalav [i.e. cold milk spilled into a cold Chulent]. Thus, if the two foods of meat and milk which made contact are not hot to the point of Yad Soledes and there was no transfer of substance [i.e. one washed the meat], then the food remains permitted in all cases.

 

How much is Yad Soledes?[3]

There is no clear definition of Yad Soledes brought in the Talmud or Rishonim.[4] Due to this, in later Poskim we find various opinions regarding the temperature of Yad Soledes. The opinions range between 40-80 Celsius [104-170 Fahrenheit]. Less than 40 Celsius [104 Fahrenheit] is not considered Yad Soledes. Some Poskim say it is no less than 43 Celsius [110 Fahrenheit]. Others say it is no less than 45. Others say it is no less than 52. Above 71 is certainly above Yad Soledes. Practically the generally accepted custom is to consider 110 Fahrenheit as Yad Soledes. In any case of doubt of whether the food is Yad Soledes, one must be stringent as if it were Yad Soledes.[5]

 

B. Keli Rishon, Sheiyni, Shelishi, Iruiy, Nifsak Hakiluach, & Davar Gush:

In addition to the requirement for the food to be Yad Soledes in order to enable the transferring of taste, it must also be of a certain status vessel, such as Keli Rishon. If a food is transferred to a second or third vessel, then it gradually loses its cooking and transferring of taste ability even if it retains its heat of Yad Soledes. Several aspects of this matter are under Halachic debate, such as can a Keli Sheiyni transfer taste [dispute], and does a solid food [i.e. Davar Gush, piece of steak] ever lose its Keli Rishon status [dispute]. Thus, whenever contact between hot meat and milk have taken place, it is imperative to know the status [i.e. Keli Rishon, Sheiyni, Shelishi] of the food, in addition to determining its temperature. The following are the Halachic details:

Iruiy Keli Rishon:[6] Pouring from a Keli Rishon cooks the external layer of a food and transfers taste to it.

Keli Sheiyni: A Keli Sheiyni is hot Yad Soledes food that has been transferred from the pot into a second vessel. Some Poskim[7] rule a Keli Sheiyni cannot transfer taste and hence a Keli Sheiyni is considered like cold food for all Halachic purposes. Other Poskim[8] rule that although a Keli Sheiyni does not have the ability to cook, it nevertheless does have the ability to transfer taste between foods, into the external peel of the food. Other Poskim[9] rule that a Keli Sheiyni has the ability to completely transfer taste into another food, even more than a peels worth. Practically, one is to be stringent unless it involves great loss and a Davar Chashuv.[10] If the Keli Sheiyni is not Yad Soledes, according to all the food remains permitted.

Iruiy Keli Sheiyni, Keli Shelishi, and Revi’i:[11] An Iruiy Keli Sheiyni is hot Yad Soledes Keli Sheiyni food that is being poured. A Keli Shelishi or Revi’i is hot Yad Soledes food that has been transferred from the Keli Sheiyni or Shelishi into a third or fourth vessel. According to the vast majority of Poskim[12], including those who are stringent regarding a Keli Sheiyni, Iruiy Keli Sheiyni, and certainly Keli Shelishi and Revi’i, do not have the ability to cook or transfer taste even if the food is Yad Soledes. However, some Poskim[13] are stringent and rule that any food that is Yad Soledes, even if it is a Keli Shelishi or Revi’i, and even ten vessels later, has ability to transfer taste. Practically, we rule even initially like the former majority opinion, with exception to Chametz on Pesach in which case we are initially stringent unless it is a case of great loss or for the sake of Simchas Yom Tov.[14]

Davar Gush: Some Poskim[15] rule that a solid item which is Yad Soledes retains its Keli Rishon status even if placed in a second or third vessel. Other Poskim[16], however, rule that any food placed in a Keli Sheiyni no longer contains ability to cook or transfer taste. Practically, one is to be stringent like the first opinion, although in a time of great loss, one may be lenient.[17]

Nifsak Hakiluach:[18] If the flow of liquid from the pot was no longer attached to the pot by the time it contacted the second pot, then this is defined as Nifsak Hakiluach. Some Poskim[19] rule that Nifsak Hakiluach of an Iruiy Keli Rishon has the ability to transfer a Kelipa’s worth of taste just like Lo Nifsak Hakiluach. Accordingly, one is required to remove a Kelipa worth from the meat. Other Poskim[20], however, rule that Nifsak Hakiluach of Iruiy Keli Rishon has the same status as a Keli Sheiyni for all matters.

Nitzuk Chibbur:[21] We do not say that a stream connects two foods together. Thus, if one poured from one food to another [i.e. milk to meat] only the food which was poured into enters into question as to its status, while the upper vessel which one poured from is always permitted, even if the bottom was hot [so long as no stem hit the upper food]. This matter will be further discussed in Halachas 23-24.

C. Law of Kavush:[22]

Foods and items that soak for 24 hours have ability to transfer taste. This concept is called Kavush, or pickled. Thus, meat and milk foods and/or vessels that have soaked together in liquids for 24 hours are Rabbinically[23] forbidden due to the transference of taste. This law will be further elaborated on in Halacha 7!

2. General concepts:

A. Measuring 60x:[24]

Whenever milk falls into meat, or vice versa, the mixture is only permitted if the meat contains 60x versus the milk or vice versa. We no longer rely on the tasting of a gentile. This applies for both Sephardim and Ashkenazim.

The source for Shishim [60x]:[25]

The concept that a food can give taste to another food that is up to 59x its amount but does not give taste to a food that is 60x its amount is learned from the verse which requires the ram of the Nazir to be cooked whole. The ram of the Nazir contained an arm which was Kodesh and was thus only Biblically allowed to be eaten by Kohanim. Nevertheless, the Torah says the arm is to be cooked together with the entire ram, even though the rest of the ram will be eaten by the Nazir which may be a Levite or Yisrael. Hence from here we learn the concept of that the taste of Issur becomes nullified in 60x as a ram contains 60x the amount of meat that it has on its arm.

 

Q&A

If milk fell onto poultry or wild animal meat is 60x required?[26]

One requires 60x even by a Rabbinical prohibition. Hence if milk fell onto chicken, poultry, wild animal meat, 60x is required.

 

If milk fell into a hot chicken soup and it does not contain 60x may one add more soup?

No. It is forbidden to add more soup and the entire mixture is forbidden.[27] Some Poskim[28] rule that this applies even according to the Michaber and the Sephardic custom unless it is a case of great loss, great need, or is needed for Kavod Shabbos.

How does one measure 60x?[29]

The measurement is done based on volume and not weight.[30] The measurement is done as follows: One takes the forbidden item and places it into a larger vessel filled to capacity with water. The excess water that spills out of the vessel upon doing so is the volume of the pot. If one has 60x that volume in the volume of the food, the food is Kosher. Alternatively, one can fill a large vessel with water to capacity, then empty it to another vessel and then place the forbidden vessel into it. One then pours the water into the vessel until capacity and whatever water is left is considered the volume of the forbidden vessel.

 

B. The law of Kdei Kelipa:

In certain scenarios of mixtures, a Kelipa [i.e. peel] worth of a food absorbs the taste of the opposite food and becomes forbidden. from a food was introduced. Now, what is the law if a Kelipa cannot be removed, such as if hot meat fell into cold milk, in which case removing a Kelipa is not relevant? Likewise, what is the law if Bedieved one cooked the meat with other foods prior to removing a Kelipa’s worth. Practically, this matter is debated amongst the Rishonim and Poskim.

The dispute if cannot or did not remove: Some Poskim[31] rule that whenever a food requires a Kelipa worth to be removed, it is only initially required, however Bedieved, or in a case that it is not possible to remove a Kelipa worth from the food, such as by liquids, the food is permitted without needing to remove any of its content. This applies even if the liquid does not contain 60x its peels worth. However, other Poskim[32] rule that whenever a Kelipa is required the peel area is viewed as actual non-Kosher, and hence Bedieved, or whenever it is not possible to remove a peels worth, such as by liquids, then the food/liquid must contain 60x against its peel for it to remain Kosher. The following are the details of the various cases and the arbitrations given:

Final arbitration of Achronim:[33] By prohibitions of Basar Bechalav, whenever a Kelipa is required, Bedieved the food remains permitted if a Kelipa cannot be taken [i.e. milk] or if the food was cooked prior to removing the Kelipa. [However, if the Kelipa did not disintegrate during the cooking, then some Poskim[34] rule one is to have 60x the Kelipa in the food, or 60x versus the Issur.]

 

 Q&A

How much is a Kelipa?[35]

A Kelipa refers to the external layer of the food. Whenever the external layer must be removed, the layer must be thick enough to remain a single sliver or slice after removal. Otherwise, there is no measurement to its thinness. [This is opposed to Greida which is less than a Kelipa’s worth and refers to the grating of the external layer of a food.]

C. Hadacha:

In certain scenarios of mixtures, the food remains Kosher, but must be washed off from substance of the opposite food. This is known as Hadacha.

 Q&A

In a case that Hadacha is required, what is the law Bedieved if the food was cooked prior to Hadacha taking place, or if it is not possible to perform Hadacha, such as milk that had a cold piece of meat fall inside?

This follows the same dispute and ruling as a Kelipa: Some Poskim[36] rule the food is forbidden unless it contains 60x [the area of Hadacha]. Other Poskim[37], however, rule the food is permitted Bedieved. Practically, one may be lenient by a Rabbinical prohibition or in a case of great loss.[38]

D. Ben Yomo versus not Ben Yomo:

A major fundament in the laws of foods that have received forbidden taste through the pores of a vessel, is the concept of freshness, or Ben Yomo. One of the central rules in the laws of Taaruvos is that an Issur can only prohibit a food if it gives it a good taste. If, however, its taste is spoiled or damaging to the taste of the food, then it does not prohibit that food even if it contains a ratio of more than 1:60. The Talmudic Sages received that after the passing of 24 hours from when a food becomes absorbed in the pores of a vessel, that food becomes spoiled and can no longer prohibit another food, unless the food is spicy. This is formally known as “not-Ben Yomo.” Throughout this chapter, the subject of Ben Yomo versus not-Ben Yomo will play a pivotal role in the Halachic decisions regarding a food that was cooked in a meat/milk pot or used with a milk/meat vessel.

What is considered Ben Yomo?[39] A utensil which is within 24 hours of being used with hot milk or hot meat of a Keli Rishon is considered Ben Yomo. If, however, it was used with hot meat or milk of a Keli Sheiyni the vessel is not considered Ben Yomo even within 24 hours of its use.[40] [However, some Poskim[41] rule the vessel is considered Ben Yomo even if used with hot milk or meat of a Keli Sheiyni, if the Keli Sheiyni was Yad Soledes. If one knows that a vessel was used with hot meat/dairy within the past 24 hours, but is unsure if it was a Keli Rishon or Keli Sheiyni, then we assume that it was used with a Keli Rishon if it is common to do so, and it is considered Ben Yomo.[42]]

Utensil was used with a Pareve food within 24 hours of milk/meat:[43] By a Kosher meat or milk vessel, once 24 hours has passed from the vessels original use with hot milk or meat, it is no longer considered Ben Yomo even if it was used with hot Pareve foods within those 24 hours.[44] This applies even if the Pareve food was Charif, such as if one cooked onions in the pot within 24 hours of cooking meat, nevertheless after 24 hours from the original meat use, the pot is no longer Ben Yomo.[45] that after 24 hours it is never considered Ben Yomo.

Inserted utensil in a Keli Rishon of meat/milk that’s not Yad Soledes:[46] If a Keli Rishon is not Yad Soledes and is not on the fire, the utensil inserted into it is not considered Ben Yomo.[47] If the Keli Rishon is on the fire, some Poskim[48] rule one is to be stringent to nevertheless consider the utensil Ben Yom even if the food was not Yad Soledes. Thus, if one inserted a utensil into a meat or milk Keli Rishon which is not Yad Soledes that is on the fire, one is to be stringent to nevertheless consider the utensil Ben Yom. Other Poskim[49], however, rule a utensil can never be considered Ben Yomo if the food was not Yad Soledes, even if the pot is on the fire. Practically, the main opinion follows those who are lenient and rule a utensil cannot become Ben Yomo unless the food in the Keli Rishon was Yad Soledes.

If one spilled hot Keli Rishon water onto a vessel which contained meat/milk:[50] If one spilled hot Keli Rishon water onto a spoon which contained milk/meat, the spoon is considered Ben Yomo even if the milk/meat was cold, as Iruiy Keli Rishon has ability to cook and absorb. [This, however, is with exception to if the stream of water was not attached to its source by the time it hit the utensil (Nifsak Hakiluach) in which case we rule the spoon remains not Ben Yomo.[51]]

A pot which had cold milk stored in it for 24 hours?[52] A vessel which stored milk for 24 hours is considered Ben Yomo until it is cleaned of its milk and 24 hours have passed. [However, some Poskim[53] rule the pot is not considered Ben Yomo if milk soaked in it for 24 hours, and hence the meat is permitted. Practically, one may be lenient in a time of great loss.[54] However, according to Admur[55], seemingly the food is forbidden even in such a case.]

 Q&A

Does food become not Ben Yomo after 24 hours?[56]

Ø  If a potato from a chicken soup fell into a pot of milk 24 hours after it was cooked in the chicken soup, what is the law of the milk?

No. The concept of an absorbed taste spoiling after 24 hours and becoming not Ben Yomo is only relevant to a vessel which has absorbed a taste. However, a food that absorbed a taste retains a fresh taste even after 24 hours, so long as the food is edible. Thus, in the above example, the food requires 60x versus the potato.

Is the 24 hours [i.e. Ben Yomo] measured from the last time the meat was cooked or from when it was cleaned from the meat?[57]

Ø  Example: One cooked milk in a dairy pot at 12:00 pm and the milk remained in the pot overnight. At 9:00 am the next morning one removed the milk from the pot and washed it. At 2:30 pm one cooked meat inside. Is the pot considered Ben Yomo?

The pot is not considered Ben Yomo, as we follow the last time that hot Keli Rishon milk was in the pot, and being that 24 hours have passed since the milk had cooled off, therefore the pot is considered not-Ben Yomo even though its milk was removed only hours ago. Accordingly, in the above case the meat is permitted while the pot is forbidden. [If, however the milk remained in the pot for 24 hours, then it is considered Ben Yomo until it is removed, and 24 hours have passed.]

What is one to do if in middle of cooking meat, one realized the pot is dairy but not Ben Yomo?[58]

One is to immediately remove the meat from the pot and he may then continue cooking it in a meat pot.

Cases of cold food mixtures [Halachas 3-10]

3. Cold meat which came into contact with cold cheese:[59]

If cold meat and cold cheese come in contact with each other, their area of contact requires washing [if one of the pieces are moist]. [There is no need to scrub the pieces and a mere rinse suffices.[60] If, however, both the cheese and meat were dry then one is not required to wash them at all (if they appear clean).[61] Some Poskim[62], however, conclude that by fat meat one is always required to wash the pieces even if they appear dry, as the fatness makes it moist. Furthermore, one is to always suspect that even dry cheese can leave small crumbs on the meat, and therefore one is to always wash the meat in all cases.[63] This same law applies to all cold Issur and Heter which touch each other, unless one of the foods are Charif, in which case Hadacha is required even if both foods are dry.[64]]

May one Lechatchilah allow meat and cheese to contact each other?[65] If one of the foods is wet, then it is initially forbidden to allow them to contact each other.[66] However, if one is accustomed to wash the foods [i.e. both the cheese and meat] before eating them, then it is permitted even initially to allow them to contact each other.[67] If both the cheese and meat are dry, then contact is allowed even initially, as they do not require washing.[68]

Wrapping them together: It is permitted to wrap meat and cheese together in the same towel in a way that they will not come into contact with each other.

 Q&A

May one place meat and dairy groceries inside the same bag?

Yes, so long as the meat and dairy are within a separate wrapping and will not drip into each other.

4. Bread and other Pareve foods which touched meat or milk:[69]

One is to beware that bread does not come into contact with meat[70] or cheese [if he plans to eat the bread during other meals[71]]. If the bread came into contact with cheese or meat [that is moist[72]] then it is forbidden to eat it with the opposite food [i.e. if came in contact with meat do not eat the bread with dairy, and if it came in contact with cheese then do not eat the bread with meat].[73] [One is hence to make a sign on the bread to indicate its meat or dairy status.[74] However, if one washes the bread after it contacts the meat or cheese, then some Poskim[75] rule that it is permitted to be eaten with the opposite food. Alternatively, one can remove a peels worth of the bread from the area of contact.[76] The above, only applies if the bread and meat or cheese are moist. If, however, both the cheese or meat and bread are dry it is permitted to eat the bread with the opposite food even without washing the bread in between.[77] However, some Poskim[78] rule that regarding cheese, if it comes in contact with bread, the bread always becomes dairy even if the cheese and bread were dry.]

Q&A

If meat gravy spilled on a loaf of bread, may it be used to eat with dairy?[79]

No. It does not suffice to wash or even peel the bread in such a case.

 

May one place vegetables in the same bag as meat, poultry, or cheese?

If one is accustomed to wash the vegetables prior to their use, he may do so even if the vegetables will come in direct contact with the meat or cheese. If one is not always accustomed to wash the vegetables, then one may not initially do so if he plans to use the vegetables for the opposite foods [i.e. don’t place tomatoes in a bag with dripping meat if you plan on using the tomatoes for pizza].

 

May one place pastries in the same bag as meat or cheese?

One may not place pastries in the same bag as meat or cheese if they will come in direct contact with each other, as it is not common to wash pastries and one may come to eat the pastries with the opposite food. This applies even if one plans to rinse the pastries prior to eating them.

5. Cold meat fell into cold milk:

A. Cold raw meat fell into cold milk:

Cold raw meat without slits or spices:[80] If cold, raw, unsalted, un-spiced and un-slit, meat fell into cold milk, the meat and milk remain permitted. The meat requires a mere rinsing.

Cold raw meat with slits or spices: If cold, raw, unsalted, meat that is spiced or slit, fell into cold milk, some Poskim[81] rule the meat and milk remain permitted. Other Poskim[82], however, rule that if the meat has slits or is spiced [to the point of inedibility[83]], the meat is forbidden. Practically, one may be lenient in a case of great loss or time of need.[84]

 

B. Cold cooked meat fell into cold milk:

Cold cooked meat without slits or spices: If cold, roasted [cooked, or baked[85]], unsalted, meat that is not spiced or slit, fell into cold milk, some Poskim[86] rule the meat and milk remain permitted. Other Poskim[87], however, rule that the meat requires a peel worth to be removed from it.[88] Practically, one is to be stringent unless the case involves a great loss.[89]

Cold cooked meat with slits or spices: If cold, roasted [cooked, or baked[90]], unsalted, meat that is spiced [to the point of inedibility[91]], or slit, fell into cold milk, some Poskim[92] rule the meat and milk remain permitted. Other Poskim[93], however, rule that the entire meat is forbidden unless it involves a great loss. Other Poskim[94], however, rule that the entire meat is forbidden even in a case of great loss.[95] Practically, one is to follow the latter opinion.[96]

Summary:

If meat or poultry which is spiced or contains slits falls into milk, the meat is forbidden while the milk is permitted. This applies even if the meat is raw and cold.  In a case of great loss, however, one may be lenient to permit the meat, if the meat is raw. If the meat is cooked and is slit or spiced, then even if it is now cold, the meat is forbidden even in a case of great loss. If the meat is not spiced and does not contain slits then if it is raw, the meat requires a mere rinsing, while if the meat is cooked, it requires a Kelipa to be removed even if it was cold.

 

Q&A

What is the definition of a spice?[97]

A spice is considered anything that makes the meat taste sharp, such as onions and garlic.

 

What is the law if milk spilled onto chicken in one’s fridge?

Did not soak for 24 hours: If milk spilled onto chicken in one’s fridge, some Poskim[98] rule the chicken is Kosher even if it was cooked, slit and spiced.[99] One is to wash the chicken and eat it cold without warming it up.[100]

Soaked for 24 hours:[101] If the spillage of milk was only discovered 24 hours later, and the chicken hence soaked for 24 hours with the milk, then everything is forbidden unless sit contains 60x.

6. Salted meat and cheese contacted each other?[102]

A. The cases:

Moist and salted meat and cheese: If moist meat and cheese touch each other and one of the pieces has been salted to the point that it is considered hot, then some Poskim[103] rule that both the meat and cheese are forbidden unless there is 60x against one of the pieces. There is no ramification in this ruling regarding which piece is salted[104], or whether the foods are lean or fatty[105], or whether the salted piece is on top and or on bottom.[106] Other Poskim[107], however, rule that if only one food is salted, then only the unsalted food is forbidden while the salted food remains permitted [unless the unsalted food is a liquid[108]]. Furthermore, even if both foods are salted, they are only forbidden a peels worth, unless one of them are fatty.[109] Furthermore, even if one of the foods are fatty, the entire food only becomes prohibited if the salted food is on bottom.[110] Even then, if the other food is not salted, the salted food remains permitted.[111] Practically, in a case of [great[112]] loss one can be lenient to permit the salted piece, if the other piece is not salted [and is not a liquid].[113] [Furthermore, some are lenient even if the case does not involve a great loss.[114]] Likewise, in a case of great loss, one may be lenient to only remove a Kelipa if one knows the foods are lean and not fatty, even if both are moist and salted.[115]

Dry and salted meat and cheese:[116] If the salted meat and cheese are both completely dry, then it suffices to merely wash off the meat and cheese.[117] If one of the foods is completely dry while the other is moist, then some Poskim[118] rule everything remains permitted even if both foods are salted. Other Poskim[119], however, rule that the completely dry food becomes forbidden while the salted moist food remains permitted. Practically, one may be lenient in a case of great loss to simply wash the meat well.[120]

Salted meat falls into milk: If salted meat falls into [even unsalted] milk, everything is forbidden even in a case of great loss[121], unless the meat and milk are both lean, in which case one may be lenient to merely remove a Kelipa in a case of great loss.[122]

Unsalted meat falls into salted milk: If unsalted[123] meat falls into salted milk, some Poskim[124] rule that the meat is forbidden while the milk is permitted. Other Poskim[125], however, rule that both the meat and milk are completely forbidden. [In a case of great loss one may be lenient to merely remove a Kelipa from the meat if both the meat and milk are lean.[126]]

Final summary:

If salted meat or cheese touch each other, and both are moist, everything is forbidden unless it is a case of great loss, in which case certain leniencies apply. If both pieces are completely dry, everything remains permitted and a mere rinsing suffices.

 

B. Definition of hot regarding salt:

A salted food [i.e. meat or cheese] is considered hot under certain conditions:

How much salt: Some Poskim[127] rule it is only considered hot if it was salted to the point of inedibility. Other Poskim[128] rule it is considered hot even if it still remains edible. Practically, it is proper to be stringent like the latter opinion. However, in a case of great loss one may be lenient to consider the food as cold if the food was not salted to the point of inedibility.[129]

How much time: Some Poskim[130] rule the salted food is only considered hot within 18 minutes from the salting. Other Poskim[131] rule the salted food is only considered hot after 18 minutes from the salting. Other Poskim[132] rule the salted food is always considered hot, both within 18 minutes and after 18 minutes. According to all opinions, once the food is rinsed it is no longer considered hot. Practically, we rule like the latter opinion that it is always considered hot, even after 18 minutes, and we are not lenient even in a case of great loss.[133] However, if the meat is being currently salted to extract its blood, then after 18 minutes, one may be lenient in a case of great loss and Seudas Mitzvah.[134]

 Summary [Ashkenazim]:

Salted meat or cheese that has not been rinsed is considered hot even if it was only slightly salted, whether within 18 minutes or passed 18 minutes. However, in a case of great loss, one may be lenient if the meat was not salted to the point of inedibility.

7. Law of Kavush-Soaking:[135]

Soaked in water 24 hours: If meat soaked in milk for 24 hours the entire mixture is forbidden, unless there is 60x in one food versus the other. If meat and cheese soaked in liquid for 24 hours, the entire mixture is forbidden unless there is 60x versus one of the foods, in which case the food that does not contain 60x is forbidden. If one is unsure whether the meat and milk remained together for 24 hours they are both permitted.[136]

Soaked in brine:[137] If meat and cheese soaked together within vinegar for Shiur Kevisha [18 minutes[138]] they are both forbidden to be eaten. [Some Poskim[139], however, are lenient regarding vinegar that it requires 24 hours. If it soaked for less than 18 minutes, then although it is forbidden to cook the meat or cheese, it remains permitted to be eaten.[140] If they remained together in salt water, then if they remained together for less than 18 minutes, it has the same status as meat and cheese which was salted together.[141] If they remained together for more than 18 minutes, everything is forbidden.]

A Rabbinical prohibition-Benefit:[142] In all cases that meat and milk become prohibited due to Kevisha, it [is only a Rabbinical prohibition and hence] remains permitted in benefit.[143]

A pot which had cold milk stored in it for 24 hours?[144] A vessel which stored milk for 24 hours is considered Ben Yomo until it is cleaned of its milk and 24 hours have passed. Thus, if one cooked meat in the vessel, the meat and vessel is [Biblically[145]] forbidden unless the meat contains 60x. in which case only the vessel is forbidden. [However, some Poskim[146] rule the pot is not considered Ben Yomo if milk soaked in it for 24 hours, and hence the meat is permitted. Practically, one may be lenient in a time of great loss.[147] However, according to Admur[148], seemingly the food is forbidden even in such a case.]

 Q&A

What is the law if milk was placed in a meat container?[149]

If milk was placed in a meat container and remained there consecutively for 24 hours, the milk is Kosher while the container must be Koshered.

What is the law if chicken soup was placed in a dairy container?

If hot soup was poured directly from the pot onto a dairy container, the soup remains Kosher while the container must be Koshered. Even if the soup was cold when placed into the container, if the soup remained in the container for consecutively 24 hours, the soup is Kosher while the container must be Koshered.

What is the law if a bag of frozen milk soaked in water for 24 hours together with meat?

This matter requires further analysis.

What is the law if milk dripped on a piece of meat and remained on it for 24 hours?

This matter requires further analysis.

8. Leather canteen used to store milk:[150]

If one salted and tanned an animal stomach [or intestines[151]] until it has dried out, and then formed a canteen from the leather and used it to store milk, the milk is permitted.[152] [This applies whether the skin came from a Kosher or non-Kosher animal.] Nevertheless, one is initially to avoid using it to store milk [if the skin has not been properly tanned[153]].[154] [Practically, the custom in many places is not to initially purchase milk or cheese that is stored in a leather canteen, if the inner part of the canteen is the interior side of the skin of the animal. If, however, the inner part of the canteen is made from the exterior side of the skin of the animal [i.e. the side that grows the hair], then people purchase the dairy products even initially.[155] However, in Bagdad the custom is to purchase the milk in all cases, as they consider the canteens to be tanned, thus having lost any resemblance of skin or meat.[156] It is permitted even initially to store other items in the leather canteens, such as honey and oil.[157]]

9. Catalysts:[158]

It is initially forbidden to use a piece of the stomach as a catalyst in milk in order to make cheese, [as the stomach is considered actual meat, and it is initially forbidden to nullify an Issur]. If a Kosher stomach was used to catalyze milk into cheese, one requires 60x[159] the stomach in the milk for the cheese to be Kosher.[160]  If a non-Kosher stomach was used to catalyze milk into cheese, then the cheese is forbidden in all cases.[161] If both a Kosher and non-kosher catalyst were used, then if there is 60x in the milk versus the non-Kosher catalyst, and the non-Kosher catalyst is not potent enough to coagulate the milk into cheese on its own, then it remains Kosher.[162]

10. Cold meat or cheese which was used with an opposite type plate or spoon:[163]

One is to initially avoid eating cold meat with dairy utensils, or cold cheese with meat utensils, even on occasion, even if the plate is clean and one plans on washing it after its use.[164] However, Bedieved, in all cases that the plate was clean the food remains permitted, and the vessel is to be washed.[165] 

Cases of hot food mixtures [Halachas 11-20]

11. Tatah Gavar: The law if hot meat and dairy contact each other:[166]

A. Bottom is hot:[167]

Whenever meat and milk [or cheese[168]] fall onto each other, and the bottom food is hot [to the point of Yad Soledes, even if it is not in the fire[169]], both the meat and milk/cheese are forbidden [unless one has 60x versus the other, in which case the food which contains 60x is permitted].[170] [This is because the heat of the bottom food dominates the upper food [Tatah Gavar] and thus transfers heat and taste throughout its entire mass[171]. This heat likewise causes the upper piece to transfer its taste into the lower piece throughout its entire mass, thus completely prohibiting both pieces unless one has 60x over the other, in which case that piece would be permitted. This law applies whether the upper piece is cold or hot, and whether hot bottom food is the meat or the cheese, and hence in all cases that the bottom food is hot, everything becomes prohibited irreverent of other factors.]

  • Example 1: If a drop of cold milk falls onto a piece of hot meat, the meat is forbidden unless it contains 60x.
  • Example 2: If cold meat falls into hot milk, the meat and milk are forbidden, unless the milk contains 60x the meat, in which case only the meat is forbidden.

Keli Sheiyni: The above law only applies if the hot piece was the status of a Keli Rishon when the other piece contacted it [i.e. one removed a pan of hot baked meat or chicken from the oven and cheese fell onto a piece that was in the pan]. If, however, the hot piece was placed in a Keli Sheiyni [i.e. one placed a piece of hot chicken on his plate and a piece of cheese then fell on top of it] then this enters into the dispute regarding a Davar Gush and as to whether it still retains its Keli Rishon status[172], as well as the dispute of the power of a Keli Sheiyni to transfer taste.[173] [Practically, there is no clear arbitration in these disputes, and a Rav is to be contacted.]

Example 3: Cheese fell onto hot meat:[174]

Michaber/Sephardim: Some Poskim[175] rule that [according to the Michaber] if even moist cheese fell onto hot meatloaf, the meatloaf only requires a Kelipa removed [while the cheese requires a Netila[176]].[177] Other Poskim[178], however, rule both the meat and cheese require Netila, as is the general rule of Tatah Gavar. [According to all, if the meat was fatty, then the both foods are completely forbidden unless one of them, contain 60x and even in such a case, one must remove a Netila’s worth from the food.[179]]

Rama/Ashkenazim:[180] According to the Rama, both the meat and cheese are completely forbidden. [Practically, Ashkenazim may be lenient in a case of great loss [to remove Netila] if the meat is not fatty.[181]]

B. Bottom is cold, and top is hot:[182]

Whenever meat and cheese fall onto each other, and the bottom piece is cold[183] while the top is hot [to the point of Yad Soledes], both the meat and cheese are to have a peels worth removed [“Kdei Kelipa”; See Halacha 2B for definition] from their area of contact and the remaining meat and cheese is permitted. [This is because the coldness of the bottom food dominates the upper hot food [Tatah Gavar] and thus cools it off prior to it having the ability to transfer taste. Nevertheless, until the bottom food is able to cool off the top food, the heat of the top food is able to transfer and absorb taste into a peel’s worth of the area of contact, and this peel hence must be removed.[184] Some Poskim[185] rule that this requirement to remove a peels worth is a mere Rabbinical stringency and is not of Biblical status. ]

  • Example 1: If a drop of hot milk falls onto a piece of cold meat the meat must have a peels worth removed from its area of contact. [If, however, Nifsak Hakiluach then it is disputed if a peels worth must be removed, as will be explained below.]
  • Example 2:[186] If hot meat [that is not spiced or slit] falls into cold milk, the meat must have a peel worth removed from its area of contact. [This applies even if “Nifsak Hakiluach”.[187]] Regarding the law of the milk-See Halacha 6! Regarding hot meat that is sliced or spiced-See Halacha 8!

Keli Sheiyni: If the bottom piece was cold and the top piece was a hot Keli Sheiyni, see Halacha A for a dispute in this matter and as to whether it is considered hot or cold.

Nifsak Hakiluach:[188] If hot milk spilled onto cold meat and by the time the stream of milk hit the meat it was no longer attached to its main vessel, it is disputed amongst the Poskim as to whether it contains the status of a Keli Rishon or Keli Sheiyni, and as to whether a Kelipa is required. Some Poskim[189] rule that Nifsak Hakiluach of an Iruiy Keli Rishon has the ability to transfer a Kelipas worth of taste just like Lo Nifsak Hakiluach. Accordingly, one is required to remove a Kelipa worth from the meat. Other Poskim[190], however, rule that Nifsak Hakiluach of Iruiy Keli Rishon has the same status as a Keli Sheiyni for all matters. Accordingly, one is not required to remove even a Kelipas worth from the meat [according to those who rule a Keli Sheiyni does not transfer taste].

 Q&A

What is the law if the top piece is hot from a Keli Rishon while the bottom piece is hot from a Keli Sheiyni/Shelishi?

See our corresponding Sefer “A Semicha Aid for the Laws of Basar Bechalav” Chapter 91 Halacha 5 in Q&A!

What is the law if there are three pieces and the bottom piece is hot while the middle and top piece is cold [i.e. two slices of cheese fell on top of hot meat]?

See our corresponding Sefer “A Semicha Aid for the Laws of Basar Bechalav” Chapter 91 Halacha 5 in Q&A!

What is the law if there are three pieces and the bottom and top piece are cold while the middle piece is hot [i.e. hot meat was placed in between two slices of cold cheese]?

See our corresponding Sefer “A Semicha Aid for the Laws of Basar Bechalav” Chapter 91 Halacha 5 in Q&A!

What is the law if a cold piece fell on top of another cold piece that is currently on the fire?

So long as the bottom piece has not yet reached the temperature of Yad Soledes, it is considered cold even if it is sitting in a pot over the fire, and hence everything remains permitted.

What is the law if a hot piece fell on top of a cold piece that is currently on the fire?[191]

See our corresponding Sefer “A Semicha Aid for the Laws of Basar Bechalav” Chapter 91 Halacha 5 in Q&A!

 

C. The two pieces contacted each other side by side:[192]

If the meat and cheese contacted each other side by side rather than one on top of the other, then if both the meat and cheese are hot and are defined as a Keli Rishon then everything is forbidden unless one of the foods contains 60x the other.[193] [If, however, only one of the foods is hot due to a Keli Rishon, then some Poskim[194] rule merely a Kelipa is to be removed from the area of contact of both[195] the meat and cheese. However, other Poskim[196] rule that the entire cold piece is forbidden while the hot piece requires the removal of a Kelipa from the area of contact.]

12. Hot roasted meat fell into cold milk:[197]

The meat is not spiced or slit:[198] If a hot piece of roasted [or cooked or baked[199]] meat which is not spiced and does not contain slits falls into milk, a Kelipa is required to be removed from the meat.[200] [The milk remains completely permitted, as explained in Halacha 6.]

The meat is spiced or has slits:[201] If a hot piece of roasted [or cooked or baked[202]] meat which contains slits, or is spiced [to the point of inedibility[203]], fell into cold milk, the meat is completely forbidden. [However, the milk itself only requires a Kelipa and is thus entirely Kosher[204]. According to the Rama[205] even if the roast is now cold, the meat is forbidden, as explained in Halacha 7.]

Q&A

If the spiced or slit meat contains 60x the milk that it fell into, is the meat permitted?[206]

If it contains 60x the milk that it fell into, then if it was spiced and not slit, the meat is permitted. If, however, the meat was slit, then the meat is forbidden even with 60x.[207]

13. The law if milk fell into a hot stew:

A. Fell into the gravy:

If milk falls into the gravy of a meat stew some Poskim[208] rule one is to mix the pot prior to measuring the 60x. Other Poskim[209] rule it is unnecessary. Practically, according to the Sephardim, initially one is to always mix the pot well after a drop of milk has fallen inside.[210] However, Bedieved, if one did not mix the pot, it remains permitted so long as there is 60x. According to Ashkenazim, mixing is not necessary unless the gravy is very thick[211], or there are pieces protruding from the gravy and one needs them for the joining of 60x, in which case the pot is to be mixed right away.[212]

 

B. Fell onto a known piece of meat or food that is sticking out of the gravy:

Mixed or covered right away:[213] If milk fell onto a piece of meat [or other food[214]] that is protruding from the gravy of a stew [whether fully or partially], then if one mixed the meat/food into the rest of the food in the pot right away, or covered the pot right away, one requires 60x in the entire pot versus the drop of milk. There is no need to continue stirring or covering the stew until the end of the cooking, and a single stir or covering suffices.[215] [However, those who follow the Sephardic ruling[216], are to stir the stew right away several[217] times, until they assess that the milk has dissipated and nullified. Likewise, if one covers the pot right away, it is to be covered until this point.[218]] Based on the above, we learn that in the event that milk has accidently fallen into a meat stew or soup, or other meat dish, the immediate proper Halachic reaction is to cover or stir the pot right away, thus having the entire pot join in its nullification, and avoid all the long debate and complications regarding one who did not do so, as explained next.

Mixed or covered later on-Partially submerged piece: If the milk fell onto a partially submerged meat/food and one did not mix or cover the pot right away, but did mix it into the rest of the food later on, or covered the pot later on prior to removing it, then if this piece of meat/food does not contain 60x versus the milk that fell on it, then some Poskim[219] rule one requires 60x in the entire pot versus the entire piece of meat/food and even so the piece of meat/food remains forbidden. Other Poskim[220], however, rule the pot simply requires 60x versus the milk, in which case everything in the pot, including the individual piece of food, remains permitted. Practically, [by a Biblical prohibition] we rule like the former opinion, and hence the pot requires 60x versus the piece.[221] [However, by a Rabbinical prohibition, such as chicken and milk, one may be lenient like the latter opinion.[222]]

Mixed or covered later on-Completely above gravy:[223] If milk fell onto a piece of meat [or other food] that is sitting on top of a partially submerged food, and is hence completely above the gravy, then if one did not mix or cover the pot right away, but did mix the pot, or cover it, later on prior to removing the piece of meat/food onto which the milk fell, then if the piece did not have 60x versus the milk that fell on it and hence became forbidden, one requires 60x in the entire pot versus that entire piece of meat/food. Furthermore, even if there is 60x in the pot versus that piece, the piece itself remains forbidden. [If after the milk fell onto the food, the food fell into the gravy, it is considered as if one mixed it into the pot, and the above ruling applies.] This applies according to all opinions, and applies by both Biblical and Rabbinical forms of Basar Bechalav.

Removed before mixing or covering-Partially submerged piece: If the milk fell onto a partially submerged meat/food and one removed the partially submerged meat/food that had milk fall on it, from the pot, prior to mixing the pot or covering it, then some Poskim[224] rule that the removed meat/food requires 60x versus the milk [although the remaining food remains Kosher in all cases[225]]. Other Poskim[226] rule that the entire pot requires 60x the milk, and if this is attained then everything remains Kosher, including the individual food that received the milk. Other Poskim[227] rule that the individual piece requires 60x the milk, and if it does not have 60x the milk, then the entire pot requires 60x that food. Practically, we suspect for the first two opinions, and hence [by a Biblical prohibition] both the food and pot need 60x versus the milk, although the pot does not require 60x the piece.[228] [However, by a Rabbinical prohibition, such as chicken and milk, one may be lenient like the second opinion, that if there is 60x in the entire food versus the milk, everything remains Kosher.[229]]

Removed before mixing or covering-Completely above the gravy:[230] If milk fell onto a piece of meat [or other food] that is completely above the gravy, then if one removed the piece onto which the milk fell prior to mixing the pot, or covering it, then the piece requires 60x versus the milk, in which case everything is permitted. If the piece does not have 60x the milk, then it is forbidden and every piece of meat or food in the hot stew which came into contact with it, requires 60x.[231]

C. Fell onto an unknown piece of meat or food that is sticking out of the gravy:

Mixed or covered right away: If milk fell onto a piece of meat [or other food[232], that is protruding from the gravy whether fully or partially] and one does not know onto which piece it fell, then if one mixed the meat/food into the rest of the food in the pot right away, or covered the pot right away, one requires 60x in the entire pot versus the drop of milk, in which case everything is permitted.

Mixed or covered later on: If one did not mix it right away, but did mix or cover it later on, then some Poskim[233] rule that one now requires 60x versus the largest questionable piece, and even so, all the questionable Charal[234] pieces of meat remain forbidden even if there is 60x.[235] Other Poskim[236], however rule that nevertheless the pot only requires 60x versus the milk, just like if he would have mixed it right away.[237] Practically, we rule like the former opinion that the entire pot requires 60x the largest questionable piece.[238] Accordingly, if one did not mix or cover the pot right away, all the questionable foods are to be immediately removed from the pot.

The law of the remaining food if one removed the Issur before mixing or covering: If one removed all the questionable foods prior to mixing or covering the hot pot, then if amongst the questionable foods there were foods that were partially submerged within the gravy, one requires 60x in the food versus the milk. If all the questionable foods were above the gravy, then the food remains permitted even without 60x [although all foods that touched the questionable foods are forbidden].

 

Summary:

If milk fell into a pot of meat and the pot was immediately mixed or covered, then the entire pot is Kosher if it contains 60x the drop. This applies whether the drop fell into the gravy or onto a protruding piece of food. If one did not immediately mix it or cover it, then if the milk fell into the gravy one requires 60x in the pot versus the milk. If it fell onto a piece of food which is partially in the gravy, then if the piece has 60x the milk, everything is Kosher. If the piece does not have 60x the milk, the piece is forbidden and one is to measure 60x in the pot versus the milk. If the piece was mixed in, or had the pot covered, prior to being removed, then the entire pot requires 60x the piece. [However, by a Rabbinical prohibition, such as chicken and milk, one may be lenient to always measure 60x in the food versus the milk, in which case everything is permitted.]

 

Q&A on Bitul in 60x

What is the law if one is unsure if the drop fell in the gravy or on the piece of meat?[239]

This matter requires further analysis.

 

Cases of external hot contact between a food and vessel [Halachas 14-18]

14. Milk fell on the outside wall of a pot of meat:[240]

In this Halacha, we will discuss the law in a case that a drop of milk has fallen onto the outside of a hot pot of meat that is or was on the fire. Based on the ruling of Tatah Gavar, being that the meat pot is hot, it is possible that the taste of the milk will enter into the food.[241] Thus, the general discussion in this Halacha is with regards to how the milk travels in such a case. Does the milk penetrate through the metal of the pot into the food, hence potentially forbidding it if it does not contain 60x? Does it stay locked in the metal of the pot and not travel into the food? Can it prohibit other foods cooked in this pot? Practically, we will explore various cases and scenarios, which contain a variety of opinions and accustomed stringencies. The main difference in cases is regarding if the milk fell on a covered pot, or directly near the fire [Halacha A] versus if it fell on an uncovered pot in an area that is not near the fire [Halacha B-C]. If the latter, then the Halacha is dependent on if it fell onto a lower area of the pot that contains food on that level, in its inner side [Halacha B], or if it fell on a higher area of the pot, that is above the food level in the pot [Halacha C].

Yad Soledes:[242] In all cases under discussion, it refers to a drop of milk that fell onto an area of the pot that is Yad Soledes, otherwise everything remains permitted in all cases.   

Drying the milk:[243]  In all cases, one is to dry the drop of milk as soon as it falls.

          

A. The milk fell on a pot which is on the fire or is covered:

Pot on fire:[244] If a small drop of milk fell by the side of a pot of meat which is on the fire[245], then the food is permitted [even if it does not contain 60x versus the milk[246]], as the fire evaporates the drop prior to it having a chance to spread into the food. This applies whether the drop fell by food level or above food level. Furthermore, even the pot itself remains permitted.[247] [For this reason, it is permitted for the food to be poured out even immediately after the occurrence. However, some Poskim[248] rule the pot itself is initially forbidden and must be Koshered, and only Bedieved do we say that food cooked in it prior to Koshering remains permitted.] The above only applies if a small drop of milk fell on the pot. If, however, a large amount of milk fell onto the pot, then it makes no difference whether that area was near the fire or not, and the pot itself is forbidden, and carries all the laws explained in cases B-C regarding the status of the pot and food. [Likewise, the above only applies if the fire was strong enough to burn the drop of milk that fell on it, otherwise it follows the same laws explained in B-C.[249] In all cases, one is to dry the drop of milk as soon as it falls, even if it falls near the fire and will become evaporated.[250]]

Pot was covered:[251] If a drop of milk fell by the side of a hot pot of meat, and the pot was covered [at the time, or immediately after the occurrence[252]], then the food is permitted if it contains 60x the drop.[253] This applies whether the drop fell by food level or above food level, as either way, the steam has caused the milk to penetrate into the food. [This, however, only applies if the pot was hot enough to release steam, otherwise, it follows the same laws explained in B-C. Furthermore, in all cases, the pot itself remains forbidden, following the same laws explained in cases B-C.[254] Based on the above, in all cases that the drop fell above food level and the pot was uncovered, one should immediately cover the pot in order to nullify the drop and permit the food, hence avoiding entering into the nuances of cases B-C.]

                                        

B. The drop fell within food level [by area not near fire]:[255]

If a drop of milk [whether hot or cold[256]] fell onto the external wall of a pot of meat [in an area of the pot that is not directly under the fire[257]], within food level, it is considered as if it fell within the food itself, and thus the food requires 60x versus the drop of milk.[258] If it contains 60x the drop, the food is permitted.

The law of the pot:[259] In all cases, the actual pot remains forbidden even if the food in the pot  had 60x versus the drop of milk.[260] [Other Poskim[261], however, rule that if there is 60x versus the milk within the food, then from the letter of the law, the pot remains Kosher.[262] Nevertheless, even they agree that initially one may not continue cooking meat in the pot without Koshering it.[263] The practical ramification is in a case that one cooked meat in the pot while it was still Ben Yomo, prior to Koshering it. According to the former approach, if one did not Kosher the pot and cooked meat within the pot while it was still Ben Yomo, then the food requires 60x versus the drop.[264] Practically, one may be lenient in a time of great loss or great need to permit the food even if it does not have 60x the drop.[265] The above, however, only applies if the original food had 60x versus the drop of milk. If, however, the original food did not have 60x versus the milk, then according to all opinions the pot becomes Treif, and any food cooked in it while it was still Ben Yomo requires 60x versus the entire pot or the original food[266], otherwise everything is forbidden.[267]]

Pouring out the food immediately:[268] As soon as the drop of milk falls onto the pot within food level, one is required to immediately pour out the food from the opposite side of where the drop fell.[269] [Nevertheless, Bedieved if one did not do so, the food remains permitted.[270]]

 

C. The drop fell above food level [on uncovered pot not near fire]:

Scenario 1: A pot which is Ben Yomo:[271]

The case: A drop of milk [whether hot or cold] fell onto the wall [whether internal or external[272]] of an [uncovered[273]] hot pot of meat above food level [in an area of the pot that is not directly under the fire[274]], and the pot was Ben Yomo from meat use. What is the law of the pot and what is the law of the food?

The definition of Ben Yomo:[275] In general, Ben Yomo refers to a pot that was used with hot meat within the past 24 hours. Thus, this case scenario refers to one who used a pot to cook meat and within 24 hours used the same pot to cook meat a second time, and a drop of milk then fell on the pot.  

The law of the pot:[276] The area of the pot where the drop fell becomes forbidden and must be Koshered.[277] [The exact area of the pot that becomes forbidden is up to 59x the circumference of the drop of milk in the area where the milk fell.[278]]

The law of the food-Letter of the law: However, from the letter of the law, the food itself remains permitted [so long as it has 60x the drop of milk[279]].[280] Nevertheless, one may not pour out the food, [even from the opposite side of where the drop fell[281]], until the food cools off.[282] [Likewise, one may not make a hole in the bottom of the pot in order to release the food.[283]] Thus, one is not to touch the food at all, and one’s only option is to wait until the food cools down below Yad Soledes, and it may then be removed.[284] [It is forbidden to pour out the food from the side that the drop fell, even if the food contains 60 x 61 times the drop in the pot.[285] However, one may pour it out from the other side, if it contains 60 x 61 times the drop. Bedieved, if one went ahead and poured out the food from the side that the drop fell, the food is forbidden unless it has 60 x 61 times the drop, in which case the food remains permitted.[286] Even in the case that it does not contain 60 x 61 times the drop, and the food becomes forbidden, we do not give the entire vessel the status of Chanan, and hence if one cooked a new food in it, one would only require 60 x 61 times the drop in the new food.[287]]

The Custom-Forbid food:[288] The above follows the letter of the law, however, the custom is to prohibit the food in the pot in all cases that the pot is Ben Yomo and the drop fell above food level.[289] [This applies even if the food contains 60x versus the drop, and one does not remove the food until after it cools down.[290] However, some Poskim[291] rule that even according to the custom, the food may be eaten after it cools down, even initially.[292] Practically, the widespread custom is to only be lenient in a case of great loss or time of need, as explained below.[293]]

Food has 3,660 times the drop:[294]  The above custom to prohibit the food only applies if the food does not contain 3,660 times the drop of milk [60x 61 drops[295]]. If, however, the food does contain 3,660 times the milk, then the food remains Kosher even according to the custom. In such a case, one is to delay pouring out the food until the food cools down.[296] [In all cases, the pot itself remains forbidden and needs to be Koshered.[297]]

Erev Shabbos or time of need, great loss:[298] In a time of need, such as Erev Shabbos [or any great need such as for the sake of guests, to prevent a great loss, or for the poor[299]], there are opinions who permit eating the food so long as it has 60x versus the drop of milk in the food.[300] Practically, so is the custom.[301] In such a case, one is nevertheless required to wait until the food cools down prior to pouring it out. If, however, one needs the food right away, such as if guests are waiting, then one may pour the food from the other side of the pot.[302] In all cases, the pot itself remains forbidden and needs to be Koshered.[303]

Scenario 2: If the pot is not Ben Yomo:[304]

If a drop of milk [whether hot or cold] fell onto the wall [whether internal or external] of an [uncovered[305]] hot pot of meat [in an area of the pot that is not directly under the fire[306]], above food level, then if the pot is new [or is not Ben Yomo[307]] then the area where the drop fell does not become forbidden/Chanan.[308] Accordingly, the food remains permitted. [This applies even according to the above-mentioned custom in the previous scenario.[309] However, seemingly the pot itself becomes forbidden to be used until it is Koshered.[310]]

Pouring out the food: If one pours out the hot food from the side where the drop fell, the food is forbidden unless it contains 60x the drop of milk. Thus, Lechatchilah one may never pour the food out from the pot until it cools down, even if it contains 60x the drop.[311]

 

Summary & Final Ruling:

Pot on the fire: If a drop of milk fell onto the external wall of a pot of meat that is near the fire and it was a mere drop of milk, then if the fire is strong enough to evaporate the milk, the food is permitted while the pot is to be Koshered. If, however, a large amount of milk fell, then it follows the same laws as the coming cases.

Pot is covered: If a drop of milk fell onto the external wall of a pot of meat that is covered and is hot enough to release steam, then the is permitted if it contains 60x the drop while the pot is forbidden. This applies irrelevant to where the drop fell and irrelevant of how much fell.

Fell within food level: If the hot pot of meat was off the fire, or was on the fire but a large amount of milk spilled onto it and it was uncovered, then if a drop of milk fell onto the external wall of the pot, within food level, the food is permitted if it contains 60x the milk while the pot is forbidden and must be Koshered. In such a case one is to immediately remove the food from the pot.

Fell above food level-Pot is Ben Yomo: If in the above case the drop fell above food level, then if the pot was used with meat within 24 hours, the pot is forbidden. Regarding the food, one is to wait until the food cools down prior to removing it. If the food contains 3,660x the drop of milk, the food is permitted while the pot must be Koshered. If it only contains 60x the milk, the custom is to forbid the food even after it cools down. However, one may be lenient to permit the food in a time of need such as on Erev Shabbos, a case of great loss, for the need of guests, or if one is poor. In such a case one must wait until the food cools down prior to touching it.

Fell above food level-Pot is not Ben Yomo: If in the above case the pot was not used for meat within the past 24 hours, the [pot is forbidden although the] food is permitted, and one is to wait for it to cool down prior to removing it.

                                  

The final ruling is dependent on the following factors:

1. Was the pot on the fire? If yes, then how much milk spilled?[312]

2. Was the pot covered while on the fire?[313]

3. Did the drop fall within food level?

4. Did the drop fall above food level? If yes, then has the pot been used within the past 24 hours for meat?

One sentence summary:

The food in the pot is always permitted if it contains 60x the drop of milk unless it fell above food level, and was not on the fire, and the pot was uncovered, and the pot was Ben Yomo, in which case we require the food to contain 3,660x the milk, unless it is a time of great need. The pot itself is always forbidden in all cases.

Q&A

What is the law if the milk spilled onto the counter and eventually touched the bottom of the hot Keli Rishon pot?

If milk spilled onto a surface and the milk flowed under the pot and hit the bottom of the pot [and not its side], then the pot is forbidden while the food remains permitted.[314] This, however, only applies if the surface area under the pot is not Yad Soledes, otherwise the milk is considered like it is hot and everything is forbidden unless there is 60x.[315]

 

Is the cover forbidden when milk spilled on the walls of the pot?[316]

No. The cover always remains permitted.

If one is in doubt as to whether the food contains 60x or 3,660 times versus the drop of milk, what is the law?[317]

In all cases that the food requires 60x or 3,660 times the drop of milk and one is unsure as to if it contains this amount, one may be lenient to permit the food.[318]

 

Q&A on Pareve

If milk or meat splashed onto the side of a Pareve water heater, does it remain Pareve?[319]

Some Poskim[320] rule it becomes meaty/dairy and should not be used for any of the two foods until it is Koshered.[321] Other Poskim[322] rule the vessel remains Pareve.[323] Practically, it is best to Kosher it by pouring boiling water over the area of the splash.[324] At the very least one is to wait 24 hours prior to using it for water a second time, if he plans to drink the water with the opposite food.[325] If, however, a large amount of meat or dairy spilled on it, then it is to be completely Koshered to return to its Pareve state.[326]

If milk fell on the side of a meat pot with Pareve cooking inside and one then cooked meat in it within 24 hours, what is the law of the food and the pot?

See our corresponding Sefer “A Semicha Aid for the Laws of Basar Bechalav” Chapter 92 Halacha 5 in Q&A!

 

D. Hot milk spilled onto a cold pot of meat:

See Halacha 17!

15. Milk fell on the cover of a hot meat pot:[327]

Pot reached a boil: If milk fell onto the cover of a hot pot of meat, then if the pot had reached a boil and begun releasing steam, then some Poskim[328] rule it is considered as if the drop fell into the actual food and the food requires 60x the drop.[329] [If the food contains 60x the milk, then both the food and pot remain Kosher. However, the cover itself is forbidden in all cases.[330]] Other Poskim[331], however, rule that the cover requires 60x the milk, and if it does not contain 60x the milk, then the food requires 60x versus the entire cover.[332] Practically, by a Biblical prohibition of Basar Bechalav one is to be stringent like the later opinion, while by a Rabbinical prohibition one may be lenient like the former opinion.[333] Likewise, in a case of great loss, or time of need, one may be lenient like the former opinion even by a Biblical prohibition of Basar Bechalav.[334]

Pot did not reach boil:[335] If milk fell onto the cover of a pot that is on the fire and the pot had not yet reached a boil [and has yet to begin releasing steam], then the food [and pot[336]] remains completely permitted even without 60x versus the milk.[337] However, the cover itself is forbidden if it was Yad Soledes when the milk fell on it.[338] If the cover was not Yad Soledes, then it requires a mere rinsing.[339]

 

Q&A

What is the law if one cooked using the forbidden cover prior to Koshering it?[340]

If one used the forbidden cover for cooking another food within 24 hours of it becoming forbidden due to the milk, then the food requires 60x the entire cover, and not merely versus the drop of milk.[341] This applies whether the food is meat, dairy or Pareve. If, however, one removed and replaced the cover onto the same pot of food that it was sitting on when the milk fell, then the food continues to only require 60x the milk, as it did originally.[342]

16. A hot/cold meat pot that was placed on top of hot/cold milk or cheese:[343]

Pot is very hot:[344] If a very hot pot of meat which was just removed from the fire was placed on top of spilled milk [or cheese], the food in the pot requires 60x versus the milk [that is directly under the pot[345]]. If it does not contain 60x the milk, then both the pot and the food are forbidden. This applies even if the spilled milk was cold.[346]

Pot is hot:[347] If a hot [but not very hot] pot of meat [which came off the fire some time ago] was placed on top of spilled milk [or cheese[348]], then the pot is forbidden, while the food remains Kosher. This applies whether the spilled milk was hot[349] or cold.[350] [The status of the milk is debated amongst the Poskim, as explained in Chapter 91 Halacha 6. If, however, the dairy was cheese, the cheese is forbidden a Kelipas worth.[351] Furthermore, if the cheese was hot, some Poskim rule that even the food is forbidden, as explained in the Q&A! Bedieved, if one cooked in this pot prior to Koshering it, everything remains permitted even if one does not have 60x a peels worth of the pot.[352]]

Cold pot-Hot spilled milk:[353] If hot Keli Rishon milk spilled onto a table/counter, and a cold pot of meat was placed on top of it, the food and pot remain permitted.[354] [Regarding hot cheese-see Q&A!]

Milk spilled on top of a hot stove:[355] If milk spilled on a hot Yad Soledes stove top which contains a lit fire [i.e. electric stove], and one then placed a pot of meat on top of the milk, the food in the pot requires 60x the milk. If it does not contain 60x the milk, everything is forbidden. This applies even if the meat pot was cold.[356]

 

Summary:

If a pot of meat was placed on top of spilled milk, then if the pot was cold, everything remains permitted even if the spilled milk was hot. If the pot was hot, the pot is forbidden while the food is permitted, unless the pot was very hot [having just been removed from the fire], in which case everything is forbidden unless it contains 60x the milk. If milk spilled on a hot area, such as a stove top, then anything which is placed on it requires 60x the milk.

 

The law if the milk spilled in a dirty area:[357]

If milk spilled in a dirty area, such as a stove top surface or oven floor which is laden with ash, and one then placed a meat pot on top of it, then if the milk became inedible due to the ash, the food remains permitted even if the pot and milk were hot from a Keli Rishon, and the flame was on.[358]

 

What is the law if a pot of cold meat was placed on top of hot cheese?[359]

If a hot or cold pot of meat was placed on top of hot[360] cheese [such as if there was leftover cheese on the counter] then the pot and food are forbidden unless it contains 60x the cheese, while the cheese is also forbidden.[361]

 

17. Hot/cold Milk spilled onto the counter and eventually touched a hot/cold pot of meat:[362]

Milk reached a hot pot of meat that is off the fire:[363] If milk spilled onto a surface and eventually hit a hot Keli Rishon pot of meat [either on its cover from on top[364] or from the sides[365] within food level[366]] then both the pot and the food are forbidden unless there is 60x in the food versus the milk [that is in direct contact with the pot[367]]. This applies even if the milk is cold and the hot meat pot has already been taken off the fire.[368] [This, however, only applies if the milk hit the top or sides of the pot. If, however, the milk flowed under the pot and hit the bottom of the pot, then the pot is forbidden while the food remains permitted.[369] This, however, only applies if the surface area under the pot is not Yad Soledes, otherwise the milk is considered like it is hot and everything is forbidden unless there is 60x.[370]]

Hot Keli Rishon milk spilled onto a cold pot of meat:[371] If hot milk from a Keli Rishon spilled onto a surface and eventually flowed onto a pot of cold meat, then if the stream broke from its origin by the time it hit the meat [i.e. Nifsak Hakiluach], the milk is considered a Keli Sheiyni and everything is permitted.[372] [See Q&A regarding a case that the drop fell directly from the pot onto the meat!] If, however, the stream of milk was still attached to the hot milk pot when it hit the meat pot [i.e. Lo Nifsak Hakiluach] then the pot is forbidden [a Kelipas worth[373]], while the food remains permitted.[374] If, however, the milk which spilled from the Keli Rishon was not Yad Soledes by the time it reached the meat pot, everything remains permitted.

 

Summary:

Spilled on top or by side within food level: If milk spilled onto the top or side of a pot of meat, within food level, then if the meat was hot, the food requires 60x versus the milk. If the pot was cold but the milk was hot, then the pot is forbidden while the food is permitted. If the hot milk was Nifsak Hakiluach by the time it hit the pot of meat, then if it fell directly from the pot of milk onto the pot of meat it is disputed as to whether the pot is permitted or forbidden, as explained in the Q&A. If, however, it fell onto a surface and eventually flowed onto the meat pot, then if it was Nifsak Hakilauch, everything is permitted.

Spilled by side above food level: See Halacha 14C!

Spilled under pot: If milk spilled under a pot of meat, then if the meat pot is hot, the food requires 60x versus the milk. If the meat pot is cold, then it depends on whether Nifsak Hakilauch, as explained above.

Q&A

If milk spilled but one is unsure if it reached the meat pot, what is the law?[375]

The food is permitted.[376] This applies even if both the milk and the pot were hot and sitting on the fire.

 

What is the law if a drop of hot milk or chicken soup spritzed onto a cold dairy/meaty vessel or food?

If one removed a hot pot of Issur or meat from the fire, and while moving it, a single drop flew/spritzed onto a cold Kosher/dairy food or pot, then if by the time the drop hit the pot it was no longer Yad Soledes, everything remains permitted. If, however, the drop was Yad Soledes by the time it hit the food or pot, then its law is subject to a debate brought in Poskim regarding the status of Nifsak Hakiluach.[377] Some Poskim[378] rule that if the drop fell on a food, the food requires 60x the drop. Likewise, if it fell on a vessel, the vessel needs to be Koshered.[379] Other Poskim[380] rule that if the drop fell on a food, the food would require 60x the drop, and if it fell on a vessel, the vessel is Kosher. Other Poskim[381] rule that whether the drop fell on a food or vessel everything remains Kosher. [Practically, regarding Basar Bechalav, one may be lenient to use the vessel after 24 hours.[382]]

Davar Gush-A solid item that fell:[383] The above dispute and subsequent ruling is only applicable in a case that a drop of liquid fell out of a Keli Rishon pot, onto a food or vessel. If, however, a hot Yad Soledes solid fell onto it, then the above dispute is not relevant, and it would follow the classical rule of Tatah Gavar which prohibits the food or vessel a peels worth. [Thus, if a piece of hot meat fell onto a dairy vessel, or a piece of hot cheese dripped onto a meat vessel, the vessel must be Koshered.]

 

18. Placed hot/cold dairy on hot/cold meat vessel [or vice versa]:[384]

A. Meat vessel is hot, clean, and Ben Yomo:

Dry cheese:[385] If dry hot cheese falls onto a clean[386] Ben Yomo meat vessel [whether hot or cold], or cold dry cheese falls onto a hot Ben Yomo meat vessel, one is required to remove a peel’s worth from the cheese in the area of contact [and the vessel is forbidden]. [If, however, the plate had absorbed fatty meat, the food is forbidden even if both the food and plate are dry.[387] According to Admur, seemingly the entire cheese is forbidden in all cases, as meat and cheese are always considered fatty as we are no longer an expert in this matter.[388]]

Moist cheese: If the cheese or pot is even a little moist [then according to the Michaber[389]] one is required to remove a fingers worth from the cheese [while according to the Rama the cheese requires 60x[390]].

Milk:[391] If milk fell into a hot Ben Yomo Keli Rishon meat vessel, or hot milk fell into a cold Ben Yomo meat vessel, the milk requires 60x versus the vessel.

Meat fell on dairy plate: The above distinctions apply likewise if meat fell onto a hot Ben Yomo dairy vessel.

 

B. The law if the meat vessel is cold:[392]

In all cases that the Ben Yomo meat vessel was cold and hot dairy food fell on it, the dairy food only requires a Kelipa worth removed. The vessel, however, is forbidden and must be Koshered.

C. Meat vessel is not Ben Yomo:

If hot cheese falls onto a clean non-Ben Yomo meat vessel, the vessel is forbidden while the cheese remains Kosher. The same applies vice versa, if the cheese was hot but the vessel was cold. See Halacha 20C!

D. Meat vessel and food is cold:

If one placed cold dairy food on a clean cold meat plate, everything remains permitted, and the vessel requires a mere washing in cold water.[393] If the food contains liquid [i.e. milk] and remained within the meat vessel for 24 hours, then if the vessel was clean, then although the milk remains permitted, the vessel is forbidden and must be Koshered.[394]

19. A food which absorbed meat was cooked in milk:[395]

If a food [i.e. onion or vegetable] absorbed meat [through cooking, or cutting with a meat knife[396]] and was the cooked in milk, one requires 60x in the milk versus either the food, or the amount of meat that the food absorbed. He is to measure versus whichever amount is less.[397] [If one does not know how much meat the food absorbed, one must measure 60x versus the food.]

  • Example: If one cooked a 30-gram onion with 10 grams of meat and then placed the onion in a hot dairy Keli Rishon, one requires 60x versus the 10 grams of meat and not 60x versus the 30-gram onion. If one cooked a 10-gram onion with 30 grams of meat and then placed the onion in a hot dairy Keli Rishon, one requires 60x versus the 10 grams of onion and not 60x versus the 30-grams of meat. If, however, one does not know how much meat the onion was cooked with, the milk requires 60x versus the onion in all cases.

Does the food which absorbed the meat remain Kosher if there is 60x:[398] If a food which absorbed meat was cooked in milk, then if there is 60x in the milk versus the food, or versus the meat that it absorbed, then even the food itself which absorbed the meat remains Kosher. This only applies when a food absorbed the taste of a Kosher food, such as an onion absorbing meat, however if it absorbed the taste of a forbidden food, then even if there is 60x versus it, one must discard the food.

 

Cases of used meat vessels for hot dairy foods or vessels and vice versa [Halachas 20-25]

20. Cooked milk products in a meat pot:[399]

A. Initially:[400]

It is initially forbidden to cook dairy in a meat pot even if the pot is clean and is not Ben Yomo. The same applies vice versa.[401]

 

B. Bedieved-Ben Yomo:

Status of the food:[402] If one cooked milk in a meat pot then if the pot is Ben Yomo, the food is forbidden [unless it contains 60x versus the pot[403], or the amount of meat that was cooked in the pot the last 24 hours.[404] When measuring against the pot, there will never be 60x in the food versus the pot, and hence the food is automatically forbidden. However, if the pot is very wide pot and can hold a very large volume of food, it is possible that its food can have 60x the pot.[405] If the cover was also used, see Halacha 21-22!]

Status of the pot:[406] If one cooked milk in a meat Ben Yomo pot, then the pot is forbidden to be used even with Pareve foods, and needs to be Koshered. This applies even if the food in the pot contains 60x the pot walls.[407] [Thus, if the pot is made of non-Kosherable material, such as earthenware, it can no longer be used for foods, and must be sold to a gentile or discarded.[408]]

C. Not Ben Yomo-No cover:

Status of the food: If one cooked milk in a clean and not Ben Yomo meat pot without its cover [then if the food is not defined as a sharp food], the food remains Kosher. [However, if the food is sharp, everything is forbidden even if the pot is not Ben Yomo.[409] If the cover was used-See Halacha 22!]

Status of the pot: If the pot is not Ben Yomo, then it is initially forbidden to cook either milk or meat in this pot.[410] [This applies even after 24 hours have passed.[411]] However, it is permitted even to initially cook Pareve foods in this pot.[412] [Nevertheless, the custom of Ashkenazi[413] Jewry is to forbid using the pot even for Pareve, and it thus needs to be Koshered.[414] Bedieved, if one cooked meat or milk in this pot the food is permitted, so long as it was cooked after 24 hours from the opposite use.[415]]

 

Summary Halacha:

It is initially forbidden to cook dairy in a meat pot even if the pot is clean and is not Ben Yomo. The same applies vice versa. If one cooked dairy in a meat pot, or vice versa, then if the pot is Ben Yomo [or the food contains a Davar Charif], the food is forbidden unless there is 60x in the food versus the pot, or 60x in the food versus the meat used in the pot within the past 24 hours, whichever is less. If one is unsure of the amount of meat used, he requires 60x the pot. In all cases, the pot itself is forbidden. If the pot is not Ben Yomo and the dairy food does not contain a Davar Charif, then if the meat cover was not used, the food is permitted while the pot is forbidden and must be Koshered. If the meat cover was also used-See next Halacha!

 

Q&A

What is one to do if in middle of cooking meat, one realized the pot is dairy but not Ben Yomo?[416]

One is to immediately remove the meat from the pot and he may then continue cooking it in a meat pot.

How does one Kosher a pot or pan that became forbidden due to Basar Bechalav?

All vessels made of earthenware, or other non-Kosherable materials, are only valid if they are Koshered through Libun Gamur.[417] All vessels made from Kosherable materials only require Hagala even if they absorbed meat or dairy without liquid.[418] [Thus, if one baked meat in a dairy baking pan, the pan only requires Hagala.[419]] This, however, only applies in the case that the dairy vessel had meat cooked in it or vice versa, however, if one cooked actual meat and dairy together in the vessel, then Libun Chamur is required in all cases that the food was roasted/baked without liquid.[420]

 

21. A Ben Yomo meat cover was placed on a dairy pot or vice versa:[421]

*In all cases below, if the cover is not Ben Yomo-See the next Halacha!

Cover and pot are both hot:[422] If one took a hot [Yad Soledes[423]] cover from a pot of meat and placed it on a hot [Yad Soledes] pot of milk, one needs 60x in the milk versus the cover, otherwise everything [i.e. the food, pot and cover[424]] is forbidden.[425] [This applies even if one immediately removed the cover from the pot[426], and the vapor that reached the cover was not Yad Soledes.[427] Even when there is 60x of milk versus the cover, the cover must be Koshered.]

Cover is cold and pot is hot:[428] If one took a cold [Ben Yomo] meat cover and placed it on a hot [Yad Soledes] pot of milk, then if the cover remained on the pot until its inners side became moistened with [Yad Soledes[429]] milk vapor, then everything [i.e. the food, pot and cover[430]] is forbidden unless the milk contains 60x versus the cover.[431] [Even in such a case that there is 60x in the milk versus the cover, the cover is forbidden and must be Koshered. If the cover is not Ben Yomo, this follows the same ruling as brought above in Halacha 22. If the cover was removed prior to it moistening, then everything remains permitted. It makes no difference in this case if the cover was wet or dry when it was placed onto the dairy pot.[432]]

Cover is hot but the pot is cold: If one took a hot [Yad Soledes] meat cover and placed it on a pot of cold dairy, then some Poskim[433] rule that both the pot and cover are forbidden while the food remains permitted after removing a Kelipa, unless one knows for certain that the cover was dry at the time, in which case the pot and cover are also permitted. Other Poskim[434], however, rule everything [i.e. the food, pot[435] and cover] remains permitted [even if the cover was moist].[436] Nonetheless, even according to their opinion, one is required to [wash the area of contact of the pot and cover[437] and] remove a peels worth from the food, if relevant [i.e. a solid].[438] If it is not possible to remove a peels worth from the food, such as if it is a liquid, the food is permitted even without a peel being removed. [Some Poskim[439] rule one is only required to remove a peels worth from the food if the cover was moist and hence hot drops of liquid fell from the cover onto the food in the pot. If, however, one knows that the pot cover was dry, there is no need to remove a Kelipa from the food.] Practically, we rule like the former opinion that if there was moisture on the cover, both the cover and pot are forbidden, however, in a case of loss, if one already cooked food in the pot, one may be lenient.[440]

Cover and pot are hot but no food inside:[441] If a hot meat cover was placed on an empty hot dairy pot, everything remains permitted [even if both the pot and cover were hot and Ben Yomo].[442] [However, some Poskim[443] rule that when both the pot and the cover are hot and Ben Yomo, the pot and cover are forbidden due to the moisture of the cover.]

Glass pot covers: Many Poskim[444] rule that glass material does not absorb, and hence if a clean glass Ben Yomo meat pot cover was used for cooking milk, one only requires 60x versus the non-glass material that is on the pot [i.e. the metal rim, or screw for the handle]. If the cover was dirty with meat food then one requires 60x versus the food, but not versus the glass material. Practically, the Sephardim are lenient, and it is possible that even Ashkenazim may be lenient in this matter, upon discussing with a Rav.[445]

 

Summary:

If one took a hot [Yad Soledes] cover from a pot of meat and placed it on a hot [Yad Soledes] pot of milk, the cover, pot and food, are forbidden unless the food contains 60x the cover, in which case only the cover is forbidden. If one took cold meat cover and placed it on a hot [Yad Soledes] pot of milk, then if the milk began to boil or steam, then pot, food and cover is forbidden, unless the food contains 60x the cover, in which case only the cover is forbidden. If one took hot Yad Soledes meat cover and placed it on a cold pot of milk, then the food requires a Kelipa and the pot and cover are forbidden, unless one knows that the cover was dry at the time, in which case the pot and cover are also permitted.

 

Q&A regarding Pareve

If one placed a Ben Yomo meat cover on a hot Pareve pot of food, what is the law?

If the cover was hot, or the food began to boil and give off steam, then if the food does not contain 60x the cover, the custom is to consider the food and pot as meaty, although from the letter of the law everything remains Pareve. See Chapter 94 Halacha 4 for the full details of this matter!

 

If one placed a Pareve cover on a hot dairy or meat pot, what is the law of the cover?[446]

If the cover was hot or the food began to boil and give off steam, then the cover is considered dairy/meaty until it is Koshered.

 

What is the law if one placed a dairy cover on a hot meat pot which contains Pareve food?[447]

If the cover was hot or the food began to boil and give off steam, then if both the cover and the pot are Ben Yomo, everything is forbidden unless the food contains 60x the cover in which case the food is permitted. If either the cover or the pot are not Ben Yomo, then from the letter of the law everything remains permitted[448], although the custom is to consider the food like the Ben Yomo vessel, and the non-Ben Yomo vessel needs to be Koshered, as explained in Chapter 94 Halacha 4.

 

What is the law if one placed a hot fish cover over a hot pot of meat or poultry?

The food remains Kosher.[449] However, the pot cover should not be used for cooking until after 24 hours.[450] After 24 hours the cover may be used as usual.

 

22. Cooked milk in a non-Ben Yomo meat pot with its cover/The status of a non-Ben Yomo cover:[451]

Letter of the law: If one cooked dairy in a non-Ben Yomo meat pot using a Ben Yomo meat cover, one requires 60x in the food versus the entire cover [if the food began to boil and release steam[452]]. If the cover was not Ben Yomo, then from the letter of the law the food remains permitted [and if the non-Ben Yomo cover was dirty with food, then the dairy requires 60x versus the food and not versus the cover[453]].[454]

The stringency: However, there are those[455] who are stringent to always apply a Ben Yomo status to a cover, even if in truth the cover is not Ben Yomo.[456] [Accordingly, in the above case, some Poskim[457] rule that the dairy food requires 60x versus the non-Ben Yomo meat cover. However, most Poskim[458] rule that even according to this stringency, one only measures 60x versus the curved areas of the cover which are difficult to clean, and hence contain possible food residue, and not versus the entire pot cover. Accordingly, some Poskim[459] rule the entire stringency is limited only covers that contain curved rims which are difficult to clean, while clean flat covers retain non-Ben Yomo status according to all.]

Final ruling: Practically, some [Ashkenazi[460]] communities are accustomed to being stringent [although other communities are accustomed to being lenient[461], and each is to follow his custom].[462] Even in stringent communities, one may be lenient for a Shabbos need or in a case of loss, [or by a flat cover[463]], or if there is another leniency involved.[464] [This, however, only applies if the pot cover is clean, otherwise one requires 60x versus all the leftovers that are on the pot cover.[465]] In all the above-mentioned cases, the pot cover is forbidden and must be Koshered.

Glass pot covers: Many Poskim[466] rule that glass material does not absorb, and hence if a clean glass Ben Yomo meat pot cover was used for cooking milk, one only requires 60x versus the non-glass material that is on the pot [i.e. the metal rim, or screw for the handle]. If the cover was dirty with meat food then one requires 60x versus the food, but not versus the glass material. Practically, the Sephardim are lenient, and it is possible that even Ashkenazim may be lenient in this matter, upon discussing with a Rav.[467] Certainly if the cover was not Ben Yomo the food is permitted, even in the communities who are stringent to give a non-Ben Yomo cover the same status as Ben Yomo.

 

Summary:

If one cooked dairy using a Ben Yomo meat cover, then if the food reached a boil and released steam, the food requires 60x versus the cover. [If the pot was also Ben Yomo of meat, then one requires 60x versus both the pot and the cover, unless one knows the original amount of meat used within the past 24 hours.] If the cover was not Ben Yomo, but was clean, then the food is permitted although some communities are stringent to require 60x in the food versus the curved areas of the cover. Even those who are stringent may be lenient regarding flat covers, or in a time of need, or loss even if the food does not contain 60x the curved areas of the cover. In all cases, the cover is to be Koshered.

 

Q&A

Does the above non-Ben Yomo stringency apply even to non-designated covers?[468]

Ø  If a clean non-Ben Yomo dairy plate was placed on top of a hot pot of meat, what is the law?

The above stringency to treat a non-Ben Yomo cover as Ben Yomo, only applies by designated covers. However, a plate that is temporarily being used as a cover does not receive this stringency, and hence so long as it was clean and not-Ben Yomo, the food remains permitted according to all [although the plate is forbidden]. 

Does the above non-Ben Yomo stringency apply even towards covers placed on Pareve foods?[469]

No. Everyone agrees that if a clean non-Ben Yomo meat cover was used to cook a Pareve food, the food remains Pareve.

 

23. Cut hot meat with dairy knife:[470]

A. Meat is in a Keli Rishon:

Knife is Ben Yomo:[471] If a hot Keli Rishon piece of meat was cut with a Ben Yomo dairy knife, the meat requires 60x[472] versus the area of the blade that was used to cut the meat.[473] [In addition, even if there is 60x versus the blade, one must remove a Kelipas worth from the meat.[474]] Likewise, the knife is forbidden and needs to be Koshered with Hagala.[475] [This applies whether the knife was on top of the meat, or under the meat, during the cutting.[476] This applies also in the opposite case, if a Ben Yomo meat knife was used to cut hot Keli Rishon cheese.[477]] If one does not know how much of the blade was used to cut, then one is to measure 60x versus the entire blade, up until the handle.[478]

Knife is not Ben Yomo:[479] Some Poskim[480] rule if a hot Keli Rishon piece of meat was cut with a non-Ben Yomo dairy knife, then one must remove a peels worth from the meat, and the remaining meat is Kosher. Other Poskim[481], however, rule the meat requires 60x versus the residue of fat that is on the blade of the knife. In addition, one must remove a peels worth from the meat.[482] 

 

Q&A

What is the law if the non-Ben Yomo knife was completely clean?[483]

If the knife was not Ben Yomo then the meat is Kosher even without removing a Kelipa.

B. Davar Gush-Meat is in a Keli Sheiyni:[484]

Some Poskim[485] rule that a solid item which is Yad Soledes retains its Keli Rishon status even if placed in a second or third vessel. Accordingly, if one cut hot Yad Soledes meat with a Ben Yomo dairy knife, one requires 60x versus the blade in addition to removing a Kelipa, and the knife is forbidden. Other Poskim[486], however, rule that any food placed in a Keli Sheiyni no longer contains ability to cook or transfer taste, and hence if Keli Sheiyni meat was cut with a dairy knife, the meat requires a mere Kelipa and knife remain permitted. Practically, one is to be stringent like the first opinion, although in a time of great loss, one may be lenient.[487]

Meat was in a stew:[488] If the meat was within a stew and was poured into a Keli Sheiyni together with the broth/gravy, then the food is considered a Keli Sheiyni according to all.[489]

 

 

Summary & Final ruling of Halacha 9:

Ben Yomo knife-Keli Rishon meat: If a Keli Rishon piece of hot Yad Soledes meat was cut with a Ben Yomo dairy knife one must have 60x in the meat versus the area of the blade used to cut. In addition, one must remove a peels worth from the area of contact on both halves of the meat. If the meat does not contain 60x the area of the blade which came into contact with the meat, the meat is forbidden.

Ben Yomo knife-Keli Sheiyni meat: If a Keli Sheiyni piece of hot Yad Soledes meat was cut with a Ben Yomo dairy knife, its status is disputed amongst the Poskim and practically it follows the same law as a Keli Rishon meat. However, in a case of great loss, it suffices to remove a peel’s worth from the meat. The knife must be Koshered, or at the very least have Neitza done to it.

Not Ben Yomo knife: If a Keli Sheiyni piece of hot Yad Soledes meat was cut with a non-Ben Yomo dairy knife, then if it the knife was not thoroughly cleaned, the meat requires a peels worth removed, and some Poskim also require in the meat 60x the fat that remained on the blade. The knife itself must be Koshered.

 

Q&A

What is the law of the knife if it was used to cut cold meat or cheese?[490]

If a meat knife was accidently used to cut cold hard cheese [or cold dry meat], it suffices to perform Neitza to the knife and then return it to its designated use. [Furthermore, some Poskim[491] rule it suffices to simply wash the knife well and even Neitza is not required.] If it was used to cut cold soft meat [or soft cheese], then a mere rinse suffices.[492]   

24. A dairy spoon was used in a hot pot of meat, or vice versa:

Not Ben Yomo:[493] If one used a dairy spoon with a hot [Yad Soledes] Keli Rishon pot of meat, then if the spoon was clean from milk and was not Ben Yomo, then both the food and the pot remain Kosher. The spoon, however, must be Koshered.[494]

Ben Yomo:[495] If one used a dairy spoon to mix a hot pot of meat, if the spoon was Ben Yomo, one requires 60x in the food versus the area of the spoon which was stuck into the food/pot.[496] If indeed the food contains 60x, then the food and pot are Kosher while the spoon must be Koshered.[497] This applies even if the spoon was inserted more than one time into the food.[498]

 

Q&A

If a Ben Yomo meat spoon was used to mix a hot Keli Sheiyni bowl of dairy, what is the law?[499]

Liquid dairy-milk: If a Ben Yomo meat spoon was used to mix a hot Keli Sheiyni bowl of milk, then this is subject to the debate mentioned in Halacha 1B regarding a Keli Sheiyni, in which we concluded that one may be lenient in a time of need.

Thick dairy-Porridge: If a Ben Yomo meat spoon was used to mix a hot bowl of dairy porridge, then even if the porridge was in a Keli Revi’i, this matter is subject to the above debate [in Halacha 23] regarding the status of a Davar Gush. According to the stringent approach, everything is forbidden unless the food contains 60x versus the spoon, in which case only the spoon is forbidden.[500] Practically, according to the final ruling one may be lenient in a case of great loss to remove only a Kelipa from the meat, although the spoon requires Hagala.

25. Inserted a dairy spoon into Pareve food which was cooking in a meat pot:[501]

Neither vessel Ben Yomo: If a dairy spoon was inserted into a meat pot that had a Pareve food cooking inside, then if both the spoon and pot were not Ben Yomo, everything remains permitted.

One vessel Ben Yomo:[502] If a dairy spoon was inserted into a meat pot that had a Pareve food cooking inside, then if either the spoon or pot is not Ben Yomo [and there isn’t 60x versus the spoon[503]] then the custom is to require the non-Ben Yomo vessel to be Koshered.[504] Furthermore, the custom is to be stringent and not to eat the Pareve food with either meat or dairy, and it may not be eaten with the non-Ben Yomo vessel.[505] If, however, the Pareve food was mere water, then the custom is to prohibit the water [however, the vessels remain permitted[506]].[507] This is a mere stringency, as from the letter of the law everything is permitted.

Both vessels Ben Yomo:[508] If both the pot and the spoon were Ben Yomo [and there wasn’t 60x versus the spoon[509]], everything is forbidden.

If the food contains 60x versus the spoon: In all cases that the food contains 60x versus the spoon, the pot, food and spoon remain permitted.[510] From some Poskim[511] it is implied that this applies even according to the above-mentioned custom to prohibit the spoon. However, other Poskim[512] rule that according to the Ashkenazi custom to prohibit the non-Ben Yomo vessel, then the spoon is forbidden even in a case that the food contains 60x against it, if the pot was Ben Yomo.[513]

Q&A

What is the law if one cooked a sharp food in a non-Ben Yomo meat pot and used a dairy vessel to mix it?[514]

If the dairy vessel is Ben Yomo, everything is forbidden unless there is 60x in the food versus the utensil, in which case only the utensil is forbidden. If the vessel was not Ben Yomo, then if the sharp food was already cooked and no longer sharp by the time the dairy vessel was inserted, the food is Kosher while the dairy utensil must be Koshered. If the sharp food was still sharp by the time the vessel was inserted, everything is forbidden unless there is 60x in the food versus the vessel in which case the vessel is to be Koshered and the food is Kosher.

26. Pareve pot used with both meat and dairy spoon in intervals:[515]

Both Ben Yomo & no 60x: If one cooked Pareve in a new Pareve pot, and mixed the water with a meat spoon and then emptied the pot and re-cooked Pareve and placed in it a dairy spoon, then if both of the spoons were Ben Yomo and the Pareve food did not contain 60x the spoon, then from the letter of the law, the pot remains Pareve. However, some Poskim[516] rule that initially one is to only use this pot for Pareve foods.[517] Other Poskim[518], however, rule the pot may even initially be designated for either milk, meat, or Pareve. Other Poskim[519] rule the pot is to initially be used with the food type of the last utensil inserted. Practically, the Ashkenazi custom is to be stringent like the first opinion to initially not use the pot for meat or milk, while the Sephardic custom is to be lenient to use it for whatever one desires.[520]

Only one Ben Yomo:[521] If one cooked Pareve in a new Pareve pot, and mixed the water with a meat spoon and then emptied the pot and re-cooked water and placed in it a dairy spoon, then if one of the spoons [either meat or dairy spoons] was not Ben Yomo, or they were both Ben Yomo but there is 60x in the water versus one spoon, then according to the stringent ruling above, the pot becomes the status of the spoon that is Ben Yomo and did not have 60x against it.

Neither Ben Yomo or there is 60x:[522] If one cooked Pareve foods in a new Pareve pot, and mixed the Pareve with a meat spoon and then emptied the pot and re-cooked water and placed in it a dairy spoon, then if neither spoon was Ben Yomo, or they were both Ben Yomo but there was 60x in the water versus the spoon, then the pot remains Pareve.

 

Q&A

What is the law if a hot Keli Rishon meat pot touched a cold Pareve vessel?

If the pot was wet and contained Pareve food cooking inside, then if the meat pot was not Ben Yom the Pareve vessel remains Pareve. If the pot was Ben Yomo, seemingly this would be subject to the same dispute as mentioned above.[523]

If one stuck a Ben Yomo meat spoon into a Pareve pot that had Pareve cooking inside, what is the law of the Pareve pot?[524]

If there is 60x versus the spoon, everything remains Pareve. If there isn’t 60x versus the spoon, then the food may only be eaten with dairy, and the pot becomes dairy.   

If one stuck a Pareve spoon into a Ben Yomo meat pot that had Pareve cooking inside what is the law of the Pareve spoon?

The spoon becomes meaty, as stated in the previous Q&A.

 

27. Pouring hot Pareve food from a meat pot into a dairy pot:[525]

Pots contain meat and dairy residue:[526] If one poured hot Yad Soledes Keli Rishon water from a meat vessel that contained meat residue onto a dairy vessel that contained milk residue, then the dairy vessel is forbidden while the meat vessel which one poured from is permitted.[527] [This applies even if only the top meat vessel contains residue.[528] This possibly applies even if Nifsak Hakileach.[529] If, however, only the bottom dairy vessel contained residue, then if the meat pot was Ben Yomo, this matter is subject to debate as brought next.]

Both pots are clean and Ben Yomo: If one poured hot Yad Soledes Keli Rishon water from a clean Ben Yomo meat vessel onto a clean Ben Yomo dairy vessel, then some Poskim[530] rule that everything remains permitted.[531] Other Poskim[532], however, rule that the food, and the vessel into which it was poured onto, are forbidden.[533] [However, the upper pot which the food was poured from remains Kosher even according to this opinion.[534]] Practically, one may be lenient in a case of need or great loss.[535] [If  the stream broke from the pouring vessel [i.e. Nifsak Hakilauch] by the time it reached the milk vessel, then everything remains Kosher, even according to the stringent opinion.[536]]

Both pots are clean and at least one of the pots are not Ben Yomo:[537] If one poured hot Yad Soledes Keli Rishon water from a clean Ben Yomo meat vessel onto a clean non-Ben Yomo dairy vessel then since the bottom vessel being poured into is not Ben Yomo, everything remains Kosher.[538] [The same applies if the top vessel is not Ben Yomo, while the bottom vessel is Ben Yomo.[539] Nevertheless, Lechatchilah, one should not pour the food into the other vessel even if one of the pots is not Ben Yomo.[540]]

 

Q&A

May one pour hot Pasta that was cooking in a meat pot into a dairy strainer?

If the pot is Ben Yomo from meat, it is initially forbidden to do so, as explained above.

 

May one pour hot Pasta that was cooking in a Ben Yomo meat pot into a Pareve strainer that is in a Ben Yomo dairy pot or sink?

No, as explained above that one cannot pour directly onto the other dish even if it is not Ben Yomo. Furthermore, if one did so, possibly even the pasta becomes forbidden according to Rama, as the pasta has been attached through the stream to a Ben Yomo meat and dairy vessel.

What is the law if one poured the Pareve food that was cooking in a Ben Yomo meat pot onto milk or cheese?

Possibly the Pareve food and milk/cheese are forbidden even according to the Michaber as this is a case of Nat Bar Nat meeting actual taste.

 

Q&A on Pouring Pareve into meat/milk

What is the law if one poured the Pareve food into a Ben Yomo dairy vessel; may the Pareve food be eaten with meat?

See Chapter 4 Halacha 2!

 

28. The status of the vessel when pouring from a Pareve vessel onto meat/milk:[541]

  • Example: May one pour hot or cold water from a Pareve kettle/vessel onto hot or cold meat or milk? If one did so, does the vessel and remaining food remain Pareve?

Pouring from cold to hot: The law regarding other Issurim:[542] It is forbidden to pour from a Kosher vessel which contains food onto a vessel which contains a hot [Keli Rishon] Issur.[543] If one transgressed and poured from a cold Kosher food onto a hot Issur food, the food that remains in the Kosher vessel and the vessel itself nevertheless remain permitted [so long as one poured from a distance, in a way that the steam of the Issur did not hit the Heter pot while still Yad Soledes[544]].[545] The law regarding Pareve:[546] Based on the above, the following would be the corresponding ruling regarding pouring from cold Pareve onto hot meat/milk: One should not pour food from a Pareve vessel into a hot pot of meat or dairy if one plans to continue to use the vessel and remaining food as Pareve. Thus, in the above example, one is not to initially pour cold water from a Pareve vessel onto hot meat or dairy. However, Bedieved if one did so, the pot and its remaining food remains Pareve so long as it was a distance away from the hot meat/dairy and did not absorb any of its steam, and no part of the meat or dairy splashed onto the Pareve vessel. However, some[547] suggest that by Pareve being poured onto hot meat or milk, one is to be stringent even Bedieved to consider the Pareve food [and pot] as meaty/dairy.[548]

Pouring from hot onto hot:[549] Some Poskim[550] rule that if both the Heter and Issur are hot it is permitted even initially to pour from the Heter into the Issur [so long as the Heter pot is a distance from the Issur pot in a way that the Issur’s steam or splash will not contact it[551]]. [Accordingly, one may pour hot Pareve from a Pareve pot directly into hot meat or dairy, so long as he pours from a distance.] Other Poskim[552], however, are stringent even in such a case that one may not initially pour even hot Heter into hot Issur [even if one pours from a distance]. [Accordingly, one may not initially pour hot Pareve from a Pareve pot directly into hot meat or dairy, even if he pours from a distance.]

Pouring from hot onto cold? It is permitted even initially to pour from a hot Pareve vessel onto cold meat/milk.[553] However, from some Poskim[554] it seems that one is to be stringent even in such a case.  Certainly, one is to be stringent not to pour from so close of a distance that the steam hits the Pareve vessel, after having been poured on the meat/dairy.[555]

 

Summary:

It is best to avoid pouring liquids from a Pareve vessel onto meat or dairy unless both the Pareve food and the meat/dairy foods are cold. This especially applies, and is required, if the Pareve food is cold while the meat/milk is hot. However, if both the Pareve and meat/dairy are hot, or the Pareve is hot and the meat/dairy is cold, then one may choose to be lenient so long as it is done from a far enough distance that hot steam from the meat/milk will not contact the Pareve. Bedieved, if one poured from cold Pareve to hot meat/dairy, the remaining Pareve food and vessel remain Pareve so long as hot steam of the meat/milk did not hit the Pareve, although some are stringent in such a case that it is no longer considered Pareve.

 

Practical Applications

Pouring hot water from a Pareve urn, or water dispenser, onto hot or cold meat/dairy:

Ø  May one pour hot water from a Pareve urn onto a cup that contains milk?

It is best to avoid pouring hot water from a Pareve urn onto meat or dairy, whether hot or cold, however, those who do so have upon whom to rely.

 

Pouring cold water from a Pareve urn, pitcher, water cooler, Brita filter, onto meat/dairy:

One may not pour cold water from an urn, pitcher, water cooler, onto hot Keli Rishon meat or milk. If one did so, the water nevertheless remains Pareve. One may pour cold water onto cold [i.e. less than Yad Soledes, or Keli Sheiyni] meat/milk in all cases.

Pouring cold Pareve oil into hot meat/milk:

One may not pour cold oil from a Pareve oil jar onto hot Keli Rishon meat or milk. If one did so, the oil nevertheless remains Pareve. One may pour cold oil onto cold [i.e. less than Yad Soledes, or Keli Sheiyni] meat/milk in all cases.

Pouring ketchup or salt onto hot meat/milk:

One may pour ketchup or salt onto hot meat/milk so long as the vessel does not come in contact with the meat/dairy or its hot vapor.

 

29. Meat cutlery and chinaware that came into contact with milk or vice versa:

*This law regarding cutlery excludes knives, which has its own laws as discussed in the next Halacha.

A. Cold [i.e. less than Yad Soledes] meat/milk:

One is to avoid eating cold meat with dairy utensils, or cold cheese with meat utensils, even on occasion, as explained in Chapter 7 Halacha 2. However, in a time of need that no other plate or spoon is available, one may use it, so long as he makes sure to wash it properly before and after its use.[556] Bedieved, in all cases that the plate was clean the food remains permitted, and the vessel is to be washed.[557] 

B. Hot Yad Soledes meat/milk:

If hot Yad Soledes cheese/meat was placed from a Keli Rishon onto a meat/dairy vessel, the vessel is forbidden and needs to be Koshered. Regarding the status of the cheese/meat-See Halacha 18! If the meat/cheese was in a Keli Sheiyni, and contains liquid or gravy, then everything remains permitted. If the meat cheese was a Davar Gush, then it is subject to debate in Poskim [see Halacha 1B and 23B] and a Rav is to be contacted.

 

 

Q&A

What is one to do if in middle of eating a yogurt he realized that he is using a meat spoon?

If the spoon was clean prior to being inserted into the yogurt, the yogurt and spoon remain permitted. The spoon is to be removed from the yogurt and promptly washed. If the spoon was dirty with remnant of meat, then the yogurt is forbidden.

If one is in doubt as to whether a certain vessel is dairy, meat, or Pareve, what is the law?

See Chapter 7 Halacha 1E!

Dishwashing mixtures

30. Meat and milk utensils washed together simultaneously:[558]

A. Less than Yad Soledes water or Keli Sheiyni:

Cold or warm water below Yad Soledes: If one washed dairy and meat vessels simultaneously using cold water, or any water that is less than Yad Soledes, then everything remains Kosher even if the vessels were dirty with meat and dairy residue and were Ben Yomo. If, however, meat and dairy vessels soaked together in water for 24 hours, then if there was dairy and meat residue on the vessels, then everything is forbidden unless the water contains 60x versus the residue.[559] If one is unsure whether the meat and milk remained together for 24 hours they are both permitted.[560]

Hot Yad Soledes water in a Keli Sheiyni:[561] If one heated water in a large pot over the fire and poured the water into a plugged [empty] sink and washed dairy and meat vessels simultaneously in the hot water that is in the sink, then everything remains Kosher [even if the vessels were dirty with meat and milk residue[562] and are Ben Yomo, and even if the water is very hot]. [Nevertheless, Lechatchilah one is not wash meat and dairy dishes in any hot water that is Yad Soledes.[563]]

 

B. Yad Soledes Keli Rishon water:

Hot Yad Soledes water in a Keli Rishon-Both vessels contain leftover meat and milk:[564] If dirty meat vessels and dirty dairy vessels which contain meat and dairy residue were washed together in Yad Soledes water of a Keli Rishon, then all the vessels are forbidden [even with Pareve and hence must be Koshered[565]]. [This applies even if the vessels were not Ben Yomo.[566]] If, however, there is 60x in the water [and leftover meat/milk[567]] versus the meat and milk residue, then everything is permitted [if the meat and dairy vessels were not both Ben Yomo[568]]. [If there is 60x versus only one of food residues while the other food residue does not have 60x against it, then if the pot which has 60x its remnants is Ben Yomo, everything is forbidden. If, however, that pot is not Ben Yomo then that vessel alone is forbidden while everything else is permitted, as explained next.[569] In general, we do not assume that there is 60x in the washing water versus the residue unless one knows for certain that there is.[570] In general, we assume that vessels waiting to be washed are dirty with meat/dairy leftovers unless one states for certain that they were clean.[571]]

Hot Yad Soledes water in a Keli Rishon-One vessel is dirty and the other is clean but Ben Yomo:[572] If meat and dairy vessels were washed together in Yad Soledes water of a Keli Rishon, and either the milk or meat utensil had dairy or meat residue on them [whether or not that vessel is Ben Yomo] and the other vessel is Ben Yomo, then all the vessels are forbidden unless there is 60x in the water versus the food residue that was on the dirty vessel.[573] [In addition, according to the Rama, if both vessels are Ben Yomo the water must also have 60x versus one of the vessels, as explained in scenario 5.] Thus, for example, if clean Ben Yomo meat vessels and dirty dairy vessels were washed together in Yad Soledes water of a Keli Rishon, everything is forbidden unless there is 60x.

Hot Yad Soledes water in a Keli Rishon-One vessel is dirty and the other is clean and is not Ben Yomo:[574] If meat and dairy vessels were washed together in Yad Soledes water of a Keli Rishon, and the meat vessel is dirty with meat residue [whether or not it is Ben Yomo] while the dairy vessel is clean and not Ben Yomo, then the meat vessel [and water] remain Kosher while the dairy vessel is forbidden [unless there is 60x in the water versus the leftover meat].[575]

Hot Yad Soledes water in a Keli Rishon-If both the utensils were clean and at least one of them is not Ben Yomo:[576] If meat and dairy vessels were washed together in Yad Soledes water of a Keli Rishon and the meat and dairy vessels were known to be completely clean from meat and milk residue, then if at least one of the vessels is not Ben Yomo, whether this is the meat or milk vessel, then all the vessels remain Kosher.[577] [However, Lechatchilah, one may not wash them together even if they are both clean and one is not Ben Yomo.] However, the water is initially forbidden to be drunk.[578] [However, if both vessels are clean and both are not Ben Yomo, then seemingly it is even initially permitted to wash them together in hot water, and even the water remains permitted to be drunk.[579]]

Hot Yad Soledes water in a Keli Rishon-If the utensils were all clean but were both Ben Yomo: If meat and dairy vessels were washed together in Yad Soledes water of a Keli Rishon and the meat and dairy vessels were known to be completely clean from meat and milk residue, then some Poskim[580] rule that all the vessels remain Kosher even if both vessels were Ben Yomo.[581] [Nevertheless, even according to this opinion, it is initially forbidden to wash them together if they are both Ben Yomo.[582]] Other Poskim[583], however, rule that even if both utensils were clean, if both were Ben Yomo, the entire mixture is forbidden, and all the vessels must be Koshered.[584] [If, however, there is 60x in the water versus the dairy or meat vessel, then everything remains permitted.[585]] Practically, the [Ashkenazi[586]] custom is like this opinion and it is forbidden to swerve from the custom.[587] [However, the Sephardic ruling and custom follows the opinion of the Michaber to permit everything; the vessels and the water.[588] However, one who is stringent to Kosher them, is blessed.[589]]

C. Washed in a Keli Rishon one after the other:[590]

If meat and dairy vessels were washed in a hot Keli Rishon one after the other, then if one knows for certain that both of the vessels were clean from meat and milk residue, then even if both set of vessels were Ben Yomo, everything remains Kosher.[591] [If, however, one of the vessels were dirty with meat or dairy residue, then if the first set of vessels was dirty the second set becomes forbidden, even if the second set was clean and not Ben Yomo [unless the water had 60x the food remnant of the first set]. If, however, the first set was clean and the second set was dirty, then everything remains permitted even if the first set was Ben Yomo.[592]]

D. Poured from Keli Rishon onto meat/milk vessels:

Poured hot Keli Rishon water onto clean meat and milk vessels:[593] If one poured hot Pareve Yad Soledes Keli Rishon water onto meat and milk vessels, then if both meat and dairy vessels were clean, everything remains permitted even if these vessels were Ben Yomo.[594] [However, regarding a case that one poured onto an Issur and Heter pot, some Poskim[595] rule that everything is forbidden if the Issur pot was Ben Yomo. However, according to the Rama, the Heter pot would remain permitted.[596]]

Poured hot Keli Rishon water onto dirty meat and milk vessels:[597] If one poured hot Pareve Yad Soledes Keli Rishon water onto meat and dairy vessels which contain meat and dairy residue, some Poskim[598] rule that nonetheless, everything remains permitted.[599] [This applies even if the water poured does not contain 60x versus the residue.] However, other Poskim[600] rule that everything is forbidden.[601] [Practically, one may be lenient in a case of great loss.[602] This applies even according to the Michaber and Sephardic ruling. If only one of the vessels had food remnants while the other was clean [whether or not it was Ben Yomo], then the clean vessel becomes forbidden.[603] Likewise, if the water poured contains 60x versus a Kelipas worth of the residue of one of the vessels, then only that vessel is forbidden.[604]]

E. Placing ash or soap in the water used to wash meat and milk dishes:

Many Poskim[605] rule that ash, soap, and other spoiling agents of the like render the taste of a food as spoiled and hence permits washing meat and milk dishes simultaneously in these blemished waters even in a hot Yad Soledes Keli Rishon. Other Poskim[606], however, question the accuracy of this ruling. Practically, one may only be lenient in a case of loss or need.[607]

 

 Q&A

Practically what is the law if one poured hot water into his meat sink and he then found a milk vessel in it?

Ø  Example: One is washing dishes with hot water and amongst the dishes he finds a dairy vessel.

If the water is below Yad Soledes, everything remains permitted. If the water is above Yad Soledes, then all the meat vessels remain Kosher unless the dairy vessel was dirty with milk and the water did not contain 60x a peels worth of it, in which case the meat vessels are forbidden unless it is a case of great loss.[608] If the meat vessels were dirty with meat then the dairy vessel is to be Koshered unless it is a case of great loss. In the event that there was soap in the water throughout the entire time of the pouring, then everything remains permitted, as explained in Halacha E.

The status of a sink used for washing meat and dairy vessels with Iruiy Keli Rishon:[609]

A sink which is used for washing both meat and dairy dishes is considered Treif due to the pouring of hot Keli Rishon meat and milk into the sink[610], and due to the pouring of hot water into the sink while it contains dirty meat or dairy vessels.[611] Thus, some Poskim[612] learn that it is forbidden to wash meat and dairy dishes in this sink using hot Yad Soledes water, as the water will extract the Treif taste found within the material of the sink and in turn prohibit the vessels. Other Poskim[613], however, learn that there is no need to avoid doing so.

31.  One found a dairy vessel amongst the meat vessels or vice versa:

Found in drying rack, cabinet, or drawer:[614] If one found a dairy vessel on his meat drying rack or inside the meat drawer, the vessels remain permitted.[615] [This applies even if one is accustomed to wash his dishes in hot Keli Rishon water.[616] Some Poskim[617] rule that this applies even if one knows for certain that both vessels were Ben Yomo or dirty with meat and milk, nevertheless, everything remains permitted.[618] Other Poskim[619], however, rule that if one knows for certain that the vessels were dirty with food, or Ben Yomo, and he is accustomed to wash the vessels in a Keli Rishon, then it is forbidden unless the water contained 60x versus the residue.[620] Practically, one is to Kosher all the Kosherable vessels, and those vessels which are not Kosherable may be used after 24 hours.[621] If one is not accustomed to wash the vessels in hot Keli Rishon water, it is Kosher in all cases, even if one knows that the vessels were dirty and Ben Yomo.]

Found in the Keli Rishon washing pot:[622] If after washing dishes one found a dairy vessel in his Keli Rishon washing pot, then according to all opinions the vessel is forbidden unless one is sure that it was not washed together with other meat vessels, or he is sure that all the vessels were clean and not Ben Yomo, or he is unsure regarding both of these matters.

One found a milk vessel in his meat sink: If one found a dairy vessel in his meat sink, then if one is not accustomed to wash the dishes with hot Keli Rishon water, everything is permitted. If he is accustomed to wash the dishes with hot Keli Rishon water [i.e. Iruiy Keli Rishon] then seemingly one may be lenient to permit the vessels if he is unsure if there was meat/dairy in the sink.[623] If, however, one knows for certain that the vessels were dirty with meat and he is knows that he poured Keli Rishon water over them, then one may only be lenient in a case of great loss, as explained in Halacha 8B.[624]

 

Q&A

What is the law if one found a milk vessel in his meat dishwasher?[625]

If one found a dairy vessel in his meat dishwasher which uses Yad Soledes water, then if one does not know for certain that the meat vessels were clean, the dairy vessel is forbidden.[626] [However, the meat vessels remain permitted if one can assume that there were 60x against any dairy residue.] If, however, soap was used throughout the entire period of the hot washing, then many Poskim are lenient to permit all the vessels, as explained in Halacha 30E. Possibly one may rely on this if he is unsure if the vessels were dirty with meat.[627] Likewise, even if he is positive that there was meat and dairy residue there, some dishwashers may be defined as Iruiy Keli Rishon, and would contain an added leniency.

 

32. Baked meat and milk in the same oven:[628]

The subject of baking Kosher foods in a non-Kosher oven, or baking dairy in a meat oven or vice versa contains many different aspects of worry. These include: 1) Reiach, or the smell of an Issur penetrating the Heter. 2) Zeiah, which is the vapor of an issur penetrating a Heter.[629] 3) Mamashus, which is having the Kosher food contact the non-kosher food that is in the oven and hence receive forbidden taste. The typical medieval ovens did not contain a Zeiah concern as they were too large[630], or had a wide-open vent which released the vapor, and their only concern was that of Reiach. However, our ovens today which are a small closed off box, contain a serious Kashrus concern of Zeiah upon the vapor of the food hitting the ceiling of the oven.[631]

 

A. Baking meat and milk in oven simultaneously:

Lechatchilah:[632] One is initially to avoid baking milk and meat simultaneously in the same oven in all cases, [even if they are covered and no steam is being released or the steam will not be Yad Soledes by the time it hits the other pot]. Thus, the following discussion is only with regards to Bedieved.

Bedeived: If meat and milk were cooked simultaneously in the same oven, everything is forbidden unless both foods were properly covered to the point that they will not release vapor.[633] See Chapter 7 Halacha 2 under the section of “ovens” for the full details of this subject!

           

B. Baking one after the other:[634]

As explained in the introduction, modern ovens today contain a Zeiah prohibition. Accordingly, the roof and walls of an oven are saturated with taste of the foods cooked in it and receive a meat/milk/Issur status similar to that of a meat/dairy/Issur pot. Thus, if one cooked uncovered meat in a dairy oven or vice versa, everything is forbidden unless the oven was Koshered beforehand, or was cleaned and is not Ben Yomo. If, however the meat/dairy which is now being cooked in the oven is covered to the point that it will not release vapor, then [in a time of need[635]] it is permitted to be cooked in a dairy/meat/Issur oven, so long as it is clean from any leftover meat/dairy/Issur substance and the pot and surface area are dry.[636] See Chapter 7 Halacha 2 under the section of “ovens” for the full details of this subject!

 

Q&A

What is the law if a Ben Yomo dairy pot baked in an oven simultaneously under a meat pot?

Empty dairy pot:[637] If an empty Ben Yomo dairy pot baked in an oven simultaneously under a meat pot, the meat remains permitted.[638]

Dairy pot contained Pareve food:[639] If a Ben Yomo dairy pot which contained Pareve food, such as water, baked in an oven simultaneously under a meat pot, the meat pot remains permitted.[640] [However, seemingly according to Admur, the food is forbidden.[641]]

Issur pot contained Kosher food:[642] If a Ben Yomo non-Kosher pot which contained Kosher food, such as water, baked in an oven simultaneously under a Kosher pot, the Kosher pot is forbidden.[643]

 By today’s modern ovens, what is the law if the bottom dairy food was covered while the top meat food was not?[644]

Being that today’s ovens contain a vapor prohibition, if any of the foods are uncovered, possibly both foods become prohibited.  

Do all food products release vapor, whether liquid or solid?

Some Poskim[645] rule that all food products release vapor, whether liquid or solid. Other Poskim[646] rule that all dry foods that do not contain liquid or gravy [such as dough kneaded with milk] do not release a forbidden form of vapor[647] [and hence if they were baked even uncovered in a clean Issur/meat oven, or baked under meaty in a medieval oven, everything remains permitted]. Practically, if one sees that the food gave off vapor, then one is to be stringent even according to this opinion.[648]

 

What is the law if one baked fish and meat in the same oven?[649]

Seemingly all the food is forbidden, unless one of the foods was covered. The oven, however, does not need to be Koshered, although one should wait 24 hours before using.[650]

 

Using the same microwave for meat/milk:

See Chapter 7 Halacha 2!

 

___________________________________________

[1] Michaber 98:1; Rambam Hilchos Machalos Assuros 15:1; Gemara Nazir 37a; Pesachim 44b; Zevachim 79a

The source: The reason the food is forbidden is because “Taam Ki’ikur”. This means that the taste of a food is viewed like the food itself. Thus if a Kosher food contains the taste of a non-Kosher food it is considered as the non-Kosher food is within the Kosher food and hence the Kosher food is forbidden from being eaten. The source for viewing taste like the actual food is learned in the Gemara in Nazir 37a. According to Rabbanan it is learned from the verse [Bamidbar 6:3] “Kol Mishras Anavim Lo Yishteh”. The Torah says in this verse that a Nazir which is forbidden to drink wine may not drink water that had grapes soak in them. Thus we see that a food that has the taste of wine is forbidden for a Nazir. The Gemara ibid expounds that the same applies for all other prohibitions that any food which contains their taste is forbidden, as the taste is viewed like the actual prohibition. According to Rebbe Akivah the Gemara first suggests it is learned from the prohibition of meat and milk. From the fact the Torah prohibits meat that absorbed milk we see that the taste of a food is considered like the actual food. The Gemara however rejects this and rather concludes that according to Rebbe Akivah it is learned from the Torah command [Bamidbar 31:23] to Kosher the vessels of Midyan which contained non-Kosher tastes of foods. This shows the Torah views the taste of non-Kosher just like the forbidden food itself.

[2] Michaber 105:1

[3] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 253:1; SSH”K 1 footnote 3; Igros Moshe 4:74 and Yoreh Deah 2:52; Darkei Halacha 105; Pischeiy Teshuvah Y.D. 105:7; Darkei Teshuvah 105; 51; Kaf Hachaim 105:30

[4] Pischeiy Teshuvah 105:7

[5] Issur Viheter 37:2 in name of Semak; Beis Yosef 94; Minchas Yaakov 85:13; P”M 94 M.Z. 1; Zivcheiy Tzedek 94:8; Kaf Hachaim 94:10

[6] Admur 318:19; Taz 94:1; Peri Chadash 87, brought in Beir Heiytiv 87:1 and glosses of Rav Akiva Eiger 87:1

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that placing something hot in a cold meat and milk mixture is only a Rabbinical form of cooking, while pouring from a Keli Rishon is a doubt if it is considered Biblically forbidden (Safek D’oraisa). [Minchas Yaakov]

[7] 1st opinion in Michaber 105:2 and so is his final ruling Bedieved; Rama 105:3; 68:11; 92:7; Toras Chatas 33 and 57; Tur in name of opinion brought in Rashba; Rashbam; Rosh; Ran; Mordechai; Sefer Hateruma brought in Shach 105/5; Taz 95:12; Opinion in Admur 451:33; Lechem Hapanim 95:22; Kaf Hachaim 95:47

[8] 2nd opinion in Michaber 105:2; Rashba; Peri Toar 105:6; Shach 105:5 concludes to initially be stringent and remove Kelipa; Opinion in Admur 318:19

[9] Bach 105 and Rashal Perek Kol Habasar 71 brought in Taz 105:4 and Shach 105:5

[10] Taz 105:4 as explained in P”M 105 M”Z 4; Peri Chadash 105:5; Implication of Lechem Hapanim 105 Iruiy; Beis Lechem Yehuda 105:6; Chavos Daas 105:10; Kaf Hachaim 105:38

Opinion of Admur: It is unclear from the Shulchan Aruch Harav as to what his opinion is regarding a Keli Sheiyni in non-Chametz related Issurim. The opinions regarding a Keli Sheiyni is mentioned in Admur 318:19 [mentions stringent opinion]; 451:33 [mentions lenient opinion who are the majority and states may be lenient regarding Chametz in certain circumstances]; 467:43 [rules like stringent opinion of Bach/Rashal regarding Chametz on Pesach]. It is unclear as to how Admur rules regarding this dispute in non-Chametz related Issurim, as even the Rama who is lenient here regarding a Keli Sheiyni, is stringent regarding Chametz [see Rama 447:3 and 451:1]. Hence no proof can be deduced from Admur’s rulings regarding Pesach. See Piskeiy Yoreh Deah 67:11 [p. 38]

[11] See Admur 451:34

[12] So is evident from the words of all the Poskim ibid regarding Keli Sheiyni who either permit even a Keli Sheiyni, or limit their prohibition only to a Keli Sheiyni in their wording; Admur ibid explicitly rules that Iruiy Keli Sheiyni and Keli Shelishi and Revi’i cannot transfer taste

[13] Peri Chadash 68:18; brought in Admur 451:34

[14] Admur ibid after bringing the lenient ruling concludes “Nevertheless, since there are opinions who are stringent, regarding Chametz on Pesach itself one should be stringent like them.”

[15] Shach Y.D. 94:30; 105:8; Issur Viheter 36:7; Rashal Gid Hanashe 44; Taz 94:14 [regarding knife-Duchka Desakina]; Beis Lechem Yehuda 94:26; Halachas Pesuka 94:7; Chavas Daas 94:26; Beis Yitzchak 3:3; Toras Hashem, brought in Soles Lamincha on Toras Chatas 23:7; Erech Hashulchan 94:14; Aruch Hashulchan 94:32 [unless great loss]; Chochmas Adam 60:12 [is lenient in case of great loss]; So rule regarding Shabbos: Magen Avraham 318:45 [although the Tzemach Tzedek explains that the Magen Avraham himself does not hold of this opinion as the final Halacha. Nevertheless the Peri Megadim seems to rule to be stringent in this Lechatchilah]; Admur 253 Kuntres Acharon 11 “I did not record the words of the M”A as according to the Shach in Y.D. 94 a Davar Gush never becomes a Keli Sheiyni..”; Implication of Admur 318:20 and 31 regarding roast and does not differentiate between Keli Rishon and Sheiyni; M”B 318:45 and 65 and 118; Ketzos Hashulchan 124 footnote 15 and 39; Seeming conclusion of Igros Moshe; See Piskeiy Admur p. 180

[16] Rama Y.D. 94:7; Tzemach Tzedek Yoreh Deah 65; Peri Megadim; Chavas Daas; Chasam Sofer; Aruch Hashulchan; Igros Moshe from letter of law; Shabbos Kehalacha Vol. 1 p. 88-91

[17] Aruch Hashulchan 94:32; Kaf Hachaim Y.D. 94:72; Hakashrus 10:91

[18] The opinion of Rama: The Rama rules in 92:7 that “If the milk spillage from the Keli Rishon was Nifsak Hakiluach by the time it reached the meat pot, then it has a status of Keli Sheiyni and everything is permitted”, thus implying that Nifsak Hakiluach always has the status of a Keli Sheiyni. However, in 105:3 the Rama implies that Iruiy Keli Rishon is not like a Keli Sheiyni even if Nifsak Hakiluach. This forms a contradiction in the opinion of the Rama [Nekudos Hakesef 105:5; Peri Chadash 105:18; Kreisy Upleisy 105:5; Yad Avraham 92; Beir Yaakov] Some Poskim explain that in truth the Rama agrees that Nifsak Hakiluach prohibits a Kelipa worth, although in 92:7 he is lenient being that the stream passed through a cold surface until it reached the meat pot. [P”M 92 S.D. 34; Yad Avraham 92; Degul Merivava 92:7; Yad Yehuda 92 Aruch 48 and Katzar 64] Others however rule that since Basar Bechalav is only Rabbinically forbidden with Iruiy Keli Rishon [as it does not cook], therefore we are lenient with Nifsak Hakiluach that it does not prohibit the vessel. [Yad Efraim 92:7; Chemed Moshe in name of Orach Mishor] Others rule that we are always lenient regarding a vessel with Nifsak Hakiluach. [Erech Hashulchan 105:7 and Darkei Teshuvah 105:64 in name of Beir Yaakov regarding all vessels; Aruch Hashulchan 105:29]

The opinion of Michaber: The Michaber 92:9 rules: If hot Cheilev dripped from a pan onto a vessel, one is to perform Greida to the vessel. This means that one is required to remove less than a Kelipa from the vessel. [Gilyon Maharsha 92 based on Shach 96:21; P”M 92 S.D. 38] This implies that Nifsak Hakiluach does not penetrate a Kelipa’s worth, but less than a Kelipa’s worth. [Shach 92:38; Minchas Yaakov 55:15; 57:15-16; P”M 92 S.D. 38; Degul Merivava 92:7] Some Poskim explain that in truth regarding a vessel we are more lenient by Nifsak Hakiluach than regarding a food, and only by a food is Kelipa required while by a vessel one only requires Greida. [Minchas Yaakov ibid; P”M ibid] Others say that by a mere drop we are more lenient. [Divrei Yosef 449; Chamudei Daniel, brought in Darkei Teshuvah 105:64]

[19] Shach Y.D. 91:7; 105:5 “And even with an Iruiy Shenifsak Hakiluach it nevertheless transfers taste to a Kelipa worth according to all opinions.”; Kneses Hagedola 91:5; Beir Heiytiv 105; Yad Yehuda 105 Aruch 10; 91 Aruch 12 and Katzar 14; Lechem Hapanim Dinei Iruiy; Chochmas Adam 42:7; 59:2; P”M 91 S”D 7; P”M O.C. Hanhagos Hanishal, brought in Darkei Teshuvah 105:64 even regarding Basar Bechalav; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:21; Kaf Hachaim 91:26; 105:31;

Is this ruling Biblical or Rabbinical: This ruling that Nifsak Hakiluach absorbs a Kelipa worth is a mere Rabbinical stringency [M”A 467:33, Gilyon Maharsha 105; P”M 91 S”D 7; P”M O.C. Hanhagos Hanishal; Darkei Teshuvah 105:64]

Does Nifsak Hakiluach also have ability to extract [Poleit] taste from a food or vessel, according to this opinion? According to those Poskim who rule that Nifsak Hakiluach has ability to transfer taste to a Kelipa worth of the food, so too it has ability to extract taste from a Kelipa’s worth of the food. However, it does not have ability to extract and then reabsorb. [Maflit Ubolei] [Shach ibid] Other Poskim however rule it even has ability to extract and reabsorb. [Yad Yehuda 105 Katzar 19 in name of Poskim]

[20] Implication of Rama 92:7 [however the Achronim don’t learn this way]; Implication of Admur 451:32; Peri Chadash 105:18 [however he is of the opinion that a Keli Sheiyni transfers taste]; Kreisy Upleisy 105:8; Yad Efraim 92:7 in name of Chemed Moshe in name of Orach Mishor that one may permit by Nifsak Hakiluach especially by Basar Bechalav being its only Rabbinical

Ruling of Admur: Admur in 451:32 states, “Vessels that have absorbed Chametz through a Keli Sheiyni, such as eating spoons which are used to eat from the bowl, which is a Keli Sheiyni (after the stream has stopped from the Keli Rishon), are Koshered through Hagala in a Keli Rishon.” The words in parentheses imply that Nifsak Hakiluach has the status of Keli Sheiyni; See Piskei Admur Hazakein on Y.D. p. 34 who learns according to Admur 451:29 that Nifsak Hakiluach is not like a Keli Sheiyni, and possibly absorbs into a vessel. However, no mention is made there of Admur 451:32 who seems to learn that it does have the same status as a Keli Sheiyni, and it is only regarding the Chumra of a Keli Sheiyni that the above ruling in 451:30 was said.

[21] Rama 105:3 in name of Issur Viheter; Minchas Yaakov 57:24; Rashal Gid Hanashe 37; Implication of Kneses Hagedola 95:54 in name of Masa Binyamon; Peri Megadim 95 M.Z. 13; Zivcheiy Tzedek 95:32; Kaf Hachaim 95:50

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that we do say Nitzuk Chibur and hence even the upper food is forbidden Bedieved. [Kanfei Yona based on Rashal Gid Hanashe 37, brought in Darkei Teshuvah 105:96]

[22] Michaber 105:1

[23] Rama 105:1

The reason: The reason why we by Basar Bechalav the concept of Kevisha is Rabbinical is because it is only Biblically forbidden to eat a mixture of Basar Bechalav if they have been previously cooked together. If however they were pickled together Kavush, then it is merely a Rabbinical Issur. [Rama ibid]

[24] Rama 91:2; 98:1; Taz 92:1; Lechem Hapanim 92:2; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:21; Halacha Pesuka 92:1; Chochmas Adam 44:1; Beis Yitzchak 1:1; Aruch Hashulchan 92:1

[25] Chulin 98a; Rambam Hilchos Machalos Assuros 15:21

[26] Glosses of Maharikash 92; Peri Chadash 92:11; Lechem Hapanim 92:14; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:8; Birkeiy Yosef 92 Shiyurei Bracha 1; Erech Hashulchan 92:3; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:8; Kaf Hachaim 91:10

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that majority suffices by a mixture of milk and Rabbinical meat. The Poskim ibid negate this approach.

[27] Rama 99:5

The reason: As a) We apply the rule of Chanan by this mixture. B) One may never initially nullify an Issur, even if it is Rabbinical.

[28] Kaf Hachaim 92:23; 99:63

Background: The Michaber 99:6 rules one may always add to a Rabbinical Issur; However 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. Furthermore see Shach 99:9 that even according to the Michaber this allowance to add Heter only applies by a mixture that does not become Chanan, and since Basar Bechalav is Chanan perhaps the allowance would not apply even by chicken and milk which is a Rabbinical Chanan. Practically some Poskim rule that we apply the rule of Chanan by all Basar Bechalav mixtures, even of Rabbinical nature, even according to the Michaber. [Erech Hashulchan 92:6; Koheles Yehuda 92:4 that so is the opinion of the Besi Yosef in chapter 100] Other Poskim however rule that the rule of Chanan does not apply by any Rabbinical mixture, even of Basar Bechalav, and hence according to the Michaber one may even initially add more food to the mixture to attain 60x versus the milk. [Rambam Machalos Assuros 15; Peri Chadash 92:17; Peri Toar 99:11] The Kaf Hachaim ibid concludes that 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.

[29] Darkei Moshe 93:3; Mordechai end of Gid Hanashe in name of Ravayah; Zivcheiy Tzedek 93:3; Kaf Hachaim 93:3; Hakashrus 10 footnote 8

[30] Poskim ibid; Some Poskim record a custom to weigh the vessel and then give it an approximate volume based on that weight, such as 15 cc for every 100 grams. [See Ben Ish Chaiy Korach 2; Kaf Hachaim 93:4]

[31] Michaber 91:4 regarding that the milk remains Kosher and Rama ibid regarding that the meat is permitted Bedieved; Rabbeinu Tam Pesachim76a; Shach 91:8 regarding a case that the meat has disintegrated; Shulchan Gavoa 91:6; Kaf Hachaim 91:27

[32] Taz 91:7; Rashal Kol Habasar 60; Riva; Erech Hashulchan 91:5 conclude that by Basar Bechalav in which the Kelipa is only Rabbinical one can be lenient, while by other Issurim one is to have 60x versus the Issur; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:23, Teshuas Chein 11, Pischeiy Teshuvah 91:5, Kaf Hachaim 91:29 all conclude like Erech Hashulchan ibid to be stringent by other Issurim although write that in a time of need or great loss one may be lenient even by other Issurim

[33] Erech Hashulchan 91:5; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:23; Teshuas Chein 11; Pischeiy Teshuvah 91:5; Kaf Hachaim 91:29

[34] Shach 91:8; Chavas Daas 91:10

[35] Shach 96:21; Taz 96:14; Beis Yosef 96 in name of Ran; Rashba Toras Habayis Aruch 4:1; Peri Chadash 91:19; Lechem Hapanim 91:31; Beis Lechem Yehuda 91:25; Chavas Daas 91:16; Chochmas Adam 42:11; Beis Yitzchak 96:43; Aruch Hashulchan 96:21; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:26; Kaf Hachaim 91:17 and 32

[36] Taz 91:2 in name of Rashal that the entire salt water is forbidden; P”M 91 M.Z. 2 and S.D. 10 that so applies according to Taz 91:2 and Riva brought in Taz 91:7 who is stringent to require a peel even Bedieved

[37] Toras Chatas 22:1; P”M 91 M.Z. 2 and S.D. 10 that according to Michaber/Rama 91:4 and Shach 91:8 a Kelipa is only needed Lechatchilah and the same would apply to Hadacha; Chavas Daas 91:3 in length; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:25

[38] Kaf Hachaim 91:31

[39] Rama 94:1; Shach 94:1 and 95:13; Opinions in Taz 94:1; Taz 95:12; Issur Viheter; Toras Chatas 57:13 that so is custom; Lechem Hapanim 95:22; Kaf Hachaim 95:47; See Admur 451:34 and Halacha 1B regarding Keli Sheiyni

[40] The reason: As a Keli Sheiyni does not absorb taste into a utensil.

[41] Taz 105:4 [unlike Taz 95:12]; Peri Chadash 95:15; Lechem Hapanim 95:18; Beis Lechem Yehuda 95:11 that the custom is like the Peri Chadash ibid; See Kaf Hachaim 95:41; 68:39; See Admur 451:34 and Halacha 1B regarding Keli Sheiyni

[42] Chavas Daas 95:14; Kaf Hachaim 95:40-41; See also Issur Viheter, brought in Toras Chatas ibid and Shach ibid

[43] Shach 94:2 and 22; Peri Chadash 94:2; Lechem Hapanim 945:2; Beis Lechem Yehuda 94:2; Kreisi 94:2; Chavas Daas 94:3; P”M 94 S.D. 2; M.Z. 1; Kaf Hachaim 94:14

[44] Hence, the 24 hours do not restart from the last use of the vessel with a Keli Rishon food and is rather always calculated from the last use of the Keli Rishon milk or meat.

[45] Shach 122:2

[46] Taz 94:1

[47] Taz ibid; Michaber 105:2; Kaf Hachaim 94:15 is lenient in a case of great loss

Other Poskim-When to begin counting the 24 hours from a Keli Rishon: Some Poskim rule that so long as the food is hot, then it is considered a Keli Rishon even if it was removed from the fire and is below Yad Soledes. Thus, if one cooked milk in a pot and then removed it from the fire, one does not begin to count the 24 hours until the food has cooled off to the point it is only defined as warm. [Chavos Yair 101; Pischeiy Teshuvah 94:2; See Kaf Hachaim ibid]

[48] Rashal, brought in Taz ibid

[49] Toras Chatas and Issur Viheter, brought in Taz ibid

[50] Taz 94:1

[51] See dispute in Poskim in Chapter 91 Halacha 5B regarding the status of Nifsak Hakiluach, and seemingly in this case all would agree to be lenient.

[52] Taz 93:2; Shach 93 in Nekudos Hakesef; Chavos Yair 101; Erech Hashulchan 93:4; P”M 87 M.Z. 1; Machazik Bracha 87:20; Zivcheiy Tzedek 87:10; 93:23; Kaf Hachaim 93:32

[53] See The Laws of Taaruvos chapter 105 Halacha 1 and Kaf Hachaim 105:1 for Poskim who rule we do not apply Kevisha by vessels.

[54] Zivcheiy Tzedek 87:10; 93:23; Kaf Hachaim 87:15; 93:32; 105:1

[55] Admur 451:61; See Piskeiy Admur Yoreh Deah p. 235

[56] Bach 93; P”M 93 S.D. 20; Zivcheiy Tzedek 93:15; Kaf Hachaim 93:23

[57] Chavos Yair 101; Lechem Hapanim 93:2; Beis Lechem Yehuda 93:2; Zivcheiy Tzedek 93:7; Kaf Hachaim 93:11

[58] Issur Viheter 35:3; Kol Eliyahu Y.D. 1:10; Erech Hashulchan 93:7; Zivcheiy Tzedek 93:13; Kaf Hachaim 93:18

[59] Michaber 91:1

[60] Chavas Daas 91:2; Erech Hashulchan 91:1; Pischeiy Teshuvah 91:1; Beis Yitzchak ibid; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:3; Kaf Hachaim 91:3

[61] Shach 91:1; Bach 91; Kneses Hagedola 91:1; Peri Chadash 91:1; Lechem Hapanim 91:1; Beis Lechem Yehuda 91:1; Kreisi 91:1; Minchas Yaakov 21:1; Birkeiy Yosef 91 Shiyurei Bracha 1; Chochmas Adam 42:1; Chavas Daas 91:1; Beis Yitzchak 91:1; Kaf Hachaim 91:1; Hakashrus 10:54; See Admur 467:49 regarding dry wheat which touched dry meat that even a rinsing is not required; See Piskeiy Admur p. 119

[62] Peri Toar 91:4; Zechor Leavraham Y.D. 91:2; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:2; Kaf Hachaim 91:2; See however Admur and Poskim ibid who do  not differentiate in this matter; See Piskeiy Admur p. 119

[63] Poskim in previous footnote

[64] Chavas Daas 91 Biurim 1; Pischeiy Teshuvah 91:1; Beis Yitzchak ibid; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:2; Kaf Hachaim 91:1

[65] Based on Michaber 91:2

[66] The reason: As one is never allowed to initially cause foods to require washing due to Kashrus reasons, as one may come to forget to wash it and come to eat the forbidden substance. [ibid]

[67] Michaber 91:2

[68] Based on Shach 91:1

[69] 91:3

[70] Raw meat that has not been salted for blood: One is certainly required to be careful not to allow bread to come into contact with meat that has not yet been salted for its blood, as one may come to eat this blood. If this occurred, one is to peel, or at least grate away, the area of contact. [Peri Toar 91:3; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:14; Kaf Hachaim 91:17]

[71] Shaareiy Yoreh Deah 91

[72] Shach 91:4; Peri Chadash 91:4; Lechem Hapanim 91:7; Beis Lechem Yehuda 91:6; Kreisi 91:3; Chavas Daas 91:5; P”M 91 S.D. 4; Chochmas Adam 41:5; Beis Yitzchak 91:14; Aruch Hashulchan 91:5; Kaf Hachaim 91:15

[73] Michaber 91:3

[74] Yad Yehuda 4; Rav Poalim 11

[75] Shach 91:4; Peri Chadash 91:4; Lechem Hapanim 91:7; Kreisi 91:3; Chavas Daas 91:5; Chochmas Adam 41:5; Beis Yitzchak 91:14; Kaf Hachaim 91:16

Other opinions-Kelipa: Some Poskim rule it does not suffice to wash bread, and rather one must cut off the area of contact. [Kneses Hagedola 91:2; Peri Toar 91:3, brought in Kaf Hachaim 91:16; So rules Hakashrus 10:56]

Hard part of bread versus soft part: Some Poskim conclude that when the meat or cheese touches the hard part of the bread, such as its crusty part, then it suffices to wash it. However, if it touched the inner part of the bread which is soft, then it requires a Kelipa. [Pischeiy Teshuvah 91:4; Kaf Hachaim ibid]

[76] Peri Toar 91:3, brought in Kaf Hachaim 91:16

[77] Shach 91:4; Peri Chadash 91:4; Lechem Hapanim 91:7; Beis Lechem Yehuda 91:6; Kreisi 91:3; Chavas Daas 91:5; P”M 91 S.D. 4; Chochmas Adam 41:5; Beis Yitzchak 91:14; Aruch Hashulchan 91:5; Kaf Hachaim 91:15

[78] Kneses Hagedola 91:3, brought in P”M ibid and Kaf Hachaim ibid; See Peri Toar 91:4; Zechor Leavraham Y.D. 91:2; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:2; Kaf Hachaim 91:2

[79] Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:13; Kaf Hachaim 91:16

[80] Michaber 91:4; This applies according to all opinions

[81] Michaber and Rama 91:7; Darkei Moshe 91:7 “We do not follow the Tur”; Shach 91:21; Taz 91:12; Levush 91; Ran Chulin 41b; Rashba Toras Habayis Aruch 4:1; Implication of Rashi Chulin 112a; Raavad Teshuvos 75, brought in Shach and Beis Yosef ibid; Smak 205; Smag Lavin 137-138; Hagahos Mordechai in name of Rabbeinu Peretz; Oar Zarua; Teshuvas Maharam Merothenberg 218; Kol Bo 106; Implication of Issur Viheter 30; Terumas Hadeshen, brought in Shaareiy Dura 22:3 and 6; Maharshal Kol Habasar 69; Toras Chatas 22

[82] Opinion in Admur 465:5; Sefer Hateruma 63; Hagahos Maimanis Machalos Assuros 15 Samech; Rosh Chulin Kol Habasar 33; Tur 91:5; Maharil Gra 91:18; Peri Chadash 91:18; See Shach 91:21; See Bach 91:3 who understands the entire Chumra of the Sefer Hateruma and Tur to be referring to slightly salted meat or milk

[83] Kneses Hagedola 91:42 in name of Damesek Eliezer; Beis Lechem Yehuda 91:20; Chavas Daas 91:20; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:56; Kaf Hachaim 91:64

[84] Admur 465:5

Ruling of Sephardim: According to the Michaber and Sephardic ruling, the meat is permitted. [Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:58; Kaf Hachaim 91:70]

[85] Rama 91:7; Shach 91:24; Peri Chadash 91:21; Lechem Hapanim 91:26; P”M 91 S.D. 24; Chavas Daas 91:21; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:55; Kaf Hachaim 91:66

[86] Implication of Michaber 91:7 from fact he only says the Halacha regarding hot meat; This follows the following opinions in Rishonim: Ran Chulin 41b; Rashba Toras Habayis Aruch 4:1; Implication of Rashi Chulin 112a; Raavad Teshuvos 75, brought in Shach and Beis Yosef ibid

[87] Rama 91:7, as explained in Shach 91:21 and 25; Admur 465:5; Gra 91:18; Peri Chadash 91:18; Smak 205; Smag Lavin 137-138; Hagahos Mordechai in name of Rabbeinu Peretz; Oar Zarua; Teshuvas Maharam Merothenberg 218; Kol Bo 106; Implication of Issur Viheter 30; Terumas Hadeshen, brought in Shaareiy Dura 22:3 and 6; Maharshal Kol Habasar 69; Toras Chatas 22; Sefer Hateruma 63; Hagahos Maimanis Machalos Assuros 15 Samech; Rosh Chulin Kol Habasar 33; Tur 91:5; Maharil;

[88] The reason that cooked meat is more stringent than raw:  This is because the cooking softens the meat, thus allowing it to absorb the milk.

[89] Rama ibid; Admur 465:5 regarding the case of raw meat. Kaf Hachaim 91:70; See Shach 91:25

Ruling of Sephardim: According to the Michaber and Sephardic ruling, the meat is permitted. However, a Baal Nefesh is to be stringent to forbid a Kelipa worth of the meat unless it is a case of great loss, as so rule majority of Poskim. [Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:58; Kaf Hachaim 91:70]

[90] Rama 91:7; Shach 91:24; Peri Chadash 91:21; Lechem Hapanim 91:26; P”M 91 S.D. 24; Chavas Daas 91:21; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:55; Kaf Hachaim 91:66

[91] Kneses Hagedola 91:42 in name of Damesek Eliezer; Beis Lechem Yehuda 91:20; Chavas Daas 91:20; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:56; Kaf Hachaim 91:64

[92] Michaber 91:4; Levush 91; Ran Chulin 41b; Rashba Toras Habayis Aruch 4:1; Implication of Rashi Chulin 112a; Raavad Teshuvos 75, brought in Shach and Beis Yosef ibid

[93] Rama 91:7, as explained in Shach 91:21 and 25, being stringent without great loss like Smak; Mordechai; Or Zarua and being lenient in a case of great loss like Ran; Rashba; Raavad; See Admur 465:5 who is lenient in a case of great loss by the case of raw meat.

[94] Shach 91:25; Smak 205; Smag Lavin 137-138; Hagahos Mordechai in name of Rabbeinu Peretz; Oar Zarua; Teshuvas Maharam Merothenberg 218; Kol Bo 106; Implication of Issur Viheter 30; Terumas Hadeshen, brought in Shaareiy Dura 22:3 and 6; Maharshal Kol Habasar 69; Toras Chatas 22; So rule even if raw: Sefer Hateruma 63; Hagahos Maimanis Machalos Assuros 15 Samech; Rosh Chulin Kol Habasar 33; Tur 91:5; Maharil; Gra 91:18; Peri Chadash 91:18;

[95] Rama ibid; Admur 465:5 regarding the case of raw meat. [Shach 91:25]

[96] As so rule most Rishonim and so is evident from Admur;  See Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:58 and Kaf Hachaim 91:70 brought next

Ruling of Sephardim: According to the Michaber and Sephardic ruling, the meat is permitted. However, a Baal Nefesh is to be stringent to forbid the meat even in a case of great loss, as so rule majority of Poskim. [Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:58; Kaf Hachaim 91:70]

[97] Chavas Daas 91:15; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:57; Kaf Hachaim 91:65; See Admur 318:11

Salt: Regarding the status of salt as a spice and the practical ramification-See Chavas Daas ibid who is stringent to consider it a spice and Zivcheiy Tzedek ibid who is lenient

[98] Har Tzevi 85; See Admur 465:5 who refers to goose meat in his case of Chametz and then switches to “Basar” in his case of Basar Bechalav.

[99] The reason: In this case one may be lenient like the Michaber ibid over the Rama as 1) Chicken with milk is only Rabbinical 2) Eating chicken with milk that was not cooked together is also only Rabbinical. 3) The Taz and Bach learns the entire case to be dealing with salted meat, and hence when not salted all would agree one can be lenient.

[100] As there may be some milk residue in the chicken which can get cooked when heated.

[101] See Michaber 105:1 and Poskim there

[102] 91:5

[103] Rama 91:5 and 105:9 that we always require 60x by Melicha; Rama 105:10 that even the salted piece is forbidden unless it is a case of [great-Shach 70:20] loss; 2nd opinion in Michaber 70:3

Other opinions of Rama: The Rama in Toras Chatas Klal 21 rules like the Michaber ibid that the salted piece never becomes forbidden due to the unsalted piece, and so concludes Rashal Kol Habasar 80; Levush 70. [Shach 70:20; So concludes also the Peri Megadim 105:39; Kaf Hachaim 105:123 that so rule the Achronim; So is also implied from Admur 467:50 that we are always lenient to permit the salted piece if the other piece was not salted.]

[104] Rama 105:10; 2nd opinion in Michaber 70:3

[105] Rama 105:9; Shach 91:20

[106] Rama 105:11

[107] Michaber 91:5; 105:10; 1st opinion in 70:3; See Shach 70:19 and Kaf Hachaim 70:33 that so is the main opinion of Michaber

[108] Rama 91:5; Kaf Hachaim 91:44 that this applies even according to Michaber; Shach 91:16; Kneses Hagedola 91:18; Peri Chadash 91:14; Halacha Pesuka 91:19; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:36

[109] Michaber 91:6; 105:9

[110] Michaber 105:11; Peri Chadash 91:11; Kreisi 91:11; P”M 91 S.D. 12 ; Kaf Hachaim 91:39

[111] The bottom piece is permitted as rules Michaber explicitly in 91:5, 105:10, and is the first opinion in 70:3, that the salted piece never becomes forbidden if the other piece is not salted. This applies even if the pieces are fatty, as the previous Halacha [105:9] was referring to even cases that the Issur or Heter is fatty, and in 105:10 he states that “with what were these words referring to, only when both are salted….”! Now although in 91:6 the Michaber rules if either of the foods are fatty they are both forbidden, one must conclude that case is referring to that both the meat and cheese have been salted, otherwise it forms a contradiction with 105:10. Likewise this is implied from the case there as the Michaber does not differentiate between which piece is on bottom hence clearly implying we are discussing a case that both pieces were salted. This is also the logical approach as how would the salted piece absorb taste simply due to the other piece containing fat, if there is no heat to transfer the taste to the salted piece.

[112] Shach 70:20

[113] Rama 105:10; Hakashrus 10:64

[114] Toras Chatas Klal 21 rules like the Michaber ibid that the salted piece never becomes forbidden due to the unsalted piece, and so concludes Rashal Kol Habasar 80; Levush 70; Shach 70:20; Peri Megadim 105:39; Kaf Hachaim 105:123 that so rule the Achronim; So is also implied from Admur 467:50

Ruling for Sephardim: According to the Sephardim, the salted piece never becomes forbidden due to the unsalted piece, unless it is a liquid. [See Kaf Hachaim 91:44; 105:123]

[115] Rama 105:9

[116] Michaber and Rama 91:5; P”M 91 S.D. 1; Chavas Daas 91 Biurim 1; Kaf Hachaim 91:1; See Admur 467:49 regarding dry wheat which touched dry meat that even a rinsing is not required if it was prior to the salting;

[117] The reason: As without moisture, the salt cannot begin its chemical reaction to release heat. [This applies scientifically as well, that without moisture the salt will have no affect on lowering the freezing point.]

[118] Rama 91:5; Shach 91:17; Kneses Hagedola 91:17; Beis Lechem Yehuda 91:16; Chochmas Adam 43:8; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:39; Kaf Hachaim 91:5

[119] Peri Chadash 91:15; P”M 91 S.D. 17; Lechem Hapanim 91:20; Chavas Daas 91:14

[120] Kaf Hachaim ibid

[121] Rama 91:5; Kaf Hachaim 91:44 that this applies even according to Michaber; Shach 91:16; Kneses Hagedola 91:18; Peri Chadash 91:14; Halacha Pesuka 91:19; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:36

[122] Rama 105:9

[123] Beis Lechem Yehuda 91:15; Kaf Hachaim 91:46

[124] Toras Chatas 22:2, brought in Shach 91:16; Peri Chadash 91:13; Lechem Hapanim 91:16

[125] Shach 91:16; Kneses Hagedola 91:17; Beis Lechem Yehuda 91:15; Chavas Daas 91:13; P”M 91 S.D. 16

[126] Rama 105:9

[127] Michaber 91:5

[128] Opinion in Rama 91:5; Aruch, recorded in Beis Yosef 91

[129] Rama ibid

Ruling of Sephardim: The Sephardim follow the ruling of the Michaber ibid and hence if the food has not been salted to the point of inedibility, it remains permitted even if the case does not involve great loss. [Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:30; Kaf Hachaim 91:38]

[130] Opinion in Rama 91:5; Tosfos; Rosh Chulin; Shach ibid in name of majority of Poskim that within Shiur Melicha it is considered hot and that Ran is a Daas Yachid; The following Poskim all argue on Michaber ibid and agree that within Shiur Melicha it is considered hot: Peri Chadash 91:9; Lechem Hapanim 91:14; Chavas Daas 91:9; P”M S.D. 11

[131] Michaber 91:5 as explained in Shach 91:11; Beis Yosef 91 in name of Ran; Peri Toar 91:9 in name of Rashba and Bahag; Rabbeinu Tam; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:27 Kaf Hachaim 91:33

[132] Rama 91:5 although he is lenient after 18 minutes in a case of great loss and Seudas Mitzvah; Shach 91:11 is stringent even in case of great loss; Beir Heiytiv 91:10; Peri Megadim 91 S.D. 11; Darkeiy Halacha 91:5-1

[133] Kaf Hachaim 91:35 as rules Shach ibid unlike Rama ibid

Ruling of Sephardim: According to the Sephardic ruling, it is only considered hot after 18 minutes have passed.

[134] Shach ibid; Rama ibid in all cases; Kaf Hachaim ibid

[135] Michaber 105:1

[136] Rama 105:1

The reason: The reason why we are lenient by Basar Bechalav is because it is only Biblically forbidden to eat a mixture of Basar Bechalav if they have been previously cooked together. If however they were pickled together Kavush, then it is merely a Rabbinical Issur. Therefore. in a case of doubt if they were Kavush. since it is a doubt regarding a Rabbinical prohibition we are lenient. [Rama ibid]

[137] Michaber 105:1

[138] See Darkei Halacha 105; Hakashrus 10 footnote 315

[139] Shach 105:2; Rashal; Issur Viheter [Brought in Shach ibid] The Peri Chadash and the Kneses Hagedola agree with the Shach that vinegar requires 24 hours.

[140] Hakashrus 10:61 if it stayed in the brine for between 10-18 minutes

[141] See Shach 105:3

[142] Michaber 91:8

[143] As Biblically, meat and milk mixtures are only forbidden if they are cooked in the normal method, Derech Bishul, as explained in chapter 87.

[144] Taz 93:2; Shach 93 in Nekudos Hakesef; Chavos Yair 101; Erech Hashulchan 93:4; P”M 87 M.Z. 1; Machazik Bracha 87:20; Zivcheiy Tzedek 87:10; 93:23; Kaf Hachaim 93:32

[145] P”M ibid; Machazik Bracha ibid; Zivcheiy Tzedek ibid; Kaf Hachaim 87:15

The reason: As the vessel has absorbed milk and this milk is now being cooked with meat, and is hence Biblically forbidden. [Poskim ibid]

[146] See The Laws of Taaruvos chapter 105 Halacha 1 and Kaf Hachaim 105:1 for Poskim who rule we do not apply Kevisha by vessels.

[147] Zivcheiy Tzedek 87:10; 93:23; Kaf Hachaim 87:15; 93:32; 105:1

[148] Admur 451:61; See Piskeiy Admur Yoreh Deah p. 235

[149] Hakashrus 10:69

[150] Rama 87:10; Beis Yosef 87 in name of Shibulei haleket

If the leather was cooked in liquid after the tanning and became soft: See Pischeiy Teshuvah 87:21; Kaf Hachaim 87:88

[151] Shach 87:33; Kneses Hagedola 87: 43; Beis Lechem Yehuda 87:24; Chochmas Adam 40:9; Mikdash Me’at 87:31; Aruch Hashulchan 87:43; Zivcheiy Tzedek 87:63; Kaf Hachaim 87:86

[152] The reason: As the leather is completely dry and is similar to a piece of wood. [ibid]

[153] See Zivcheiy Tzedek 87:65; Kaf Hachaim 87:90

[154] Shach 87:33; Kneses Hagedola 87: 43; Beis Lechem Yehuda 87:24; Chochmas Adam 40:9; Mikdash Me’at 87:31; Aruch Hashulchan 87:43; Zivcheiy Tzedek 87:63; Kaf Hachaim 87:86; See also Pischeiy Teshuvah 87:21 that one is not allowed to do Kevisha with the skin.

[155] Dvar Moshe Y.D. 1:11; Beis David Y.D. 45; Perach Mateh Aaron 2:37; Kaf Hachaim 87:89; See Shulchan Gavoa 87:34; Zechor Leavraham Y.D. Os Nun

[156] See Zivcheiy Tzedek 87:65; Kaf Hachaim 87:90

[157] Beis David Y.D. 45; Beis Lechem Yehuda 87:24; P”M 87 S.D. 22; Machazik Bracha 87:39; Kaf Hachaim 87:91

The reason: As meat is Nosein Taam Lepegam in honey and oil. [Beis David ibid]

[158] 87:11

[159] Shach 87:34; Peri Chadash 87:29; Kreisi 87:23; P”M 87 S.D. 34; Zivcheiy Tzedek 87:67; Kaf Hachaim 87:93

Background: The Michaber ibid states that if there is any taste of meat in the milk, then it is invalid. This refers to having a gentile taste the food and voice whether it has a taste of milk. Practically, the Poskim ibid conclude that we no longer rely on tasting of a gentile, and therefore there must always be 60x in the milk versus the meat. [Shach 87:34]

[160] The reason: The reason for why it becomes nullified despite the ruling that a catalyst is never nullified is because the catalyst never began to give off taste due to the nullifying ratio, and thus there was never a creation of a Basar Bechalav prohibition. Thus, although the actual catalyst is never nullified, it does not have the ability to create a new prohibition of Basar Bechalav without giving off taste, and it is merely that the meat catalyst is floating on its own in the cheese and does not join with it at all. [Shach 87:35; Lechem Hapanim 87:29; Beis Lechem Yehuda 87:26; P”M 87 S.D. 35]

[161] Rama 87:11

The reason: The reason for this is because a catalyst is always viewed as if it is in full existence within the catalyzed item no matter what the ratio, as in the end of the day the item only became catalyzed due to it, and thus the food testifies to the catalyst. [Shach 87:35]

Other Opinions: Some Poskim rule that a non-Kosher catalyst is nullified in 60x. [Rashal 106] We do not rule like this opinion [Shach 87:35].

A case of doubt if a non-Kosher catalyst was used: Some Poskim rule that the ruling that ‘a catalyst is never nullified [even in 1000]’ is only Rabbinical, therefore in a case of doubt one can be lenient and consider it nullified. [See Peri Chadash 100:3; Shaalos v’Teshuvos Maharil; Peri Megadim 87 S.D. 13] However, according to the Tur who holds the ruling of ‘a catalyst never becoming nullified’ is Biblical, than even in a case of doubt the cheese would be forbidden.

[162] Shach 87:36 [but concludes with Tzarich Iyun]; Taz 87:13; Admur 442:11; Kuntres Acharon 445:6; Peri Chadash 87:31; Halacha Pesuka 87:10; Kreisi 87:25; P”M 87 S.D. 36; Birkeiy Yosef in Shiyurei Bracha 87:5; Erech Hashulchan 87:25; Chochmas Adam 53:37; Mikdash Me’at 87:32; Aruch Hashulchan 87:42; Zivcheiy Tzedek 87:68; Kaf Hachaim 87:95; See Tzemach Tzedek Piskeiy Dinim 87; Piskeiy Admur p. 11

[163] See Admur 451/2; Shach 91/3

[164] The reason: As one may forget to wash the plate prior to its next use or will wash it with hot water and make it non-Kosher or have it soak in the sink for 24 hours together with the opposite dishes. This follows the ruling of Michaber 91:2 that whenever washing is required, we suspect one may forget to wash off the substance, and it is hence initially forbidden to be done even if one plans to wash it. Thus, this case is not similar to the case of allowance discussed above to permit the occasional use of non-Kosher plates for Kosher food, as here one plans to reuse the plate for the opposite food, and if one is not accustomed to wash the plate with cold water as soon as one is done eating, there is worry that one may forget and come to transgress. There are many instances in Poskim that we find a stricter approach to meat and milk than to even actual non-Kosher due to the greater possibility of mix-up and confusion. See Shach 89:22 and P”M 89 S.D. 22 regarding cutting cheese with a meat knife that had Neitza performed; See M”A 509:11 regarding Koshering from meat to milk. However, Tzaruch Iyun, as according to this one should also not share glass vessels between meat and milk, and the custom of even Ashkenazim is to be lenient in this, as brought in the section regarding “Glass.” [See Mishneh Halachos 9:168; Yabia Omer Y.D. 4:5 that we do not suspect that one will not clean it well] Nonetheless, practically, by non-glass materials there are other worries relevant, such as that one may come to use it with hot food and thus prohibit the plate and food, and thus the custom is to avoid using the vessels for both meat and dairy and only by glass are we lenient. 

[165] See Taz 91:2; Rashal Kol Habasar 44

[166] 91:4

[167] Michaber 91:4; Shmuel Pesachim 76a; Rashi and all Poskim rule like Shmuel [Beis Yosef 91]

Other opinions in Talmud: Rav in Pesachim ibid is of the opinion that Ila’h Gavar, and hence he reverses the rulings of case A and B, that if the top is hot everything is forbidden, while if the top is cold, only a Kelipa is required.

[168] P”M 91 M.Z. 4 that according to the Rama who considers all meat as fatty, by Keli Rishon heat it makes no difference if the foods are moist or dry, solids or liquids, and hence even if cheese fell on top of hot meat, everything is forbidden; See Example 3 for the full details of this mater!

Opinion of Michaber: According to the Michaber [in 105:4], if dry cheese falls on top of a low-fat piece of hot and dry meat, it only requires a Netila. It is for this reason that the Michaber emphasized in this case the example of milk, which is a liquid. [Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:15; Kaf Hachaim 91:19; See P”M 91 M.Z. 4; See chapter 94 Halacha 11 for the full details of this matter!]

[169] P”M 91 M”Z 5; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:17; Kaf Hachaim 91:22

[170] The reason 60x is required: The reason that according to the Michaber the piece of meat requires 60x the milk and not just merely a fingers width [as he rules in 105:4 that when Issur falls on Heter the Heter only needs a finger worth and not 60x] is because: a) There are opinions who hold that milk is a fatty substance which thus absorbs itself completely into the piece of meat. And b) The case under discussion is referring to a piece of fatty meat. [Shach 92:3; Taz 92:3] or c) By liquid foods, or foods with moisture [gravy] the Michaber agrees that it prohibits 60x and hence the Michaber here emphasized in his case milk and not cheese. [Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:15; Kaf Hachaim 91:19; See P”M 91 M.Z. 4; Michaber 105:3-4; Shach 105:6] However, according to the Rama the above is not necessary, as the Rama rules that all pieces of meat are considered fatty and thus one always requires 60x by any case of Issur falling on Heter meat, even if the dairy is a solid and is not fatty. [P”M 91 M.Z. 4; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:15; Kaf Hachaim 91:19; See Shach 105:6]

[171] Shach 91:6

[172] Regarding the definition of a Davar Gush, and as to whether it always retains the status of a Keli Rishon, refer to: Shach 91:7; 105:8 [stringent]; Magen Avraham 318:45 [records opinion of Shach ibid]; Rama 94:7 [lenient]; Taz 94:14 [lenient]; M”B 318:45, 65, 118 [stringent]; Ketzos Hashulchan 124 footnote 15 and 39 [stringent]

Opinion of Admur: Admur does not give a clear ruling regarding if a Davar Gush has the status of a Keli Sheiyni. . Some understand that Admur is stringent by a Davar Gush. Others understand that Admur is lenient. [See Admur 318:20; 318:21; 253 Kuntres Acharon 11; Tzemach Tzedek Yoreh Deah 65; Ketzos Hashulchan 124 footnote 15 and 39; Shabbos Kehalacha Vol. 1 p. 88-91; Piskeiy Admur Yoreh Deah p. 180]

[173] The following Poskim rule a Keli Sheiyni cannot transfer taste: 1st opinion in Michaber 105:2 and so is his final ruling Bedieved; Rama 105:3; 68:11; 92:7; Toras Chatas 33 and 57; Tur in name of opinion brought in Rashba; Rashbam; Rosh; Ran; Mordechai; Sefer Hateruma brought in Shach 105/5; Taz 95:12; Lechem Hapanim 95:22; Kaf Hachaim 95:47

The following Poskim rule a Keli Sheiyni can transfer taste: Some Poskim rule that although a Keli Sheiyni does not have the ability to cook, it nevertheless does have the ability to transfer taste between foods, into the external peel of the food. [2nd opinion in Michaber 105:2; Rashba; Peri Toar 105:6; Shach 105:5 concludes to initially be stringent and remove Kelipa] Some Poskim rule that a Keli Sheiyni has the ability to completely transfer taste into another food, even more than a peels worth. [Bach 105 and Rashal Perek Kol Habasar 71 brought in Taz 105/4 and Shach 105/5; The following Poskim rule like this opinion unless it is a case of great loss: Taz 105:4 as explained in P”M 105 M”Z 4; Peri Chadash 105:5; Implication of Lechem Hapanim 105 Iruiy; Beis Lechem Yehuda 105:6; Chavos Daas 105:10; Kaf Hachaim 105:38]

Opinion of Admur: It is unclear from the Shulchan Aruch Harav as to what his opinion is regarding a Keli Sheiyni in non-Chametz related Issurim. The opinions regarding a Keli Sheiyni is mentioned in Admur 318:19 [mentions stringent opinion]; 451:33 [mentions lenient opinion and states may be lenient regarding Chametz in certain circumstances]; 467:43 [rules like stringent opinion of Bach/Rashal regarding Chametz on Pesach]. It is unclear as to how Admur rules regarding this dispute in non-Chametz related Issurim, as even the Rama who is lenient here regarding a Keli Sheiyni, is stringent regarding Chametz [see Rama 447:3 and 451:1]. Hence no proof can be deduced from Admur’s rulings regarding Pesach. See Piskeiy Yoreh Deah 67:11

[174] This case follows the understanding of some Poskim  in the Michaber’s first scenario in 94:8 regarding the Pandash. [See Shach 94:32; See P”M 94 M.Z. 15] However, according to other Poskim, this scenario was never the intent of discussion in the Michaber. [See Taz 94:14; P”M ibid]

[175] Shach 94:32 in his understanding of Michaber 94:8 and Rabbeinu Yerucham brought in Beis Yosef 94 regarding Pandash; Peri Chadash 94; Beis Lechem Yehuda 94:29

[176] Shach ibid that the cheese requires a Netila. This follows the ruling of Michaber 105:9 who differentiates between lean and fatty, however, according to Rama 105:9, the cheese requires 60x. [Kaf Hachaim 94:77]

[177] The reason: As it is not common for cheese to penetrate more than a Kelipa’s worth into meat, even if the meat is hot. [Poskim ibid; See P”M 94 M.Z. 15]

[178] Implication of Taz 94:15 and Beir Hagoleh 94 who interpret the Michaber ibid case of Pandash to be referring to an empty vessel; P”M 94 M.Z. 15 “Never heard of this before, and never heard anyone rule this way” and so is the simple implication of the detailed laws of Tatah Gavar in chapter 92 who never differentiated in this matter

[179] Degul Merivava 94 based on Michaber 105:7; Kaf Hachaim 94:78

[180] Based on ruling of Rama in 105:9 who does not differentiate between fat and lean; Chavas Daas 94 Biurim 17; Degul Merivava 94; Beis Yitzchak 3:6; P”M 94 M.Z. 15; Kaf Hachaim 94:77

[181] Kaf Hachaim 94:77

[182] Michaber 91:4; Michaber 91:7 [as explained in Shach 91:22]; Shmuel Pesachim 76a; Rashi and all Poskim rule like Shmuel [Beis Yosef 91]

Other opinions in Talmud: Rav in Pesachim ibid is of the opinion that Ila’h Gavar, and hence he reverses the rulings of case A and B, that if the top is hot everything is forbidden, while if the top is cold, only a Kelipa is required.

[183] See Q&A for the definition [i.e. Hot but Keli Sheiyni or below Yad Soledes]!

[184] Shach 91:7; Taz 91:6; Peri Chadash 91:6; Kreisi 91:5; Chochmas Adam 42:7; Kaf Hachaim 91:25

[185] P”M 91 M.Z. 4; Issur Viheter Klal 29

[186] This is the original case in Michaber 91:4 and Michaber 91:7 [as explained in Shach 91:22]

[187] Pashut, as the concept of Nifsak Hakilauch does not apply to a Davar Gush. This especially applies according to those who hold a Davar Gush is always considered a Keli Rishon if it is still hot.

[188] The opinion of Rama: The Rama rules in 92:7 that “If the milk spillage from the Keli Rishon was Nifsak Hakiluach by the time it reached the meat pot, then it has a status of Keli Sheiyni and everything is permitted”, thus implying that Nifsak Hakiluach always has the status of a Keli Sheiyni. However, in 105:3 the Rama implies that Iruiy Keli Rishon is not like a Keli Sheiyni even if Nifsak Hakiluach. This forms a contradiction in the opinion of the Rama [Nekudos Hakesef 105:5; Peri Chadash 105:18; Kreisy Upleisy 105:5; Yad Avraham 92; Beir Yaakov] Some Poskim explain that in truth the Rama agrees that Nifsak Hakiluach prohibits a Kelipa worth, although in 92:7 he is lenient being that the stream passed through a cold surface until it reached the meat pot. [P”M 92 S.D. 34; Yad Avraham 92; Degul Merivava 92:7; Yad Yehuda 92 Aruch 48 and Katzar 64] Others however rule that since Basar Bechalav is only Rabbinically forbidden with Iruiy Keli Rishon [as it does not cook], therefore we are lenient with Nifsak Hakiluach that it does not prohibit the vessel. [Yad Efraim 92:7; Chemed Moshe in name of Orach Mishor] Others rule that we are always lenient regarding a vessel with Nifsak Hakiluach. [Erech Hashulchan 105:7 and Darkei Teshuvah 105:64 in name of Beir Yaakov regarding all vessels; Aruch Hashulchan 105:29]

The opinion of Michaber: The Michaber 92:9 rules: If hot Cheilev dripped from a pan onto a vessel, one is to perform Greida to the vessel. This means that one is required to remove less than a Kelipa from the vessel. [Gilyon Maharsha 92 based on Shach 96:21; P”M 92 S.D. 38] This implies that Nifsak Hakiluach does not penetrate a Kelipa’s worth, but less than a Kelipa’s worth. [Shach 92:38; Minchas Yaakov 55:15; 57:15-16; P”M 92 S.D. 38; Degul Merivava 92:7] Some Poskim explain that in truth regarding a vessel we are more lenient by Nifsak Hakiluach than regarding a food, and only by a food is Kelipa required while by a vessel one only requires Greida. [Minchas Yaakov ibid; P”M ibid] Others say that by a mere drop we are more lenient. [Divrei Yosef 449; Chamudei Daniel, brought in Darkei Teshuvah 105:64]

[189] Shach Y.D. 91:7; 105:5 “And even with an Iruiy Shenifsak Hakiluach it nevertheless transfers taste to a Kelipa worth according to all opinions.”; Kneses Hagedola 91:5; Beir Heiytiv 105; Yad Yehuda 105 Aruch 10; 91 Aruch 12 and Katzar 14; Lechem Hapanim Dinei Iruiy; Chochmas Adam 42:7; 59:2; P”M 91 S”D 7; P”M O.C. Hanhagos Hanishal, brought in Darkei Teshuvah 105:64 even regarding Basar Bechalav; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:21; Kaf Hachaim 91:26; 105:31;

Is this ruling Biblical or Rabbinical: This ruling that Nifsak Hakiluach absorbs a Kelipa worth is a mere Rabbinical stringency [M”A 467:33, Gilyon Maharsha 105; P”M 91 S”D 7; P”M O.C. Hanhagos Hanishal; Darkei Teshuvah 105:64]

Does Nifsak Hakiluach also have ability to extract [Poleit] taste from a food or vessel, according to this opinion? According to those Poskim who rule that Nifsak Hakiluach has ability to transfer taste to a Kelipa worth of the food, so too it has ability to extract taste from a Kelipa’s worth of the food. However, it does not have ability to extract and then reabsorb. [Maflit Ubolei] [Shach ibid] Other Poskim however rule it even has ability to extract and reabsorb. [Yad Yehuda 105 Katzar 19 in name of Poskim]

[190] Implication of Rama 92:7 [however the Achronim don’t learn this way]; Implication of Admur 451:32; Peri Chadash 105:18 [however he is of the opinion that a Keli Sheiyni transfers taste]; Kreisy Upleisy 105:8; Yad Efraim 92:7 in name of Chemed Moshe in name of Orach Mishor that one may permit by Nifsak Hakiluach especially by Basar Bechalav being its only Rabbinical

Ruling of Admur: Admur in 451:32 states, “Vessels that have absorbed Chametz through a Keli Sheiyni, such as eating spoons which are used to eat from the bowl, which is a Keli Sheiyni (after the stream has stopped from the Keli Rishon), are Koshered through Hagala in a Keli Rishon.” The words in parentheses imply that Nifsak Hakiluach has the status of Keli Sheiyni; See Piskei Admur Hazakein on Y.D. p. 34 who learns according to Admur 451:29 that Nifsak Hakiluach is not like a Keli Sheiyni, and possibly absorbs into a vessel. However, no mention is made there of Admur 451:32 who seems to learn that it does have the same status as a Keli Sheiyni, and it is only regarding the Chumra of a Keli Sheiyni that the above ruling in 451:30 was said.

[191] Chavas Daas Biurim 91:5; Kaf Hachaim 91:24

[192] Rama 105:3

[193] The Smak however rules that even in such a case only a peels worth is required to be removed. However the Rashal writes in the name of the Smak that the entire Heter becomes forbidden. The Shach concludes with a Tzaruch Iyun on the Rashal. [Shach 105:9]

[194] Shach 105:9; Taz 105:5 in name of Issur Viheter

[195] The Taz ibid mentions in the Issur Viheter that only the cold piece requires a Kelipa. However the Gilyon Maharsha writes that this is not to be taken literally and rather both the meat and cheese require Kelipa irrelevant of which one was hot and which was cold.

[196] Peri Megadim 105 M.Z. 5 in accordance to Taz 105:5 and Rashal

[197] 91:7

[198] Michaber 91:7, as explained in Shach 91:22; Kneses Hagedola 91:33; Peri Chadash 91:19; Lechem Hapanim 91:24; Chavos Daas 91:18; P”M 91 S.D. 22; Beis Yitzchak 3:7; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:52; Kaf Hachaim 91:61

[199] Rama 91:7; Shach 91:24; Peri Chadash 91:21; Lechem Hapanim 91:26; P”M 91 S.D. 24; Chavas Daas 91:21; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:55; Kaf Hachaim 91:66

[200] The reason: Although the roast becomes submerged within the milk, and hence it is found that the milk surrounds the roast and is floating on top of it, nonetheless it is judged as a case that the lower is cold and the upper is hot, in which we rule that a Kelipa is required. The reason for this is because the logic of Tatah Gavar is that the stationary item has ability to cool or heat the upper item which fell [i.e. home court advantage]. [Shach 91:23; Beis Yosef 91 in name of Rashba; Peri Chadash 91:20; Lechem Hapanim 91:25; Chavos Daas 91:18; Beis Yitzchak 91:34; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:53; Kaf Hachaim 91:62]

[201] Michaber 91:7; Chulin 112a according to all Rishonim

[202] Rama 91:7; Shach 91:24; Peri Chadash 91:21; Lechem Hapanim 91:26; P”M 91 S.D. 24; Chavas Daas 91:21; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:55; Kaf Hachaim 91:66

[203] Kneses Hagedola 91:42 in name of Damesek Eliezer; Beis Lechem Yehuda 91:20; Chavas Daas 91:20; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:56; Kaf Hachaim 91:64

[204] Michaber 91:4 see there Shach 91:8

[205] 92:7

[206] Peri Chadash 91:18; Chavas Daas 91:19; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:54; Kaf Hachaim 91:63

[207] The reason: As if the milk penetrated through slits, the milk does not evenly spread around the meat, and the crevices can hold pockets of milk. [Poskim ibid]

[208] Rama 92:2; Tur 92; Shach 92:8; Taz 92:6

[209] Michaber 92:2; Bach 92

[210] Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:7; Kaf Hachaim 92:8

[211] Yad Avraham 92:2

[212] Shach 92:8 in explanation of Mahariy Chaviv; Bach 92:6 [according to all]; P”M 92 M.Z. 2 according to Rashi, as another ramification between Rashi and Riy [see introduction] is regarding if partially protruding foods join the measurement of 60x when the milk has fallen directly into the gravy; Kaf Hachaim 92:6

[213] Michaber 92:2

[214] It makes no difference if the protruding food was meat or a vegetable or a Matzah ball, as either way, if it is cooking in a meat stew it is carrying meat taste, and is treated the same as an actual piece of meat.

[215] Rama 92:2; Tur 92; Shach 92:5; Taz 92:4 and 6; Mahariy Chaviv in explanation of Rambam ibid [brought in Shach 92:8];

[216] Michaber 92:2; Beis Yosef 92; Rambam Machalos Assuros 9:10

[217] 3-4 times. [Poskim in next footnote]

[218] Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:6; Kaf Hachaim 92:7; See Taz 92:6 “The Tur misunderstood the Rambam, as even the Rambam did not intend that one is to mix until the end of the cooking

[219] Implication of Michaber and Rama 92:2; Rama 92:4 that by Basar Bechalav the piece becomes Chanan as explained in Shach 92:13; Taz 92:2; 92:14; Rashi on Mishneh Chulin 108a; Baal Haittur Shaar 1:16, brought in Tur ibid; Rambam, as understood by Taz 92:2; Rashba and Rabbeinu Yerucham, brought in Shach ibid; Rashal’s ruling in Chulin 61; See Shach 92:13; Peri Chadash 92:15; Lechem Hapanim 92:23; P”M 92 S.D. 13; Kaf Hachaim 92:27

[220] Shach 92:4 and 13; Tosfos Chulin 108a [i.e. Riy]; Rashal in his glosses on the Tur

[221] Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:5; Kaf Hachaim 92:5

[222] P”M 92 M.Z. 14 based on leniency of Rama 92:4 by other Issurim to rule like Riy being that Chanan is only Rabbinical, and hence certainly here by a Rabbinical prohibition we should be lenient like Riy to permit even the piece itself.

[223] Michaber 92:2-3

[224] Implication of Michaber 92:2; Opinion brought in Michaber 105:4; Rama 92:2 and 4; Taz 92:2; 92:14; Rashi on Mishneh Chulin 108a; Baal Haittur Shaar 1:16, brought in Tur ibid; Rambam, as understood by Taz 92:2; Rashba and Rabbeinu Yerucham, brought in Shach ibid; Rashal’s ruling in Chulin 61

[225] Conclusion of Darkei Moshe 92:2 in opinion of Rashi [see there in length] brought in Taz ibid; Implication of Tur, as learns Darkei Moshe; Hagahos Maimanis  Machalos Assuros 9; Mordechai Chulin 691; Beis Yosef 92 in his understanding of Rashi, as seen from his explanation of Mahariy Chaviv; See Derisha 92:3; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:5; Kaf Hachaim 92:5

Does the pot require 60x the milk? Ideally, according to this approach the pot does not even require 60x the milk. However, in conclusion the Rama ibid suspects for the next opinion, and the Taz ibid completely argues on the premises that the pot does not require 60x the forbidden piece, as explained next.

[226] Opinion brought in Michaber 105:4; Shach 92:4 and 13; Tosfos Chulin 108a [i.e. Riy]; Rashal in his glosses on the Tur; Implication of Admur 447:4; See Piskeiy Admur p. 135

[227] Taz  92:2 and 92:14 in his understanding of Rashi, as explained in P”M 92 M.Z. 14; Opinion in Darkei Moshe 92:2; Ran Chulin 43; Maggid Mishneh Machalos Assuros 9:8; Hakashrus 10:59; Tzemach Tzedek Piskei Dinim 92:2-3 p. 180 rules one is to be stringent like this opinion unless it is a case of great loss; See Piskeiy Admur p. 135

[227] Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:5; Kaf Hachaim 92:5

[228] Rama 92:2; Shach 92:13; Peri Chadash 92:15; Lechem Hapanim 92:23; P”M 92 S.D. 13 and M.Z. 14; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:5; Kaf Hachaim 92:5 and 27; See Admur 447:4 that the pot never requires 60x the piece; However see Tzemach Tzedek Piskei Dinim 92:2-3 p. 180 2 who rules one is to be stringent like this opinion unless it is a case of great loss; See Piskeiy Admur p. 135; See Hakashrus 10:59 who suspects for the ruling of the Taz ibid and requires 60x the piece

[229] P”M 92 M.Z. 14 based on leniency of Rama 92:4 by other Issurim to rule like Riy being that Chanan is only Rabbinical, and hence certainly here by a Rabbinical prohibition we should be lenient like Riy to permit even the piece itself.

[230] See Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:5; Kaf Hachaim 92:5

[231] Shach 92:7 according to Rama 105:9 who does not differentiate between fatty and lean; 105:17 and so rules Mahariy in Hagahos Sheid 91; Darkei Moshe; Derisha; Issur Viheter Klal 29 and other Achronim

Other opinions: According to Michaber 105:9 it merely requires Kdei Netilah [2 cm.] to be removed unless one knows that it was a fatty piece. [Shach ibid] Furthermore, some Poskim rule that Basar Bechalav has a status of Issur Balua with regards to Tatah Gavar and hence all pieces which came into contact with the forbidden piece remain permitted, so long as the forbidden piece remained above gravy level until it was removed. This applies even if the forbidden piece was fatty. [Taz 105:13; 92:7; See Michaber 105:7] The Poskim negate this opinion. [Shach 105:17 and so rules Mahriy in Hagahos Sheid 91; Darkei Moshe; Derisha; Issur Viheter Klal 29 and other Achronim]

[232] It makes no difference if the protruding food was meat or a vegetable or a Matzah ball, as either way, if it is cooking in a meat stew it is carrying meat taste, and is treated the same as an actual piece of meat.

[233] Rama 92:2; Tur 92, explained in Shach 92:8

[234] What is Charal and what about the other foods? Charal is an acronym for Chaticha Hareuya Lihiskabed. A piece of Issur which is large enough to be served to [respectable and honorable ] guests, is considered a food of importance [Davar Chashuv] and is never nullified even in 1000x. [Michaber 101:1] However, non-Charal pieces are permitted if there are at least three pieces in the mixture. [Michaber 109:1; Shach 92:9; Peri Chadash 92:11; Lechem Hapanim 92:13; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:8; P”M 92 S.D. 9 and M.Z. 8; Chavas Daas 92:6; Aruch Hashulchan 92:20; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:9; Kaf Hachaim 92:13-14] Thus if the milk fell on a potato and you do not know which one, then if there are at least three potatoes in the mixture, and there is 60x versus the largest potato, everything remains permitted.

[235] See Michaber 92:3; 101:2; Shach 92:9; Peri Chadash 92:11; Lechem Hapanim 92:13; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:8; Halacha Pesuka 92:3; P”M 92 S.D. 9; Chavas Daas 92:6; Aruch Hashulchan 92:20; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:7 and 9; Kaf Hachaim 92:8, 12-14

The reason we require 60x versus the questionable piece: According to the Rama/Tur, if mixing was delayed, the unknown piece becomes forbidden/Chanan if it did not have 60x the milk Thus, one now requires 60x that piece rather than the mere drop of milk. Now, although we only say Chanan when one knows which piece it fell on, nevertheless since one can have a gentile taste which piece the milk fell on, it is not considered an unknown piece. [See Shach 92:8 towards end]

The reason we require 60x versus the largest questionable piece: This is due to doubt, as perhaps this largest piece is the one that is not-Kosher.

The definition of a questionable piece: All pieces of meat or food which were not completely submerged within the gravy at the time that the milk fell, and do not have 60x the milk, are considered questionable. Now, if one went ahead and mixed the pot, then all the solid food becomes questionable, and hence only the gravy would remain permitted even if there is 60x, unless the food is nullified 1:2, as explained next. Now, if one knows that the milk fell on a piece of meat, but simply does not know which one, then all the pieces of meat enter the doubt, and not the other foods. Similarly, if one knows the milk fell on a piece of meat that has bone, then only pieces of meat with bone enter the doubt, and so on and so forth. [See Kaf Hachaim 92:12]

If the questionable piece was partially submerged within the gravy: If the piece in question which was later mixed with the food was partially submerged in the gravy at the time that the milk fell, then some Poskim rule one may be lenient to not require 60x in the pot versus the questionable piece that became mixed in, due to Sfek Sfeika. Perhaps we rule like the Riy that the individual submerged piece does not require 60x. Furthermore, even if we rule like Rashi, perhaps this piece is not the Issur piece. [Kaf Hachaim ibid] If, however, all the questionable pieces were mixed in, then it is only one Safek and one must have 60x versus the largest piece.

[236] Michaber 92:2; Rambam Machalos Assuros 9:10; Maggid Mishneh, brought in Taz ibid that we do not say Chanan by a questionable piece; Issur Viheter 29:4

[237] The reason: The reason it helps to mix the pot even though one of the pieces has already absorbed milk taste is because according to the Michaber [and other Poskim] that piece is not yet defined as Chanan, as we only say Chanan when one can identify the piece of food that absorbed the milk. Accordingly, if one does not know onto which piece the milk fell, then mixing the pot even after delay allows the entire pot to join and nullify the milk. [Shach 92:8; Taz 92:6]

[238] Rama ibid; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:7; Kaf Hachaim 92:8 even according to Sephardim

[239] See Doveiv Meisharim 2:24

[240] 92:5

[241] Rama 92:7; Shach 92:36; P”M 92 S.D. 36; Kaf Hachaim 92:88

The reason we apply Tatah Gavar in such a case: The reason that in this case the hot pot is viewed as being the Tatah Gavar, when in truth if the milk hit the side of the pot and is hence not technically on top of the meat pot then it should be viewed as a case of side by side in which we rule in 105:3 that a Kelipa suffices, nevertheless, since the milk spilled from above, or since the pot has remained set in its place, therefore we consider the meat pot as the Tatah and the milk is the Ilaha. [Shach 92:36; P”M 92 S.D. 36; Kaf Hachaim 92:88]

[242] Chavas Daas 92:17; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:35; Kaf Hachaim 92:54

[243] Rashal Gid Hanashe 37 in name of Hagahos Mordechai; Damesek Eliezer p. 381; Kneses Hagedola 92:61; Kaf Hachaim 92:63

[244] Michaber 92:6

[245] Taz 92:21 that Kineged Haeish means that the pot is still near the fire. The Michaber ibid states that “if the drop fell on the area opposite the fire…”. Seemingly this would include a pot sitting on a stove top, that it is considered Kineged Haeish. Vetzaruch Iyun!

If the pot is very hot but is no longer on the fire: Once the pot has been removed from the fire, this allowance no longer applies even if the pot is very hot, and the laws explained in B-C apply instead. [Taz 92:21; Kneses Hagedola 92:24; Lechem Hapanim 92:38; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:25; P”M 92 M.Z. 21; Beis Yitzchak 3:4; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:40; Kaf Hachaim 92:60]

[246] Toras Chatas 56:3; Bach 92; Zechor Leavraham Y.D. 2; Chochmas Adam 45:8; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:39; Kaf Hachaim 92:61

[247] Rama ibid

[248] Shach 92:26 in name of Toras Chatas 56:3; Kneses Hagedola 92:61; Lechem Hapanim 92:39; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:26; Chavas Daas 92:18;  P”M 92 S.D. 26; Beis Yitzchak 3:4; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:41; Kaf Hachaim 92:62

[249] Radbaz 1:223; Erech Hashulchan 92:11; Kaf Hachaim 92:59

[250] Rashal Gid Hanashe 37 in name of Hagahos Mordechai; Damesek Eliezer p. 381; Kneses Hagedola 92:61; Kaf Hachaim 92:63

[251] Peri Chadash 92:23, brought in Beir Heiytiv 92:18; Peri Toar 92:14; Soles Limincha [in end of Toras Chatas] 55:2; Lechem Hapanim 92:36; Kreisi 92:23; Biur Hagr”a 92:29; Chochmas Adam 45:6; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:34; Kaf Hachaim 92:52

[252] Peri Toar ibid; Zivcheiy Tzedek ibid and 35; Kaf Hachaim ibid and 58; Radbaz 1:223; Erech Hashulchan 92:12 regarding if the drop fell in the interior of the pot

[253] The reason: Whether the drop fell above food level or within food level, if the food contains 60x the drop it is permitted, as if the drop does not spread past the metal of the pot, then the food contains no milk and is permitted, and even if the milk does penetrate throughout the metal of the pot, the steam in the covered pot causes the milk to enter the food right away and become nullified in 60x. [Poskim ibid]

[254] The reason: As in all cases, we suspect that perhaps the milk did not penetrate into the food and has hence never become nullified within the pot. [See Poskim ibid; Taz 92:23; Rashal, brought in Taz ibid]

[255] Michaber 92:5; In this case it makes no difference if the pot was covered or not, as either way the food remains permitted if it contains 60x

[256] Beis Hillel 92; Lechem Hapanim 92:29; Kaf Hachaim 92:38, as we anyways apply the rule of Tatah Gavar

[257] Kaf Hachaim 92:39; See Halacha A!

[258] Michaber 92:5

Background: The Smak, brought in Tur and Beis Yosef 92, explains as follows: The Talmud leaves in question as to the dynamics of a drop of milk that has fallen onto the outside of a vessel, and as to whether it penetrates throughout the metal of the pot or not. Thus, we need to be stringent on all ends. Now, in the case that it fell by food level, no matter how one views the dynamics of the drop, the food is permitted if there is 60x in the food. As if the drop spread into the walls of the pot and not into the food, then it has become nullified within the walls and is Kosher. And if it does not spread throughout the vessel, then one can assume that it spread into the food and if the food has 60x, then once again everything is Kosher. So whatever the case of what truly happened to the drop, the food nevertheless remain Kosher. [Shach 92:18; Taz 92:17; Peri Chadash 92:18; Lechem Hapanim 92:29; Chochmas Adam 45:1; Kaf Hachaim 92:40]

[259] Rama 92:6; Shach 92:19 and 27; Chavas Daas 92:13; Peri Chadash 92:19; P”M 92 S.D. 19; Chochmas Adam 45:1; Aruch Hashulchan 92:45; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:25

Opinion of Michaber:  The Michaber rules that if the food contains 60x the drop of milk, then the food is permitted just like a case that the milk fell into the food itself. The Michaber, however, does not make clear as to whether the pot is forbidden or permitted.

The law if the pot is always used for food that contains 60x the drop: If one is accustomed to always cook a lot of food in the pot, in a way that it will always contain 60x the drop, then some Poskim rule that it does not need to be Koshered, and may be used even initially to cook meat. [Michaber 99:7; Peri Chadash 92:19; Lechem Hapanim 92:31; Minchas Yaakov 56:5 that this applies even according to those who argue on Michaber ibid; Chochmas Adam 45:3; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:26; Kaf Hachaim 92:43]

How to Kosher the pot: In all cases that the milk fell onto the external part of the pot, it can only be Koshered through Hagala, and not through Miluiy and Even Meluban. [Pischeiy Teshuvah 92:3; Kaf Hachaim 92:66]

[260] The reason: As we suspect that the drop of milk which has become absorbed in the pot, dissipates very slowly into the food, and thus when one cooks in it a second time, it will release milk taste into the food. [Shach 92:27; Peri Chadash 92:25; Lechem Hapanim 92:40; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:27; Beis Yitzchak 92:26; Kaf Hachaim 92:64]

[261] Rashal Gid Hanashe 34; Taz 92:17 that so is main opinion; Lechem Hapanim 92:30; Minchas Yaakov 56:4; Beis Yitzchak 3:5

[262] The reason: The Rashal reasons as follows: If the drop of milk has entered completely into the food then it is has become nullified within the food, and if it has not spread into the food but rather spread into the pot, then it has become nullified in 60x within the wall of the pot. If one holds that the drop does not spread at all, then it will also not spread when one cooks in the pot, and thus the pot should be Kosher. Nevertheless, the Rashal concludes one is to be stringent to not use the pot and so rules the Taz.

[263] Rashal and Poskim ibid; See Kaf Hachaim 92:42 who rules one may one may be lenient in a time of need or great loss. It is unclear, however if he refers even to initially permitting the pot to be used without being Koshered, or only Bedieved if one already went ahead and cooked meat.

[264] Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:29; Biur Hagr”a 92:33; Aruch Hashulchan 92:45; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:25; Kaf Hachaim 92:42 and 68-69

[265] Kaf Hachaim 92:42

[266] Whenever the amount of the original food is more than the pot, then one must measure 60x versus the actual pot which is virtually impossible to attain, as a pot cannot normally hold a volume of 60x itself. However, if the original food was a small amount, which is less than the amount of the pot, and the new food contains 60x versus the original food, then the new food remains Kosher. [Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:27; Kaf Hachaim 92:44]

[267] Chochmas Adam 45:2; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:27; Kaf Hachaim 92:44

[268] Rama 92:6; Issur Viheter 31:1 in name of Smak, brought in Taz 92:17; Shach 92:19 and 28; Chavas Daas 92:13 and 20; Peri Chadash 92:19, and 26; Lechem Hapanim 92:41; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:28; P”M 92 S.D. 19 and 28; Chochmas Adam 45:1; Kaf Hachaim 92:67

[269] The reason: This is required in order to prevent the milk from continuing to spread into the food. [Poskim ibid] This follows the ruling of the Poskim ibid who rule that even with 60x, the pot remains forbidden. However, according to the other Poskim ibid who rule the pot remains permitted, there is no need or advantage of pouring out the food right away.

[270] P”M ibid; Kaf Hachaim ibid

[271] The differentiation between a Ben Yomo versus non-Ben Yomo case is recorded in Rama 92:5 as explained in Shach 92:22-23. However the Michaber does not mention any differentiation between Ben Yomo and not Ben Yomo

[272] Radbaz 1:223; Erech Hashulchan 92:12; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:35; Kaf Hachaim 92:58; This means that even if the milk fell inside the pot and hit an area above food level, it maintains the same law as if it hit the outside of the pot.

[273] See A that if the pot was covered and released steam, then it follows the same law as a drop that fell within food level.

[274] Kaf Hachaim 92:39; See Halacha A!

[275] Rama ibid writes that the case here involves an old pot. The Shach 92:25 explains it must be referring to a pot which is Ben Yomo from meat. The reason this makes a difference, despite the fact that in any event the pot has become Ben Yomo from its current cooking of meat, is explained in the second scenario.

If the drop of milk fell on an area that evaporated during the cooking: In the event that the food was on the fire for a long time and the liquid evaporated, thus making the food level sink, if the drop falls in that area of evaporation, it follows the same law as a Ben Yomo pot [Scenario 1], even if the pot was brand new. Nonetheless, it is not necessary for the Rav to inquire this. [P”M 92 S.D. 23; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:33; Kaf Hachaim 92:51]

[276] Michaber 92:5

[277] The reason: The Smak, brought in Tur and Beis Yosef 92, explains as follows: The Talmud leaves in question as to the dynamics of a drop of milk that has fallen onto the outside of a vessel, and as to whether it penetrates throughout the metal of the pot or not. Thus we need to be stringent on all ends. Now, in the case that it fell above food level, we suspect that the drop has spread throughout the pot, but not to a distance where it would be nullified in 60x. Meaning, that perhaps it spread in the wall of the pot up until 59x its size and then halted its journey, thus making that entire space of 59x its size, forbidden. [See Shach 92:18-19; Taz 92:17-18; Peri Chadash 92:18; Lechem Hapanim 92:29; Kaf Hachaim 92:40]

[278] Shach 92:20; Peri Chadash 92:20; Lechem Hapanim 92:31; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:20; Minchas Yaakov 56:6; Chochmas Adam 45:5; Beis Yitzchak 3:2; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:28; Kaf Hachaim 92:46

[279] Peri Toar 92:13; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:31; Kaf Hachaim 92:49

The reason: As we suspect that perhaps the milk spreads into the food area, or perhaps the gravy spreads into the area of the milk. [Poskim ibid]

[280] The reason: As perhaps when milk falls above food level the taste does not spreads into the food level, and even if one understands that the milk does spread into the food level, it is nullified in 60x. [See Shach 92:23]

[281] Shach 92:21; Peri Chadash 92:21; Lechem Hapanim 92:34; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:21; Kreisi 92:21; Chavas Daas 92:15; Chochmas Adam 45:5; Beis Yitzchak 3:12; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:30; Kaf Hachaim 92:48

The reason: As we suspect that perhaps the food will splash into the forbidden side. [Poskim ibid]

[282] The reason: If one were to pour the food from the forbidden area of the pot, this would in turn prohibit the food. [Michaber ibid]

[283] Shach 92:21; Peri Chadash 92:21; Lechem Hapanim 92:34; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:21; Kreisi 92:21; Chavas Daas 92:15; Chochmas Adam 45:5; Beis Yitzchak 3:12; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:30; Kaf Hachaim 92:48

The reason: As we suspect the movement can cause the food to splash and touch the forbidden area. [Poskim ibid]

[284] The reason: The reason for why one is to wait for the food to cool off and cannot pour it from the opposite side or drill a hole under it is because we suspect that if one were to move the pot, the food would accidently contact the wall of the pot which became forbidden, and thus prohibit the food, unless the food has 60x that pot area. [Shach 92:21]

[285] Shach 92:20; Lechem Hapanim 92:31; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:20; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:28; Kaf Hachaim 92:46

The reason: As it is forbidden to initially nullify an Issur. [Poskim ibid]

[286] Shach 92:20; Peri Chadash 92:20; Lechem Hapanim 92:31; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:20; Minchas Yaakov 56:6; Chochmas Adam 45:5; Beis Yitzchak 3:2; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:28; Kaf Hachaim 92:46

The reason we require 60 x 61: One requires 60 x slightly less than 61 times the drop, as the drop itself [1] is not included in the calculation, and we suspect perhaps the drop spread to 59.9 x its size. [Shach and Poskim ibid]

[287] Minchas Yaakov 56:7; Chochmas Adam 45:5; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:29; Kaf Hachaim 92:47

The reason: As many Poskim argue and rule that in such a case the food remains permitted. Hence, we are not stringent to consider the vessel as Chanan. [Poskim ibid] However, the food itself, seemingly is considered Chanan, and hence if it fell into another food one would require 60x the Chanan food.

[288] Michaber 92:6

[289] Michaber 92:6; Taz 92:20 concludes like Michaber

The reason: This is due to suspicion that perhaps the food in the pot splashed upwards and came into contact with the now Treif area and does not contain 60x versus it. [Shach 92:25; Issur Viheter 21:3; Peri Chadash 92:24; Lechem Hapanim 92:37; Kreisi 92:24; Chavas Daas 92:17; P”M 92 S.D. 25; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:37; Kaf Hachaim 92:57]

[290] Taz 92:20

[291] Shach 92:24; Perisha; Mahriy; Rashal Chulin Gid Hanashe 37, brought in Taz 92:20 and Shach ibid; Peri Chadash 92:24; Lechem Hapanim 92:37; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:24; Hakashrus 10:85

[292] The reason: These opinions argue that no such custom exists to forbid the food if one delays removing it until it cools down.

[293] P”M 92 S.D. 24; Kaf Hachaim 92:56-57

[294] Shach 92:25 and 92:20; Peri Chadash 92:24; Lechem Hapanim 92:37; Kreisi 92:24; Chavas Daas 92:17; P”M 92 S.D. 25; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:37; Kaf Hachaim 92:57

[295] The reason we require 60 x 61: One requires 60 x slightly less than 61 times the drop, as the drop itself [1] is not included in the calculation, and we suspect perhaps the drop spread to 59.9 x its size. [Shach 92:20] Although, some Poskim write it need only have 60x the drop, seemingly they intended as above. [Shach ibid]

[296] Shach 92:25 and Poskim ibid; See Shach 92:20 who implies one may pour the food out from the other side of the pot, in such a case; See Hakashrus 10:85

[297] Taz 92:23; Rashal Gid Hanashe 37; Lechem Hapanim 92:44; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:32; Chavas Daas 92:21; Kaf Hachaim 92:74

[298] Michaber 92:7

[299] Shach 92:29; Taz 92:22; Toras Chatas 56:2; Kneses Hagedola 92:27; Peri Chadash 92:27; Lechem Hapanim 92:42; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:30; P”M 92 S.D. 29; Chochmas Adam 45:7; Beis Yitzchak 3:5; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:44; Kaf Hachaim 92:70

Wealthy versus poor: A poor person many may be lenient any time of the year, while a wealthy person may only be lenient on Erev Shabbos. [Mahariy Mintz 15; Kneses Hagedola ibid; Beis Lechem Yehuda ibid; Zivcheiy Tzedek ibid; Kaf Hachaim ibid]

Letting the person know the reason of allowance: In all cases, the Rav is to tell the person why he is being lenient  [i.e. Kavod Shabbos; poor] in order so the asker not be bewildered at why the Rav on occasion permits it while by others forbids it. [Taz ibid; Mahariy Mintz ibid; Kneses Hagedola ibid; Lechem Hapanim ibid; Beis Lechem Yehuda ibid; Chavas Daas 92:21; P”M 92 M.Z. 22; Beis Yitzchak 92:29; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:44; Kaf Hachaim 92:72]

[300] Michaber ibid; One requires 60x only versus the drop. [Taz 92:24; Lechem Hapanim 92:45; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:33; Chavas Daas 92:21; P”M 92 M.Z. 24; Chochmas Adam 45:7; Beis Yitzchak 92:5; Kaf Hachaim 92:75]

[301] Rama 92:7

[302] Shach 92:30; Taz 92:23 [The Taz ibid rules that on Erev Shabbos one may always pour it pour right away from the other side and does not need to wait until it cools down, being it is Erev Shabbos and people are pressed for time.]; Rashal Gid Hanashe 37; Kneses Hagedola 92:27; Peri Chadash 92:28; Lechem Hapanim 92:44; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:32; Kreisi 92:25; Chavas Daas 92:21; P”M 92 S.D. 21 and 30; Chochmas Adam 45:7; Beis Yitzchak 92:32; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:47; Kaf Hachaim 92:73

[303] Taz 92:23; Rashal Gid Hanashe 37; Lechem Hapanim 92:44; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:32; Chavas Daas 92:21; Kaf Hachaim 92:74

[304] Rama 92:5 as explained in Shach 92:22-23. However the Michaber does not mention any differentiation between Ben Yomo and not Ben Yomo, and rather rules plainly as stated by the Ben Yomo case.

How can such a pot be not Ben Yomo if it has meat currently cooking inside: 1) As if one understands that when cooking in a pot the taste spreads above food level, and thus the pot is Ben Yomo due to the current cooking, then one must say that the milk also spreads into the food level, and it is thus nullified in 60x. And if one says that taste does not spread above/below the food level, then the meat or the milk taste did not spread into each other’s area and there is thus no Chanan in the walls of the pot. 2) Perhaps it is referring to a case that the drop of milk fell onto the pot while the food in it was still cold. 3) Perhaps it is referring to a case that one was cooking water in the pot and then milk fell, and then one placed in the meat. [Shach 92:23; See Peri Megadim 92 S.D. 23]

If the drop of milk fell on an area that evaporated during the cooking: In the event that the food was on the fire for a long time and the liquid evaporated, thus making the food level sink, if the drop falls in that area of evaporation, it follows the same law as a Ben Yomo pot [Scenario 1], even if the pot was brand new. Nonetheless, it is not necessary for the Rav to inquire this. [P”M 92 S.D. 23; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:33; Kaf Hachaim 92:51]

[305] See A that if the pot was covered and released steam, then it follows the same law as a drop that fell within food level.

[306] Kaf Hachaim 92:39; See Halacha A!

[307] It was not used with hot meat within 24 hours from the current cooking of meat. Although the Rama says “new” it refers to a pot that does not have a new taste of within 24 hours. [Shach 92:25; Michaber 98:5; Peri Chadash 92:22; Lechem Hapanim 92:35; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:22; Kreisi 92:22; Chavas Daas 92:16; Chochmas Adam 45:6; Beis Yitzchak 3:3; Kaf Hachaim 92:50]

[308] As there is no Ben Yomo meat taste in the walls of the pot which is above the food.

[309] Shach 92:25 and 92:20; Peri Chadash 92:24; Lechem Hapanim 92:37; Kreisi 92:24; Chavas Daas 92:17; P”M 92 S.D. 25; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:37; Kaf Hachaim 92:57

[310] The reason: As it contains both the taste of meat and milk in separate areas of the pot, and if one were to cook a food in the pot it could reach the area of the milk, and cause the food to become not Kosher. Vetzaruch Iyun, as perhaps we can apply by this milk the status of Nat Bar Nat Diheteira, and hence after 24 hours the pot does not require Koshering. [See Chapter 95 Halacha 1]

[311] Shach 92:20; See Shach ibid who implies that one may nevertheless pour it out from the other side of the pot even while hot. However, in Shach 92:25 and Poskim ibid he writes to leave the food in the pot until it cools off.

The reason: As it is forbidden to initially nullify an Issur. [Shach ibid]

[312] If small amount, the food is always permitted.

[313] If yes, and it was brining up steam, the food is always permitted with 60x the drop.

[314] Rama 92:7 regarding if placed hot pot on cold milk; Peri Chadash 92:32; Lechem Hapanim 92:52; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:38; Chochmas Adam 45:13; Kaf Hachaim 92:88

The reason: As the cold milk is considered That Gavar and only prohibits a Kelipa worth of the pot.

[315] Kaf Hachaim 92:89, based on Beis Lechem Yehuda ibid

[316] Maharsham 2:23

[317] Chochmas Adam 45:14; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:56; Kaf Hachaim 92:81

[318] The reason: As this is a case of Sfek Sfeika; 1) Perhaps the milk does not dissipate into the food. 2) Even if it, perhaps the food contains 60x. [Poskim ibid]

[319] Hakashrus 1:70 and 10 footnote 207

[320] Atzei Levona 97, brought in Darkei Teshuvah 97:1; Hakashrus 1:70

[321] The reason: The vessel may not be used for either meat or milk, as if we allow it to be used for milk after milk spilled on it people may come to mistakenly use the water for meat, in accordance to their custom. [Atzei Levona ibid] Other Poskim, however, negate this worry and rule one may use it for its newly designated meat or milk use. [Orion Telisaiy 91; Hagahos Maharshak on P”M; Poskim in Darkei Teshuvah ibid]

[322] Chochmas Adam 45 Binas Adam 58; Shearim Hametzuyanim 46 in Kuntres Acharon; Eretz Tzevi 129; See Darkei Teshuvah ibid

[323] The Reason: There are many sides of leniency regarding letting the pot remain Pareve. All these reasons combined justify allowing the pot to remain Pareve. The reasons are: 1) The Rashal rules that the drop of milk will not enter the food, as explained above B. 2) The Michaber rules that Nat Bar Nat is permitted even initially. 3) The Rashba and Peri Chadash rule that a pot which its food will always have 60x may be used if it is not Ben Yomo. [ibid]

[324] Eretz Tzevi 129

[325] Binas Adam ibid

[326] See Darkei Teshuvah ibid that the Binas Adam only stated his ruling if a small drop spilled.

[327] 92:7

[328] Rama 92:7; Minchas Yaakov 56:12 based on Hagahos Sheid and Issur Viheter; Peri Chadash 92:33; Lechem Hapanim 92:53; Kreisy 92:29; P”M 92 M”Z 28; Chochmas Adam 45:9; Beis Yaakov 37; Pischeiy Teshuvah 92:5; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:66; Hakashrus 10:82-83 as rules Rama and vast majority of Achronim. 

[329] The reason: As once a pot reaches a boil, it constantly releases steam which hits the cover of the pot and causes the drop to travel from the cover to the steam which eventually falls back into the food. [Rama ibid]

[330] Toras Chatas 56:4; P”M 92 M”Z 28; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:67; Kaf Hachaim 92:90

[331] Taz 92:28; Rashal Kol Habasar 46; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:39; Chavas Daas 92:29; Beis Yitzchak 93:2-2

[332] The reason: As it’s possible that the food did not begin releasing steam until sometime passed after the drop fell, thus giving the cover enough time to become Chanan. [Taz ibid]

[333] Taz ibid

[334] Kaf Hachaim 92:91

[335] Implication of Rama ibid [as explained in Shach 92:37; Taz 92:28]; Shach 92:37; Taz 92:28; Toras Chatas 56:4; Peri Chadash 92:34; Lechem Hapanim 92:53; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:39; Chochmas Adam 45:9; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:68; Kaf Hachaim 92:92

[336] So seems Pashut as the cover is considered as if it is cold. [see Shach 92:37]

[337] The reason: As until the pot begins to release steam onto the cover, the cover is considered as if it is cold. [Poskim ibid]

[338] Taz 92:28; Peri Megadim M”Z 92:28; Peri Chadash 92:34; Lechem Hapanim 92:53; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:39; Chochmas Adam 45:9; Kaf Hachaim 92:92

[339] Chochmas Adam 45:9; Kaf Hachaim 92:92

[340] P”M 92 M.Z. 28; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:67; Kaf Hachaim 92:90

[341] The reason: As we suspect that the vapor did not fully reach the cover and extract its milk into the pot, thus causing the milk to spread within the cover and prohibit it. [Poskim ibid]

[342] Minchas Yaakov 56:12; Kaf Hachaim 92:91

The reason: As regarding the original pot of food, we view it as if the drop fell inside of the gravy. [Poskim ibid]

[343] Rama 92:7

[344] Shach 92:33; Rashal Gid Hanashe 38; Kneses Hagedola 92:85; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:36; P”M 92 S.D. 33; Chochmas Adam 45:15; Beis Yitzchak 4:1; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:57; Kaf Hachaim 92:82

[345] However, one does not require 60x in the pot versus the milk that did not touch the pot, even though it is all connected as one stream. [Chavas Daas 91:6; Shivlei David; Tuv Taam Vadaas, Aruch Hashulchan, Yad Efraim, Rav Akiva Eiger, Meishiv Davar, Amudei Eish, brought in Darkei Teshuvah 92:129; Darkei Teshuvah 105:97 in name of Minchas Yitzchak that so rule all Rabbanim.]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule one requires 60x versus the entire flow of milk that is connected to the milk that is under the pot. [See P”M 95 S.D. 18; Darkei Teshuvah 92:129; 105:97 in name of P”M ibid, Atzei Levona; Shut Radam; Chochmas Adam, Yad Yehuda 92 Katzar 5, Yeshuos Chaim, Divrei Yosef]

[346] The reason: As the boiling hot pot cooks the milk, hence giving the milk a Keli Rishon status, and due to Tatah Gavar, the food in the pot requires 60x. [Poskim ibid]

[347] Rama 92:7; P”M O.C. 173

[348] P”M O.C. 173 A”A Hakdama

[349] Such as if hot milk spilled on one’s counter or table. In such a case, the milk is considered a Keli Sheiyni and is hence considered as if it was cold. If, however, the spilled milk has retained a Keli Rishon status, such as it spilled on top of the stove top which is hot, and the pot in turn was placed onto of the stove top, then all the food is forbidden, as will be explained next.

[350] The reason: As since the bottom milk is cold [or is considered cold due to being a Keli Sheiyni], the rule of Tatah Gavar applies, and the milk only gets absorbed into a peels worth of the metal on the bottom of the pot, and not into the food. 

[351] P”M O.C. 173 A”A Hakdama

[352] Kaf Hachaim 92:87 that everything is permitted in a case of great loss. However see Kaf Hachaim 91:29 and Chapter 92 Halacha 6 that by Basar Bechalav one may be lenient even without great loss.

[353] Shach 92:31; Kneses Hagedola 92:85; Lechem Hapanim 92:46; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:34; Chavas Daas 92:23; P”M 92 S.D. 31; Biur Hagr”a 92:35; Chochmas Adam 45:19; Beis Yitzchak 4:1; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:54; Kaf Hachaim 92:79

[354] The reason: As the hot milk is considered a Keli Sheiyni, and cannot transfer taste into the pot. It is hence viewed as if it were cold.

[355] Shach 92:32; Kneses Hagedola 92:85; Peri Chadash 92:29; Lechem Hapanim 92:47; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:35; Minchas Yaakov 56:20; Kreisi 92:26; P”M 92 S.D. 32, M.Z. 25; Biur Hagr”a 92:35; Chochmas Adam 45:14; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:55; Kaf Hachaim 92:80

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the spilled milk does not receive the status of a Keli Rishon, and the pot hence remains Kosher. [See Chavas Daas 92:21] The Poskim negate this approach. [Binas Adam 42; Zivcheiy Tzedek ibid; Kaf Hachaim ibid]

[356] The reason: As the stove top itself is considered a Keli Rishon and thus cooks the spilled milk. [Poskim ibid]

[357] Minchas Yaakov 56:20; Chochmas Adam 45:17; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:59; Kaf Hachaim 92:83

[358] The reason: As in such a case, the milk is considered Pagum and cannot prohibit the meat. [Poskim ibid]

[359] P”M 173 A”A Hakdama

[360] Regarding if the cheese was a Keli Sheiyni versus a Keli Rishon, such as if the hot cheese dripped onto the counter and a meat pot was then placed on it, this matter is dependent on the dispute regarding a Davar Gush, as explained in Halacha 1B. The P”M ibid however is discussing a case of a Keli Sheiyni cheese, as he refers to hot cheese that is on a table.

[361] See P”M ibid that although the cheese did not touch any actual meat, but rather touched the meat pot, nonetheless it is completely forbidden [and is not just prohibited a Kelipa’s worth] as the pot contains food/liquid which helps spread the taste throughout the cheese. This certainly applies according to Admur 451:66 who rules that by fatty foods, it fully absorbs from a vessel.

[362] Rama 92:7

[363] Rama ibid

[364] Shach 92:36; Bach 91

[365] Shach 92:36; P”M 92 S.D. 36; Kaf Hachaim 92:88

[366] However, if it hit above food level, see Halacha 14C for the different case rulings of when the food is forbidden and when not.

[367] However, one does not require 60x in the pot versus the milk that did not touch the pot, even though it is all connected as one stream. [Chavas Daas 91:6; Shivlei David; Tuv Taam Vadaas, Aruch Hashulchan, Yad Efraim, Rav Akiva Eiger, Meishiv Davar, Amudei Eish, brought in Darkei Teshuvah 92:129; Darkei Teshuvah 105:97 in name of Minchas Yitzchak that so rule all Rabbanim.]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule one requires 60x versus the entire flow of milk that is connected to the milk that is under the pot. [See P”M 95 S.D. 18; Darkei Teshuvah 92:129; 105:97 in name of P”M ibid, Atzei Levona; Shut Radam; Chochmas Adam, Yad Yehuda 92 Katzar 5, Yeshuos Chaim, Divrei Yosef]

[368] The reason: As it is considered as if cold has fallen into hot of which the rule is Tatah Gavar and everything is Treif. [Rama ibid as explained in Chapter 91 Halacha 5] Now, the reason that in this case the hot pot is viewed as being the Tatah Gavar, when in truth if the milk hit the side of the pot and is hence not technically on top of the meat pot then it should be viewed as a case of side by side in which we rule in 105:3 that a Kelipa suffices, nevertheless, since the milk spilled from above, or since the pot has remained set in its place, therefore we consider the meat pot as the Tatah and the milk is the Ilaha. [Shach 92:36; P”M 92 S.D. 36; Kaf Hachaim 92:88]

[369] Rama 92:7 regarding if placed hot pot on cold milk; Peri Chadash 92:32; Lechem Hapanim 92:52; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:38; Chochmas Adam 45:13; Kaf Hachaim 92:88

The reason: As the cold milk is considered That Gavar and only prohibits a Kelipa worth of the pot.

[370] Kaf Hachaim 92:89, based on Beis Lechem Yehuda ibid

[371] Rama ibid

[372] The opinion of Rama regarding Nifsak Hakiluach: The Rama rules here in 92:7 that “If the milk spillage from the Keli Rishon was Nifsak Hakiluach by the time it reached the meat pot, then it has a status of Keli Sheiyni and everything is permitted”, thus implying that Nifsak Hakiluach always has the status of a Keli Sheiyni. However, in 105:3 the Rama implies that Iruiy Keli Rishon is not like a Keli Sheiyni even if Nifsak Hakiluach. This forms a contradiction in the opinion of the Rama. [Nekudos Hakesef 105:5; Peri Chadash 105:18; Kreisy Upleisy 105:5; Yad Avraham 92; Beir Yaakov] Some Poskim explain that in truth the Rama agrees that Nifsak Hakiluach prohibits a Kelipa worth, although in 92:7 he is lenient being that the stream passed through a cold surface until it reached the meat pot. [P”M 92 S.D. 34; Yad Avraham 92; Degul Merivava 92:7; Yad Yehuda 92 Aruch 48 and Katzar 64] Others, however, rule that since Basar Bechalav is only Rabbinically forbidden with Iruiy Keli Rishon [as it does not cook], therefore we are lenient with Nifsak Hakiluach that it does not prohibit the vessel. [Yad Efraim 92:7; Chemed Moshe in name of Orach Mishor] Others rule that we are always lenient regarding a vessel with Nifsak Hakiluach. [Erech Hashulchan 105:7 and Darkei Teshuvah 105:64 in name of Beir Yaakov regarding all vessels]

[373] Kaf Hachaim 92:87

[374] Rama ibid

The reason: As Iruiy Keli Rishon prohibits a Kelipas worth. [Rama ibid] The novelty here is that we do not say that since the milk flowed on a cold surface that it therefore does not have the status of Iruiy Keli Rishon. [Shach 92:34; Peri Chadash 92:31; Lechem Hapanim 92:51; P”M 92 S.D. 34; Chavas Daas 92:26; Kaf Hachaim 92:85] Now, since Iruiy can only prohibit a Kelipa’s worth, therefore the food remains permitted and is not prohibited even a Kelipa’s worth, as the pot takes the place of a Kelipa. [Shach 92:35; Lechem Hapanim 92:51; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:37; P”M 92 S.D. 35; Chavas Daas 92:27; Biur Hagr”a 92:37; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:62; Kaf Hachaim 92:85]

If one cooked in the pot prior to Koshering: Bedieved, if one cooked in this prior to Koshering it, everything remains permitted even if one does not have 60x a peels worth of the pot. [Kaf Hachaim 92:87 that everything is permitted in a case of great loss. However see Kaf Hachaim 91:29 and Chapter 92 Halacha 6 that by Basar Bechalav one may be lenient even without great loss.]

[375] Chochmas Adam 45:15; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:60; Kaf Hachaim 92:84

[376] The reason: As a) Perhaps the milk did not reach the pot; b) Even if it reached the pot perhaps there was 60x and c) We are not Machzik Issur from place to place so long as one did not witness it himself. [Poskim ibid]

[377] This term means as follows: If the flow of food from the Keli Rishon was no longer attached to the pot by the time it contacted the food, or vessel, such as when a single drop of liquid spritzed from the Keli Rishon pot onto a food, then this is defined as Nifsak Hakiluach. If the flow of food from the Keli Rishon was still attached to the pot by the time it contacted the food, or vessel, such as when a stream of liquid spilled from the Keli Rishon pot onto a food, then this is defined as Lo Nifsak Hakiluach. The above case scenario is only referring to a case of Nifsak Hakiluach.

[378] Shach Y.D. 105:5 “And even with an Iruiy Shenifsak Hakiluach it nevertheless transfers taste to a Kelipa worth according to all opinions.”; Shach 91:7; Beir Heiytiv 105; Yad Yehuda 105 Aruch 10; 91 Aruch 12 and Katzar 14; Lechem Hapanim Dinei Iruiy; Chochmas Adam 59:2; P”M 91 S”D  7; P”M O.C. Hanhagos Hanishal, brought in Darkei Teshuvah 105:64 even regarding Basar Bechalav; Kaf Hachaim 105:31

[379] Yad Yehuda 105 Aruch 10; 91 Aruch 12 and Katzar 14; 92:48 and 64; Implication of P”M 92 S.D. 34 [however see P”M 93 S.D. 6]; Yad Avraham 92; Degul Merivava 92:7; Poskim brought in Darkei Teshuvah 68:58 and 105:64; It is implied from the above Poskim ibid that this applies even by Basar Bechalav; See also Hagahos Sheid 56, brought in Shach 93:6 and Kaf Hachaim 93:29 who implies a hot drop of milk prohibits a cold pot of meat even if Nifsak Hakiluach, however see P”M 93 S.D. 6 who implied their intent is in a case that Shelo Nifsak Hakiluach

[380] Erech Hashulchan 105:7 and Darkei Teshuvah 105:64 in name of Beir Yaakov regarding all vessels, even earthenware; Aruch Hashulchan 105:29; Terumos Hadeshen 176 in name of Maharam that Nifsak Hakiluach prohibits a vessel only a Greida’s worth; Minchas Yaakov on Toras Chatas 55:15; 56:15; 57:15-16 regarding metal vessels that it requires Greida and not Kelipa, but earthenware requires a Kelipa; P”M 92 S.D. 38 in name of Minchas Yaakov ibid and so is implied from P”M 93 S.D. 6; Kaf Hachaim 105:32; Yad Efraim 92:7 is stringent by other Issurim to prohibit Kelipa of food if no loss although permits vessel after 24 hours, by Basar Bechalav he is completely lenient by both food and vessel; Teshuos Chein 6 permits vessel after 24 hours

[381] Implication of Rama 92:7 [however the Achronim don’t learn this way]; Implication of Admur 451:32; Peri Chadash 105:18 [however he is of the opinion that a Keli Sheiyni transfers taste]; Implication of Issur Viheter, brought in Shach 93:6; Kreisy Upleisy 105:8; Yad Efraim 92:7 in name of Chemed Moshe in name of Orach Mishor that one may permit by Nifsak Hakiluach especially by Basar Bechalav being its only Rabbinical;

Ruling of Admur: Admur in 451:32 states, “Vessels that have absorbed Chametz through a Keli Sheiyni, such as eating spoons which are used to eat from the bowl, which is a Keli Sheiyni (after the stream has stopped from the Keli Rishon), are Koshered through Hagala in a Keli Rishon.” The words in parentheses imply that Nifsak Hakiluach has the status of Keli Sheiyni; See Piskei Admur Hazakein on Y.D. p. 34 who learns according to Admur 451:29 that Nifsak Hakiluach is not like a Keli Sheiyni, and possibly absorbs into a vessel. However, no mention is made there of Admur 451:32 who seems to learn that it does have the same status as a Keli Sheiyni, and it is only regarding the Chumra of a Keli Sheiyni that the above ruling in 451:30 was said.

[382] As rules Yad Efraim ibid that there is greater room to be lenient by Basar Bechalav as it is only a Rabbinical prohibition in this case.

[383] See Michaber 91:4; 105:3 and 6; Shach 91:7

[384] 94:8; According to some Poskim, this is the case the Michaber 94:8 is referring to throughout the entire Halacha, and hence his opening case of Pandash also refers to a vessel and not a food. [See Taz 94:14; See P”M 94 M.Z. 15] However, according to other Poskim, this scenario is the intent of 2nd case of discussion in the Michaber, while the 1st case refers to an actual food, as explained in the next Halacha. [See Shach 94:32; P”M ibid]

[385] Michaber 94:8; Shach 94:33; See P”M 173 A”A in Hakdama that an empty meat vessel only transfers a Kelipa worth onto the cheese even if bottom is hot

[386] A vessel is assumed to be cleaned from any meat residue unless one knows for certain that it was not cleaned well. [Shach 95:1; Kneses Hagedola 95:23; Peri Chadash 95:2; Minchas Yaakov 58:17; Admur 447:51; 452:7; Lechem Hapanim 95:1; Beis Lechem Yehuda 95:1; Kehilas Yehuda 95:1; Beis Yitzchak 95:1; Zivcheiy Tzedek 95:6; Kaf Hachaim 95:6]

[387] Shach 105:23 rules that even if the food is dry, if the Issur is fatty, it requires 60x. [Vetzaruch Iyun why here does the Shach not differentiate between whether the plate absorbed fatty meat or lean meat.] Implication of Admur 451:66 [However, see Admur 451:56 who implies that even if it absorbed fatty Issur, the food is only forbidden a Kelipa’s worth. However see Piskei Admur Yoreh Deah p. 182 who explains that the case there is referring to Chametz which contains oil/fat, and not when the actual Issur itself is fatty.]; P”M 105 S.D. 23 an Hanhagos Hashoel Seder 2:24; Kreisi 105:17; Degul Merivava 108 based on Issur Viheter 39:7

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that even if the plate absorbed fatty meat/Issur, the cheese/Heter only requires a Kelipa removed. [Possible understanding of M”A 451:37 and Admur 451:56; Peri Chadash 105:28; Chavas Daas 105:25; Noda Beyehuda Kama Y.D. 30, brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah 105:13; Yad Yehuda 94 Aruch 40; Katzar 46; 105 Aruch 37, Katzar 54; Darkei Teshuvah 105:142; Kaf Hachaim 105:84]

[388] Admur 451:66; See Piskei Admur Yoreh Deah p. 182

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that even if the Heter is fatty, it only requires a Kelipa removed. [P”M 105 S.D. 23]

[389] See Michaber 105:4-5 who rules that by Tatah Gavar it prohibits a Netila worth.

[390] See Shach 105:23; Peri Megadim 94 S.D. 33

[391] Peri Chadash 94:30; Lechem Hapanim 94:35; Aruch Hashulchan 94:34; Kaf Hachaim 94:79

[392] Rama 105:3; Shach 105:10; 105:23; Issur Viheter; Rashba; Tosfos

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that we do not apply the rule of Tatah Gavar by vessels, and hence even if the plate was cold, everything is forbidden if the plate was hot. [Rashal in Perek Gid Hanashe 45, brought in Shach 105:10]

[393] See Taz 91:2; Rashal Kol Habasar 44

[394] See Rama 105:1; Chapter 8 Halacha 7!

[395] Michaber 94:6

[396] Such as if a Davar Charif was cut with a meat knife into small pieces. If, however, it was simply sliced in half, then one requires 60x only versus the Netila, or 60x versus the blade, whatever is less. [Rama 96:1; Taz 94:10; Lechem Hapanim 94:25; Beis Lechem Yehuda 94:22; P”M 94 M.Z. 10; Kaf Hachaim 94:57]

[397] The reason: As the food has not become Chanan, as it absorbed the meat while it was still Heter, and therefore one only needs to measure versus the meat. [Rama ibid]

[398] Shach 94:23; Taz 96:5; Maharam Melublin 28; Admur 447:60; M”A 447:38; Kneses Hagedola 96:2; Peri Chadash 94:21; Minchas Yaakov 61:6; Beis David Y.D. p. 16; Lechem Hapanim 96:7; Beis Lechem Yehuda 96:5; Chavas Daas 96:5 Biurim 1; Erech Hashulchan 96:5; Kaf Hachaim 94:60; 96:19

Other opinions: Some Poskim  rule that the food is forbidden even if there is 60x against it or its absorbed meat, as we suspect that the food retains some taste of meat, and thus becomes Neveila upon it absorbing the milk. [Pleisi 94:8; Kreisi 94:16; P”M 94 S.D. 23].

[399] Michaber 93:1

[400] Michaber 93:1; Chulin 97a

[401] The reason: As it is initially forbidden to give even spoiled meat taste to milk.

[402] Michaber ibid

[403] Rama ibid

[404] Shach 93:1; Peri Chadash 93:1; Lechem Hapanim 93:2; Beis Lechem Yehuda 93:1; Chavas Daas 93:1; P”M 93 S.D. 1; Chochmas Adam 46:2; Zivcheiy Tzedek 93:4-5; Kaf Hachaim 93:5-6

[405] Shach 93:1; Beis Yosef 93; Peri Chadash 93:1; Lechem Hapanim 93:2; Beis Lechem Yehuda 93:1; Chavas Daas 93:1; Chochmas Adam 46:1; Beis Yitzchak 1:1; Zivcheiy Tzedek 93:2; Kaf Hachaim 93:2

[406] Peri Chadash 93:4; Lechem Hapanim 93:5; P”M 93 S.D. 3; Kehilas Yehuda 93:1; Zivcheiy Tzedek 93:12; Kaf Hachaim 93:17

[407] Ruling of the Baal Haitur that if there is 60x the pot, it may be used after 24 hours even if earthenware: The Tur brings the Baal Haitur who rules that if there is 60x the walls of the pot in the food, the pot may be used for either milk or meat [after 24 hours have passed], even if the pot is earthenware. His reasoning is because when the food in the pot contains 60x, the pot is considered as if it was Koshered within that food, and all of its taste has left. Now although Biblically an earthenware vessel can never be Koshered due to that some taste always remains in the pot, the Baal Haitur understands that this Biblical statement was only said regarding Kodshim, however by Chulin earthenware can be Koshered from a Biblical perspective. Now although the Sages decreed that earthenware cannot be Koshered even by other Issurim, and hence if one cooks Issur in an earthenware pot it is forbidden in use even if one went ahead and Koshered it, even after 24 hours. Nevertheless, this Rabbinical decree was only made regarding other Issurim, however by Basar Bechalav they never decreed that the cooking within a meat vessel should prohibit the vessel. The reason for this is because cooking milk in a meat vessel Biblically effects Hagala within the vessel and hence there was never a status of Issur within the vessel to begin with, unlike by other Issurim. Now we see that the Sages did not forbid foods cooked in a vessel that is not Ben Yomo, and only Lechatchilah did they say one should not do so. Hence, so too in this case the Sages did not decree that Bedieved the earthenware pot is forbidden in use. However, regarding Kodshim, even Bedieved we hold that Issur never leaves an earthenware pot as this is the Biblical law. Likewise, regarding other Issurim the Sages decreed it is forbidden in use . [Taz 93:1] Practically we rule like above that the pot is forbidden for either meat or milk. [Tur; Michaber]

[408] Radbaz 3:617 that it cannot even be used for cold foods as one may come to forget and use it for hot foods, and hence one must sell it to a gentile; Zivcheiy Tzedek 93:9; Kaf Hachaim 93:13-14

Case of great loss: Some Poskim rule that in a case of great loss, one may be lenient to use a non-Kosherable item after 24 hours. [Dvar Shmuel Nachalas Yaakov 42-43; Minchas Yaakov 85:64; Maharil Ben Chaviv 121; Erech Hashulchan 93:9] Other Poskim, however, limit this only to a case of a Rabbinical prohibition. [P”M 93 S.D. 3] See Chochmas Adam 55:7; Kaf Hachaim 93:15

[409] See Chapter 96!

[410] Michaber ibid

[411] The reason: As the pot now contains milk and meat taste which will enter into the meat/milk which one cooks inside. This is forbidden even past 24 hours as it is forbidden to Lechatchilah give a spoiled meat/milk taste to milk/meat. [Shach 93:3; Peri Chadash 93:3; Lechem Hapanim 93:4; Beis Lechem Yehuda 93:3; Chavas Daas 93:2; Zivcheiy Tzedek 93:5; Kaf Hachaim 93:12]

[412] Rama ibid; Shach 93:3; Peri Chadash 93:4; Lechem Hapanim 93:5; Kaf Hachaim 93:16

The reason: The reason for this allowance is because the meat and milk taste in the pot have never combined to become Basar Bechalav, as the meat was not Ben Yomo. Thus, the taste of meat and milk which enters into the Pareve food is not an Issur taste.

[413] Kaf Hachaim 93:16 that Sephardim never accepted this custom and hence they may use the pot for Pareve. Nonetheless, even Sephardim may not use this pot on a set basis.

[414] Shach 93:3 based on Rama in 94:5; Beis Lechem Yehuda 93:4; Chavas Daas 93:3; Kaf Hachaim 93:16; 94:54 

The reason: As we suspect one may come to use the pot with meat or milk. [Kaf Hachaim 93:16]

[415] Meaning, Bedieved, if one cooked meat in this pot, the food is forbidden if it was cooked within 24 hours of cooking the milk, and is permitted if it was cooked after 24 hours of cooking the milk. If one cooked milk a second time in this pot, even within 24 hours of cooking the first milk, then it always remains permitted as the pot was not Ben Yomo from meat during the first cooking of milk, and hence did not become Ben Yomo due to the milk. [Shach 93:3; Peri Chadash 93:3; Lechem Hapanim 93:4; Beis Lechem Yehuda 93:3; Chavas Daas 93:2; Zivcheiy Tzedek 93:5; Kaf Hachaim 93:12]

[416] Issur Viheter 35:3; Kol Eliyahu Y.D. 1:10; Erech Hashulchan 93:7; Zivcheiy Tzedek 93:13; Kaf Hachaim 93:18

[417] Admur 494:16; and 461:1; 451:7 regarding Chametz

[418] Admur 451:13 in gloss; 1st approach in Shach 121:7; unlike 2nd approach in Shach ibid, based on ruling of Ramaz, 96 that requires Libun Chamur even by Basar Bechalav if it absorbed meat or dairy directly without liquid; See also Hakashrus 1 :37 and footnote 67 who writes that baking pans cannot be Koshered at all, as they require Libun Chamur. Based on above, however, this is inaccurate, as Hagala suffices in the scenario that one simply cooked meat in it after cooking milk or vice versa.

[419] See previous footnote from Hakashrus ibid

[420] See Admur ibid

[421] Rama 93:1

[422] Rama ibid

[423] Peri Chadash 93:6; Lechem Hapanim 93:8; Beis Lechem Yehuda 93:6; Kaf Hachaim 93:24

[424] Peri Chadash 93:6 and 10; Lechem Hapanim 93:8 and 12; Beis Lechem Yehuda 93:6; Zivcheiy Tzedek 93:16; Kaf Hachaim 93:24-25

[425] The reason: As most certainly the meat cover that was on a cooking pot contains moisture of meat that has absorbed into it and this moisture then mixes with the steam that is released from the hot dairy food and falls back into the milk. [Peri Chadash 93:6; Beis Lechem Yehuda 93:8; Kaf Hachaim 93:24]

[426] Implication of Rama ibid who qualifies “if it started to moisten” only in the case that the cover is cold.

The reason: As since the cover was hot, it instantly gave off meat taste to the pot upon contact.

[427] P”M 92 S.D. 5; Zivcheiy Tzedek 93:18; Kaf Hachaim 93:28

[428] Rama ibid

[429] Rama 92:8; Shach 93:5; Peri Chadash 93:8; Lechem Hapanim 93:10; Beis Lechem Yehuda 93:7; Chavas Daas 93:5; P”M 92 S.D. 5; Chochmas Adam 46:4; Beis Yitzchak 2:5; Kaf Hachaim 93:28

[430] Peri Chadash 93:7 and 10; Lechem Hapanim 93:9 and 12; Zivcheiy Tzedek 93:17; Kaf Hachaim 93:26-27

[431] Although the cover is cold, since the milk is hot we apply the rule of Tatah Gavar. [Rama ibid]

[432] Peri Chadash 93:7; Lechem Hapanim 93:9; Kaf Hachaim 93:26

[433] Shach 93:6; Darkei Moshe 93:2; Hagahos Shaareiy Dura 56; Peri Chadash 93:9; Lechem Hapanim 93:11; Beis Lechem Yehuda 93:8; Chavas Daas 93:6; P”M 92 S.D. 5; Birkeiy Yosef 93 Shiyurei Bracha 2; Peri Toar 93:3 is stringent regarding pot although not regarding cover; Chochmas Adam 46:5 is lenient in a case of great loss if one already cooked in it; Kaf Hachaim 93:29; Hakashrus 10:73

[434] Rama 93:1

[435] Shach 93:6 in name of Darkei Moshe and Issur Viheter

The reason: Even the pot is permitted, as the moisture on the cover is considered a Keli Sheiyni, similar to a drop of hot milk falling on a pot. [Shach ibid]

[436] The reason: As we apply the rule of Tatah Gavar, [Rama ibid]

[437] Shach 93:6 in name of Darkei Moshe and Issur Viheter

[438] The reason: As the heat of the upper item has ability to penetrate a peels worth of the lower food, following the rule of Tatah Gavar.

[439] Chochmas Adam 46:5; Hakashrus 10:73

[440] Chochmas Adam ibid

[441] Rama 93:1; Beir Heiytiv 93:6; Peri Chadash 93:6; Lechem Hapanim 93:8; Beis Lechem Yehuda 93:6; Chavas Daas 93:7; Zivcheiy Tzedek 93:21; Kaf Hachaim 93:24 and 30

[442] The reason: As taste cannot transfer without liquid, and it is thus similar to two pots touching each other. [Rama ibid]

[443] Chochmas Adam 46:5; Gloss of Rav Akivah Eiger 93

[444] See Chapter 7 Halacha 2 for the full details of glass material!

[445] See Chapter 7 Halacha 2 for the debate amongst the Poskim as how to rule in a case that the glass is on the fire.

[446] Hakashrus 10:73

[447] Peri Megadim 93 S.D. 4; Hakashrus 10:74

[448] This applies even if the pot is Ben Yomo, and one is stringent to consider the non-Ben Yomo cover as Ben Yomo, as this stringency only applies when one is cooking meat or milk in the pot and not when one is cooking Pareve. [Peri Megadim ibid]

[449] The reason: As the taste of fish absorbed in the cover does not prohibit the meat, as brought in Taz 116:2 regarding the allowance to cook fish/meat in a meat/fish pot that is Ben Yomo. Furthermore, even if there was fish gravy condensation on the cover, and this condensation then fell into the meat, one can surely assume that there is 60x against it and it is hence permitted.

[450] As the cover most likely contained fish condensation on its bottom and has now become forbidden due to the  meat vapor that became mixed with it. Now, although when one has cooks meat with fish some Poskim rule the pot becomes forbidden and must be Koshered, nevertheless, the final stance on this subject is that waiting 24 hours is suffice. [See Darkei Teshuvah 116:28; Kaf Hachaim 116:13]

[451] Rama 93:1

[452] Rama 92:7; Shach 92:37; Taz 92:28; Toras Chatas 56:4; Minchas Yaakov 56:12 based on Hagahos Sheid and Issur Viheter; Peri Chadash 92:33; Lechem Hapanim 92:53; Kreisy 92:29; P”M 92 M”Z 28; Chochmas Adam 45:9; Beis Yaakov 37; Pischeiy Teshuvah 92:5; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:66; Hakashrus 10:82-83. 

[453] Kaf Hachaim 93:19

[454] The reason: As both the pot and its cover are not Ben Yomo and hence have no ability to forbid the food.

[455] Opinion in Rama ibid; Hagahos Sheid in name of Koveitz; Admur 451:41 “It is the custom of some communities to forbid the cover of a pot even if it is not Ben Yomo.”

[456] The reason: The Rama says the above stringency to consider a non-Ben Yomo cover as if it is Ben Yomo is a stringency without reason/logic. [Rama 93:1] However, in the Toras Chatas  he offers an explanation saying that vapor and smell of a food are more stringent than mere taste, and since the cover constantly receives from the vapor of a food, it therefore does not become repugnant after 24 hours. [Toras Chatas 85:4; Brought in Shach 93:4] The Rashal explains that the above stringency to consider a non-Ben Yomo cover as if it is Ben Yom  is because pot covers are difficult to properly clean due to their cracks and narrow curved areas. As a result, we suspect that perhaps some meat residue has remained in the cracks and this meat residue, upon getting mixed with the rising milk vapor, becomes Basar Bechalav. [Rashal Ateres Shlomo 35, brought in Shach 93:4; Taz 93:2; Peri Chadash 93:5] This in turn prohibits the entire cover if the cover does not have 60x its residue.  [So explains Shach ibid, however Taz ibid learns it does not spread to the entire pot] Based on this reasoning, a flat cover which has no cracks and was cleaned has no basis for the stringency, and hence if it is not Ben Yomo the food is permitted.

[457] Implication of Rama ibid; Shach 93:4; Chochmas Adam 46:3; Peri Megadim 93 S.D. 4

[458] Taz 93:2; Halacha Pesuka 93:7; Chavas Daas Biurim 93:4; Peri Megadim 93 M.Z. 2; Erech Hashulchan 93:11; Aruch Hashulchan 93:16; Kaf Hachaim 93:19; See Hakashrus 10:72 footnote 185

[459] Shach 93:4; Taz 93:2; Rashal, brought in Shach and Taz ibid; Apei Ravrivi; Peri Chadash 93:5; Aruch Hashulchan 93:16; Kaf Hachaim 93:21

[460] Kaf Hachaim 93:20 that the Sephardic custom is not to be stringent

[461] Kaf Hachaim 93:20

[462] Rama ibid; Admur 451:41; See Piskeiy Admur Yoreh Deah 93:3

[463] Shach 93:4; Peri Chadash 93:5; Kaf Hachaim 93:21

[464] Rama ibid; Apei Ravrivi; Shach 93:4; Peri Chadash 93:5; Kaf Hachaim 93:21

[465] Kaf Hachaim 93:21

[466] See Chapter 7 Halacha 2 for the full details of glass material!

[467] See Chapter 7 Halacha 2 for the debate amongst the Poskim as how to rule in a case that the glass is on the fire.

[468] Bnei Chayi; Pischeiy Teshuvah 93:4; Kaf Hachaim 93:22

[469] Peri Megadim 93 S.D. 4

[470] 94:7

[471] Michaber 94:7

[472] The reason 60x is required and not Kelipa: Although when one uses a Treif knife to slaughter an animal one only requires a Kelipa worth removed from the animal, this is because only the neck area is hot and not the rest of the cow. [Shach 94:26] Furthermore, although in chapter 105 the Michaber rules that if Treif meat falls on top of hot Kosher meat, one is only required to remove a fingers worth from the meat, and does not require 60x, this is because a) A knife applies pressure to the meat which causes it to absorb more than a falling piece [Duchka Desakina]; b) the knife contains fat which causes the milk taste to spread within the entire piece of meat; c) The piece of meat in discussion is fatty. [Shach 94:27]

[473] Michaber ibid; Taz 94:12; Shach 94:28; Lechem Hapanim 94:29; Chavas Daas 94:23; Chochmas Adam 47:1; Aruch Hashulchan 47:29; Zivcheiy Tzedek 94:48; Kaf Hachaim 94:67

The reason one does not need 60x versus the entire blade: The Michaber holds like the opinion [see Halacha 1 above] who rules that when one knows how much of the vessel was used, one does not need to measure against the entire vessel but rather only against the area which came into contact with the meat. Thus, we do not apply the rule of Cham Miktzaso Cham Kulo. [Taz 94:12; Shach 94:28; See Beis Yosef 94; Shulchan Gavoa 94:24]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that one needs to measure 60x versus the entire blade even if one does not hold of the logic “Cham Miktzaso Cham Kulo”, as people do not pay attention to how much of the blade they use to cut with. [Rashal, brought in Taz 94:12; Shach 94:28] Some Poskim rule that in truth the Michaber initially suspects for the opinion of Cham Miktzaso Cham Kulo, and therefore one requires 60x versus the entire blade unless it is a case of great loss. [Zivcheiy Tzedek 94:44; Kaf Hachaim 94:66]

[474] Taz 94:13; Shach in Nekudos Hakesef; Kneses Hagedola end of 94; Lechem Hapanim 94:30; Beis Lechem Yehuda 94:25; Halacha Pesuka 94:7; Chochmas Adam 47:1-2; Aruch Hashulchan 94:30; See Kaf Hachaim 94:68

The reason: The reason one must nevertheless remove a peels worth from the meat is because an ordinary knife has fat remnant on its blade. [Taz 94:13]

Bedieved: The above is only initially required, however, Bedieved, if one cooked the meat without removing a Kelipa’s worth, it remains permitted. [Kaf Hachaim ibid]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule one is required to remove a Netila’s worth from the meat. [Kreisi 94:21; Chavas Daas 94:23; P”M 94 M.Z. 13; Beis Yitzchak 3:1; See Kaf Hachaim ibid]

[475] Rama 94:7

[476] Shach 94:25; Kneses Hagedola 94:14; Peri Chadash 94:22; Lechem Hapanim 94:28; Chavas Daas 94:22; Chochmas Adam 47:1; Beis Yitzchak 3:1; Zivcheiy Tzedek 94:42; Kaf Hachaim 94:64

The reason: Although we generally apply the rule of Tatah Gavar when the bottom item is cold, in this case since we have Duchka Desakina, it makes no difference whether the hot meat is on top of the knife or under the knife. [Poskim ibid]

[477] Maharil 172; Kneses Hagedola 94:15; Zivcheiy Tzedek 94:43; Kaf Hachaim 94:65

[478] Shach 94:28; Lechem Hapanim 94:29; Chavas Daas 94:23; Chochmas Adam 47:1; Aruch Hashulchan 47:29; Zivcheiy Tzedek 94:48; Kaf Hachaim 94:67

[479] Michaber 94:7

[480] Michaber 94:7; Bach; Peri Chadash; Tzemach Tzedek

[481] Taz 94:13; Shach in Nekudos Hakesef

[482] Taz 94:13; Shach in Nekudos Hakesef; Kneses Hagedola end of 94; Lechem Hapanim 94:30; Beis Lechem Yehuda 94:25; Halacha Pesuka 94:7; Chochmas Adam 47:1-2; Aruch Hashulchan 94:30; See Kaf Hachaim 94:68

The reason: As the fat remains in the area of contact of the meat. [Poskim ibid]

[483] Glosses of Rav Akiva Eiger 94:7; Aruch Hashulchan 94:31; Kaf Hachaim 94:74

[484] Rama 94:7

[485] Shach Y.D. 94:30; 105:8; Issur Viheter 36:7; Rashal Gid Hanashe 44; Taz 94:14 [regarding knife-Duchka Desakina]; Beis Lechem Yehuda 94:26; Halachas Pesuka 94:7; Chavas Daas 94:26; Beis Yitzchak 3:3; Toras Hasheam, brought in Soles Lamincha on Toras Chatas 23:7; Erech Hashulchan 94:14; Aruch Hashulchan 94:32 [unless great loss]; Chochmas Adam 60:12 [is lenient in case of great loss]

[486] Rama Y.D. 94:7; Tzemach Tzedek Yoreh Deah 65; Peri Megadim; Chavas Daas; Chasam Sofer; Aruch Hashulchan; Igros Moshe

[487] Aruch Hashulchan 94:32; Kaf Hachaim Y.D. 94:72; Hakashrus 10:91

[488] Toras Hasheam, brought in Soles Lamincha on Toras Chatas 23:7; Kaf Hachaim 94:72; Ketzos Hashulchan 124 footnote 15; Shabbos Kehalacha Vol. 1 p 24

[489] The reason: As the liquid gets cooled off by the walls of the second vessel which in turn cools off the solid.

[490] Shach 94:31; Issur Viheter 58:4; Kreisi 94:23; Halacha Pesuka 94:7; Erech Hashulchan 94:15; Chochmas Adam 47:4; Beis Yitzchak 3:18; Zivcheiy Tzedek 94:53; Kaf Hachaim 94:76;

[491] See Shulchan Gavoa 1; Zivcheiy Tzedek 89:45; Kaf Hachaim 89:69 “One cleans the knife and returns it to its designated use”

[492] Implication of Shach and Poskim ibid; Erech Hashulchan ibid; Zivcheiy Tzedek 94:53; Kaf Hachaim 94:76; However, See Rama 94:7 regarding meat of a Keli Sheiyni that was cut with a milk knife that the knife requires Neitza, however, seemingly this is because the meat was hot, while if cold the Poskim ibid explain that a mere rinse suffices; See Rashal Kol Habasar 8, brought in Shach 89:22 that Neitza is always required

[493] Michaber 94:4

[494] Letter of law: From the letter of the law, it is permitted to be used with Pareve foods. [Rama 93:1; Shach 94:13; Peri Chadash 94:12; Lechem Hapanim ibid] Nonetheless, the custom is to prohibit its use with any food until it is Koshered. [Beis Lechem Yehuda 94:12; Chavas Daas 94:12; P”M 94 S.D. 13; Kaf Hachaim 94:43]

[495] Michaber 94:1-2

[496] Rama 94:1 that so is custom; First and Stam opinion in Michaber 94:1 and 98:4; Admur 451:75; Smak; Shaareiy Dura

Other opinions-Sephardim: Some Poskim rule that if a metal dairy spoon was inserted into a meat pot, one must measure 60x versus the entire spoon. [Second opinion in Michaber 94:1 and 98:4; Rabbeinu Peretz brought in Smak ibid] The final ruling of the Michaber is to initially follow the stringent opinion to measure 60x versus the entire metal spoon, however, in a case of great loss, one may be lenient like the former opinion to measure simply versus the amount of material inserted. [Machazik Bracha 55:4; 69:39 that whenever the Michaber brings two opinions, one as Stam and the second as Yeish Omrim, his intent is to be initially stringent and only be lenient in a case of great need; Zivcheiy Tzedek 94:13; Kaf Hachaim 94:16]

Is the 60x required versus the area stuck into food or area stuck into pot: Some Poskim  rule one measures 60x versus the amount of the spoon inserted into the volume of the pot, including the parts that were not inserted into the actual food. [Kreisy 94:1; P”M 94 M.Z. 1 based on Michaber ibid and Peri Chadash 121:15 and Beis Lechem Yehuda 121:11; Chavas Daas 94:2; Mateh Yehonason on Shach ibid] Other Poskim , however, rule one measures 60x only versus the amount of the spoon inserted into the actual food in the pot. [Issur Viheter Klal 37:2; Chochmas Adam 46:6 and Binas Adam 44; Beis Yehuda Ashkenazi based on Shach and Rashal; Implication of Semak 213; Shulchano Shel Avraham 94:2; Zivcheiy Tzedek 94:10; Kaf Hachaim 94:12]

If one is unsure as to how much of the spoon was inserted into the food: Then we measure 60x versus the head of the spoon, which is normal amount that a person sticks in. [Shach 94:1; Rashal Gid Hanashe 41-42 and Issur Viheter Shelo 65; Peri Chadash 94:1; Beis Lechem Yehuda 94:1; Chochmas Adam 46:6; Kaf Hachaim 94:4]

If one knows the amount of milk that the dairy spoon absorbed within the past 24 hours: Then one can choose to measure 60x either versus the milk or the spoon. [Shach 94:1; Michaber 98:5; Beis Yosef 95; Kaf Hachaim 94:1]

[497] Michaber 94:3; Shach 94:9; Kneses Hagedola 94:6; Peri Chadash 94:8; Minchas Yaakov 85:2; Lechem Hapanim 94:9; Beis Lechem Yehuda 94:7; Chavas Daas 94:8; P”M 94 S.D. 9; Chochmas Adam 46:8; Beis Yitzchak 1:4; Kaf Hachaim 94:29

[498] Rama 94:2 and so rules Taz 94:2 that so is the custom; Terumas Hadeshen 183 that so is custom; Kneses Hagedola 94:20 in name of many Achronim; Shulchan Gavoa 94:6

Other opinions-Sephardim: Some Poskim rule that if one inserted the spoon twice, then if one did not notice that the spoon was dairy until after the two insertions, one requires 120x the area of the spoon which was stuck in. [Michaber 94:2] Practically, so is the Sephardic custom. [Zivcheiy Tzedek 94:16; Kaf Hachaim 94:21] If one entered the spoon into the pot more than twice, some Poskim rule one requires only 120x the spoon, as the Michaber does not hold of Chanan by other prohibitions. [Shach 94:4; Kneses Hagedola 94:12; Shulchan Gavoa 94:5; Shulchano Shel Avraham 94:3; Kanfei Yona 94; Aruch Hashulchan 94:7; Beis Yitzchak 1:10; Kaf Hachaim 94:22] However, other Poskim  rule one requires 60x the amount of times one inserted the spoon, as even according to the Michaber it becomes a new Neveila each time. [Peri Chadash 94:4; Smak, brought in Shach ibid; Beis David Y.D. 38; Chochmas Adam 46:7] Practically, even a Sephardic may be lenient like the Shach, as in any event the Rama is completely lenient. [Kaf Hachaim 94:22]

[499] Kaf Hachaim 94:73

[500] Rashal Gid Hanashe 44, Taz 94:14; Kaf Hachaim 94:73

[501] 94:5

[502] Rama 94:5

Other opinions-Sephardic Custom: Some Poskim rule that everything remains Kosher and the food remains Pareve and may be eaten with either meat or milk. [Michaber 95:3; Peri Chadash 94:14; Kaf Hachaim 94:56]

[503] Shach 94:17; Peri Chadash 94:16; Lechem Hapanim 94:19; Beis Lechem Yehuda 94:17; Kaf Hachaim 94:51

If there is 60x: If there is 60x in the food versus the spoon, then the food may be eaten with meat, and the pot remains permitted. [Shach 94:17, as explained in P”M 94 S.D. 17; Peri Chadash 94:16; Lechem Hapanim 94:19; Beis Lechem Yehuda 94:17; Kaf Hachaim 94:51] However, in the case where a non-Ben Yomo spoon was placed in a Ben Yomo meat pot, and there is 60x versus the spoon, seemingly the spoon remains forbidden according to the custom. [See Chavas Daas 94:15; Kaf Hachaim 94:55]

[504] Shach 94:20; Peri Chadash 94:19; Lechem Hapanim 94:22; Beis Lechem Yehuda 94:20; Chavas Daas 94:17; Kaf Hachaim 94:54

[505] Rama ibid as explained in Shach 94:18; Taz 94:8; Toras Chatas 57:14; Chavas Daas 94:16; P”M 94 S.D. 18; M.Z. 7; Biur Hagr”a 94:18; Kaf Hachaim 94:52

Simple understanding of Rama: The Rama ibid writes “To eat it like the type of vessel that was Ben Yomo” implying that it may be eaten with the Ben Yomo type of food, if meat, then meat, and if dairy, then dairy. [See Hakashrus 10:97] The Poskim ibid clarify that this is a typing error and in truth it is forbidden to be eaten with milk or meat, as the Rama himself writes in Toras Chatas ibid

[506] P”M 94 M.Z. 9; Kaf Hachaim 94:48

[507] Rama 95:3; Taz 94:9; Shach 94:19; Lechem Hapanim 94:209; Beis Lechem Yehuda 94:18; Chavas Daas 94:18; Kaf Hachaim 94:53

[508] Rama 95:3; Taz 95:8; Shach 94:16; Peri Chadash 94:15; Lechem Hapanim 94:17; Kaf Hachaim 94:49

Other opinions-Sephardic Custom: Some Poskim rule that everything remains Kosher and the food remains Pareve and may be eaten with either meat or milk. [Michaber 95:3; Peri Chadash 94:14; Kaf Hachaim 94:56]

[509] Shach 94:17; Peri Chadash 94:16; Lechem Hapanim 94:19; Beis Lechem Yehuda 94:17; Kaf Hachaim 94:51

[510] Taz 94:7; Issur Viheter 37:9; Toras Chatas 85:5; Darkei Moshe 94:5; Lechem Hapanim 94:18; Beis Lechem Yehuda 94:16; Chavas Daas 94:15; P”M 94 M.Z. 7; Kaf Hachaim 94:50

[511] Implication of Shach 94:17 [however see P”M 94 S.D. 17 how he understands the Shach, and thus one can say the Shach never intended to permit the spoon if there was 60x]; Peri Chadash 94:16; Lechem Hapanim 94:19; Beis Lechem Yehuda 94:17; Kaf Hachaim 94:51; Hakashrus 10:99

[512] Chavas Daas 94:15 based on custom in Rama 94:5; Kaf Hachaim 94:55

[513] The reason: Even in such a case that there is 60x versus the spoon, the spoon remains forbidden, as it has nevertheless absorbed the Ben Yomo taste of the opposite food. This follows the same ruling as when a non-Ben Yomo milk spoon was stuck into a Ben Yomo pot of meat, in which case the custom is to forbid the spoon as explained above. The Taz 95:9 explains the reason for this is because it would appear contradictory to require the food to be eaten with the meat vessel, but continue using the spoon for dairy, and the same would apply here.

[514] See Hakashrus 10:117

[515] Michaber 94:5

[516] Michaber 94:5; Implication of Rama 94:5, as explained in Kaf Hachaim 94:47; Toras Chatas 85:5; Minchas Yaakov 85:25 that so is custom even though that from the letter of the law the pot is permitted; Taz 94:9; Kreisi 94:14; Beir Heiytiv 94:12; Peri Megadim 94 that the custom is to be stringent like the Michaber/Rama; Kaf Hachaim 94:47 that Ashkenazim are to be stringent; Some Poskim rule like the Michaber but say one may be lenient in case of great loss-See Shaareiy Yoreh Deah

[517] The reason: The reason the Michaber rules that the pot is forbidden with meat/milk is because it is a new pot which has never been used before for either meat or milk. Since the pot is new, the moment a Ben Yomo milk spoon is entered into it, it must be designated for milk use, even though the pot itself is not yet considered dairy due to actual milk. Now, when one goes ahead and enters a Ben Yomo meat spoon into the pot he is now required to designate the pot [which was already required to be designated for dairy] for meat use. This forms a contradiction in the pots designation, thus resulting in the ruling that Lechatchilah it may not be used for either milk or meat. [Taz 94:6] Alternatively, we assume that since the milk and meat spoons were Ben Yomo perhaps some food was left on them, and hence it is as if milk and meat were actually cooked in the pot within 24 hours of each other. [Beir Heiytiv 94:12]

[518] Peri Chadash 94:14 that according to Michaber is permitted; Gra 94; Chochmas Adam 48:3 in opinion of Michaber; Kaf Hachaim 94:47 that Sephardim may be lenient

[519] Shach 94:15; Chochmas Adam 48:3; Kaf Hachaim 94:47 in opinion of Shach

[520] Kaf Hachaim ibid

[521] Implication of Michaber ibid; See P”M 94 M.Z. 9

[522] Pashut from Michaber ibid

[523] If, however, there is meat currently cooking inside then seemingly the pot would become meaty according to all, being that it is considered to have received direct meat taste as opposed to Nat Bar Nat.

[524] Based on Michaber and Rama 94:5 as explained in Taz 94:6; See Hakashrus 10:99

[525] 95:3

[526] Minchas Yaakov 57:24; Rashal Gid Hanashe 37; Implication of Kneses Hagedola 95:54 in name of Masa Binyamon; Peri Megadim 95 M.Z. 13; Zivcheiy Tzedek 95:32; Kaf Hachaim 95:50

[527] The reason: As we do not say Nitzuk is Chibur regarding Issur and Heter, to consider it as if the dairy and meat vessel were washed together. [Poskim ibid; See Rama 105:3 in name of Issur Viheter]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that we do say Nitzuk Chibur and hence even the upper food is forbidden Bedieved. [Kanfei Yona based on Rashal Gid Hanashe 37, brought in Darkei Teshuvah 105:96]

[528] Michaber 94:8; See Chapter 94 Halacha 10

[529] See P”M 92 S.D. 34; Yad Avraham 92; Degul Merivava 92:7; Yad Yehuda 92:48 and 64; Poskim brought in Darkei Teshuvah 68:58 and 105:64; It is implied from the above Poskim ibid that this applies even by Basar Bechalav; See Poskim brought in chapter 91 Halacha 5 and chapter 92 Halacha 8 in Q&A who rule that even Nifsak Hakiluach can absorb.

[530] Michaber 94:9; Shach 95:5 and 17; Toras Chatas 57:12 that is permitted from letter of law, although the custom is to be stringent unless time of need; Peri Chadash 95:5; Issur Viheter; Bach 95:4; Masas Binyamin 2 “Whoever is stringent is doing a strange act”; Lechem Hapanim 95:7; Beis Lechem Yehuda 95:5; Kreisi 95:5; Kaf Hachaim 95:27; 48; See Admur 447:45 and Piskeiy Yoreh Deah 95

[531] The reason: As the taste in the Pareve food is Nat Bar Nat Dihetera. [Michaber ibid]

[532] Rama 95:3; Taz 95:13; Chavas Daas 95:10; Toras Chatas 57:12 that is permitted from letter of law, although custom is to be stringent unless time of need;

[533] Rama 95:3 says that it is forbidden.

The reason: As the stream connects both pots and considers it as if they were cooked together. [Taz 95:13] Alternatively, this is due to a mere stringency. [Chavas Daas ibid]

Regarding other vessels that the food spilled onto: Shach 95:18 explains that only the pot in which the food fell on is Treif and not any other vessels which touches the food. However, the Peri Megadim 95 S.D. 18 explains that this only applies if Nifsak Hakiluach. Se Halacha E!

[534] Minchas Yaakov 57:24; Rashal Gid Hanashe 37; Implication of Kneses Hagedola 95:54 in name of Masa Binyamon; Peri Megadim 95 M.Z. 13; Zivcheiy Tzedek 95:32; Kaf Hachaim 95:50

The reason: As we do not say Nitzuk is Chibur regarding Issur and Heter, to consider it as if the dairy and meat vessel were washed together. [Poskim ibid]

[535] P”M 95 S.D. 5; Toras Chatas 57:12

[536] P”M 95 M”Z 13; See Rama 92:7

The reason: As Nifsak Hakiluach has the status of a Keli Sheiyni. Now, although some Poskim rule that Nifsak Hakiluach can still penetrate taste into a vessel, here regarding Nat Bar Nat we are certainly lenient. [See P”M ibid]

[537] Taz 95:13

Analysis on opinion of Rama: This ruling in Taz ibid, in his opinion applies even according to the Rama, as the Rama himself rules in the case of washing pots that if one is not Ben Yomo it is permitted, and thus certainly here. However, Tzaruch Iyun from the wording of the Rama ibid who simply states not to pour into a dairy vessel and does not stipulate whether its Ben Yomo or not. Likewise, Shach 95:5 also does not differentiate in this matter when discussing the stringent opinion of the Rama and implies that it may never be poured into any vessel, whether Ben Yomo or not. Now, why would the Rama possibly hold that there is a problem with the bottom vessel if it is not Ben Yomo if even he rules that when washing them in a Keli Rishon the non-Ben Yomo is Kosher? A suggestion could be that it is similar to the case in Rama 94:5 where one used a Ben Yomo spoon for a non-Ben Yomo pot and there the custom is to prohibit the non-Ben Yomo pot, even though from the letter of the law it is permitted, and perhaps the same applies here. Vetzaruch Iyun!

[538] The reason: As this is no worse than if a dairy and meat pot were washed together in Pareve Keli Rishon, in which even the Rama 95:3 agrees that if one of the pots were not Ben Yomo, everything is permitted. [Taz ibid]

[539] Peri Megadim 95 M.Z. 13

[540] So can be understood from Taz ibid who rules this way on a Bedieved case; Likewise, see previous footnotes regarding analysis of opinion of Rama ibid, and hence certainly one should initially avoid the question.

The reason: As perhaps we are stringent regarding Nitzuk Chibur even if the pot is non-Ben Yomo. 

[541] See Otzros Yerushalayim p. 161-174 for a thorough article on this subject! See Hakashrus 1:68-70

[542] Rama 105:3 in name of Issur Viheter

[543] Seemingly this applies even if one plans to spill all the food into the Issur, as nevertheless initially we suspect that the pot absorbs non-Kosher taste.

The reason: The reason for this is because the vapor of the hot Issur becomes absorbed within the food that is in the Kosher vessel. [Shach 105:11] Alternatively, the reason is because the stream of the Kosher food connects with the Issur food and we apply the rule of Tatah Gavar.  [Taz 105:6; However the Peri Megadim 105 M.Z. 6 writes that these two reasons are really one and the same, as the vapor is able to travel due to the connected stream. Likewise, Admur 451:59 upon recording this ruling connects the two reasons into one. ]

[544] Some Poskim  rule that the above leniency of the Rama applies only in the example given by the Rama which is discussing an Issur candle, as a small flame does not give off much Issur. However, if one poured Heter into an actual Issur food which is hot, then even Bedieved the food that remains in the pot is forbidden, [as rules the Rama in 92/8], as the hot steam of the Issur penetrates into the Heter. If, however, one poured from a distance in a way that the steam is no longer Yad Soledes by the time it touches the Heter, then according to all, Bedieved the remaining food is permitted. [Yad Avraham 105] If, however, the upper Heter food itself is Yad Soledes, some Poskim  rule write the steam has the ability to prohibit the food even if the steam itself is no longer Yad Soledes. [Rama 92:8]

[545] Rama ibid; Issur Viheter ibid; Chavas Daas 91:6; Admur 451:59 rules [only] regarding Chametz that the women are accustomed not to use the vessel which was used to pour onto a Chametz vessel, thus implying that by other Issurim everything remains Kosher, and even by Chametz it’s a mere stringency of the woman; See Minchas Yaakov 57:24; Rashal Gid Hanashe 37; Implication of Kneses Hagedola 95:54 in name of Masa Binyamon; Peri Megadim 95 M.Z. 13; Zivcheiy Tzedek 95:32; Kaf Hachaim 95:50

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that we do say Nitzuk Chibur and hence even the upper food is forbidden Bedieved. [Kanfei Yona based on Rashal Gid Hanashe 37, brought in Darkei Teshuvah 105:96]

[546] See Otzros Yerushalayim p. 171

[547] Rav Chaim Yehuda Cohen in Otzros Yerushalayim p. 171

[548] The reason: As Pareve is always judged as Lechatchilah, and hence since it can still be eaten, although with a limitation, therefore one is to be stringent not to eat it with the opposite food.

[549] See Darkei Teshuvah 105:96; Shabbos Kihalacha Vol. 1 page 393 [chapter 9:41]

[550] Kreisy Upleisy 105:8; Chochmas Adam Klal 59:4; Shabbos Kehalacha ibid

[551] See Rama 92:8 and Rav Akiva Eiger there

[552] Kanfei Yonah brought in Darkei Teshuvah ibid; Yad Yehuda Hakatzar 31; See Peri Megadim 105 M.Z. 6.

Opinion of Admur: In 451:59 Admur rules that women are accustomed not to use for Pesach the urn they pour from in order to Kosher an item, being that the steam of the Chametz vessel which is being Koshered becomes absorbed in the vessel. This implies that Admur is stringent even when pouring hot onto hot. [See Piskeiy Admur p. 330] Vetzaruch Iyun if anything can be deduced from that law as Admur writes only “there is an opinion which explains”, as well as it is merely a custom, as well as the upper vessel certainly should be permitted, as Bedieved we do not hold taste is transferred. Thus one must conclude that it is a Pesach stringency that is not relevant to other Issurim, and so writes Shabbos Kehalacha ibid, as is also evident from Darkei Teshuvah 105:99

[553] Implication of Peri Megadim 105 M.Z. 6 that this may be done even initially and the food remaining in the Heter pot remains Kosher, as Tatah Gavar; See Kanfei Yona , brought in Darkei Teshuvah 105:96; So concludes Otzros Yerushalayim p. 174

[554] See Admur 451:59 which is discussing pouring hot onto cold

[555] See Admur ibid

[556] See Taz 91:2 in name of Toras Chatas 17:4; P”M 91 S.D. 3; Kneses Hagedola 91:2; Lechem Hapanim 91:2; Beis Lechem Yehuda 91:2; Chavas Daas 91:3; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:11; Kaf Hachaim 91:11

[557] See Taz 91:2; Rashal Kol Habasar 44

[558] Michaber 95:3

[559] Michaber 105:1; See Chapter 92 Halacha 12

[560] Rama 105:1; See Chapter 92 Halacha 12

[561] Rama 95:3

[562] Implication of Rama ibid and is Kal Vachomer from his ruling by Iruiy; Taz 95:12; Lechem Hapanim 95:22; Kaf Hachaim 95:47

The reason: As a Keli Sheiyni does not have ability to transfer taste. [Poskim ibid; See Chapter 91 Halacha 5A]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that if the vessels were dirty with food, then the vessels are forbidden. [Rashal Kol Habasar 64, brought in Taz 95:12; See Halacha 1B]

[563] The reason: As there are Poskim who rule that a Keli Sheiyni can cook, as explained in the previous footnote, and many Poskim suspect for their opinion, as brought in Halacha 1B.

[564] 95:3

[565] P”M 95 S.D. 10; Zivcheiy Tzedek 95:27; Kaf Hachaim 95:36

[566] Peri Chadash 95:12; Minchas Yaakov 57:17; Kreisi 95:7; P”M 95 S.D. 11; Chochmas Adam 48:8; Zivcheiy Tzedek 95:24; Kaf Hachaim 95:34

[567] Minchas Yaakov 57:16; Zivcheiy Tzedek 95:28; Kaf Hachaim 95:37 that the leftover meat joins the water to nullify the milk residue in 60x and the leftover milk joins the water to nullify the meat residue in 60x, as Issurim join to nullify each other. [See Michaber 98:9]

[568] This follows the ruling of the Rama in scenario 5, however according to the Michaber there it applies even if both vessels are Ben Yomo.

[569] Based on Shach 95:10, as explained in Scenario 2.

[570] Issur Viheter 34:17; Minchas Yaakov 57:18; P”M 95 S.D. 1; Zivcheiy Tzedek 95:12; Kaf Hachaim 95:15

[571] Michaber 95:3; Shach 95:1; Peri Chadash 95:12; Minchas Yaakov 57:17; Kreisi 95:7; P”M 95 S.D. 11; Chochmas Adam 48:8; Zivcheiy Tzedek 95:24; Kaf Hachaim 95:34

[572] Shach 95:10; Peri Chadash 95:13; Lechem Hapanim 95:16; Beis Lechem Yehuda 95:10; Kreisi 95:8; Chavas Daas 95:12; P”M 95 S.D. 10; Chochmas Adam 48:8-9; Zivcheiy Tzedek 95:25; Kaf Hachaim 95:35

[573] The reason: The reason if even one of the utensils were dirty with food while the other is Ben Yomo, that the entire mixture becomes forbidden is because this is a case of Nat Bar Nat Deissura, as the indirect taste of the meat utensil directly fuses with the dairy water and becomes Basar Bechalav. Only when indirect taste enters into a Pareve item do we say that it does not have the power to later on fuse into Basar Bechalav, in contrast to if it enters into dairy water. Alternatively, the residue directly touches the Ben Yomo vessel, and makes it forbidden, and it in turn forbids the water and all the other vessels. [Peri Chadash 95:12; Minchas Yaakov 57:17; Kreisi 95:7; P”M 95 S.D. 11; Chochmas Adam 48:8; Zivcheiy Tzedek 95:24; Kaf Hachaim 95:34]

[574] Shach 95:10; Peri Chadash 95:12; Minchas Yaakov 57:17; Kreisi 95:7; P”M 95 S.D. 11; Chochmas Adam 48:8; Zivcheiy Tzedek 95:24; Kaf Hachaim 95:34

[575] The reason: The meat vessel remains permitted as there is no Ben Yomo taste of milk in the water to prohibit it. However, the dairy vessels are forbidden, as they received direct taste of meat. [Peri Chadash 95:12; Minchas Yaakov 57:17; Kreisi 95:7; P”M 95 S.D. 11; Chochmas Adam 48:8; Zivcheiy Tzedek 95:24; Kaf Hachaim 95:34]

[576] Rama 95:3

[577] The reason: As the water only contain fresh taste of either meat or milk, and hence does not become forbidden and cannot forbid other vessels. Even the non-Ben Yomo vessel remains permitted as it received the Ben Yomo taste of the opposite food through the water, thus making it a case of Nat Bar Nat. [Taz 95:9; Peri Chadash 95:14; Lechem Hapanim 95:17 and 19; Chavas Daas 95:15; Chochmas Adam 48:10; Kaf Hachaim 95:39 and 42]

Contradiction from Rama 94:5: Vetzaruch Iyun from Rama 94:5 in which he rules that whenever one placed a non-Ben Yomo into a Ben Yomo we are stringent to forbid the non-Ben Yomo vessel. In truth, however, this is because in that case the food is forbidden to be eaten with the food type of the non-Ben Yomo vessel. This hence forms Maaras Ayin for the onlooker who then sees one using the non-Ben Yomo vessel for its same food type. Therefore, in that case we are stringent to forbid the vessel. In this case, however, since there is no food involved which is receiving restrictions, therefore, there is no Maras Ayin apparent. [Taz 95:9]

[578] Rama ibid

The reason: As the water has absorbed a Pagum mixture of meat and milk and being that water is so easily attainable, the water has a Lechatchilah status which prohibits Pagum and hence may not be consumed. [Shach 95:14; Toras Chatas 57:14 in name of Issur Viheter] However, from the letter of the law, the water may be drunk plain or with the food type of the Ben Yomo vessel, although not with the food type of the non-Ben Yomo type. [Shach 95:14; Peri Chadash 95:16; Lechem Hapanim 95:20; Chochmas Adam 48:11; Kaf Hachaim 95:43]

[579] See Halacha 1D in Q&A regarding initially cooking Pareve in a non-Ben Yomo vessel with intent to eat with dairy that some Poskim rule it is allowed, and so would apply in this case even more so, and perhaps according to all, as the discussion is Nat Bar Nat of a vessel and not of a food. So is also proven from the allowance to Kosher meat and dairy vessels together if they are not Ben Yomo.

[580] Michaber 95:3

[581] The reason: as this mixture is a mixture of Nat Bar Nat Dihetera. [Michaber ibid] The Michaber rules that Nat Bar Nat which meets Nat Bar Nat simultaneously does not have the power to create a prohibition of Basar Bechalav, and is hence defined as Nat Bar Nat Dihetera. If, however, Nat Bar Nat meets Nat [such as one placed a dairy Ben Yomo spoon into chicken soup] then it is forbidden even according to Michaber as it is a case of Nat Bar Nat Deissura.

[582] Shach 95:9; Peri Chadash 95:11; Lechem Hapanim 95:15; Chavas Daas 95:11; P”M 95 S.D. 9; Erech Hashulchan 95:13; Zivcheiy Tzedek 95:23; Kaf Hachaim 95:33; However see Halacha 1C for opinions who rule it is permitted even initially

[583] Opinion in Rama 95:3; Tur 95 in name of Sefer Hateruma; Smak; Smag and Hagahos Shaareiy Dura; Admur 452:14

[584] The reason:  The reason the Rama holds that the entire mixture becomes forbidden is because a) Perhaps the utensils came into contact with each other and thus dissipated taste directly into each other. This transferring of taste is Nat Bar Nat Deissura. B) Since the water contains the taste of both foods which were dissipated from the meat and dairy vessels, therefore, when an opposite taste enters the water. it is considered Nat Bar Nat Deissura. [Shach 95:5 and 12; Taz 95:8]

[585] Admur 452:14; P”M 94 M.Z. 7; S.D. 8

The reason: As the vessel which has 60x against itself is only receiving Nat Bar Nat Dihetera of the opposite taste.

[586] However, the Sephardic custom is to permit everything. [Zivcheiy Tzedek 95:30 and Kaf Hachaim 94:49 and 95:45]

[587] Rama ibid; Admur 452:14; Peri Toar 95:5

[588] Poskim in next footnote; Birkeiy Yosef 95 Shiyurei Bracha 3 in name of Beis Yehuda; Zivcheiy Tzedek 95:30 and Kaf Hachaim 94:49 and 95:45 that so is the Sephardic custom

[589] Kneses Hagedola 95:37; Maharanach 2:68; Mahramit 122; Zivcheiy Tzedek 95:29; Kaf Hachaim 95:38 as many Poskim are stringent like Rama

[590] Rama 95:3

[591] The reason: This is because the taste in the water is Nat Bar Nat Dihetera, of which the Rama rules Bedieved it is permitted. [Taz 95:11; Shach 95:16; Lechem Hapanim 95:23; Kaf Hachaim 95:46] This means the following: When the pots are within hot water simultaneously, the absorbed taste of each pot enters into the water, causing each taste to meet the other taste as it enters into the water. According to the Rama this is considered Nat Bar Nat Deisura and hence everything is forbidden. If, however, they are placed in one after the other, then since when the taste of the first pot entered the water it did not meet any other taste, it is considered Nat Bar Nat Diheteira of which the Rama rules Bedieved is allowed, and hence the second set of vessels are permitted.

[592] The reason: As the absorbed taste of the first set of dishes has already become Nat Bar Nat Dihetera and cannot even join with Mamashus of food to now become Issur.

[593] Rama 95:3; Shach 95:20

[594] The reason: According to the Rama, the reason is because the pouring of a Keli Rishon does not have the ability to cause the taste absorbed in the pots to come out. [Rama ibid] According to the Shach ibid, it is permitted because it is Nat Bar Nat and is a case of Iruiy Keli Rishon. [Shach ibid;]

[595] Shach 95:20; Kneses Hagedola 95:53; Minchas Yaakov 57:23; Peri Chadash 95:17; Kreisi 95:11; Lechem Hapanim 95:22; Chavas Daas 95:19; P”M 97 S.D. 20; Kaf Hachaim 95:47 and 52

[596] As according to the Rama, Iruiy Keli Rishon does not have the ability to remove taste from one pot and transfer it to another

[597] See Igros Moshe Y.D. 2:42 in great length for a Halachic analysis on the power of pouring from a Keli Rishon.

[598] Rama 95:3

[599] The reason: As the pouring of a Keli Rishon does not have the same ability as does a Keli Rishon to cause the pots to absorb from each other. [Rama ibid]

[600] Shach 95:20; Taz 95:12; Rashal Kol Habasar 64; Kneses Hagedola 95:53; Minchas Yaakov 57:23; Peri Chadash 95:17; Kreisi 95:11; Lechem Hapanim 95:22; Chavas Daas 95:19; P”M 97 S.D. 20; Kaf Hachaim 95:47 and 52

[601] The reason: As the pouring of a Keli Rishon has the ability to cook and transfer taste into a Kelipa’s worth of the pots, and hence the foods all become forbidden, which in turn prohibits a Kelipa’s worth of the pots. [Shach ibid]

[602] Shach ibid; Kneses Hagedola 95:53; Minchas Yaakov 57:23; Chavas Daas 95:19

Other opinions: Some Poskim are stringent to prohibit the vessels even in a case of great loss. [Peri Chadash 95:17; Kreisi 95:11; P”M 97 S.D. 20; Kaf Hachaim 95:52]

[603] Taz ibid; Lechem Hapanim ibid; Poskim ibid

[604] P”M 95 S.D. 20; Zivcheiy Tzedek 95:35; Kaf Hachaim 95:53; One must say in their intent that not everything is permitted as even if there is 60x versus the residue of one vessel, it nevertheless absorbs from the residue of the other vessel and becomes forbidden.

[605] Michaber 95:4; Chacham Tzevi 101; Tzemach Tzedek [Kadmon] 91; Peri Toar 95:6; Beis David Y.D. 41; Kneses Hagedola 95:46 in name of Lechem Chamudos and Damesek Eliezer that so is custom in many places; Birkeiy Yosef 95 Shiyurei Bracha 4 that we follow Michaber the Posek Hador and that many Poskim agree with him and that so is the custom; Birkeiy Yosef 107:10; Erech Hashulchan 107:1; Kehilas Yehuda 107; Eidus Behosef Samon 42; Ikarei Hadaat Y.D. 11:21; Chochmas Adam 48:15; Aruch Hashulchan 87:33; 95:24; Zivcheiy Tzedek 95:38 that so is custom in Iraq and no one has ever protested this; Ben Ish Chaiy Bechukosaiy 12; Kaf Hachaim 95:56

[606] Shach 95:21; Taz 95:15

[607] Peri Chadash 95:19; Chavas Daas 95:21; Peri Megadim 95

[608] Possibly, even in a case of doubt [if there was 60x versus the milk, or if the water was Yad Soledes] one may be lenient as there is a Sfek Sfeika a) Perhaps we rule like Rama that Iruiy Keli Rishon cannot forbid when poured on milk and meat. Furthermore b) Even according to the Shach, perhaps there was 60x the dairy residue in the water, or perhaps the water was not Yad Soledes.

[609] See in great length Igros Moshe Y.D. 2:42 for a defense of the custom to use the same sink for washing meat and then washing dairy dishes [separately] and a Halachic analysis on the power of pouring from a  Keli Rishon. This response of Rav Moshe was to the prohibiting ruling of Rav Halbershtam who understood that base on the rule of Iruiy Keli Rishon, one may not wash dishes in the same sink; See Yabia Omer 5:33

[610] This applies according to all, both Rama and Shach.

[611] This applies according to the Shach ibid, while according to the Rama ibid, it does not absorb due to this.

[612] Rav Halbershtam, brought in Igros Moshe ibid, based on the rulings of the Poskim [Shach 95:20; Kneses Hagedola 95:53; Minchas Yaakov 57:23; Peri Chadash 95:17; Kreisi 95:11; Lechem Hapanim 95:22; Chavas Daas 95:19; P”M 97 S.D. 20; Kaf Hachaim 95:47 and 52] who rule that Iruiy Keli Rishon extracts and spreads Treif taste absorbed in a vessel.

[613] Rama 95:3; Igros Moshe ibid that so applies even according to Shach ibid as the Iruiy Keli Rishon can only extract in the exact area that it hits and not anywhere else that it flows towards.

[614] Rama 95:3

[615] The reason: The milk vessels remains Kosher, as we do not assume that it was washed together with meat vessels in a Keli Rishon in a way that they would forbid each other. [Rama ibid] The reason for this is because there is a Safek Sfeka involved. Perhaps hot Keli Rishon water [or Iruiy Keli Rishon water according to Shach in Halacha 7] was not used, furthermore even if one certainly used hot water from a Keli Rishon] there is a doubt as to whether the meat and milk vessels were washed together simultaneously. Furthermore even if they were washed simultaneously there is doubt as to whether they were Ben Yomo or not. [Taz 95:14 in name of Issur Viheter; Lechem Hapanim 95:29; Beis Lechem Yehuda 95:17; Chavas Daas 95:20; P”M 97 M.Z. 14; Kaf Hachaim 95:54] Alternatively, we do not assume a Kosher item has become Treif in another area. [P”M 97 M.Z. 14; Yad Avraham ibid]

[616] Taz 95:14 in name of Issur Viheter; Lechem Hapanim 95:29; Beis Lechem Yehuda 95:17; Chavas Daas 95:20; P”M 97 M.Z. 14; Kaf Hachaim 95:54

The reason: The reason for this is because there is still a Safek Sfeka involved. Perhaps the meat and milk vessels were not washed together simultaneously. Furthermore, even if they were washed simultaneously, there is doubt as to whether they were Ben Yomo or not. [Taz ibid; Poskim ibid]

[617] P”M 97 M.Z. 14; Yad Avraham 95

[618] The reason: If one always washes his dishes with hot Keli Rishon water, seemingly according to the Rama/Taz the dairy dish would be forbidden as there is only one doubt. However, in truth there is another reason to be lenient, which is based on the rule of Ein Machzikim Issur Memakom Lemakom, and thus here we do not assume that the milk dish which is the drying rack was placed in the forbidden area of the sink, and thus even in such a case it is permitted. [Poskim ibid]

[619] Peri Chadash 95:18 based on Issur Viheter; Lechem Hapanim 95:29; P”M 97 M.Z. 14

[620] If the plates were dirty with meat or dairy residue, then this applies according to all, even the Michaber. If, however, the plates were clean but were Ben Yomo, then it is only forbidden according to the Rama. [Implication of Peri Chadash 95:18; Zivcheiy Tzedek 95:36; Kaf Hachaim 95:55; See Halacha 5]

[621] Beis Lechem Yehuda 95:17; Kaf Hachaim 95:54

[622] See Yad Avraham 95 that when the vessel is found in its area of Issur, according to all opinions a Safek Sfeika is required to permit it.

[623] The reason: As there is still a Sfek Sfeika in this case, as perhaps the vessel was clean, and even if it was dirty with meat, perhaps we rule like the Rama that Iruiy Keli Rishon does not prohibit a vessel.

[624] If one found the dairy vessel in the meat sink and one uses Yad Soledes water of Iruiy Keli Rishon, then according to the stringent opinion [in Halacha 8B] one requires the Safek Sfeka for the milk vessel to be Kosher. [See Yad Avraham 95] Thus if one knows for certain that the vessels were Ben Yomo or that they were dirty , the vessel is forbidden if one always washes with hot Keli Rishon water. If one washes with Iruiy Keli Rishon this enters into the dispute between the Rama and Shach mentioned in Halacha 8B.

[625] See Yad Avraham ibid

[626] The reason: As there is no Safek here, as we know for sure it was washed with meat dishes in Yad Soledes water in a Keli Rishon. [Dishwashers typically heat the water to 140 degrees Fahrenheit and the water is heated within the dishwasher itself. However, perhaps the spraying water can be viewed as Iruiy Keli Rishon and hence be permitted according to the Rama, and according to the final ruling, in a case of great loss, as explained in Halacha 8. However, see article of Rav Rosen who explains that these Rabbanim who gave their lenient rulings were unaware of how the machine works, and that in today’s machines it is judged as an actual Keli Rishon, as they contain coils inside, and the food does not become Pagum due to the soap, and there is no 60x when the water drains out, and other facts that the Rabbanim were unaware of today.]

[627] Now although a Stam vessel that is being washed is dirty, as explained in Shach 95:1, nevertheless here if one does not know for sure the vessel is dirty one may be lenient as perhaps the leftover residue became spoiled due to the soap or other spoiling agent. Nevertheless, there are Poskim who in truth learn that the vessel is only permitted if one knows for certain that it was clean. [Yad Avraham]

[628] 92:8

[629] There are two possible ways of understanding the prohibition of Zeiah: 1) Due to Nitzuk Chibur [See Admur 451:41 and Levush 93 who learns that the vapor prohibits due to the law of Nitzuk Chibur] 2) Due to Mamashus [See P”M 92 M.Z. 29 and O.C. 441 A.A. 44 and Yad Yehuda 92:52 who learns that the prohibition of Zeiah is due to Mamashus falling back inside.]

[630] A large oven negates a Zeiah concern as a) It dissipates the Zeiah evenly everywhere, and by the time it reaches the oven roof, there may be no vapor left; b) the oven roof would not get hot to the point of Yad Soledes, and the vapor was below Yad Soledes by the time it hit the oven, thus avoid any issue of Zeiah. This applies even if the oven contains no vents during the cooking or baking.

[631] See Igros Moshe Y.D. 1:40 in length for the Zeiah concerns in our ovens and that they have the same status as a pan placed over two uncovered foods, brought in Rama 108:1; Maharsham 3:208; Minchas Yitzchak 5:20; Chelkas Yaakov 2:136; Kinyan Torah 1:24; Badei Hashulchan 92:166; Darkei Halacha p. 242

The reason: As the roofing is very close to the food and it is hence just like the case of a cover on two pots. Now, this prohibition of Zeiah is either due to Nitzuk Chibur [See Admur 451:41 and Levush 93 who learns that the vapor prohibits due to the law of Nitzuk Chibur] or due to Mamashus [See P”M 92 M.Z. 29 and O.C. 441 A.A. 44 and Yad Yehuda 92:52 who learns that the prohibition of Zeiah is due to Mamashus falling back inside.] Thus, although some Poskim entertain that perhaps our ovens today do not have a Mamashus prohibition, as the vapor will not fall back down [Shut Beis Hayotzer], nevertheless, it would still be forbidden due to Nitzuk Chibur.

[632] Rama 92:8

[633] If only one food was covered: See Admur 447:10 and Michaber 108:1 that it suffices for even one of the foods to be covered, however, that is regarding Reicha. However, regarding Zeiah, so long as the vapor of one of the foods hits the other food, it is forbidden, and thus both foods must be covered. Accordingly, if either the meat or milk food is uncovered, then seemingly both foods are forbidden as it is similar to the case of Rama 92:8 where the uncovered milk pot prohibits the even covered meat pot, as the vapor travels towards it. Similarly here, the vapor travels from the meat to the covered milk, and prohibits the covered Heter. Furthermore, even the uncovered food becomes forbidden as perhaps the vapor of the uncovered travels to the covered food, becomes prohibited, and then returns back to the uncovered food and prohibits it. [See Peri Toar 92:16; P”M 92 M.Z. 29; Degul Mirivava 92 regarding that the dairy uncovered pot also becomes forbidden even if the meat pot was covered.] This especially applies according to Admur 451:41 [and Levush 93] who learns that the vapor prohibits due to the law of Nitzuk Chibur, and hence it is as if one poured meat onto a Ben Yomo dairy pot, in which the Rama 95:3 rules it is forbidden. [This is unlike the P”M ibid and O.C. 441 A.A. 44 and Yad Yehuda 92:52 who learns that the prohibition of Zeiah is due to Mamashus falling back inside.] Vetzaruch Iyun from Kaf Hachaim 108:32 who explains that the Zeiah case which prohibits is if both the Heter and Issur are uncovered.

[634] See Igros Moshe Y.D. 1:40; Maharsham 3:208; Minchas Yitzchak 5:20; Chelkas Yaakov 2:136; Kinyan Torah 1:24; Badei Hashulchan 92:166; Darkei Halacha p. 242

[635] Erech Hashulchan 92:15; Kaf Hachaim 92:103

[636] As if there is leftover meat/milk/Issur, it will release vapor and prohibit even the covered foods!

[637] Toras Chatas 56:12; Bach 92; Kneses Hagedola 92:69; P”M 92 M.Z. 29; Tzemach Tzedek O.C. 43 [even regarding Chametz]; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:73; Kaf Hachaim 92:95

[638] The reason: As the dairy taste absorbed in the vessel does not become expelled and release vapor to prohibit the meat vessel. [Poskim ibid] Alternatively, as the vapor of an empty vessel does not prohibit. [See Tzemach Tzedek ibid]

[639] P”M ibid; Zivcheiy Tzedek ibid; Kaf Hachaim ibid

[640] The reason: As this is a case of Nat Bar Nat Dihetera. [Poskim ibid]

[641] See Admur 451:41 [and Levush 93] who learns that the vapor prohibits due to the law of Nitzuk Chibur, and hence it is as if one poured from a meat pot onto a dairy pot, in which the Rama 95:3 rules it is forbidden. This is unlike the P”M ibid and O.C. 441 A.A. 44 and Yad Yehuda 92:52 who learns that the prohibition of Zeiah is due to Mamashus falling back inside.

[642] P”M ibid; Zivcheiy Tzedek ibid; Kaf Hachaim ibid

[643] The reason: As this is a case of Nat Bar Nat Dissura. [Poskim ibid]

[644] See Admur 447:10 and Michaber 108:1 that it suffices for even one of the foods to be covered, however, that is regarding Reicha. However, regarding Zeiah, so long as the vapor of one of the foods hits the other food, it is forbidden, and thus both foods must be covered. Accordingly, if either the meat or milk food is uncovered, then seemingly both foods are forbidden as it is similar to the case of Rama 92:8 where the uncovered milk pot prohibits the even covered meat pot, as the vapor travels towards it. Similarly here, the vapor travels from the meat to the covered milk, and prohibits the covered Heter. Furthermore, even the uncovered food becomes forbidden as perhaps the vapor of the uncovered travels to the covered food, becomes prohibited, and then returns back to the uncovered food and prohibits it. [See Peri Toar 92:16; P”M 92 M.Z. 29; Degul Mirivava 92 regarding that the dairy uncovered pot also becomes forbidden even if the meat pot was covered.] This especially applies according to Admur 451:41 [and Levush 93] who learns that the vapor prohibits due to the law of Nitzuk Chibur, and hence it is as if one poured meat onto a Ben Yomo dairy pot, in which the Rama 95:3 rules it is forbidden. [This is unlike the P”M ibid and O.C. 441 A.A. 44 and Yad Yehuda 92:52 who learns that the prohibition of Zeiah is due to Mamashus falling back inside.] Vetzaruch Iyun from Kaf Hachaim 108:32 who explains that the Zeiah case which prohibits is if both the Heter and Issur are uncovered.

[645] Tur 451:15 regarding Charara “And it releases vapor”; Bach 451:13; M”A 451:30; Yad Yehuda 92 Aruch 53; Masas Binyamin 42:58; Chacham Tzvi 20; P”M 451 A.A. 30; Rivash 295; Tzemach Tzedek O.C. 43; Shoel Umeishiv Chamisha 4; Beis Shlomo Y.D. 1:162 and 164; Maharsham; Daas Sofer; Levushei Mordechai; Poskim in Darkei Teshuvah 92:164; Rav Elyashiv in Beis Yitzchak; See Peri Haretz Y.D. 2:14

[646] Toras Chatas 35:6 [ See Minchas Yaakov ibid]; Masas Moshe 4:30; P”M O.C. Hanhagos Horaos Issur Viheter Seder Sheiyni 37, brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah 92:6 that only liquids release vapor; Beis Meir 461; Poskim in Darkei Teshuvah 92:164; Igros Moshe 1:40 unless one sees that it released vapor; See Tzemach Tzedek ibid who brings the P”M but then negates his conclusion as being not substantive; See Admur 451:42 regarding a Chararah who states the pot requires Libun because it touches it most of the time, and does not mention the aspect of Zeiah [brought in Tur and Bach ibid], however seemingly, this is simply because Admur is explaining why it needs Libun, and not simply Hagala due to the vapor; Likewise, see Admur 447:9 who permits

[647] Meaning that their vapor is viewed as feces rather than as Mamashus, and does not prohibit a food. [See Tzemach Tzedek ibid]

[648] Igros Moshe ibid

[649] Based on Rama in 108:1 regarding baking under the same roofing which causes Zeiah, which is Mamashus to travel. This does not fall under the Heter of 116:2 regarding baking fish and meat in an oven, in which case we rule that Bedieved it is valid, as there it is only dealing with a problem of Reicha.

[650] As even when one cooked fish and meat together in the same pot we do not require Koshering and waiting 24 hours suffice. [Kaf Hachaim 116:13]

Was this article helpful?

Related Articles

Leave A Comment?