This article is an excerpt from our Sefer

Buy me here

Check out our state of the art Online Basar Bechalav course

________________________________________

Chapter 91

Taaruvos of Basar Bechalav: Cold with cold/hot

 

Introduction: This chapter is the start of a discussion which will carry on throughout much of the next few chapters [92, 93, 94, 95], and much of the laws of Taaruvos [chapters 98-111], regarding 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]. There exist various cases under discussion, which will determine the question of transference of substance and taste, and when they pose a Halachic issue.

1. Cold meat which came into contact with cold cheese:[1]

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.[2] If, however, both the cheese and meat were dry then one is not required to wash them at all (if they appear clean).[3] Some Poskim[4], 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.[5] 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.[6]]

May one Lechatchila allow meat and cheese to contact each other?[7] If one of the foods is wet, then it is initially forbidden to allow them to contact each other.[8] 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.[9] If both the cheese and meat are dry, then contact is allowed even initially, as they do not require washing.[10]

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.

2. Bread which touched meat or milk:[11]

One is to beware that bread does not come into contact with meat[12] or cheese [if he plans to eat the bread during other meals[13]]. If the bread came into contact with cheese or meat [that is moist[14]] 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].[15] [One is hence to make a sign on the bread to indicate its meat or dairy status.[16] However, if one washes the bread after it contacts the meat or cheese, then some Poskim[17] 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.[18] 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.[19] However, some Poskim[20] 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?[21] 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.

3. Placing Kosher food on a non-Kosher plate:[22]

This Halacha is a continuation of the previous topic discussing cold contact between meat, milk and other foods. In this Halacha, we will explore the subject of using a non-Kosher plate to eat a Kosher food. The opening discussion is regarding a dirty non-Kosher plate [Michaber], and whether or not one may place Kosher foods on it on the basis that he will later wash the food. Next, the discussion progresses towards clean plates [Shach]. In general, if the plate is clean there is no chance that any substance will actually stick to the Kosher food, and it hence should be allowed. Nonetheless, due to worry that using a non-Kosher plate for cold foods can lead to using it for hot foods, which would then enter into the subject of transference of taste from the non-Kosher plate to the Kosher food, the Poskim therefore discuss various restrictions as to whether even cold Kosher food may be placed onto non-Kosher plates, and under what circumstances. The following is the ruling of the Poskim on this matter:

The opinions:

• Michaber:

Cooked foods: It is initially forbidden to place cooked [or pickled[23]] Kosher foods on a non-Kosher plate [that has not been properly cleaned[24]].[25] [Bedieved, if one did so, he must wash the food prior to eating it.[26] In a time of need, such as one is a guest in the home of a gentile, some Poskim[27] rule that one may even initially use his non-Kosher plate even if he is unable to properly clean it using water, so long as it is cleaned with a napkin and the like.]

Raw foods: It is permitted even initially to place raw food [which requires cooking], such as raw meat[28], onto a non-Kosher plate if it is common to wash the food prior to cooking.[29]

• Rama:

Moist food versus dry and non-Kosher plates used for hot versus cold: The above prohibition mentioned in Michaber only refers to placing moist Kosher foods on non-Kosher dishes. It is, however, permitted to place completely dry Kosher foods on non-Kosher plates even if the foods are cooked, so long as the non-Kosher plates has not been used for hot non-Kosher foods. [If, however, the dish has been used for non-Kosher hot foods, then it is forbidden to place on it even dry raw foods.]

• Shach:[30]

Moist foods-Clean plate: On occasion, Kosher food, even if moist, may be placed on a clean[31] non-Kosher plate even if the plate has been used in the past for hot non-Kosher foods. [See Compilation for opinions regarding earthenware!]

Not to use constantly: In all cases, it is forbidden to use a non-Kosher plate on a steady basis as one may come to use the non-Kosher plate for hot Kosher food.

Davar Charif:[32] A wet Davar Charif is forbidden to be placed on a non-Kosher plate that was used for hot non-Kosher foods.[33] However, a dry Davar Charif may on occasion be placed on a clean non-Kosher plate.

 

• Taz:[34]

There must be a typing error in the Rama and rather it should read as follows:

Dry foods-All plates: All dry foods may be placed on non-Kosher plates even if the plates were used for hot non-Kosher food.

Moist foods-Plates used for cold: Kosher wet foods may only be placed on a non-Kosher plate if the plate has only been used for cold non-Kosher foods. If the plate has been used with hot non-Kosher food, then moist foods may not be placed on it.

Hot foods: Hot foods have the same status as cold moist foods and they may thus be placed on a clean plate that has never been used for hot non-Kosher foods.

• Admur:[35]

Clean plate-All allowed: It is permitted on occasion[36] to use a clean non-Kosher plate for cold Kosher foods, whether the foods are wet or dry, and whether the vessel is made of metal or earthenware.

Compilation & Final ruling Using a non-Kosher plate to eat cold Kosher foods: A. Dirty non-Kosher plate: It is forbidden to place a cold moist Kosher food onto a dirty non-Kosher plate unless one is accustomed to wash it prior to eating [such as raw meat which is washed before cooking].[37] However, if the Kosher food is [cold[38] and] dry, then it is permitted to be placed on a [cold and dry[39]] non-Kosher plate even if the plate was not properly cleaned.[40] This applies even if the plate was used in the past with hot non-Kosher foods.[41] Plate was cleaned but not washed:[42] If the plate was cleaned with a napkin but not washed then in a time of need, such as one is a guest in the home of a gentile and there is no water available, some Poskim[43] rule that one may even initially use this plate for wet foods. Otherwise, however, one is to wash the plate.   B. Clean non-Kosher plate:[44] Plates that have never been used for hot non-Kosher foods:[45] According to all opinions, a plate that has never been in contact with hot non-Kosher foods and has not had non-Kosher foods soak in it for 24 hours, may be washed and cleaned and then used for even hot Kosher foods, even on a steady basis. If, however, there is room to speculate that perhaps it was used on occasion for hot non-Kosher foods, then it is to be Kashered prior to using it for hot foods, or prior to using it on a steady basis.[46] To use such a plate on occasion, follows the law explained next. Plates that have been used for hot non-Kosher foods: There is a three-way dispute amongst the Poskim regarding whether a clean non-Kosher plate that has been used in the past for hot non-Kosher foods may be used on occasion for Kosher foods: The opinions: Some Poskim[47] rule it is permitted on occasion to place Kosher foods on top of a clean [and washed[48]]  non-Kosher plate. This applies whether the food is dry or moist and applies even if the plate has been used for hot non-Kosher foods in the past. Some Poskim[49], however, limit this allowance specifically to plates made of Kasherable material [i.e. metal], while plates made of non-Kasherable material [i.e. earthenware; bone, chinaware, pottery] may not initially be used even if they are clean, if they have ever been used with hot non-Kosher foods.[50] Other Poskim[51] do not differentiate and rule that all clean vessels may be initially used, including earthenware. Other Poskim[52] differentiate between plates that have only been used for cold non-Kosher foods, and plates that have been used for also hot non-Kosher foods. If the plate has been used for only cold non-Kosher foods, then it may be used for all Kosher foods, whether moist[53] or dry. If, however, the plate has been used for hot non-Kosher foods, then it may not be used for moist Kosher foods.[54] See below for the final ruling! Final ruling:[55] Practically, we rule like the first opinion that on occasion, it is permitted to place [non-Charif] Kosher foods on top of a clean [and washed] non-Kosher plate even if the food is moist and even if the plate has been used for hot non-Kosher foods in the past. This applies even to earthenware.[56] Charif Foods: Charif foods may only be placed on a non-Kosher plate if the Charif food is dry [i.e. dry spices]. If, however, the Charif food is wet or moist [i.e. vinegar] then it may not be placed on a plate that has been previously used with hot non-Kosher foods.[57] If, however, the plate has never been used for hot non-Kosher foods, then even wet Charif may be placed on it.[58] How often:[59] Even according to the lenient cases and opinions who allow using non-Kosher plates that have been used with hot non-Kosher foods, the plates may only be used on occasion, such as one is in the home of a gentile and does not have another plate available[60], or simply due to preference to use that specific plate.[61] It is forbidden, however, to use a non-Kosher plate on a steady basis.[62] Glass plates: Many Poskim rule that glass does not absorb and hence follows the same ruling as metal plates that have only been used for cold Issur, of which we rule that they may even initially be used on a steady basis, and even with Charif foods, and even with hot, so long as they are clean. See supplement in the end of the Sefer regarding the status of glass materials..   C. Bedieved-What is the law if one transgressed and placed Kosher food on a non-Kosher plate? If one placed a cold Kosher food on top of a cold non-Kosher plate that has not been properly cleaned [and washed[63]], he must wash the food prior to eating it.[64] If the plate was properly cleaned and washed, then the food is permitted in all cases and does not require washing.[65] This applies even if the food was Charif and wet.[66]   Summary: It is forbidden to place a moist Kosher food onto a dirty non-Kosher plate.[67] Dry Kosher foods however may be placed on a non-Kosher plate[68] [even if the plate has been used for hot Treif in the past[69]]. It is disputed amongst the Poskim[70] if a moist Kosher food may be placed onto a clean non-Kosher plate if the plate has been used for hot non-Kosher food in the past. [Admur rules it is permitted.] However, all agree that even a moist Kosher food may be placed on a non-Kosher plate that has only been used for cold non-Kosher foods [and the vessel has not had non-Kosher foods soak in it for 24 hours].[71] It is forbidden to place a wet Charif food on a non-Kosher plate which was used for hot foods. It is always forbidden to use a non-Kosher plate which was used for hot foods on a steady basis.[72]   Q&A What is the definition of a clean plate? Must the plate be washed using water, or does a dry cleaning suffice, such as a paper towel or napkin? Some Poskim[73] rule that the plate may be cleaned in any method, whether with or without water, so long as one makes sure that there is no fat or non-Kosher remnants on the plate. Other Poskim[74], however, rule the plate is only defined as cleaned if it was washed using water. Practically, the main ruling follows the latter opinion.[75] Hence, if one placed a Kosher food onto a clean non-Kosher plate that has not been washed clean with water, the food needs to be rinsed prior to eating.[76]   If a Kosher food was placed on a non-Kosher plate that was not properly cleaned and one is unable to wash the food, what is he to do? If the plate was visibly dirty with non-Kosher food, then [by a solid food] one is required to peel off the area of contact. If the food is a liquid, then some Poskim[77] rule the food is forbidden unless it contains 60x, while other Poskim[78] rule the food is permitted Bedieved. Practically, one may be lenient by a Rabbinical prohibition or in a case of great loss.[79] Plate was cleaned with dry cloth: If the plate was cleaned with a dry cloth, and was simply not washed, then some Poskim[80] rule it may be eaten the way it is if no water is available to wash it. This certainly applies by a liquid food to which washing and removing a peel is not possible. Practically, by dry foods it is best to remove a peel.   May one own a non-Kosher vessel?[81] Yes. There is no prohibition against storing a non-Kosher vessel in one’s home [away from the remaining vessels of the kitchen], and we do not suspect that this will become a stumbling block and lead to accidently using it.   May one use a warm non-Kosher plate that was just removed from the dish washer for Kosher food in a restaurant? It is permitted to do so long as the plate is dry and is not Yad Soledes. May one eat a Kosher food in a non-Kosher restaurant on a non-Kosher plate? Entering the restaurant:[82] In general, it is forbidden to enter into a non-Kosher restaurant due to Maras Ayin even if there are no Jews in the vicinity.[83] However, in a time of great need [such as one is very hungry or needs the bathroom] and there is no active Maras Ayin involved in one’s eating in the restaurant [such as there are no Jews in the vicinity who will see him eating there], then it is permitted to eat within the restaurant, preferably in a secluded area.[84] If, however, there are Jews around who will see him eating there, then it is forbidden to do so even in a time of great need, unless he informs them of the situation. Using the non-Kosher plate: If the Kosher food is cold and does not contain moist Charif, then one may use a clean non-Kosher plate to eat on it.

Chart	Clean plate used for cold Treif	Clean plate used for hot Treif	Dirty plate used for cold Treif	Dirty plate used for hot Treif
Dry cold food	Permitted[85]	Permitted[86]	Permitted[87]	Permitted[88]
Wet cold food	Permitted[89]	Dispute[90]	Forbidden[91]	Forbidden[92]
Charif food	Permitted[93]	Forbidden if wet Permitted if dry[94]
Hot food	Permitted[95]	Forbidden[96]	Forbidden	Forbidden

Using same utensils for meat and milk

Eating meat with dairy utensils [i.e. plate, fork, spoon] and vice versa-Lechatchila & Bedieved: One is to 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.[97] Hence, one is to have separate sets of meat and dairy utensils in his kitchen. Time of need: In a time of need that no other plate or spoon/fork is available, one may use a clean meat vessel for cold dairy foods, and vice versa, so long as one makes sure to wash it properly before and after its use using cold water. This applies whether the food is dry or moist and applies even if the vessel has been used for hot meat or dairy foods in the past, and even if it is made of non-Kosherablke material.[98] One, however, may never use the vessel for hot meat/cheese, unless the vessel itself has never been used before for hot cheese/meat, and has never been washed with hot cheese/meat, in which case the vessel is considered Pareve.[99] It, however, will now become meaty/dairy if used with hot food.  Bedieved-Used with cold food: Bedieved, if one placed dairy food on a meat plate, or used a meat spoon or fork to eat it, everything remains permitted, so long as the food was cold and the vessel was clean and the food did not soak in the vessel for 24 hours.[100] In such a case, the vessel requires a mere washing in cold water. If, however, the vessel was dirty with meat, then the area of the dairy which contacted the food must be washed or peeled off.[101] If one already mixed it into the food, then everything is forbidden.[102] If the food contains liquid [i.e. milk] and remained within the meat vessel for 24 hours, then if the vessel was dirty with leftover meat, everything is forbidden unless the milk contains 60x the meat. If the vessel was clean, then although the milk remains permitted, the vessel is forbidden and must be Koshered.[103] Bedieved if used with hot food: See Chapter 93 Halacha 1 and Chapter 94 Halacha 10! Glass plates and bowls: See Supplement in end of Sefer! Knives: Regarding whether a meat knife may be used for dairy of vice versa, its laws are more stringent then a regular vessel-See Chapter 89 Halacha 8 for the full details of this matter!   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? If one is unsure as to a vessel’s dairy or meat status and 12 months have not passed since its last use, then it is required to be Kashered if one desires to use the vessel for dairy or meat meals.[104] If one does not desire to Kasher the vessel, or it is unable to be Kashered, it may only be used for Pareve foods. If Pareve food is cooked in this vessel [i.e. a pot] then if it does not contain a Davar Charif, the food may be eaten together with dairy or meat in the same meal. If it contains a Davar Charif, it may not be eaten within a meat or dairy meal.[105] If 12 months have passed: Some Poskim[106] rule that after 12 months the taste absorbed in the walls of a vessel becomes nullified. Accordingly, in a case of doubt as to the status of the vessel there is room to permit designating it for meat or milk so long as 12 months have passed.[107] Nonetheless, it is best to Kasher the utensils beforehand, [especially if it is made of Kasherable material]. If it is made of non-Kasherable material [i.e. porcelain] then it should be immersed three times in the Hagalah waters.[108] Glass vessels: If one is unsure as to a glass vessel’s dairy or meat status, one may designate it for whatever food one desires, meat or dairy.[109] Nonetheless, if the vessel is a Pyrex pot or baking pan, it is proper to have Hagalah performed to it three times prior to use.[110]

4. Placing Issur onto a Kosher plate:[111]

It is initially forbidden to place an Issur food onto a Heter plate if it is not common to wash the plate prior to its use. This applies even if the Issur and plate are cold.

Taaruvos of Basar Bechalav-Mixtures of meat and milk

5. Tatah Gavar: The law if hot meat and dairy contact each other:[112]

*The following Halacha will focus on the law of Tatah Gavar only as it relates to meat and milk mixtures. Regarding other Issurim, including a piece of meat which has become forbidden due to milk, see chapter 105/5-7, and in our corresponding Sefer “A Semicha Aid-Taaruvos” chapter 105, for the full discussion on this matter.

 

A. Introduction:

The following Halacha is the start of a discussion which will carry on throughout the next few chapters [92, 93, 94, 95] regarding the transference of meat taste to a dairy product or vice versa. As explained in the laws of Taaruvos chapter 98:1 and our corresponding Sefer, the taste of an Issur has the same status as the Issur itself.[113] Hence, if the taste of milk/cheese penetrates into meat [or vice versa], it can prohibit the meat 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’issur 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? b) How far does the penetration reach into the other food? c) Does having 60x suffices? These questions will be analyzed throughout the coming Halachas and chapters. This current Halacha will deal with question b, as to how far a taste of one food can penetrate into another food.

 

The definition of heat 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 chapter 105:1 and our corresponding Sefer]. 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.[114] 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?[115] There is no clear definition of Yad Soledes brought in the Talmud or Rishonim.[116] 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.[117] Keli Rishon, Sheiyni, Shelishi, & 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]. This topic is discussed in the laws of Taaruvos chapter 105, although some aspects are already found in the laws of Basar Bechalav. 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: Keli Sheiyni: A Keli Sheiyni is hot Yad Soledes food that has been transferred from the pot into a second vessel. Some Poskim[118] rule a Keli Sheiyni cannot transfer taste and hence a Keli Sheiyni is considered like cold food for all Halachic purposes. Other Poskim[119] 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[120] 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.[121] If the Keli Sheiyni is not Yad Soledes, according to all the food remains permitted. Iruiy Keli Sheiyni, Keli Shelishi, and Revi’i:[122] 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[123], 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[124] 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.[125] Davar Gush: Some Poskim[126] 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[127], 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.[128] Nifsak Hakiluach:[129] 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[130] 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’s worth from the meat. Other Poskim[131], however, rule that Nifsak Hakiluach of Iruiy Keli Rishon has the same status as a Keli Sheiyni for all matters. Nitzuk Chibbur:[132] 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 steam hit the upper food]. This matter will be further discussed in Chapter 95 Halacha 7. Law of Kavush:[133] 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[134] forbidden due to the transference of taste.

 

B. Bottom is hot:[135]

Whenever meat and milk [or cheese[136]] fall onto each other, and the bottom food is hot [to the point of Yad Soledes, even if it is not in the fire[137]], 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].[138] [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[139]. 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.
• Example 3: Cold cheese fell onto a piece of hot meat-See chapter 94 Halacha 11 for the full details of this matter!

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[140], as well as the dispute of the power of a Keli Sheiyni to transfer taste.[141] [Practically, there is no clear arbitration in these disputes, and a Rav is to be contacted.]

 

C. Bottom is cold, and top is hot:[142]

Whenever meat and cheese fall onto each other, and the bottom piece is cold[143] 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 6 in Q&A 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.[144] Some Poskim[145] 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:[146] If hot meat [that is not spiced or slit] falls into cold milk, the meat must have a peels worth removed from its area of contact. [This applies even if “Nifsak Hakiluach”.[147]] 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:^[148] 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^[149] 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^[150], 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 Kelipa’s 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? Some Poskim[151] rule that if the bottom piece is Yad Soledes, then even though it is a Keli Sheiyni, we do not apply the rule of Tatah Gavar, and the top piece which is hot due to a Keli Rishon transfers taste between both pieces and prohibits them entirely. [This applies even according to those Poskim[152] who rule a Keli Sheiyni does not have ability to transfer taste.] Other Poskim[153], however, rule that we view the bottom Keli Sheiyni piece as cold, and hence not only does it not have ability to transfer taste, but its “coldness” overpowers the heat of the upper piece and the classical rule of Tatah Gavar applies, hence forbidding only a peels worth. 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]?[154] So long as the middle piece has not become hot to the point of Yad Soledes, the top piece remains Kosher, while the middle and bottom piece are forbidden. If, however, the middle piece has become hot to the point of Yad Soledes, then all the pieces are forbidden. 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]?[155] The middle and top piece is forbidden while the bottom piece requires a Kelipa. 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?[156] Some Poskim[157] rule that in such a case we do not apply the rule of Tatah Gavar, and hence everything is forbidden. Other Poskim[158], however, rule that we apply the rule of Tatah Gavar even in such a case. Some Poskim[159] arbitrate that if the piece is hot, even though it is still below Yad Soledes, then one is to follow the former opinion, while if it is cold, one is to follow the latter opinion.

 

D. The two pieces contacted each other side by side:[160]

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.[161] [If, however, only one of the foods is hot due to a Keli Rishon, then some Poskim[162] rule merely a Kelipa is to be removed from the area of contact of both[163] the meat and cheese. However, other Poskim[164] rule that the entire cold piece is forbidden while the hot piece requires the removal of a Kelipa from the area of contact.]

6. The law of Kdei Kelipa:

A. The general law:

In the previous Halacha, the law of removing a Kelipa from a food was introduced. If a hot piece of meat falls onto a cold piece of cheese, then one must remove a Kelipa from both foods in the area of contact. 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? [Halacha B] Likewise, what is the law if Bedieved one cooked the meat with other foods prior to removing a Kelipa’s worth. [Halacha C] Practically, this matter is debated amongst the Rishonim and Poskim.

The dispute: Some Poskim[165]  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[166] 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:

 

B. The laws of Kdei Kelipa by liquids:[167]

Whenever a liquid requires a Kelipa worth to be removed, since it is not possible to do so the liquid remains permitted even if it does not contain 60x its peels worth. [However, some Poskim[168] rule that the liquid must contain 60x against its peel worth for it to remain Kosher.]

• Example: If hot meat falls into cold milk, in which case we rule that the foods require Kelipa, the milk remains Kosher as it cannot have Kelipa removed. [However according to the other opinions, the milk must have 60x a peels worth of its milk and only then does it remain Kosher.]

 

C. The law if one cooked a solid without removing its Kelipa:

• Example: If hot meat falls into cold milk, the meat must have a peels worth removed from its area of contact, as explained in Halacha 5. If that meat was then cooked without having its Kelipa removed, what is the law of the food?

• Rama:[169]

Permitted: The food remains permitted even if the meat and food does not contain 60x the peel of the meat.

• Shach:[170]

Permitted only if Kelipa disintegrated: Even according to the Rama, the food only remains permitted without 60x if the peel is no longer intact, such as is the case by liquids or by meat which has disintegrated. However, in a case that the food which requires a peel to be removed, has remained intact even after it was cooked, then the food in which it was cooked requires 60x the Kelipa.

• Taz:[171]

Not permitted: Whenever a food that requires the removal of a Kelipa has been cooked without its removal, the cooked food now needs 60x versus its peel [or the original issur, whichever is less[172]]. This applies whether the peel of the food has remained intact or has disintegrated.

Final arbitration of Achronim:[173] Basar Bechalav: 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[174] rule one is to have 60x the Kelipa in the food, or 60x versus the Issur.] Other Issurim: By other Issurim, whenever a Kelipa is required, Bedieved if the food was cooked prior to removing the Kelipa, or if it is a liquid and hence a Kelipa cannot be removed, the food requires 60x its Kelipa [or 60x the original Issur[175]] for it to be permitted. However, in a case of great loss or time of need, one may be lenient to permit the food even if it does not contain 60x its Kelipa.   Q&A How much is a Kelipa?[176] 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.]   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 by a Kosher liquid that had a cold Issur fall inside? This follows the same dispute and ruling as a Kelipa: Some Poskim[177] rule the food is forbidden unless it contains 60x [the area of Hadacha]. Other Poskim[178], however, rule the food is permitted Bedieved. Practically, one may be lenient by a Rabbinical prohibition or in a case of great loss.[179]

7. Cold meat fell into cold milk:

A. Background:

This Halacha is a continuation of the case discussed in Halachas 5-6 regarding a piece of hot meat falling into milk. In this case, however, we will discuss the law in the case that both the meat and milk are cold. While it is true that without a source of heat it is not possible for taste of meat and milk to transfer to each other, nevertheless, there is room to suspect that perhaps the meat has absorbed some of the substance of the milk, giving its physical properties of containing holes and crevices, and being similar to a sponge material. Practically, if a cold piece of meat falls into cold milk, whether the meat and milk remain permitted is dependent on the following factors:

1. Is the meat raw or cooked?
2. Does the meat contain cracks and slits?
3. Is the meat spiced?
4. Is the meat salted?

The above factors are under debate amongst the Rishonim and Poskim as will now be explained based on the Gamara.

 

Talmudic background and opinions:

Gemara Chulin 112a: “A [slaughtered] baby bird fell into a bucket of [a salty dairy product called] Kutach [and was brought to the Rabbanim to rule on]. Rav Chanina ruled that it is Kosher [thus not suspecting that it absorbed any milk from the Kutach]. The Gemara then qualifies the case allowance as follows: The Kutcha in discussion was not salted enough to be considered hot. Likewise, the bird was raw. However, if it was roasted it would require a Kelipa. Furthermore, if it contains cracks it is completely forbidden. Likewise, if it was spiced it is completely forbidden.”    

The three opinions in understanding the Gemara:[180] While at first glance the Talmudic qualifications to the case seems clear and detailed, a deeper analyzation reveals an unclarity as to its intent, which led to a three-way debate amongst the Rishonim and Poskim. The main issue of debate is in regard to the state of the roasted/slit and spiced bird mentioned in the Gemara, and its ruling that it becomes forbidden. Does the roasted bird case refer to a roasted bird that is still hot or even a cold roasted bird? Does the slit or spiced case refer to a slit or spiced roasted bird or even a slit or spiced raw bird? If the former, then does it refer to a hot roasted sliced or spiced bird, or even a cold roasted sliced or spiced bird?  The following are the three opinions in the Rishonim:

1. Most stringent-Cold & Raw:[181] The roasted case in the Talmud refers even to a cold bird, and the spiced or slit case refers even to a raw bird. Thus, if the meat is roasted, even if it is cold, it requires a Kelipa and if the meat is spiced or contains cracks/slits it is entirely forbidden even if raw.
2. Most lenient-Cooked & Hot:[182] The roasted, spiced, and cracked/slit cases discussed in the Talmud all refer to hot roasted meat. Thus, in all cases that the meat was cold when it fell in, a mere rinsing suffices, even if it was fully roasted, slit and spiced. However, if the meat was hot when it fell in, then it requires a Kelipa if it was not spiced and slit, and if it was spiced or slit, then it is entirely forbidden. According to this approach, cold meat and certainly raw meat, never become forbidden.
3. Center/middle position-Cooked & Cold:[183] The roasted, spiced, and slit case in the Talmud all refer to a cold roasted bird. Thus, if roasted meat that is not spiced or slit fell in to milk, it requires a Kelipa whether it is hot or cold. If the roasted meat is spiced or slit, then it is entirely forbidden whether it was hot or cold.

The ruling of the Poskim: The Michaber rules like the 2^nd opinion. The Rama records the 3^rd opinion and suspects for it unless it is a case of great loss. The Shach rules like the 3^rd opinion. The Peri Chadash and Admur rule like the first opinion unless in a case of great loss.

 

The cases

B. Raw unsalted meat:[184]

If raw meat falls into milk, the meat is to be washed and may then be eaten. [This applies also to other Issurim, such as if a piece of raw Kosher meat fell into the cold milk of a non-Kosher animal, the meat requires a mere rinsing.[185]]

Meat is spiced or slit: Even if the meat has been spiced [to the point of inedibility[186], but without salt] or has slits, the meat nevertheless remains Kosher and is merely required to be rinsed off.[187] [However some Poskim[188] rule that if the meat has slits or is spiced to the point of inedibility, then it is completely forbidden. Practically, Admur[189] concludes that one may be lenient like the first opinion in a case of great loss or time of need.]

 

C. Cooked meat which is cold and not spiced or slit:[190]

• Michaber:[191]

Permitted: If cold unsalted meat fell into cold milk, the meat remains permitted even if the meat has been roasted [or cooked or baked[192]]. [It requires a mere rinsing.]

• Rama:[193]

Kelipa: If cold meat which is [at least half[194]] cooked, roasted or baked fell into milk there are opinions[195] who rule that the meat requires a peel worth to be removed from it.[196] Practically one is to be stringent unless it involves a great loss.[197]

 

D. Cooked meat which is cold and is spiced or slit:[198]

• Michaber:[199]

Permitted: If cold unsalted meat fell into cold milk, the meat remains permitted even if the meat has been cooked, contains slits and is spiced.

 

• Rama:[200]

Forbidden unless great loss: If cold [and at least half[201]] cooked, roasted, or baked, meat which has been spiced [to the point of inedibility[202]], or slit, falls into milk, there are opinions[203] who rule that the entire meat is forbidden.[204] Practically, one is to be stringent unless it involves a great loss.[205]

• Shach:[206]

Forbidden even if great loss: One is to be stringent even in a case of great loss to prohibit the meat if the meat was cooked and was spiced or has slits, as there are opinions who forbid the meat even if it was raw.

• Taz:[207]
  Forbidden even if great loss, if was salted: If the pre-cooked meat or milk was even slightly salted, then if it has spices or slits, it is forbidden even in a case of great loss. If, however, it was not salted then one may be lenient in a case of great loss as rules the Rama.[208]

 

• Admur:[209]

Stringent: If cold and spiced or slit meat falls into milk, it is forbidden unless it is a case of great loss or a case of need. [Admur does not differentiate between raw or cooked meat, and the implication of the goose case discussed earlier in Admur is that it is raw meat. Accordingly, it is unclear how Admur would hold in a case of cooked meat, and if one may be lenient in a case of great loss.]

 

E. The law of the milk in all the above cases:[210]

The milk itself remains permitted in all the above cases that cold meat fell into it, irrelevant of if the meat is raw, cooked, spiced or slit, as without heat the milk does not absorb from the meat. [This, however, is with exception to a case that the meat or milk is salted, as explained next.]

 

F. Salted meat which fell into cold milk:

If cold salted meat fell into milk, everything including the milk is forbidden, unless there is 60x of one food versus the other.[211] This, however, only applies if the meat was salted to the point of inedibility, as otherwise, it is considered as if the meat was not salted at all.[212] [The above is from the letter of the law. However, according to the custom of the Rama in Halacha 9 to not differentiate between the amounts of salt, the milk and meat is forbidden in all cases that the meat was salted, unless it is a case of great loss.[213] The above, however, only applies if the milk was not mixed with water. If, however, the milk was mixed with water, then the water nullifies the power of the salt, and everything remains permitted.[214]]

 

Compilation and Final Ruling  A. Cold raw meat fell into cold milk: Cold raw meat without slits or spices:[215] 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[216] rule the meat and milk remain permitted. Other Poskim[217], however, rule that if the meat has slits or is spiced [to the point of inedibility[218]], the meat is forbidden. Practically, one may be lenient in a case of great loss or time of need.[219]   B. Cold cooked meat fell into cold milk: Cold cooked meat without slits or spices: If cold, roasted [cooked, or baked[220]], unsalted, meat that is not spiced or slit, fell into cold milk, some Poskim[221] rule the meat and milk remain permitted. Other Poskim[222], however, rule that the meat requires a peel worth to be removed from it.[223] Practically, one is to be stringent unless the case involves a great loss.[224] Cold cooked meat with slits or spices: If cold, roasted [cooked, or baked[225]], unsalted, meat that is spiced [to the point of inedibility[226]],  or slit, fell into cold milk, some Poskim[227] rule the meat and milk remain permitted. Other Poskim[228], however, rule that the entire meat is forbidden unless it involves a great loss. Other Poskim[229], however, rule that the entire meat is forbidden even in a case of great loss.[230] Practically, one is to follow the latter opinion.[231] 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.[232] 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.[233] 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?[234] A spice is considered anything that makes the meat taste sharp, such as onions and garlic.   If the spiced or slit meat contains 60x the milk that it fell into, is the meat permitted?[235] In those scenarios that the entire piece of meat becomes forbidden due to being spiced [as explained above], if it contains 60x the milk that it fell into, then the meat is permitted if the meat was not slit. If, however, the meat was slit, then the meat is forbidden even with 60x.[236] If the cold cooked/slit/spiced meat fell into cold milk and it was then placed into a hot pot of food, what is the law? Seemingly, so long as there is 60x versus the milk inside the pot, the food remains permitted, and we do not require 60x the meat. Vetzaruch Iyun, however, regarding if the piece itself becomes permitted. See Chapter 92 Halacha 3 in Q&A for the full details of this matter!   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[237] rule the chicken is Kosher even if it was cooked, slit and spiced.[238] One is to wash the chicken and eat it cold without warming it up.[239] Soaked for 24 hours:[240] 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. Chart of Opinions

	Not slit or spicy	Slit or Spicy
Raw	Rinse off meat	Dispute if meat is forbidden. In time of great loss is permitted
Cold and cooked	Dispute if must remove Kelipa	Dispute if meat requires 60x.
Hot and cooked	Kelipa is required	Forbidden

8. Hot roasted meat fell into cold milk:[241]

The meat is not spiced or slit:[242] If a hot piece of roasted [or cooked or baked[243]] meat which is not spiced and does not contain slits falls into milk, a Kelipa is required to be removed from the meat.[244] [The milk remains completely permitted, as explained in Halacha 6.]

The meat is spiced or has slits:[245] If a hot piece of roasted [or cooked or baked[246]] meat which contains slits, or is spiced [to the point of inedibility[247]], fell into cold milk, the meat is completely forbidden. [However the milk itself only requires a Kelipa and is thus entirely Kosher[248]. According to the Rama[249] 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?[250] 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.[251]

 

Salted meat and cheese/milk which contact each other [Halachas 9-10]

 

Introduction Understanding the science of salt-Salt generates heat: In the introduction to Halacha 5 we discussed that in order for the forbidden taste of a food to transfer into another food that it contacts, heat is required. Until now, we have discussed the physical heat caused by a flame. In this next subject we will analyze a new form of heat which is transmitted through salt. The Talmud and Poskim convey that salt contains natural elements of heat which is generated upon contacting moisture which can in turn cause taste to transfer from one food to another. The most common case example is seen annually in the snowy winter when snow is spread over ice in order to melt it. According to science, however, the salt does not actually generate heat as a flame does, but rather decreases the melting point of moisture, known as freezing point depression. The sodium chloride compound which makes up salt interrupts the ability of the molecules to condense, and hence causes the salt mixed moisture to freeze at a much lower temperature than usual [i.e. seawater retains its fluid consistency even below 32 degrees Fahrenheit or 0 degrees Celsius, until it decreases to 28 degrees Fahrenheit]. Furthermore, salt actually decreases the temperature of the moisture, as can be visibly seen through taking two cups of ice and measuring their temperature, and after adding salt to one of the cups, you will find that its temperature has decreased. According to this scientific understanding, it is not understood how salt generates heat to cause the transference of taste when in truth it simply decreases the freezing point, and actually makes the fluid colder. However, perhaps the intent of the Sages is that the disruption of the density of the molecules caused by salt is similar to that caused by heat, and it is this disruption which causes taste to become transferred, similar to heat. Whatever the case, the Divinely inspired Talmudic and Halachic understanding is clear, that salt generates something to occur to the food that it embraces, hence making it similar to heat in regard to the transference of taste and other matters. Thus, a salted food is Halachically considered to be hot, and contains an ability to transfer taste from one food to another. Nonetheless, this applies only in certain circumstances, as explained next. The Halachic ramifications: Although we have established that salt can cause the transference of taste from one food to another, similar to heat, this only applies in certain circumstances, under certain conditions. This comes into play in the laws of Basar Bechalav regarding if salted meat, cheese or milk, come into contact with each other. The ruling of such a case, and whether the meat/cheese remain Kosher, is subject to discussion and debate on various grounds: 1.      When is a salted item defined as hot? How much salt must be placed and how long must the salt remain on the piece? If the piece is not defined as hot then obviously no taste is transferred and everything remains Kosher. Practically, this matter is disputed amongst the Poskim and will be elaborated on in Halacha 9. 2.      How much taste is transferred and to whom? Even if the piece is defined as hot due to the salt, a number of questions still remain. Which of the two foods become forbidden; the salted food, the unsalted food, or both? How much of the food becomes forbidden due to the salt generated heat; the entire food, a Kelipa of the food? Does it make a difference if the salted piece is on top or on bottom [i.e. Tatah Gavar]? These matters are subject to dispute amongst the Poskim, and dependent on different aspects of the case which will affect if any or both foods become forbidden, and as to how much of each food is forbidden. This will be elaborated on in Halacha .   A Rabbinical prohibition-Benefit:[252] In all cases that salted meat and milk become prohibited, it [is only a Rabbinical prohibition and hence] remains permitted in benefit.[253]

9. When is a salted food considered hot?[254]

A. How much salt must be placed onto the meat/cheese for it to be considered hot?

• Michaber:

Inedible: The food must be salted to the point of inedibility [i.e. Eino Nechal Machams Milcho] for it to be considered hot.[255] If less than this amount of salt was placed, and the food remains edible, the food is considered as if it is cold, and cannot transfer any taste.

• Rama:

According to the above ruling, if not enough salt was placed to deem the food inedible, it is considered cold even if it was salted on both sides. However, there are opinions[256] who rule that we are no longer expert today in the amount of salt required to deem a food hot, and therefore one is to consider all salted foods as hot, even if it was merely slightly salted.[257] Practically, it is proper[258] to be stringent like this opinion, unless it’s a case of great loss. [See footnote for ruling of Admur[259]]

If meat was salted on only one side: [260] Even if the meat was only salted on one side, if it is inedible due to the salt [according to the Michaber, or even if it is edible according to the Rama] it is considered hot.

 

Q&A According to the Rama, how much salt is needed to render a food hot?[261] Even according to the Rama, it must have a sizeable amount of salt to be considered hot.[262] A mere sprinkle of salt is disregarded according to all opinions.

 

B. How long must the salt remain on the meat/cheese for it to be considered hot?

• Michaber:[263]

After 18 minutes is hot until washed: A salted food is only considered hot if the salt has remained on the food for Shiur Melicha [18/24 minutes[264]]. In such a case, the food retains a hot Keli Rishon status until the salt is washed off. However, prior to the passing of 18 minutes the salted food is still considered cold.[265]

 

• Rama:[266]

Always hot until washed, unless 18 minutes passed and great loss & Seudas Mitzvah: There are opinions[267] who rule [that a salted food is only considered hot within the first 18 minutes of the salting, while] after 18 minutes it loses its status of heat.[268] Practically, one is to be stringent like the Michaber and thus always consider salted food as hot even after 18 minutes. However, if it is a case of great loss and it is for the need of a Mitzvah feast, one may be lenient to consider the food cold after 18 minutes. Otherwise, however, one may not be lenient.

• Shach:[269]

Always hot even after 18 minutes even in great loss: Salted food which has already been pre-salted to extract its blood, is always considered hot, both within and after 18 minutes, and one may not be lenient even in a case of great loss.[270] [Thus the Shach is stringent like the Rama regarding prior to 18 minutes, and is stringent like the Michaber regarding after 18 minutes.]

• Taz:[271]

Implies like the ruling of Shach.

 

C. The meat was salted to remove its blood:[272]

When meat is salted for the purpose of removing its blood, then according to all it is considered hot within 18 minutes of the salting. After 18 minutes, it is disputed between the Michaber/Rama[273] whether it is still considered hot. The Michaber rules it is no longer considered hot, while the Rama rules it is still considered hot unless it’s a case of great loss and is needed for the sake of a Mitzvah meal.

 

D. The food was salted for preservation:[274]

All food which has been salted for preservation is considered hot even after its salt has been rinsed off, until it is soaked in water.

 

Compilation & Final ruling: A salted food [i.e. meat or cheese] is considered hot under certain conditions: How much salt: Some Poskim[275] rule it is only considered hot if it was salted to the point of inedibility. Other Poskim[276] 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.[277] How much time: Some Poskim[278] rule the salted food is only considered hot within 18 minutes from the salting. Other Poskim[279] rule the salted food is only considered hot after 18 minutes from the salting. Other Poskim[280] 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.[281] 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.[282]   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.

 

Summary of Opinions:

Michaber	Is only considered hot if it is salted to the point is inedible, and only after 18 minutes.
Rama	Is always considered hot even with a slight amount of salt, and both within and past 18 minutes. In case of great loss which is also a Seudas Mitzvah may be lenient past 18 minutes. In a case of great loss, may always be lenient if not salted enough to make inedible.
Shach	Is always considered hot both within and after 18 minutes, and may not be lenient even in case of great loss.

10. Salted meat or cheese which came into contact with each other:

In the previous Halacha we discussed when a salted food is considered hot. In this Halacha we will discuss the amount of taste that this salted food [which is defined as hot] can transfer to the other food [i.e. salted meat with cheese]. This is dependent on several factors, such as dryness versus moist, if both foods were salted, if the foods are lean or fatty, as will be explained. In general, the Rama is more stringent than the Michaber on several of the issues to be explained.

*The laws discussed here are mainly covered in the laws of Taaruvos chapter 105, and many additional points have been allocated from there. Refer to “A Semicha Aid for Learning the Laws of Taaruvos” Chapter 105 Halacha 5 for a full overview of this subject!

 

A. The cheese and meat are both dry:[283]

[In order for salt to generate heat it requires moisture. Accordingly] if both the meat and cheese are dry, then even if they are salted, it suffices to merely wash off the meat and cheese.[284] Furthermore, if the cheese or meat is salted and wet but the moisture is not due to the salt[285], it is considered as if it is not salted.[286] [Similarly, if the meat and cheese are not salted but are wet, one is required to wash them.]

If one of the foods is moist and the other dry:[287] If one of the foods is completely dry [i.e. dry meat] it does not absorb from another food [or transfer taste to it] even if the other food is a liquid [i.e. milk] and [both[288] foods are] completely salted. [Thus, if completely dry salted meat touches salted milk or cheese, everything remains permitted. However, other Poskim[289] rule that although a completely dry food does not transfer taste to another food even if they are both salted, it does absorb from a salted moist food, even if the food is a solid. Accordingly, if completely dry meat touches salted milk or salted moist cheese, the meat is forbidden while the milk/cheese is permitted. Practically, one may be lenient in a case of great loss to simply wash the meat well.[290]]

 

B. The cheese and meat are moist and salted to the point that they are considered hot:

• Michaber:

Both are salted and lean:[291] If both the cheese and meat are [moist[292] and have] been salted to the point that they are considered hot, then if they are both lean, both the meat and cheese require a peel worth removed, and the rest remains Kosher.[293]

Both are salted and one is fatty:[294] If both the cheese and meat are [moist and] salted to the point that they are considered hot, then if one of the pieces is fatty [whether the meat or cheese[295]], they are both completely forbidden unless there is 60x against one of them.

One is salted and both are lean:[296] If only one of the pieces, either the meat or cheese, have been salted to the point that it is considered hot, then if both are lean, the salted piece is completely Kosher[297] and simply requires a rinsing, while the unsalted piece requires a peel worth removed from it. There is no differentiation whether the salted piece is on top or on bottom.[298] [This, however, that the salted piece remains permitted, only applies by two solids. If, however, a salted moist solid touches an unsalted liquid, such as salted moist meat touches milk, then even the meat requires a Kelipa.[299]]

One is salted and one is fatty:[300] If only one of the pieces, either the meat or cheese, have been salted to the point that it is considered hot, and one of the pieces are fatty, [whether the meat or the cheese[301]], then if the salted piece is on bottom, then the top piece is forbidden unless there is 60x. However, the salted piece which is on bottom requires a mere rinsing.[302] However, if the salted piece is on top while the unsalted is on bottom, then the unsalted piece requires the mere removal of a peel worth in the area of contact while the salted piece requires a mere rinsing.[303] [This, however, that the salted piece remains permitted, only applies by two solids. If, however, a salted moist solid touches an unsalted liquid, such as salted moist meat touches milk, then if one of the foods are fatty, both foods are forbidden unless there is 60x.[304]]

 

• Rama:

Whenever the meat and cheese are moist[305] and one of the piece has been salted to the point that it is considered hot, if it contacts an opposite piece, they are both forbidden unless there is 60x against one of the pieces.[306] There is no ramification in this ruling regarding which piece is salted[307], or whether they are lean or fatty[308], or whether the salted piece is on top and or on bottom.[309] However, in a case of [great[310]] loss one can be lenient to permit the salted piece, if the other piece is not salted [and is not a liquid[311]].[312] Likewise, in a case of great loss, one may be lenient to only remove a Kelipa if one knows the pieces are lean.[313]

If the pieces are dry: If the salted meat and/or cheese is completely dry, then they do not absorb from each other, as explained in A.

Removing a Kelipa even if 60x:[314] In all cases of dispute between the Michaber and Rama, in which the Michaber requires a Kelipa and the Rama requires 60x versus the other food, then even if the food contains 60x, nevertheless, a Kelipa must be removed.[315]

Custom of Sephardim:[316] The custom of the Sephardim is to be stringent like the Rama to consider all foods as fatty unless it involves a case of loss. [However, regarding other matters, they are lenient like the Michaber.]

 

C. Unsalted meat fell into salted cold milk:

• Rama in Toras Chatas:[317]

If [unsalted[318]] meat falls into salted milk, the meat is forbidden while the milk is permitted.[319] [If, however, the meat was salted, then both the meat and milk are forbidden, as stated above.[320]]

• Shach:[321]

If meat falls into salted milk, then both the meat and milk are completely forbidden even if the meat was not salted. [According to the ruling of the Michaber, this only applies if the meat was fatty, otherwise the meat is only forbidden a Kelipa’s worth.[322]]

 

Compilation and Practical Ruling: 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[323] 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[324], or whether the foods are lean or fatty[325], or whether the salted piece is on top and or on bottom.[326] Other Poskim[327], 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[328]]. Furthermore, even if both foods are salted, they are only forbidden a peels worth, unless one of them are fatty.[329] Furthermore, even if one of the foods are fatty, the entire food only becomes prohibited if the salted food is on bottom.[330] Even then, if the other food is not salted, the salted food remains permitted.[331] Practically, in a case of [great[332]] loss one can be lenient to permit the salted piece, if the other piece is not salted [and is not a liquid].[333] [Furthermore, some are lenient even if the case does not involve a great loss.[334]] 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.[335] Dry and salted meat and cheese:[336] If the salted meat and cheese are both completely dry, then it suffices to merely wash off the meat and cheese.[337] If one of the foods is completely dry while the other is moist, then some Poskim[338] rule everything remains permitted even if both foods are salted. Other Poskim[339], 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.[340] Salted meat falls into milk: If salted meat falls into [even unsalted] milk, everything is forbidden even in a case of great loss[341], 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.[342] Unsalted meat falls into salted milk: If unsalted[343] meat falls into salted milk, some Poskim[344] rule that the meat is forbidden while the milk is permitted. Other Poskim[345], 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.[346]] 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.

11. Tzir-The law of gravy of salted meats:[347]

All gravy that oozes from salted meat [i.e. Tzir] is considered like a hot Keli Rishon. This applies even if the meat was only slightly salted.[348] Thus, if this gravy falls onto cheese, the cheese is completely forbidden unless it contains 60x the gravy.[349]

Gravy fell on dairy utensil: If the above gravy falls onto a dairy utensil [and Lo Nifsak Hakiluach[350]], then the utensil is forbidden and needs to be Kashered [through Hagalah[351]].[352] If the vessel is made of earthenware, it cannot be Kashered, and needs to be broken. If [however only] a small drop fell on a wood [or earthenware[353]] vessel, it suffices to remove a peel of the wood from the area of contact.[354] [This applies even if the gravy was fatty, nonetheless, a mere Kelipa is required.[355] If Tzir fell onto a glass vessel, it is disputed if the vessel becomes forbidden according to the Ashkenazi custom to not Kasher glass vessels.[356] See supplement in the end of the Sefer regarding the status of glass materials.]

 

What is the law if a small drop  of meat gravy or hot fat fell onto a dairy vessel and one does not know the area of the vessel that it fell on?[357] If the vessel can be Kashered, then one is to do so. If the vessel is not Kasherable, then the area is nullified to the rest of the vessel and may be continued to be used.

12. Law of Kavush:[358]

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.[359]

Soaked in brine:[360] If meat and cheese soaked together within vinegar for Shiur Kevisha [18 minutes[361]] they are both forbidden to be eaten. [Some Poskim[362], 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.[363] 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.[364] If they remained together for more than 18 minutes, everything is forbidden.]

A Rabbinical prohibition-Benefit:[365] In all cases that meat and milk become prohibited due to Kevisha, it [is only a Rabbinical prohibition and hence] remains permitted in benefit.[366]

 

Q&A What is the law if milk was placed in a meat container?[367] If milk was placed in a meat container and remained there consecutively for 24 hours, the milk is Kosher while the container must be Kashered.   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 Kashered. 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 Kashered.   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.

__________________________________

[1] Michaber 91:1

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

[3] 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

[4] 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

[5] Poskim in previous footnote

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

[7] Based on Michaber 91:2

[8] 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]

[9] Michaber 91:2

[10] Based on Shach 91:1

[11] 91:3

[12] 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]

[13] Shaareiy Yoreh Deah 91

[14] 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

[15] Michaber 91:3

[16] Yad Yehuda 4; Rav Poalim 11

[17] 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]

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

[19] 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

[20] 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

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

[22] 91:2

[23] Beis Yitzchak 91:2; Kaf Hachaim 91:12

[24] See Peri Chadash 91:3 and Poskim in Q&A that this means that the plate is cleaned of substance but has not been washed clean with water.

[25] Michaber ibid;

The reason: Being that a cooked food is not commonly washed, we therefore suspect one may come to eat the food prior to washing off the Issur remnants which it acquired through being placed on the plate. [Michaber ibid]

[26] Taz 91:2; Rashal Kol Habasar 44

[27] 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

[28] If however, one plans to roast the meat, then this matter is dependent on the ruling of Michaber versus Rama in whether meat must be washed [Hadacha Rishona] prior to roasting. [See Kehilas Yehuda 91:2; Kaf Hachaim 91:13]

[29] The reason: Since it is common to wash the foods prior to cooking there is thus no need to suspect that one may come to eat Issur. [Michaber ibid]

[30] 91:3

[31] Regarding the definition of a clean plate and whether the plate be washed using water-See Q&A!

[32] Shach 91:3 and 121:10; P”M 91 S.D. 3

[33] The reason: As a wet Davar Charif has ability to extract taste from inside the dish. [Poskim ibid]

[34] Taz 91:3

[35] Admur 451:2; See also Admur 450:13; Piskeiy Admur p. 120

[36] The Rama in Yoreh Deah 121:5 rules that it may only be used “Temporarily, such as for example if one is in the home of a gentile.” This implies that only if one has no other vessels available may he use it, and not that it may be used once in a while even if other vessels are available, and so rules the Yad Yehuda 91 Aruch 4 and 8. This, however, is not the simple understanding from the words of Admur who seems to imply that the vessel may be used on occasion even if other vessels are Kosher available. [See Piskeiy Admur Yoreh Deah 91 p. 122]

[37] Michaber 91:2 as explained in Rama 91:2; Shach 91:3; Taz 91:3

[38] Taz 91:3

[39] As if the leftover food is moist, it will certainly stick to the Kosher food and is forbidden even according to the Shach.

[40] Implication of Rama 91:2 who establishes the prohibition of Michaber ibid to be referring to a moist food, and the Shach 91:3 and other Poskim all establish the Michaber to be referring to a case that the plate is not cleaned.

[41] Shach ibid; Taz 91:3 in his corrected version of Rama

Opinion of Rama: In the printed version of Rama ibid he prohibits using a plate that was used for hot non-Kosher foods, for even dry Kosher foods. The Taz ibid questions this and rephrases the wording in Rama.

[42] See Q&A below that most Poskim rule a cleaned but not washed plate is considered dirty

[43] 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; This certainly applies according to the Shach 69:66 and 91:3 who rules washing with water is never required to determine the plate as clean. [Although the Shach ibid implies that even in a time of need one may not place wet foods on a dirty plate, this would not apply if the plate has been cleaned but simply not washed.]

Other opinions: See Taz ibid in name of Rashal who rules it is forbidden to do so and the food would be forbidden if it cannot be washed. However see Chavas Daas ibid, as well perhaps the Rashal there refers to a dirty plate and not a clean plate that has simply not been washed.

[44] See Piskeiy Admur Yoreh Deah 91 p. 120

[45] Michaber Y.D. 121:1; Admur 451:43 regarding Pesach; Taz 91:3

[46] Rama Y.D. 121:5 that so is custom

[47] Admur 451:2; 450:13; Shach 91:3; Peri Chadash 91:3; Peri Toar 91:2; Kehilas Yehuda 91:2; Batei Kehuna 1:18; P”M 91 M.Z. 3; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:5 and 12; Kaf Hachaim 91:5-7, 14

[48] See Q&A!

[49] Peri Chadash 91:3; Peri Toar 91:2; Minchas Yaakov 11:6; Batei Kehuna 1:18 p. 93; Kehilas Yehuda 91:2;  P”M 91 S.D. 3; Erech Hashulchan 91:2; Chochmas Adam 56:2; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:5; Kaf Hachaim 91:7

Bedieved if the earthenware plate was used for cold food: If one placed Kosher food on a clean earthenware plate that has been used for hot non-Kosher foods, the Kosher food must be washed prior to eating. This applies even if the plate was definitely cleaned of any substance. [Peri Chadash ibid; Peri Toar ibid; Batei Kehuna ibid; Kehilas Yehuda ibid; Kaf Hachaim ibid]

If the earthenware plate was never used for hot non-Kosher food, or is mainly used for cold foods: If the earthenware plate was never used for hot non-Kosher food, then it has the same status as a metal vessel, and may even initially be used [in a time of need] for Kosher foods, so long as the plate is clean. [Peri Chadash ibid; Peri Toar ibid; Batei Kehuna ibid; Kehilas Yehuda ibid; Erech Hashulchan ibid; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:7; Kaf Hachaim ibid] Furthermore, some Poskim rule that the above restriction against using an earthenware plate only applies if the plate is used majority of time with hot not-Kosher food. If, however, it is mainly used for cold foods, then it follows the same law as metal even if on occasion it was used for hot foods. [Ritva Chulin 118; Erech Hashulchan 91:4; Kaf Hachaim 91:10]

The earthenware plate of a gentile: Some Poskim rule that the above restriction against using an earthenware plate only applies if the plate belongs to a Jew. If, however, it belongs to a gentile, then it is permitted to be used just like metal. [Ritva Chulin 118; Erech Hashulchan 91:4; Kaf Hachaim 91:10]

[50] The reason: This is due to a decree that one may come to use the vessel for hot foods. However, by Kasherable materials, we do not make this decree as if one ever decides to use it for hot foods, he has the option to Kasher it. [P”M ibid; Poskim ibid]

[51] Admur 451:2; Shach 69:66 [see both opinions in Shach 91:3]; Michaber 451:22; See Piskeiy Admur p. 122

[52] Rama ibid; Taz ibid [Although the Rama and Taz do not make it clear regarding whether they are referring to a clean or dirty plate, seemingly, they must be referring to a clean plate, as if the plate is dirty, it makes no difference if it has been used for hot or cold, and either way one may not initially place moist Kosher foods on it. Vetzaruch Iyun!]

[53] Taz ibid

Opinion of Rama: From the printed version of Rama ibid it is implied than one may never initially place moist foods on a non-Kosher plate even if it was never used for hot Issur. The Taz ibid questions this and rephrases the wording in Rama.

[54] Taz ibid in his understanding of Rama

Opinion of Rama: In the printed version of Rama ibid he prohibits using a plate that was used for hot non-Kosher foods, for even dry Kosher foods. The Taz ibid questions this and rephrases the wording in Rama.

[55] Admur 451:2; 450:13; Shach 91:3; Taz 91:3 regarding dry foods unlike the simple reading of the Rama 91:2 who prohibits wet foods and plates used for hot Issur

[56] Admur ibid; Shach 69:66; Michaber 451:22; Unlike other opinions brought above

[57] Shach 91:3 and 121:10; P”M 91 S.D. 3; 96 M.Z. 3

[58] Rama 121:5; Shach 91:3 in name of Toras Chatas; 121:10; P”M 91 S.D. 3

[59] Admur 451:2 “On occasion”; 450:13; Rama Y.D. 121:5 “Temporarily, such as for example..”; Shach 91:3; P”M 91 S.D. 3

[60] Rama ibid

[61] Implication of Admur ibid; See Piskeiy Admur Yoreh Deah 91 p. 122

Background and other opinions: The Rama in Yoreh Deah 121:5 rules that it may only be used “Temporarily, such as for example if one is in the home of a gentile.” This implies that only if one has no other vessels available may he use it, and not that it may be used once in a while even if other vessels are available, and so rules the Yad Yehuda 91 Aruch 4 and 8. This, however, is not the simple understanding from the words of Admur who seems to imply that the vessel may be used on occasion even if other vessels are Kosher available. [See Piskeiy Admur Yoreh Deah 91 p. 122]

[62] Admur 451:2 and Shach 91:3 “Forbidden”; Rama ibid “There are those who are stringent and say..”; Mordechai; Rokeiach

The reason: This is due to worry that if one were to be allowed to use it on a steady basis, one may come to use it for hot foods. [Admur ibid; Rama ibid; Shach ibid]

[63] Peri Chadash 91:3; See Kaf Hachaim 91:6

[64] Taz 91:2; Rashal Kol Habasar 44

[65] Shach 121:11; Unlike some Poskim brought in the opinions above who require washing even if the plate was clean, if one was not initially allowed to place the food there. However, according to the Shach and Admur ibid, it is always even initially permitted to place foods on all clean plates.

[66] P”M 96 M.Z. 3

[67] Michaber 91:2 as explained in Rama ibid

[68] Rama ibid

[69] Shach 91:3 and Taz 91:3 as he re-writes the wording of the Rama; However from the current wording of the Rama it is forbidden if the plate was used for hot.

[70] Taz and Rama ibid rule it is forbidden. Shach and Admur ibid rule it is permitted.

[71] Admur 451:2; Shach 91:3; Taz 91:3 unlike the simple reading of the Rama 91:2

[72] Shach ibid; Admur 451:2; Rama 121:5

[73] Shach 69:66; 91:3 in name of Rieh

[74] Implication of Admur 451:2 “Lehadiach”; Rama Y.D. 121:5 “Hadacha Vishifshuf Heiytiv”; Batei Kehuna p. 93 in name of Rashba; Peri Chadash 91:3; P”M 91 M.Z. 3; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:6; Kaf Hachaim 91:6

[75] Zivcheiy Tzedek ibid; Kaf Hachaim ibid

[76] Peri Chadash ibid

[77] 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

[78] 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 Lechatchila and the same would apply to Hadacha; Chavas Daas 91:3 in length

[79] Kaf Hachaim 91:31

[80] See P”M 91 M.Z. 3; Chavas Daas 91:3; Kaf Hachaim 91:11 [however, possibly they all refer to a liquid food-Vetzaruch Iyun]; This certainly applies according to the Shach ibid who rules washing with water is never required to determine the plate as clean.

[81] P”M 91 S.D. 3; Kaf Hachaim 91:9

[82] Igros Moshe O.C. 2:40; See Toras Chatas 17:4, brought in Taz 91:2, that in a time of need one may eat Kosher foods in the home of a gentile using his non-Kosher vessels, however, perhaps there he refers to a private home and it is hence not relevant to the discussion of a public restaurant.

Background and other approaches: The Poskim [prior to Igros Moshe] do not make any mention of a prohibition of Maras Ayin involved in eating in a non-Kosher restaurant. The Rama in Toras Chatas ibid who discusses eating in a gentile’s home also does make any mention of it [although perhaps he refers to a private home and not a public hotel or restaurant]. Now, whether or not we are allowed to create new decrees of Maras Ayin that are not recorded in the Talmud, it is evident from various rulings that one may do so [see Rama 87:3-4 and Shach 87:6 based on Rashba; Peri Toar 87:9]. However, some Poskim rule that one may not create new decrees of Maras Ayin that are not based on the Talmud or Rishonim, as if we were allowed to do so, there would be no end to the suspicions. [Peri Chadash 87:7; See Yechaveh Daas 4:50] Vetzaruch Iyun on Igros Moshe ibid who makes no mention of any of these matters.

[83] The reason and source: It is forbidden to enter a non-Kosher restaurant to do both Maras Ayin [that people will think it is permitted to eat there] and Chashad [that people will suspect that one is eating non-Kosher]. [Igros Moshe ibid based on Avoda Zara 11a and Michaber Y.D. 149a regarding the prohibition to travel on a road that leads to a city of idolatry due to Chashad that people will think one is coming to serve idolatry, and the same applies whenever one enters an area of prohibition, such as a non-Kosher restaurant; This follows the Poskim ibid who rule that one may make new decrees of Maras Ayin that are not recorded in Poskim] The prohibition of Maras Ayin by a Biblical Issur applies even in private. [See Admur 301:56; 305:14; M”A 301:56; Taz 301:28; Rosh 23:8; Tosfos Kesubos 60a; M”B 301:165]

[84] The reason: As in a case of loss and pain the sages did not make their decree of Maras Ayin. [Igros Moshe ibid, based on Kesubos 60a that the Sages allowed one who is in pain to suckle milk from a cows udder on Shabbos and did not suspect for Maras Ayin]

[85] Rama 91:2 and so applies according to all

[86] Taz 91:3 in his understanding of Rama, unlike printed version of Rama ibid

[87] Implication of Rama ibid in explanation of Michaber 91:3

[88] Rama ibid regarding dry; Taz ibid regarding used for hot

[89] Admur 451:2; Shach 91:3; Taz 91:3 unlike the simple reading of the Rama 91:2

[90] Taz and Rama ibid rule is forbidden; Shach and Admur ibid rules it is permitted.

[91] Rama ibid in explanation of Michaber 91:3

[92] Michaber and Rama ibid

[93] Rama 121:5; Shach 91:3 in name of Toras Chatas; 121:10; P”M 91 S.D. 3

[94] Shach 91:3 and 121:10; P”M 91 S.D. 3

[95] Taz 91:3; Michaber Y.D. 121:1; Admur 451:43 regarding Pesach

[96] Taz 91:3

[97] The reason: Although it suffices to Kosher a vessel used for only cold Issur through simply rinsing it [Michaber Y.D. 121:1; Admur 451:43 regarding Pesach; Taz 91:3], nonetheless, regarding back and forth use of cold Basar Bechalav there is reason to be stricter 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. 

[98] So rule regarding using a Chametz or non-Kosher vessel: Admur 451:2; 450:13; Shach 91:3; Peri Chadash 91:3; Peri Toar 91:2; Kehilas Yehuda 91:2; Batei Kehuna 1:18; P”M 91 M.Z. 3; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:5 and 12; Kaf Hachaim 91:5-7, 14

Other opinions: Some Poskim , however, limit this allowance specifically to plates made of Kasherable material [i.e. metal], while plates made of non-Kasherable material [i.e. earthenware; bone, chinaware, pottery] may not initially be used even if they are clean, if they have ever been used with hot non-Kosher foods.  [Peri Chadash 91:3; Peri Toar 91:2; Minchas Yaakov 11:6; Batei Kehuna 1:18 p. 93; Kehilas Yehuda 91:2;  P”M 91 S.D. 3; Erech Hashulchan 91:2; Chochmas Adam 56:2; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:5; Kaf Hachaim 91:7] Other Poskim  differentiate between plates that have only been used for cold non-Kosher foods, and plates that have been used for also hot non-Kosher foods. If the plate has been used for only cold non-Kosher foods, then it may be used for all Kosher foods, whether moist  or dry. If, however, the plate has been used for hot non-Kosher foods, then it may not be used for moist Kosher foods.  [Rama 91:2; Taz 91:3; Although the Rama and Taz do not make it clear regarding whether they are referring to a clean or dirty plate, seemingly, they must be referring to a clean plate, as if the plate is dirty, it makes no difference if it has been used for hot or cold, and either way one may not initially place moist Kosher foods on it. Vetzaruch Iyun!] Practically, we rule like the first opinion that on occasion, it is permitted to place [non-Charif] Kosher foods on top of a clean [and washed] non-Kosher plate even if the food is moist and even if the plate has been used for hot non-Kosher foods in the past. This applies even to earthenware. [Poskim ibid]

[99] See Michaber Y.D. 121:1; Admur 451:43 regarding Pesach; Taz 91:3 regarding vessels that have never been used for hot

[100] Shach 121:11

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

[102] See regarding mixtures of Yaveish Belach that they are never nullified: Taz 104:1; Shach in Nekudos Hakesef ibid; Admur 442 Kuntrus Achron 15; 466:9-11; Shut Rabbeinu 18; Tzemach Tzedek in Piskeiy Dinim 104 p. 189:b; Shutim Yoreh Deah 70:4; See Piskeiy Admur Yoreh Deah chapter 100

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

[104] See Chaim Shaul 2:38 regarding one who is unsure if a new vessel bought from a gentile was previously used for non-Kosher; Admur 451:5 regarding one who is unsure of a vessels Chametz status

The reason: As it is a case of doubt to which we rule stringently. Now, although if the pot is no longer Ben Yomo it is a case of Rabbinical doubt, nevertheless, since this doubt is due to ignorance, it is not considered a doubt at all and one cannot apply the rule of Safek Derabanan Lihakel. [See Michaber Y.D. 98:3, Shach 98:9 and Taz 98:6 regarding Daas Shotim that it is not considered a Safek even by a Rabbinical case] Furthermore, one may come to use the pot with a Davar Charif and the opposite dish, which according to many Poskim makes it Biblically considered like the taste of the pot even when not Ben Yomo. [See Panim Meiros 1:64; P”M 96 M”Z 1 based on Rashba 496; Shivas Tziyon 32; Rav Akiva Eiger, brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah 95:4]

[105] See Rama 95:2

[106] Chacham Tzevi 75, 76 and 80 [regarding Bedieved even with Charif, based on Michaber Y.D. 135 that 12 months suffice for Yayin Nesech vessel, although, Lechatchila is Machmir], brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah Yoreh Deah 122:3 and Shaareiy Teshuvah Orach Chayim 451:1; See Sefer Hakashrus p. 176

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule a vessel remains forbidden forever due to its absorbed taste, even after 12 months. [Rashba 575; Chaim Shaul 2:38; Panim Meiros 1:31; Teshuvas Rav Akiva Eiger 43; Sew Pischeiy Teshuvah ibid; P”M 103]

[107] Conclusion of Chaim Shaul 2:38 regarding a porcelain vessel bought from a gentile and one is unsure if it was used for non-Kosher that possibly one may be lenient to a Sfek Sfeika; Seemingly, all the more so would this allowance apply by meat and milk, as it is not considered Derech Bishul and hence is a me

[108] Conclusion of Pischeiy Teshuvah and Shaareiy Teshuvah ibid

[109] See the supplement in the end of the Sefer regarding the status of glass, and that the main opinion follows as rule the Sephardim that is does not absorb. Hence, in a case of doubt certainly even Ashkenazim may be lenient, as writes Chaim Sheol ibid

[110] See the above Halacha regarding glass that glass cookware is more stringent than regular glass, and hence it would be proper for Ashkenazim to Kasher it if they are unsure of its status.

[111] Shach 91:2; Beis Yosef 94; Rashba in Toras Habayis; Rabbeinu Yerucham 15:29; Kneses Hagedola 91:2; Peri Chadash 91:2; Lechem Hapanim 91:3; Beis Lechem Yehuda 91:3; P”M 91 S.D. 2; Beis Yitzchak 91:2; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:4; Kaf Hachaim 91:4

[112] 91:4

[113] 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 Rabanan 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 Kasher 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.

[114] Michaber 105:1

[115] 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

[116] Pischeiy Teshuvah 105:7

[117] 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

[118] 1^st 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

[119] 2^nd 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

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

[121] 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]

[122] See Admur 451:34

[123] 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

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

[125] 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.”

[126] 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]; 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 Kuntrus 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

[127] 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

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

[129] 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]

[130] 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]

[131] 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 Kashered 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.

[132] 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 Binyamin; 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]

[133] Michaber 105:1

[134] 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]

[135] 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.

[136] 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 chapter 94 Halacha 11 for the full details of this matter!

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!]

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

[138] 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]

[139] Shach 91:6

[140] 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 Kuntrus 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]

[141] The following Poskim rule a Keli Sheiyni cannot transfer taste: 1^st 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. [2^nd 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

[142] 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.

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

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

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

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

[147] 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.

[148] 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]

[149] 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]

[150] 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 Kashered 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.

[151] Minchas Yaakov 91:1, brought in P”M 91 M.Z. 4

[152] See Poskim in 105:2

[153] P”M 91 M.Z. 4 based on Rama 92:7

[154] Chavas Daas Biurim 91:5; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:20; Kaf Hachaim 91:24

[155] Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:20; Kaf Hachaim 91:24

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

[157] Toras Chatas Klal 23:4 based on Ran, brought in P”M 91 M.Z. 5; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:19

[158] P”M 91 M.Z. 5 questions the Toras Chatas and leans to permit, although concludes with Tzaruch Iyun; Kaf Hachaim 91:28 that so is implied from Setimas Haposkim

[159] Kaf Hachaim ibid

[160] Rama 105:3

[161] 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]

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

[163] 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.

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

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

[166] Riva; Rashal brought in Taz 91:7; 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

[167] Michaber 91:4; Shach 91:8; Shulchan Gavoa 91:6; Kaf Hachaim 91:27

[168] 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

[169] Rama 91:4

[170] Shach 91:8; Chavas Daas 91:10; Erech Hashulchan 91:5 concludes 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.

[171] Taz 91:7; Rashba

[172] See the following Poskim that a Kelipa does not become Chanan: Shach 22:10; Peri Chadash 92:17; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:21; Kaf Hachaim 92:35

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

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

[175] See the following Poskim that a Kelipa does not become Chanan: Shach 22:10; Peri Chadash 92:17; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:21; Kaf Hachaim 92:35

[176] 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

[177] 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

[178] 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 Lechatchila and the same would apply to Hadacha; Chavas Daas 91:3 in length; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:25

[179] Kaf Hachaim 91:31

[180] The Shach 91:21 brings a summary of three opinions amongst the Rishonim and early Achronim regarding how to understand the case in the Gemara; See also Beis Yosef 91:7; Darkei Moshe 91:7

[181] Sefer Hateruma 63; Hagahos Maimanis Machalos Assuros 15 Samech; Rosh Chulin Kol Habasar 33; Tur 91:5; Maharil; See however Bach 91:3 who understands the entire Chumra of the Sefer Hateruma and Tur to be referring to slightly salted meat or milk

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

[183] 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

[184] Michaber 91:4

[185] Shach 91:10; Kneses Hagedola 91:7; Peri Chadash 91:7; Minchas Yaakov 22:1; Lechem Hapanim 91:12; Beis Lechem Yehuda 91:9; Kreisi 91:6; P”M 91 S.D. 10; Chochmas Adam 42:1; Aruch Hashulchan 91:19; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:24; Kaf Hachaim 91:30

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that by other Issurim, whenever a Kosher sold fell into a non-Kosher liquid, the Heter solid requires a Kelipa to be removed. [Issur Viheter 30:10 in name of Mordechai Kol Habasar; Semag; Toras Chatas 22:1]

[186] 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

[187] Michaber and Rama 91:7; Darkei Moshe 91:7 “We do not follow the Tur”; Shach 91:21; Taz 91:12; Levush 91

This follows the following 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; 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

[188] 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

[189] Admur 465:5; See Piskeiy Admur p. 126

[190] 91:7

[191] 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

[192] 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

[193] Rama 92:7, as learned in Shach 91:21 and 25; Opinion in Admur 465:5; Gra 91:18; Peri Chadash 91:18

[194] Chavas Daas 91:21; Kaf Hachaim 91:67

The reason: As prior to being half cooked [Ben Drusaiy] it is not yet soft enough to absorb the milk, and is hence treated as if it is raw. [Chavas Daas ibid]

[195] 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

[196] The Rama simply states “And there are opinions who rule that this is the law by cold cooked meat as well”. It is evident from the opinions brought in Shach 91:21 that this means as stated above, that if the meat was not spiced or slit, it is forbidden a peel’s worth as rules the Michaber regarding hot meat which was not spiced.

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.

[197] Rama ibid; [So rules also Admur 465:5, however perhaps there it is referring to raw meat. See Shach 91:25]

[198] 91:7

[199] Implied in 91:7 from fact he only says the Halacha regarding hot meat. This follows the following opinions in Rishonim: 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

[200] 92:7, as learned in Shach 91:21 and 25

[201] Chavas Daas 91:21; Kaf Hachaim 91:67

The reason: As prior to being half cooked [Ben Drusaiy] it is not yet soft enough to absorb the milk, and is hence treated as if it is raw. [Chavas Daas ibid]

[202] 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

[203] 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

[204] The Rama simply states “And there are opinions who rule that this is the law by cold cooked meat as well”. It is evident from the opinions brought in Shach 91:21 that this means as stated above, that if the meat had slits or was spiced then it is fully forbidden, as ruled the Michaber regarding hot meat with slits and spices, and if the meat was not spiced or slit, it is nevertheless forbidden a peel’s worth as rules the Michaber regarding hot meat which was not spiced.

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.

[205] So rules also Admur 465:5, however perhaps there it is referring to raw meat.

[206] Shach 91:21; This follows the following opinions in Rishonim: Smak; Mordechai; Oar Zarua

[207] Taz 91:12; See Bach 91:3 who understands the entire Chumra of the Sefer Hateruma and Tur to be referring to slightly salted meat or milk

[208] The Taz ibid understands the ruling of the Rama to be going on a case that the meat which fell in the milk was partially salted, and hence he learns the Rama is lenient on two aspects; 1. To consider slightly salted meat as not being hot, and 2. To rely on opinion of Michaber that only when the cooked meat is hot does it become forbidden. The Taz argues that one cannot be lenient on two aspects in the same case. Hence, he rules that only if the meat and milk has not been salted at all is the meat kosher in a case of great loss.

[209] Admur 465:5; See Piskeiy Admur p. 128

[210] Shach 91:25; Peri Chadash 91:22; Lechem Hapanim 91:27; Chavas Daas 91:22; P”M 91 S.D. 25; Kaf Hachaim 91:68

[211] Taz 91:12; Peri Megadim; Hakashrus 10:65

[212] Shach 91:25; Peri Chadash 91:22; Lechem Hapanim 91:27; Chavas Daas 91:22; Kaf Hachaim 91:68

[213] P”M 91 S.D. 25; M.Z. 12; Kaf Hachaim 91:69; See Bach 91:3 who understands the entire case of the Gemara Chulin 112a to be referring to slightly salted meat or milk

[214] Admur 467:58; Minchas Yaakov 6:3; 22:3; Chok Yaakov 467:46; See Piskeiy Admur p. 124

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule the meat is forbidden at least a Kelipa’s worth even if the milk was mixed with water. [Tzemach Tzedek Kadmon 30; Chavas Daas 91 Biurim 11; See Piskeiy Admur p. 123]

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

[216] 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

[217] 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

[218] 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

[219] 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]

[220] 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

[221] 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

[222] 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;

[223] 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.

[224] 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]

[225] 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

[226] 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

[227] 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

[228] 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.

[229] 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;

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

[231] 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]

[232] Admur 465:5

[233] Shach ibid

[234] 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

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

[236] 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]

[237] 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.

[238] 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.

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

[240] See Michaber 105:1 and Poskim there

[241] 91:7

[242] 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

[243] 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

[244] 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]

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

[246] 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

[247] 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

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

[249] 92:7

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

[251] 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]

[252] Michaber 91:8

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

[254] 91:5

[255] This is similar to meat which is salted for its blood for which we rule that it must be salted to the point of inedibility. [Michaber ibid]

[256] Aruch, recorded in Beis Yosef 91

[257] Meaning, even if it was salted the minimal amount required for salting meat for roasting to remove its blood, it is defined as hot. [Rama ibid]

[258] From this wording it is understood that even the Rama does not rule like this stringent opinion from the letter of the law, and simply suggests its practice. [Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:30; Kaf Hachaim 91:38]

[259] Admur 455:30 rules plainly like the Michaber that Matzah dough which has been salted is not considered hot, as salted items are only considered hot when they are inedible due to the salt. [ibid] Perhaps however this ruling of Admur only applies in a case of Matzah, as even if we were to consider the Matzah hot, it is not certain that it has become Chametz. Hence, Admur rules like the Michaber in this case, being it is the main opinion, and does not argue on the ruling of the Rama regarding Basar Bechalav. Vetzaruch Iyun.

[260] Rama 91:5; Beis Yosef 91 in name of Teshuvas Harashba 265; See Michaber 69:4

[261] Kaf Hachaim 91:37

[262] Some write that this is defined as enough salt to make the food taste over salted. [Hakashrus 10:63]

[263] 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

[264] The Shiur Melicha is Shiur Mil [Michaber 69:6; Beis Hillel 91:3]

[265] The ruling when salting to remove blood: The ruling of the Michaber ibid is completely to the contrary of how he ruled regarding meat that was salted to remove its blood. In 69:20 the Michaber rules that within 18 minutes of the slating, the meat is considered hot while after 18 minutes it is considered cold. Here, however, he rules the opposite, that until 18 minutes the meat is considered cold, while past 18 minutes it is considered hot! The reason for this discrepancy is because when salting an item to remove its blood the salt and blood cause the meat to become hot for its first 18 minutes. After 18 minutes, however, the power of the salt has been exhumed and the meat is now cold. However, when salting a plain piece of food that does not contain blood, then the salt only begins to affect the heat of the food after the passing of 18 minutes, and retains that heat until it is washed off. [Shach 91:11] Alternatively, the reason for this discrepancy is because by a Biblical prohibition of blood the Michaber was stringent to suspect that the meat becomes hot even within 18 minutes while by a Rabbinical prohibition of Melicha by meat and milk he was lenient. [Kreisi 91:8 and Pleisi 91:5; Kaf Hachaim 91:34]

[266] Rama 91:5; So also rules Rama in 69:20 regarding meat that was salted for its blood and placed in a vessel after Shiur Melicha without being washed, that it remains hot even after 18 minutes, unlike Michaber.

[267] 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

[268] The Rama ibid compares this case to the ruling in 69:20 regarding one who salted meat to extract its blood in which case such an opinion exists, that after 18 minutes the meat is no longer considered hot. The Rama in 69:20 rules similarly to his ruling here, that in a case of great loss, which involves the need of a Seudas Mitzvah, one may be lenient.

[269] Shach 91:11

[270] Simple understanding of Shach ibid; Beir Heiytiv 91:10; Peri Megadim 91 S.D. 11; Darkeiy Halacha 91:5-1

Background: The Rama ibid compares this case to the ruling of the Toras Habayis regarding one who salted meat for blood and later found that one of the pieces were Treif, in which case an opinion exists that in a case of great loss one may be lenient. The Rama applies this ruling here as well that after 18 minutes one may be lenient in a case of great loss. The Shach however explains that the original case discussed in the Toras Habayis contains a vital difference than the case here and thus its ruling cannot be derived from it.  In the case of the Toras Habayis the meat is being slated for its blood, and according to many opinions, when salt is in the process of removing blood from meat it is no longer considered hot after the passing of 18 minutes. However, in the case here regarding a food that does not have blood [I.e. cheese] or already had its blood extracted through salt, the salt does not use up its strength during the 18 minutes, and it is thus certainly hot even after 18 minutes. [Shach ibid]

[271] The Taz in 69:47 suggests the same differentiation as the Shach ibid mentioned that that there is a difference between a food which was salted for blood, and a food which was never salted, in which case if the food was never salted certainly the food would be considered hot even after 18 minutes. Thus it seems that both the Shach and Taz argue on the conclusion of the Rama.

[272] 69:20 regarding salting for blood and the Shach 91:11 writes the same would apply if it touched cheese during its salting for blood

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that even according to the Rama in 69:20 the meat is considered hot after 18 minutes regarding meat and milk. Kaf Hachaim 91:34 based on Kreisi ibid who negates the explanation of the Shach ibid]

[273] 69:20; This dispute dates back to Rashi and Tosfos [Maaseh Derashi]. See Taz 69:46 that according to the Michaber the meat is considered cold after it waits Shiur Melicha. See Shach 69:80 and 85 that according to the Rama it is still considered hot.

[274] Michaber 91:5

[275] Michaber 91:5

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

[277] 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]

[278] 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

[279] 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

[280] 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

[281] 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.

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

[283] 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;

[284] 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.]

[285] Meaning that if after the salt dried out on the food, water spilled on the food and made the salt wet, the salt is not considered hot due to this moisture as it has already lost its power. [Peri Toar 91:13; Peri Megadim 91 S.D. 17; Beis Yitzchak 3:25; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:41; Kaf Hachaim 91:49]

[286] Michaber ibid

[287] 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

[288] P”M 91 S.D. 17 in explanation of Shach ibid

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

[290] Kaf Hachaim ibid

[291] Michaber 91:5, in 91:6 the Michaber explains that it is referring to lean pieces.

[292] Taz 91:9; Tur 91; Levush 91:6; Lechem Hapanim 91:16; Beis Lechem Yehuda 91:12; Halacha Pesuka 91:5; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:31; Kaf Hachaim 91:40

[293] The reason: We do not apply the rule of Aidi Detarid Liflot, or Kebolo Kach Polto, in this case [and hence permit the foods] as these rules only apply to the expelling and absorption of blood. [Taz 91:10; Shach 91:13; Peri Chadash 91:12; Lechem Hapanim 91:16; Kreisi 91:12; Chavas Daas 91:12; P”M 91 S.D. 13; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:32; Kaf Hachaim 91:41] These rules do not apply even by a Rabbinical Issur. [P”M 91 M.Z. 10 and S.D. 13; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:33; Kaf Hachaim 91:42]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that we apply these laws also by other Issurim. [Issur Viheter 12:11]

[294] Michaber 91:6; 105:9

[295] Michaber 91:6; 70:4; 105:9; Shach 91:19; Peri Chadash 91:17; Chavas Daas 91:16; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:50; Kaf Hachaim 91:58

The reason: As the fat penetrates the lean food and makes it considered as if it is fatty. This applies even if the fatty piece is unsalted. [Poskim ibid]

[296] Michaber 91:5, in 91:6 the Michaber explains that it is referring to lean pieces.

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

The reason: As the salted piece never absorbs the gravy of the other piece unless that other piece is also salted. [Michaber ibid] So rules Michaber here and in 105:11 and is the first opinion in 70:3.

[298] Although in general we rule Tatah Gavar, as ruled the Michaber in 91:4, nevertheless this is only relevant when it is possible for the bottom piece to forbid the top piece completely, such as it was heated by fire, or is fatty and salted. However, here that both pieces are lean, and hence the salt even when on bottom can only penetrate a Kelipa, it makes no difference if it is on top or on bottom, as either way it forbids the same amount. [Shach 91:12; Peri Chadash 91:11; Kreisi 91:11; P”M 91 S.D. 12 ; Kaf Hachaim 91:39]

[299] Rama 91:5; Kaf Hachaim 91:44 that this applies even according to Michaber

Is congealed fat considered a solid or liquid? Congealed fat is considered a solid in this regard even if it is moist. [Shach 91:14; Hagahos Ashri Kol Habasar; Rashal Kol Habasar 80; Kneses Hagedola 91:17; Peri Chadash 91:13; Minchas Yaakov 22:5; Chavas Daas 91:13; P”M 91 S.D. 14; Chochmas Adam 43:8; Beis Yitzchak 3:17; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:34; Kaf Hachaim 91:43]

[300] Michaber 91:6 as explained in Shach 91:12 and as explicitly rules Michaber 70:4 and 105:11 that when only one piece is salted and they are fatty we apply the rule of Tatah Gavar; Peri Chadash 91:11; Peri Toar 91:14; Kreisi 91:11; P”M 91 S.D. 12; Kaf Hachaim 91:39 and 59

[301] Michaber 91:6; 70:4; 105:9; Shach 91:19; Peri Chadash 91:17; Chavas Daas 91:16; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:50; Kaf Hachaim 91:58

The reason: As the fat penetrates the lean food and makes it considered as if it is fatty. This applies even if the fatty piece is unsalted. [Poskim ibid]

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

Background: 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.

[303] Peri Toar 91:14; ; Kaf Hachaim 91:59; Based on Michaber ibid who holds of Tatah Gavar

[304] 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; See previous footnotes regarding congealed fat

[305] If however one of the foods [meat or cheese] is completely dry, then see A that the Rama rules the dry piece does not absorb or transfer taste, and everything is permitted. However, some Poskim argue, as explained there!

[306] 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; 2^nd opinion in Michaber 70:3 [This is unlike the Michaber 91:5 and 105:10 who rules that only the unsalted piece is forbidden [even if they are both fatty], and if they are lean the unsalted piece only requires a peels worth.]

The reason they are both completely forbidden: The Rama is stringent to completely prohibit the piece [versus a mere Kelipa] because we are no longer expert into what is defined as lean and what is defined as fatty. [Rama 105:9] Likewise, he is stringent to prohibit even the salted piece seemingly due to that the fat transfers taste back into the slated piece. Vetzaruch Iyun!

Case of great loss: In a case of [great-Shach 70:20] loss one may be lenient to permit the salted piece if the other piece is not salted. [Rama 105:10] Likewise, one may be lenient See Hakashrus 10:64; 105:9 towards end of Rama]

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.]

[307] As explained in previous footnote that according to the Michaber the salted piece is never forbidden if the other piece is not salted, even if both pieces are fatty. [Michaber 105:10; 1^st opinion in 70:3] However, according to the Rama, both pieces are always forbidden. [Rama 105:10]

The law if one of the foods liquid [i.e. milk]: The Rama 91:5 rules that if the unsalted food is liquidly, then even if it is not salted, it prohibits the salted food, if the salted food is moist. Thus, if a moist salted piece of meat touches milk, both are completely forbidden. If, however, the salted food is dry, or the unsalted food is a moist solid, the salted piece is Kosher. This seemingly contradicts the ruling of Rama 105:10 that the slated piece is forbidden if it touches the unsalted piece. Seemingly, however, the Rama here in 91:5 is discussing the letter of the law ruling of the Michaber ibid that the salted piece is permitted, and hence novelizes a qualification, that even according to the Michaber’s opinion this only applies when two solids touch each other, even if moist. If however, a moist salted solid touches a liquid, then both are forbidden. The practical ramification even according to the Rama is in a case of great loss in which the Rama rules [105:10] that one may be lenient to permit the unsalted piece. However, based on this ruling of the Rama, if a moist salted solid touches a liquid, then both are forbidden even in a case of great loss.

[308] Rama 105:9; Shach 91:20; Lechem Hapanim 91:22; Beis Lechem Yehuda 91:19; Chavas Daas 91:17; Kaf Hachaim 91:60 [Unlike Michaber 91:6 and 105:9]

[309] Rama 105:11; [Unlike Michaber 105:11]

[310] Shach 70:20

[311] See previous footnotes regarding that if the other food is a liquid all agree that it prohibits the salted food.

[312] Rama 105:10

[313] Rama 105:9

[314] See Hakashrus 10:64

[315] The reason: To suspect for the ruling of the Michaber that a Kelipa is forbidden.

[316] Kaf Hachaim 91:44; 60; 105:68

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

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

[319] The reason: Seemingly, this follows the other ruling of the Rama in Toras Chatas [unlike in 105:10] that the salted piece never becomes forbidden from the unsalted piece, unless the unsalted piece is a liquid.

[320] Rama 91:5; Shach 91:16; Kneses Hagedola 91:18; Peri Chadash 91:14; Halacha Pesuka 91:19; Beis Lechem Yehuda 91:15; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:36

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

[322] Kaf Hachaim 91:46

[323] 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; 2^nd 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.]

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

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

[326] Rama 105:11

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

[328] 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

[329] Michaber 91:6; 105:9

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

[331] 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.

[332] Shach 70:20

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

[334] 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]

[335] Rama 105:9

[336] 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;

[337] 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.]

[338] 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

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

[340] Kaf Hachaim ibid

[341] 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

[342] Rama 105:9

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

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

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

[346] Rama 105:9

[347] Rama 91:5

[348] Rama ibid; See Admur 447:29; Piskeiy Admur p. 67

Ruling of Michaber: This ruling only applies according to the Rama 91:5 who rules that even slightly salted meat is considered hot. However, according to the Michaber 91:5 who rules that slightly salted meat is not considered hot, likewise its gravy is not considered hot. [Kaf Hachaim 91:50; Shach 69:71; Peri Chadash 69:60; Lechem Hapanim 69:86; Kreisi 69:50; Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 71; Zivcheiy Tzedek 69:194; Kaf Hachaim 69:271] Hence, in a case of great loss one may be lenient even according to the Rama if the meat was only slightly salted.

[349] It requires 60x and not merely a Kelipa being that Tzir is salted and carries the laws of a salted item of which we do not apply the rule of Tatah Gavar.

[350] See Halacha 5B regarding that if Nifsak Hakiluach some Poskim rule it has the status of a Keli Sheiyni and cannot prohibit the vessel.

[351] Toras Chatas 13:1; Beis Lechem Yehuda 91:17; Chavas Daas 91:15; P”M 91 S.D. 18; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:44

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that Iruiy Keli Rishon suffices. [Beis Shmuel, brought in Kaf Hachaim ibid]

[352] Rama ibid; This applies even according to Michaber 69:18 who rules Tzir only prohibits if the food remains within it for Shiur Kevisha, as this only applies regarding prohibiting the entire food, however, a Kelipa worth is always forbidden even due to momentary contact with the Tzir. [Kaf Hachaim 91:51]

[353] Minchas Yaakov 13:3; Chochmas Adam 32:19; Peri Tevua 23; Pischeiy Teshuvah 69:38; Kaf Hachaim 91:55; 69:299

Other opinions: Some Poskim understand that according to the Rama ibid and in Toras Chatas 13, an earthenware vessel has no way of being Kashered even though peeling. [Shach 69:82]

[354] Rama ibid; In truth, even if it fell on the entire vessel, one can remove a peel of the wood from the entire vessel, and it becomes Kosher. [Shach 91:18; Peri Chadash 91:16; Lechem Hapanim 91:21; Beis Lechem Yehuda 91:18; Chavas Daas 91:15; Chochmas Adam 32:19; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:45; Kaf Hachaim 91:53]

The reason: Although in general we rule that whenever Hagalah is required it does not suffice to peel the vessel [Rama O.C. 451:16; Y.D. 121:2] that only applies in a case that the vessel has absorbed Issur through the heat of a fire, in which case it becomes completely absorbed throughout its entire thickness. However, the heat of salt only penetrates a Kelipa’s worth into the vessel, and hence peeling off a layer suffices. [Shach 91:18; Peri Chadash 91:16; Lechem Hapanim 91:21; Beis Lechem Yehuda 91:18; Chavas Daas 91:15; Chochmas Adam 32:19; Zivcheiy Tzedek 91:45; Kaf Hachaim 91:53]

[355] P”M 91 S.D. 18

[356] See Kaf Hachaim ibid who writes that glass cannot be Kashered, Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol on his ruling, as it is subject to the debate explained in the supplement in the end of the Sefer.

[357] Pischeiy Teshuvah 91:9; Kaf Hachaim 91:57

[358] Michaber 105:1

[359] 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]

[360] Michaber 105:1

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

[362] 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.

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

[364] See Shach 105:3

[365] Michaber 91:8

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

[367] Hakashrus 10:69

Bookmark