This article is an excerpt from our Sefer

Buy me here

Check out our state of the art Online Basar Bechalav course

________________________________________

Chapter 92

Taaruvos of Basar Bechalav: Cold with cold/hot-Part 2

Introduction: This chapter will continue the theme of the previous chapter discussing various scenarios of hot mixtures of meat and milk and the issues they pose. Instructions for the Rav-Believing the asker: As we will see throughout our journey in the subject of Taaruvos, the Kashrus state of a mixture of meat and milk is dependent on many factors. When one is asked a Shaala, the Rav is to rule based on this information that he received. The asker is believed regarding all the information he conveys to the Rav, such as how much food was in the pot or how hot it was, and the like.[1] This applies even if the asker is a woman, and even by Biblical prohibitions.[2] Now, regarding what inquiries the Rav must make, when asked a Shaala, while in general he must inquire regarding all basic matters that can change the ruling, regarding certain matters, the Rav is not accustomed to inquire unless he is told.[3]

1. How does one measure the nullification of an Issur food:[4]

One of the chief principals in the laws of Taaruvos is the concept of Bitul, or nullification of the forbidden taste. In the previous chapter we explained that the taste of an Issur [i.e. milk in meat] is considered like the Issur itself, and hence for the food to remain Kosher the taste of the Issur must be nullified. This Halacha will explore how one can ascertain whether the taste is nullified. As is commonly known, a taste is nullified in 60x, commonly known as Bitul Bishishim. The primary reason that 60x is required is because when a Kosher food contains this amount of ratio against the Issur food, the taste of the Issur food is no longer felt, and is hence considered nullified. Nonetheless, this is a mere estimate, as it is possible for taste to exist with even more than 60x its ratio, and its possible for taste to be nullified with even less than 60x. Thus, in this Halacha we will explore whether one can rely on another method to ascertain the tastes nullification, which is through relying on the taste of a gentile.

A. Min Bemino:[5]

Definition: If a non-Kosher food mixes into a Kosher food of the same species, it is defined as Min Bemino. An example of this would be if the gravy of Niveila meat fell into a stew of Kosher meat.

The law: If a non-Kosher food mixes into a Kosher food of the same species, then according to all opinions one requires 60x in the Kosher food versus the non-Kosher food, and it does not help for a gentile to taste the food.[6]

• Example: If Chalav Akum milk mixes into a pot of Chalav Yisrael milk, one requires 60x of Kosher milk versus the non-Kosher milk. According to all, it does not help to have the milk tasted by a gentile.

Opinions in Rishonim regarding if Min Bemino is nullified in 60x:[7] There is a dispute in Rishonim regarding if by mixtures of Min Bemino, the concept of Bittul applies at all.   ·  Rashi: A mixture of Min Bemino is always forbidden, even if there is 60x of Kosher Mino versus non-Kosher Mino.   ·  Rabbeinu Tam: A mixture of Min Bemino is Kosher if there is 60x of Kosher Mino versus non-Kosher Mino. · The Final Ruling: Practically, we rule like Rabbeinu Tam that taste is always nullified in 60x even in a same species mixture.

B. Min Beino Mino:

Definition: If a non-Kosher food mixes into a Kosher food of a different species, it is defined as Min Beino Mino. An example of this would be if milk fell into a meat stew.

 

• Michaber:^[8]

If a non-Kosher food mixes into a Kosher food of a different species one is to have a gentile taste the food to verify whether it has the taste of the non-Kosher food. If it does not have the taste of the non-Kosher food, it is Kosher even if it contains less than 60x versus the non-Kosher food. Accordingly, if milk fell into a meat soup, a gentile is to taste the soup to see if it has a dairy taste, and if it is free of a dairy taste, the soup remains Kosher.

Which gentiles are to be trusted?[9] A gentile is only believed as a taster if he is a professional cook who cooks for his livelihood, or if the gentile was Mesiach Lefi Tumo.[10]

What is one to do if no gentile is available:[11] If there is no gentile available to taste the food, then one determines whether there is any taste of the forbidden food within the mixture by measuring the ratio of the Kosher food to the forbidden food that fell into it. If the ratio of the Kosher food is 60:1 against the prohibited food then the mixture remains Kosher.

• Rama:[12]

We no longer rely on a gentile taster to verify whether the mixture contains a non-Kosher taste. Thus, whenever an Issur has fallen into a Kosher food, the mixture is only permitted if the Kosher food contains 60x versus the non-Kosher food. [Practically, today even the Sephardim follow the Rama in this regard and do not rely on the tasting of a gentile.[13]]

If a Jew accidently tasted the mixture and did not notice a taste of milk in it, may he continue eating it? Some Poskim[14] rule that in such a case the food is Kosher as if a Jew does not feel an Issur taste when eating it then it is a sign that the taste is unrecognizable and has become nullified. Other Poskim[15], however, rule the food remains forbidden as the Jew did not eat the food for the purpose of tasting the Issur and hence possibly did not pay attention to its taste. If however many people ate the food and testified it does not have the taste of Issur, then it is permitted.[16]

 

B. The law if a piece of meat fell into hot milk according to Michaber:[17]

If a Kezayis [or less[18] of] meat fell into a pot of boiling hot milk, then if the meat was removed from the pot right away, prior to the milk ceasing to boil[19], then one is to have a gentile taste the milk. If the gentile says that the milk does not contain the taste of the meat, it is Kosher even if it contains less than 60x versus the milk. If, however, one removed the meat after the pot stopped boiling, then since the meat was has expelled its newly absorbed milk taste back into the milk, one can no longer rely on a gentile taster[20], and there must be 60x in the milk versus the entire piece of meat for the milk to remain Kosher. [However, the meat itself is forbidden in all cases.[21]]

Summary: Whenever Issur falls into Heter [i.e. milk into meat] one is to measure 60x in the Heter [meat] versus the Issur [milk]. We no longer rely on the tasting of a gentile. This applies for both Sephardim and Ashkenazim.   Q&A If milk fell onto poultry or wild animal meat is 60x required?[22] One requires 60x even by a Rabbinical prohibition. Hence if milk fell onto chicken, poultry, wild animal meat, 60x is required.   If milk fell into a hot chicken soup and it does not contain 60x may one add more soup? No. It is forbidden to add more soup and the entire mixture is forbidden.[23] Some Poskim[24] rule that this applies even according to the Michaber and the Sephardic custom unless it is a case of great loss, great need, or is needed for Kavod Shabbos.

2.  Milk fell into a pot of stew:[25]

In this case scenario we will discuss the law regarding milk that fell into a meat stew. Now, being that a stew contains many foods, the question is raised as to how the 60x is measured. Does everything in the stew join to measure for the 60x versus the drop of milk? What if the milk fell onto a piece of food that was protruding from the stew; must that piece contain 60x versus the milk individually? Must the stew contain 60x versus the piece of food if it does not contain 60x versus the milk individually? Must the entire stew at all contain 60x versus the milk? Does the stew and piece join for the 60x versus the milk? All these questions of how to measure the 60x in such a case is dependent on different scenarios, and is subject to debate, as we will now explore. The ruling of this case is dependent on the following factors:

1. Did the milk fall in the gravy or into a piece sticking out?
2. Did one mix or cover the pot right away?
3. Does one know which piece the milk fell on to?

Introduction from the Mishneh & Rishonim: Mishneh Chulin 108a: “If a drop of milk fell onto a piece [of meat that is within a pot of stew[26]], if the meat contains the taste of the milk, that piece of meat is forbidden. If one mixed the pot [after the drop fell onto the piece of meat, prior to removing it from the pot] then if the food in the pot contains a taste of milk, everything is forbidden.” The Rishonim’s understanding of the Mishneh:[27] A number of matters in this Mishneh are ambiguous, which led to different approaches amongst the Rishonim regarding how it is to be understood. The main question raised against the Mishneh, is that it implies that when a drop of milk falls onto a food that is in the pot, only that food requires 60x, while the remainder of the food remains permitted. Now why is this case? This is what has led to the difference of understanding in the intended case of the Mishneh. Is the Mishneh referring to a piece of meat that is partially submerged and partially protruding from the gravy, or is the Mishneh referring to a piece of meat that is lying on top of another piece which is partially submerged, and is thus completely above the surface level of the gravy? Rashi on the Mishneh ibid implies[28] like the former approach, and hence even if the meat is partially submerged within the gravy, the remainder of the pot is permitted so long as one did not mix the forbidden piece back into the pot. On the other hand, Tosfos on the Mishneh ibid [i.e. Riy] explains like the latter approach, that the piece is completely protruding from the gravy, hence implying that if in truth the piece was partially submerged within the gravy, the entire pot would require 60x versus the milk. There are several Halachic ramifications between the two approaches, as will be explored in this Halacha. Practically, the Poskim record both of these opinions and differ in how to arbitrate the final ruling.

A. If the milk fell into the gravy of the stew:[29]

If milk fell into the gravy of a meat stew [then according to the Michaber] one is to mix the entire pot [see below for reason] and give it to a gentile to taste. If there is no gentile available one is to measure 60x against the drop. However, according to the Rama, one always measures 60x, and there is never a need to mix the pot.[30]

How to measure the 60x: All the food in the pot joins against the drop of milk to measure 60x. If all the food in the pot contains 60x versus the drop of milk, then everything remains Kosher. If not, the entire pot is forbidden. [However, some Poskim[31] rule that all pieces of food which are not fully submerged in the gravy, do not join the rest of the food in the pot to measure 60x versus the milk. Practically, we suspect for his opinion, and hence all foods that are not fully submerged within the gravy do not join the measurement of 60x versus the milk.[32] This, however, only applies if the pot was not mixed right away, as explained in B!]

List of Opinions-Must one mix the pot and why?

• Rambam:[33]

Mix: If a drop of milk falls into the gravy of the stew, one is required to mix the pot.

 

• Tur:[34]

Why the need to mix? The above ruling [brought in Michaber] that one is required to mix the pot if a drop of milk fell into the gravy of a stew is the opinion of the Rambam. The Tur questions this ruling of the Rambam, stating that it is not understand why the mixing is necessary and what purpose it is coming to accomplish. Regardless of whether one mixes the stew or not, everything in the stew joins the measurement of 60x versus the drop, and hence the mixing seems pointless.

• Michaber/Beis Yosef:[35]

Need to mix to nullify the milk: If a drop of milk falls into the gravy of the stew, one is required to mix the pot [as rules the Rambam]. The reason for this mixing is in order to prevent a situation where the milk remains centralized in one area and hence does not spread out enough to have its taste nullified in 60x. Thus, to ensure a full distribution of the milk into all the food, and then have the food nullify its taste in 60x, we therefore mix the pot.[36]

• Rama:[37]

No need to mix: Some Poskim[38] argue [on the Michaber/Rambam] and rule there is no need to mix the pot, and so is the custom.

• Bach:[39]

Rama is mistaken-Need to mix so protruding pieces join: The reason the Rambam rules that the pot is to be mixed is in order to allow pieces of food which are protruding above the gravy to join the rest of the food to nullify the milk in 60x.[40] This is a very clear reason and hence the question of the Tur is resolved. The Rama overstepped his duties by bringing the opinion of the Tur as a dissenting opinion of the Rambam and Michaber, as in truth, the Tur simply questions its understanding and never intended to argue.[41]

• Shach:[42]

Defends Rama-Reinterprets Rambam-No need to mix: If milk falls into the gravy of the stew there is no need to mix the pot as regardless the entire stew joins to nullify the milk in 60x, in which case everything remains permitted even without mixing. The Bach ibid unjustifiably attacked the position of the Rama, and in truth even the Rambam’s intent is as writes the Rama, as his requirement to mix the pot is only in a case that it fell onto a piece that is protruding from the pot, and not when it falls onto the gravy.

• Taz:[43]

Everyone is correct! Mixing is a technical issue for the gentile taster: In truth, there is no requirement to mix the pot after the milk has fallen into it for the sake of nullifying it in 60x [as explained the Shach ibid], however, the Rambam and Michaber ibid rule that one is to mix it being that they hold of the option of giving the pot to a gentile taster for verification of taste. Now, in order to prevent the gentile taster from tasting an area of the stew that has a greater concentration of the milk, and thus telling the Jew that it has a milk taste, thus mistakenly prohibiting the entire food, we therefore mix the pot, and spread the milk taste equally everywhere. However, in truth, if there is no gentile taster available, or according to today’s custom when we no longer rely on a gentile taster, there is in truth no need to mix the pot according to any opinion, as we simply measure 60x.

Why is mixing not considered “Initially nullifying an Issur”: Based on the above explanation in the Rambam and Michaber ibid, it is understood why mixing the fallen milk into the pot is not considered nullifying an Issur, as in truth the Issur is already nullified in 60x, and the mixing is simply to avoid concentrated taste during the tasting of the Gentile.

• Yad Avraham:[44]

Mix if gravy is thick: One is only required to mix the pot when the gravy is thick, as in such a case it is not certain that the taste has spread into the entire food. However, if the gravy is a thin liquid then mixing is not required as the taste automatically spreads out into the entire pot.

Summary of opinions if mixing is required: Tur; Shach; Taz; Rama: Mixing is unnecessary. Rambam; Michaber; Bach: Mixing is necessary. Yad Avraham: Mixing is only required if the gravy is thick.   Compilation & Final ruling: If milk falls into the gravy of a meat stew some Poskim[45] rule one is to mix the pot prior to measuring the 60x. Other Poskim[46] rule it is unnecessary. Practically, according to the Sephardim, initially one is to always mix the pot well after a drop of milk has fallen inside.[47] However, Bedieved, if one did not mix the pot, it remains permitted so long as there is 60x. According to Ashkenazim, mixing is not necessary unless the gravy is very thick[48], or there are pieces protruding from the gravy and one needs them for the joining of 60x, in which case the pot is to be mixed right away.[49]

B. The drop of milk fell onto a piece of meat/food which is partially sticking out of the gravy:

In the event that the drop of milk fell onto a piece of meat [or other food[50]] that is protruding out of the meat stew, the ruling in such a case is dependent on various factors, opinions and scenarios. The following are the two main points that the ruling is dependent on:

1. Did one mix or cover the pot right away?
2. Does one know which piece it fell on to?

Scenario 1: One mixed the pot or covered it right away:[51]

*In the event that one mixed the pot right away, as soon as the milk fell inside, the ruling remains the same whether one knew which piece the milk fell on, or did not.[52]

• Michaber:[53]

If mix from beginning to end 60x in entire pot suffices: If milk fell onto a piece of meat that is protruding from the gravy of a stew and one mixed the pot right away, from beginning to end, or covered it with the cover from beginning to end, then the entire pot joins to nullify the drop of milk, [and if there is 60x versus the drop, everything in the pot, including the piece of meat which the milk fell on, remains Kosher].

What is the meaning of mixed from “beginning to end”? Some Poskim[54] learn that the above statement of the Michaber that one is to “mix it from the beginning until the end” is not to be taken literally, and rather so long as it was mixed right away, the entire pot joins to nullify the drop of milk in 60x. However, one is to continue mixing the stew until the color of the milk dissipates, and this is the intent of “until the end.”[55] Other Poskim[56], however, learn that this statement is to be taken literally [and one is to mix the food until the pot is taken off the fire[57]]. [Practically, the Sephardic ruling follows like the latter approach, and hence the pot is to be mixed from beginning to end. However, it is not necessary to mix the pot continuously until the food is cooked, but rather it suffices to mix it 3-4 times until the milk is definitively distributed within the food. Likewise, if the pot was covered, it is to remain covered until one assesses that the milk which fell in has been properly spread and mixed.[58]]

• Rama:[59]

If mix right away, 60x in entire pot suffices: If milk fell onto a piece of meat that is protruding from the gravy of a stew and one mixed the pot immediately after the milk fell in, or one covered the pot with its cover right away, then the entire pot joins to nullify the drop of milk in 60x [and if there is 60x in the food versus the milk, everything in the pot, including the piece which the milk fell on, remains Kosher]. This applies even if one did not mix the pot from beginning to end, but simply right after it fell in.

• Shach[60]/Taz[61]:

Agrees with Rama: The Shach and Taz both agree with the ruling of the Rama that so long as the pot was mixed right away, it suffices to join the nullification of 60x versus the milk, even if one did not mix it until the end.

Summary and Final Ruling:[62] If milk fell onto a piece of meat which is protruding from a stew and one mixed the stew right away, or covered it right away, the entire stew remains Kosher if the stew contains 60x the milk. There is no need to continue stirring or covering the stew until the end of the cooking, and a single stir or covering suffices. [However, those who follow the Sephardic ruling[63], are to stir the stew right away several[64] times, until they assess that the milk has dissipated and nullified. Likewise, if one covers the pot right away, it is to be covered until this point.[65]]   First thing to do if milk falls into your meat stew or soup-Cover or stir! Based on the above, we learn that in the event that milk has accidently fallen into a meat stew or soup, or other meat dish, the immediate proper Halachic reaction is to cover or stir the pot right away, thus having the entire pot join in its nullification, and avoid all the long debate and complications regarding one who did not do so, as explained next.

Scenario 2: If one did not mix or cover the pot right away and does know which piece the milk fell on:

• If the meat is partially in and partially out of the gravy:

If milk fell onto a piece of meat [or other food[66]] that is protruding from the gravy of a stew and one did not mix the pot right away, or cover it, then the measuring of 60x versus the milk is debated amongst the Rishonim and Poskim.

Rishonim:[67]

• Rashi:[68]

Piece individually requires 60x: If milk fell onto a piece of meat [or other food] that is partially protruding from the gravy of a stew, it is considered as if the milk fell on only that individual piece and it thus requires 60x versus the milk.[69] If the piece alone does not contain 60x versus the milk, then it becomes completely forbidden.

What happens to the rest of the food? According to some Poskim[70], Rashi holds that if the individual piece does not contain 60x the milk and hence becomes forbidden, then the remaining food in the pot must have 60x versus that entire forbidden piece. This applies even if the forbidden piece of meat/food was immediately removed from the mixture and was never mixed in. Other Poskim[71], however, rule that if one removed the piece of meat/food right away and it was never mixed back into the remaining food, and the pot was not covered in the interim, then the remaining food in the pot does not require 60x at all, not versus the milk and certainly not versus the now forbidden food.]

• Riy:[72]

Entire pot requires 60x the milk: If milk fell onto a piece of meat [or other food] that is partially submerged and partially protruding from the gravy of a stew, then it is considered as if the milk fell into the entire stew and the entire stew must have 60x versus the milk, and the entire stew joins to nullify the milk in 60x.[73] Thus, it follows the same law as if the drop had fallen into the gravy itself.

 

The Ruling in Shulchan Aruch:

• Michaber:[74]

Implies like Rashi: If milk fell onto a piece of meat [or other food] that is in a stew then the piece of meat/food onto which the drop of milk fell, requires 60x[75] versus the drop of milk. If the food does not contain 60x the milk, then the entire piece becomes Chanan. [Some Poskim[76] understand that the Michaber here is referring to a case that the meat is partially submerged and partially protruding from the gravy of a stew, and he has hence arbitrated like the opinion of Rashi in the above debate. However, it is possible to understand the Michaber to be referring to a case that the food in question is resting on top of another food which is protruding from the gravy, which is not under the debate of Rashi/Riy.[77] Practically, elsewhere[78] the Michaber mentions the submerged case and writes both opinions of Riy and Rashi without arbitration. This seems to imply that the Michaber suspects for both opinions, and hence the individual piece requires 60x versus the milk as holds Rashi.[79]]

The status of the rest of the food: If the individual piece of meat/food does not contain 60x the milk and hence became forbidden, then if this piece was later mixed into the remaining food in the pot, or the pot had a cover later placed on it [but not right away], then the entire pot requires 60x versus the now forbidden [i.e. Chanan] piece. [If, however, the forbidden food was immediately removed and never became mixed with the other food, and the pot did not have its cover placed on it in the interim, then the remaining food in the pot is Kosher without needing any nullification and only the individual piece is forbidden.[80] However, since the Michaber’s final stance seems to suspect also for the opinion of Riy, therefore, even if the forbidden piece is removed, one needs to have 60x also in the food versus the milk.[81]]

Conclusion: According to the above conclusion of the Poskim in the understanding of the Michaber, it ends up that the Michaber, and Sephardic custom, follows the same opinion as Rama, explained next.

 

• Rama:

Stringent like Rashi & Riy: If milk fell onto a piece of meat [or other food] that is partially submerged and partially protruding from the gravy of a stew, then if the piece of meat which the drop fell on was removed prior to mixing or covering the pot, then that piece of food individually requires 60x versus the milk, as rules the Michaber [and Rashi]. In addition, the entire pot requires 60x versus the milk [as rules Riy]. If, however, one delayed and later on mixed, or covered, the pot prior to removing the forbidden piece, then if the forbidden piece does not contain 60x the milk, the entire pot requires 60x the now forbidden piece.[82]

The reason behind the ruling of the Rama: See Shach and Taz below!

The law by other Issurim:[83] If a non-Kosher food fell onto a piece of Kosher food that is partially submerged within gravy then its ruling follows the same law as if milk fell onto meat, that we require 60x versus the original Issur in both the food and the piece. However, in this case, if it later became mixed back into the stew [such as if one mixed the pot prior to removing the piece], the entire stew remains Kosher so long as it had 60x versus the original Issur.[84] Nevertheless, even in such a case, one is to be stringent to prohibit the piece of food that the Issur originally fell on.[85]

• Shach:

The Shach’s understanding of the Rama:[86] The Rama is in doubt as to whether one should rule like Rashi or Riy. Hence, he is stringent like both opinions and requires 60x the milk in both the pot and the piece, which follows the opinions of both Rashi and Riy.

The Shach’s personal ruling:[87] We rule like the Riy that the entire pot requires 60x the drop, and if it has 60x the drop, all the food in the pot is Kosher, including the piece of meat which the milk fell on.

• Taz:[88]

The Taz’s understanding of the Rama: The Rama here [92:2] rules like the Riy that all the food in the pot requires 60x versus the drop.[89] In addition, due to personal undisclosed Halachic reasons, the Rama is stringent to forbid eating the individual piece of meat/food that the milk fell on, unless it contains 60x versus the milk. However, elsewhere [92:4] the Rama rules like Rashi, that the piece becomes Chanan if it does not contain 60x the milk, and in turn the entire pot now requires 60x the piece.[90]

The Taz’s personal ruling:[91] We rule like Rashi that the piece itself requires 60x, and if it does not have 60x, then in turn the entire pot needs 60x that piece.

• Admur:[92]

Rules similar to Shach: If a drop of Issur falls into a stew, the stew requires 60x the Issur. It makes no difference if the drop fell into the gravy or onto a piece that is partially protruding from the gravy. [Thus, clearly Admur does not hold like the opinion of the Taz in Rashi. However, perhaps he would be stringent like the Rama to nevertheless prohibit the piece. The Tzemach[93] Tzedek, however, is initially stringent like the Taz to require 60x in the piece versus the milk, otherwise one requires 60x in the stew versus the entire piece. However, in a case of loss one may be lenient like the Shach.]

Summary of opinions

Ruling	Opinion
The piece requires 60x and not the pot:	Possible understanding of Rashi and Michaber
The entire pot requires 60x and not the piece:	Riy; Shach
Both the piece and the pot require 60x the drop:	Rama; Stringency of Riy and Rashi
The entire pot requires 60x the piece:	Taz; Possible understanding of Rashi

 

• Milk fell on a piece of meat/food that is completely above the gravy:

One removed it before mixing or covering:[94] If milk fell onto a piece of meat [or other food[95]] that is sitting on top of a partially submerged food, and is hence completely above the gravy, then if one removed the piece onto which the milk fell prior to mixing the pot, or covering it, then the piece requires 60x versus the milk, in which case everything is permitted. If the piece does not have 60x the milk, then it is forbidden and every piece of meat or food in the hot stew which came into contact with it, requires Kdei Netilah [2 cm.] removed from it, according to the Michaber, while according to the Rama, it requires 60x.[96] [If, however, the meat is fatty, then even according to the Michaber, 60x is required in the piece.[97] However, according to the Taz[98], all pieces which came into contact with it remain permitted, so long as the forbidden piece remained above gravy level until it was removed.[99] See below Halacha 3E and “The Laws of Taaruvos” Chapter 105 Halacha 3C!]

One mixed or covered it later on before removing:[100] If one delayed and then mixed the pot, or covered it, prior to removing the piece of meat/food onto which the milk fell, then if the piece did not have 60x versus the milk that fell on it and hence became forbidden, one requires 60x in the entire food in the pot versus that entire piece of meat/food. Furthermore, even if there is 60x in the pot versus that piece, the piece itself remains forbidden. [If after the milk fell onto the food, the food fell into the gravy, it is considered as if one mixed it into the pot, and the above ruling applies.]

Scenario 3: If one does not know onto which piece the milk fell on and did not mix it right away:[101]

• Michaber:[102]

If milk fell onto a piece of meat [or other food[103], that is protruding from the gravy] and one does not know onto which piece it fell, then one is to mix the entire pot and have a gentile taste it. If there is a gentile taster is not available, one is to measure 60x in the entire pot versus the milk, in which case everything remains Kosher. [This applies even if one did not mix the pot right away, as since one does not know the identity of the forbidden piece, mixing it helps even later on, as explained next.]

The reason for why mixing helps even if one does not mix it immediately:[104] The reason it helps to mix the pot even though one of the pieces has already absorbed milk taste is because according to the Michaber [and other Poskim[105]] that piece is not yet defined as Chanan, as we only say Chanan when one can identify the piece of food that absorbed the milk. Accordingly, if one does not know onto which piece the milk fell, then mixing the pot even after delay allows the entire pot to join and nullify the milk.

Why is mixing the pot not considered “Bittul Issur Lechatchila/Initially nullifying an Issur”:

• Shach:[106]

Since we are unaware as to which piece the milk fell on, the entire pot is held in question, and hence there is no true Heter being added to the Issur through mixing it. Alternatively, since it is merely questionable as to whether a piece contains the forbidden taste of milk, as perhaps the piece it fell on contains 60x the milk, therefore mixing it in it is not considered nullifying an Issur.

• Taz:[107]

In truth, there is no requirement to mix the pot after the milk has fallen in, however the Michaber writes that one is to mix it in order to prevent the gentile which tastes the food from tasting a piece of meat which has a greater concentration of the milk, and thus come to mistakenly say the food is forbidden. Hence, when there is no gentile available, there is no need to mix the pot, and we simply measure 60x. Based on the above explanation in the Michaber it is understood why mixing in the milk is not considered nullifying an Issur, as in truth the Issur is already nullified in 60x, and the mixing is simply to avoid concentrated taste during the tasting of the Gentile.

• Rama:[108]

Only if one stirs the pot, or covers it, immediately after the drop of milk fell onto the unknown piece does it help to allow the entire pot to join and nullify the milk in 60x. If, however, one delayed mixing it, then some Poskim[109] rule that it no longer helps to mix the unknown piece into the stew, [and on the contrary, mixing it makes matters even worse] and so is the custom. [The explanation is as follows: According to the Rama, if mixing was delayed, the unknown piece becomes forbidden/Chanan if it did not have 60x the milk.[110] Thus, being that the piece is unknown, every piece in question that does not individually contain 60x the milk is forbidden.[111] Furthermore, in addition to measuring 60x in the questionable pieces versus the milk, one must also measure 60x in the remaining food of the pot versus the milk.[112] Now, if one delayed and then went ahead and mixed, or covered, the pot prior to removing all the questionable pieces, then the entire pot requires 60x versus the largest[113] questionable piece.[114] Regarding the status of the questionable pieces themselves, all Charal[115] pieces are forbidden even if the pot contains 60x versus the largest questionable piece.[116] However, the non-Charal pieces are permitted if there are at least three pieces in the mixture.[117]]

Sephardic Custom:[118]

The Sephardic ruling follows the stringency of the Rama to require 60x in every questionable piece if one did not mix it right away, and it no longer helps to mix it later on.

Compilation & Final Ruling The law if milk fell into a stew: A. Fell into the gravy: If milk falls into the gravy of a meat stew some Poskim[119] rule one is to mix the pot prior to measuring the 60x. Other Poskim[120] rule it is unnecessary. Practically, according to the Sephardim, initially one is to always mix the pot well after a drop of milk has fallen inside.[121] However, Bedieved, if one did not mix the pot, it remains permitted so long as there is 60x. According to Ashkenazim, mixing is not necessary unless the gravy is very thick[122], or there are pieces protruding from the gravy and one needs them for the joining of 60x, in which case the pot is to be mixed right away.[123]   B. Fell onto a known piece of meat or food that is sticking out of the gravy: Mixed or covered right away:[124] If milk fell onto a piece of meat [or other food[125]] that is protruding from the gravy of a stew [whether fully or partially], then if one mixed the meat/food into the rest of the food in the pot right away, or covered the pot right away, one requires 60x in the entire pot versus the drop of milk. There is no need to continue stirring or covering the stew until the end of the cooking, and a single stir or covering suffices.[126] [However, those who follow the Sephardic ruling[127], are to stir the stew right away several[128] times, until they assess that the milk has dissipated and nullified. Likewise, if one covers the pot right away, it is to be covered until this point.[129]] Based on the above, we learn that in the event that milk has accidently fallen into a meat stew or soup, or other meat dish, the immediate proper Halachic reaction is to cover or stir the pot right away, thus having the entire pot join in its nullification, and avoid all the long debate and complications regarding one who did not do so, as explained next. Mixed or covered later on-Partially submerged piece: If the milk fell onto a partially submerged meat/food and one did not mix or cover the pot right away, but did mix it into the rest of the food later on, or covered the pot later on prior to removing it, then if this piece of meat/food does not contain 60x versus the milk that fell on it, then some Poskim[130] rule one requires 60x in the entire pot versus the entire piece of meat/food and even so the piece of meat/food remains forbidden. Other Poskim[131], however, rule the pot simply requires 60x versus the milk, in which case everything in the pot, including the individual piece of food, remains permitted. Practically, [by a Biblical prohibition] we rule like the former opinion, and hence the pot requires 60x versus the piece.[132] [However, by a Rabbinical prohibition, such as chicken and milk, one may be lenient like the latter opinion.[133]] Mixed or covered later on-Completely above gravy:[134] If milk fell onto a piece of meat [or other food] that is sitting on top of a partially submerged food, and is hence completely above the gravy, then if one did not mix or cover the pot right away, but did mix the pot, or cover it, later on prior to removing the piece of meat/food onto which the milk fell, then if the piece did not have 60x versus the milk that fell on it and hence became forbidden, one requires 60x in the entire pot versus that entire piece of meat/food. Furthermore, even if there is 60x in the pot versus that piece, the piece itself remains forbidden. [If after the milk fell onto the food, the food fell into the gravy, it is considered as if one mixed it into the pot, and the above ruling applies.] This applies according to all opinions, and applies by both Biblical and Rabbinical forms of Basar Bechalav. Removed before mixing or covering-Partially submerged piece: If the milk fell onto a partially submerged meat/food and one removed the partially submerged meat/food that had milk fall on it, from the pot, prior to mixing the pot or covering it, then some Poskim[135] rule that the removed meat/food requires 60x versus the milk [although the remaining food remains Kosher in all cases[136]]. Other Poskim[137] rule that the entire pot requires 60x the milk, and if this is attained then everything remains Kosher, including the individual food that received the milk. Other Poskim[138] rule that the individual piece requires 60x the milk, and if it does not have 60x the milk, then the entire pot requires 60x that food. Practically, we suspect for the first two opinions, and hence [by a Biblical prohibition] both the food and pot need 60x versus the milk, although the pot does not require 60x the piece.[139] [However, by a Rabbinical prohibition, such as chicken and milk, one may be lenient like the second opinion, that if there is 60x in the entire food versus the milk, everything remains Kosher.[140]] Removed before mixing or covering-Completely above the gravy:[141] If milk fell onto a piece of meat [or other food] that is completely above the gravy, then if one removed the piece onto which the milk fell prior to mixing the pot, or covering it, then the piece requires 60x versus the milk, in which case everything is permitted. If the piece does not have 60x the milk, then it is forbidden and every piece of meat or food in the hot stew which came into contact with it, requires 60x.[142] C. Fell onto an unknown piece of meat or food that is sticking out of the gravy: Mixed or covered right away: If milk fell onto a piece of meat [or other food[143], that is protruding from the gravy whether fully or partially] and one does not know onto which piece it fell, then if one mixed the meat/food into the rest of the food in the pot right away, or covered the pot right away, one requires 60x in the entire pot versus the drop of milk, in which case everything is permitted. Mixed or covered later on: If one did not mix it right away, but did mix or cover it later on, then some Poskim[144] rule that one now requires 60x versus the largest questionable piece, and even so, all the questionable Charal[145] pieces of meat remain forbidden even if there is 60x.[146] Other Poskim[147], however rule that nevertheless the pot only requires 60x versus the milk, just like if he would have mixed it right away.[148] Practically, we rule like the former opinion that the entire pot requires 60x the largest questionable piece.[149] Accordingly, if one did not mix or cover the pot right away, all the questionable foods are to be immediately removed from the pot. The law of the remaining food if one removed the Issur before mixing or covering: If one removed all the questionable foods prior to mixing or covering the hot pot, then if amongst the questionable foods there were foods that were partially submerged within the gravy, one requires 60x in the food versus the milk. If all the questionable foods were above the gravy, then the food remains permitted even without 60x [although all foods that touched the questionable foods are forbidden]. D. The law if Issur fell onto a partially submerged Heter: If a non-Kosher food fell onto a piece of Kosher food that is partially submerged within gravy then it is subject to the same debate mentioned above in B as to whether all the food in the pot requires 60x versus the Issur, or only that piece. Practically, both the stew and the partially submerged piece need to each individually have 60x versus the non-Kosher food. If the individual piece does not contain 60x the non-Kosher substance on its own, then even if the pot as a whole does contain 60x the non-Kosher food, that piece is forbidden, as explained in B.[150] Nonetheless, if the piece later became mixed back into the stew [such as if one mixed the pot, or covered it, prior to removing the piece], the entire stew remains Kosher so long as it had 60x versus the original Issur.[151] Nevertheless, even in such a case, one is to be stringent to prohibit the piece of food that the Issur originally fell on.[152]   Summary: If milk fell into a pot of meat and the pot was immediately mixed or covered, then the entire pot is Kosher if it contains 60x the drop. This applies whether the drop fell into the gravy or onto a protruding piece of food. If one did not immediately mix it or cover it, then if the milk fell into the gravy one requires 60x in the pot versus the milk. If it fell onto a piece of food which is partially in the gravy, then if the piece has 60x the milk, everything is Kosher. If the piece does not have 60x the milk, the piece is forbidden and one is to measure 60x in the pot versus the milk. If the piece was mixed in, or had the pot covered, prior to being removed, then the entire pot requires 60x the piece. [However, by a Rabbinical prohibition, such as chicken and milk, one may be lenient to always measure 60x in the food versus the milk, in which case everything is permitted.] Q&A on Bittul in 60x What is the law if one is unsure if the drop fell in the gravy or on the piece of meat?[153] This matter requires further analysis.

The laws of Chanan [Halachas 3-4]

3. Chanan:[154]

A. What is Chanan:

Chanan is an acronym for Chaticha Nasis Niveila, or “The piece becomes a Niveila.” This refers to a Kosher food that has become intrinsically forbidden due to absorbing the taste of a non-Kosher food, as opposed to a Kosher food that is forbidden due to it carrying the taste of a non-Kosher food. Meaning, it is possible for a Kosher food which has absorbed the taste of a non-Kosher food to remain intrinsically Kosher, but nonetheless be forbidden in consumption due to its absorbed non-Kosher taste. The novelty of Chanan is that we view the Kosher food as intrinsically not Kosher due to its absorbance of Kosher taste. Now, although this sounds like mere semantics, it carries a major Halachic ramification that will escort the student throughout his study of Taaruvos [i.e. forbidden mixtures]. The ramification is a follows:[155] If we view a Kosher food which has absorbed non-Kosher taste as intrinsically forbidden [i.e. Chanan], then if this food were to now mix into a pot of Kosher food, this pot would require 60x versus the entire now forbidden [once] Kosher food, as opposed to requiring 60x merely versus the original Issur.

• Example: 10 grams of milk became absorbed into a 250 gram hot meat steak, and the steak became forbidden. The steak then fell into a meat stew. Based on the rule of Chanan, the meat stew requires 60x against the entire steak [60 x 250 grams = 15,000 grams] and it does not suffice to have 60x the original 10 grams of milk. The reason for this is because once the steak became non-Kosher due to its absorption of milk, it has now become an intrinsically forbidden food, and not simply a Kosher food who is a carrier of milk. The steak is therefore referred to as Chanan.

B. By which Issurim does Chanan apply-Basar Bechalav versus other Issurim?[156]

Now that we have introduced the concept of Chanan and its significant ramifications, we will explore the cases in which this rule applies. Is there ever a case that a Kosher food which absorbed an Issur does not become Chanan, and is viewed as a mere carrier of Issur, or do we apply Chanan in every scenario in which a Kosher food has absorbed non-Kosher? So, as we will see, there are several qualifications and disputes regarding which mixtures become Chanan and carry that stringency, and which are simply viewed as a Kosher food carrying a non-Kosher taste. This is dependent on the following two matters:

1. Is the Issur regarding meat and milk, or other Issurim? [Halacha B]
2. How did the Heter become forbidden due to the Issur? What type of mixture is it? [Halacha 4]

Basar Bechalav:[157]

According to all opinions, the law of Chanan [Biblically[158]] applies by Basar Bechalav [depending on the mixture, as explained in Halacha 4]. Thus, if meat was cooked with milk and it does not contain 60x the milk, the meat becomes Chanan. If the now forbidden meat then falls into a second pot of meat, the second pot of meat would require 60x versus the entire piece of meat that fell in and it does not suffice for it to simply contain 60x versus the original milk that the piece of meat was cooked in. [This application of Chanan applies even by Rabbinical mixtures of meat and milk, such as chicken and wild animal meat that was cooked with milk.[159] See Q&A regarding opinion of Michaber!]

The reason:[160] As Basar Bechalav is the formation of a new prohibition. Independently, meat and milk are permitted to be eaten, and it is only when they are combined that they become forbidden. Thus, one must conclude that when this combination occurs and the meat becomes Biblically forbidden due to the absorption of milk, then the entire piece of meat becomes intrinsically forbidden, as the milk that became absorbed into meat makes a new formation of an Issur that never existed beforehand.

Shaar Issurim/Other non-Kosher foods:

• Michaber:[161]

The law of Chanan only applies by the forbidden mixtures of meat and milk. It does not apply by any other forbidden mixture, and hence when a Kosher food absorbs the taste of a non-Kosher food, it does not become intrinsically forbidden [i.e. Chanan]. [The Sephardic custom follows this ruling.[162]]

Example: If a 250-gram Kosher steak was cooked with 10 grams of pork gravy, and the steak then fell into a pot of Kosher food, the food in the pot remains Kosher if it contains 60x the 10 grams of pork gravy  [i.e. 600 grams] and is not required to contain 60x the 250-gram steak that became forbidden [i.e. 15,000 grams]. 

The status of the Kosher food that absorbed the Issur-Does the now forbidden food regain its Kosher status if the new mixture contains 60x?[163] Whenever the second mixture contains 60x the original Issur [i.e. the 10 grams of pork gravy], then the food which originally absorbed the Issur [i.e. the 250 gram steak] returns to its Kosher status.[164] [Thus using the above example: If there is 60x the pork gravy in the pot of food, then even the original steak which absorbed the pork gravy and became forbidden, now returns to become Kosher. This follows the ruling of the Tur and Michaber 92:4. However, in Michaber 106:1 he rules that the original piece always remains forbidden even when there is 60x, thus creating a seeming contradiction in the Michaber’s opinion. The Poskim[165] offer various solutions towards understanding the contradiction, with some simply saying that the Michaber retracted from his earlier position. The Shach[166] answers that the allowance in 92:4 refers to a case that the original piece of now forbidden meat [i.e. the 250-gram steak] is no longer identifiable amongst the other pieces of meat in the pot, in which case all the pieces are Kosher if there is 60x the pork gravy. If, however, the original piece of meat that fell in is identifiable, it is forbidden to be eaten. Practically, the main ruling follows that even according to the Michaber and Sephardim, the original piece remains forbidden.[167]]

• Rama:[168]

Some Poskim[169] rule that [due to a Rabbinical decree[170]] the law of Chanan applies by all Issurim [even of Rabbinical nature[171]].[172] Practically, so is the widespread custom and one may not swerve from it. [Thus, if a Kosher food absorbed the taste of a non-Kosher food[173] and the Kosher food does not contain 60x, such as 250 grams of Kosher meat became cooked with 10 grams of Treif meat, then the Kosher meat becomes Chanan. If that meat then falls into a second pot of food, the food requires 60x that piece of meat [i.e. 60 x 250 grams = 15,000 grams], and it does not suffice to merely have 60x the original Issur [i.e. 60x 10 grams]. Furthermore, the original Chanan piece always remains forbidden even if the food in the mixture contains 60x its size.[174] Accordingly, if the Chanan piece is recognizable, it must be removed.[175]] 

Non-Kosher gravy fell onto a piece that is partially submerged within the gravy of the stew: If a non-Kosher food fell onto a piece of Kosher food that is partially submerged within gravy, then both the stew and the partially submerged piece need to each individually have 60x versus the non-Kosher food. If the individual piece does not contain 60x the non-Kosher substance on its own, then even if the pot as a whole does contain 60x the non-Kosher food, that piece is forbidden, as explained in Halacha 2.[176] Nonetheless, this piece does not become Chanan and hence if it later became mixed back into the stew [such as if one mixed the pot, or covered it, prior to removing the piece], the entire stew remains Kosher so long as it had 60x versus the original Issur.[177] Nevertheless, even in such a case, one is to be stringent to prohibit the piece of food that the Issur originally fell on.[178]

Issur Davuk: An Issur Davuk is a piece of Kosher food that contains an Issur attached to it, such as for example a piece of meat with Cheilev attached to it. If an Issur Davuk falls into a pot of Kosher food, the Kosher part of the Issur Davuk becomes Chanan even if it fell into a pot of food that contains 60x the Cheilev, and it was fully submerged in the gravy, unless it itself has 60x its attached Issur. [See example for explanation!]

• Example: A piece of meat which has a piece of Cheilav attached to it fell into a pot of hot Kosher food. If the piece of meat does not have 60x its attached Cheilev then it becomes Chanan. In such a case, the entire pot would now in turn require 60x versus that entire Chanan piece.
• Definition of Issur Davuk:[179] Some Poskim[180] learn that any Issur which has become stuck to a Heter is considered an Issur Davuk. Practically, however, only if the Issur was grown attached to the Heter, as is the case regarding a piece of meat that grew with Cheilev attached to it, is it considered an Issur Davuk. If, however, the Issur and Heter were not grown attached, and later became attached, they are not considered Issur Davuk.[181] [See Q&A regarding fish with worm]

Compilation & Final ruling: According to all opinions, the law of Chanan applies by Basar Bechalav [depending on the mixture, as explained in Halacha 4].[182] However, by other Issurim, it is debated amongst the Poskim as to whether the law of Chanan applies. Some Poskim[183] rule Chanan applies by all Issurim, and so is the ruling of Ashkenazim. Other Poskim[184] rule Chanan does not apply by other Issurim and so is the ruling of the Sephardim.[185]   Q&A Does Chanan apply if a food only became forbidden a Kelipa or Netila worth? If a Heter is only forbidden a Kelipa worth then the Kelipa does not become Chanan.[186] Likewise, in all cases that the Heter is only forbidden a Netila worth, then the Netila does not become Chanan.[187]     One cooked pieces of fish in a pot and found a worm in the head of the fish, what is the law of the food in the pot?[188] The fish is not viewed as an Issur Davuk being that the worm was not attached to the fish during the time of growth. Thus, if there is 60x within the entire pot versus the worm, everything is Kosher. One cooked fruit in a pot and found a worm in one of the fruits, what is the law of the food in the pot?[189] The fruit is not viewed as an Issur Davuk being that the worm was not attached to the fruit during the time of growth. If there is 60x within the entire pot versus the worm, everything is Kosher. Does Chanan apply to a mixture of chicken and milk even according to the Michaber?[190] Some Poskim[191] rule that even according to the Michaber we apply the rule of Chanan by all Basar Bechalav mixtures, even of Rabbinical nature. Thus, a mixture of chicken and milk becomes Chanan. Other Poskim[192], however, rule that according to the Michaber we do not apply the rule of Chanan by any Rabbinical mixture, even of Basar Bechalav. Thus, chicken and milk does not become Chanan. Practically, even those who follow the Michaber are to be stringent unless it is a case of great loss, great need, or is needed for Kavod Shabbos.[193] If a piece of cold food fell into cold milk/cheese/Issur and prior to being washed it was placed into a hot pot of meat/food, what is the law?[194] We do not view the cold food that fell its unwashed with milk/cheese/Issur as an Issur Davuk.[195] Thus, if the food in the pot contains 60x versus the milk/cheese that was not washed off, everything remains permitted, including the piece. The piece remains permitted even if one later removed it from the pot while hot.[196] [Seemingly, this applies even if cold cooked or roasted meat that is spiced or slit fell into milk/Issur[197] and then fell into a pot of hot food, and thus so long as there is 60x versus the Issur inside the pot, the food remains permitted.[198] Vetzaruch Iyun, however, regarding if the piece itself becomes permitted.]

C. Trei Mashehu:[199]

What is Trei Mashehu? Certain Issurim, such as Chametz on Pesach, forbid a mixture even if there is 1000x against it. This is called an Issur Mashehu; which means that even if there is an undetectable amount of Issur taste in the mixture it nevertheless becomes forbidden. The question is hence asked: If this mixture then fell into another mixture does the second mixture likewise become forbidden. In other words, does the first mixture become Chanan and hence any amount of it forbids another food, or do we say the first mixture does not become Chanan and it likewise does not have the ability to forbid another mixture as a Mashehu [undetectable taste] of Issur can only forbid its first mixture. The second mixture in this case is referred to as containing Trei Mashehu and hence the question is do we say Trei Mashehu has the ability to forbid or not?

The law:

• Rabbeinu Tam/Rashal:

Permitted-No Trei Mashehu: We do not say Chanan by Issur Mashehu and we do not say Trei Mashehu. Thus, in the above example the second mixture is permitted.

                                 

• Derisha:

Trei Mashehu only by Chametz/Min Bemino: By the Issur of Chametz and by mixtures of Min Bemino, we do say Trei Mashehu. Thus, in the above example, the second mixture is forbidden, and so would apply to all subsequent mixtures.

• Bach:

Trei Mashehu only by Chametz on Pesach: On Pesach we say Chametz is forbidden with Trei Mashehu however after Pesach we do not.

• Taz:

Trei Mashehu by substance of Issur: If the mixture only contains the undetectable taste of the Issur and does not contain any of the body of the Issur, such as if the Issur was removed, then we do not say Trei Mashehu and only the first mixture is forbidden. If, however, it contains also the body of the Issur, then we do say Trei Mashehu, and also the second mixture is forbidden.

• Shach:[200]

Trei Mashehu in all cases of taste: Whenever the food which contains a Mashehu became cooked with a second mixture, that second mixture becomes forbidden. This applies for all subsequent mixtures. If, however, cold solids which absorbed a Mashehu became mixed with other cold solids, we do not say Trei Mashehu and everything is permitted.

• Admur & Magen Avraham:[201]

Trei Mashehu in all cases of taste and Yaveish Beyaveish: Admur is stringent like both the Shach and the Taz. He is stringent like the Shach regarding that if the foods are cooked, we always say Trei Mashehu and he is stringent like the Taz that even by Yaveish Beyaveish we say Trei Mashehu. The following is his ruling in the Laws of Pesach 447:15-16:

• Admur-Yaveish Beyaveish:^[202]

If a minority of Chametz got mixed into a majority of Matzah, and is thus prohibited on Pesach, then if a minority of it mixed into a 2^nd batch of Matzah, then that second batch is also prohibited [as rules Taz]. However, if a minority of the 2^nd batch then mixed into a third batch, then if there is majority of Heter over Issur then one is permitted to even eat the 3^rd batch on Pesach.

• Admur-Lach Belach:^[203]

If a Mashehu of Chametz got mixed into a hot liquid food, and thus became prohibited, then if even a Mashehu of this mixture became mixed into other mixtures, it forbids all the other mixtures. This applies even if that mixture got mixed into a second mixture and a second into a third and a third into a fourth, and so on. This applies even if only a Mashehu from each mixture fell into the latter mixture, nevertheless, the mixtures are always forbidden to be eaten or benefited from, as since Chametz is prohibited in even the tiniest amount on Pesach, and there will always be some tiny amount of it in the mixtures, therefore it is always prohibited.

• Admur-A dry solid which absorbed Mashehu of Chametz on Pesach then got mixed in with other dry solids:^[204]

Even if it got mixed into 1000 solids, it prohibits the entire mixture. However there are opinions who rule that the entire mixture is permitted to be eaten if there is at least a 2:1 ratio of Kosher solids to the Chametz absorbed solid, since the forbidden piece only absorbed a Mashehu of Chametz. Practically, one may rely on this opinion in a case of great loss or a suppressing situation, however, making sure to remove one piece from the mixture.

Summary of opinions: Rabbeinu Tam/Rashal: We never say Trei Mashehu. Taz: We only say Trei Mashehu if there is body of the Issur in the mixture. Shach: We only say Trei Mashehu if it was cooked together with the second mixture. Magen Avraham/Admur: We always say Trei Mashehu. [Magen Avraham] In a case of great loss one may be lenient in a case that a solid became forbidden due to absorbing Mashehu and then became mixed with other solids. [Admur] Final Ruling: Whenever an Issur has ability to forbid a food with a Mashehu of taste, it forbids every subsequent mixture, even if the 999th mixture has now mixed with the 1000th mixture. Nevertheless, by Yaveish Beyaveish in a case that the Issur Yaveish itself was only forbidden due to absorbing a Mashehu, in a case of great loss and time of need one may be lenient.

D. A Chanan food became cooked with Heter-does the Heter become Chanan:

• If a 100-gram Kosher steak which became Chanan [i.e. Kosher meat that was cooked with milk/Issur] became cooked with 1000 grams of Kosher meat, does the meat become Chanan? If this entire mixture then mixes with 10,000 grams of Kosher meat, must the third mixture contain 60x versus the 100-gram steak, or versus the entire 1000 grams of now forbidden “Heter”?

The pot contains 60x:[205] If a Chanan piece of meat was cooked with other Kosher pieces, then if one can identify the Chanan piece, he is to remove it from the mixture, and if the mixture contains 60x the Chanan piece, everything is Kosher. If one does not recognize the Chanan piece, then if that piece is Charal [Chaticha Hareuya Lehiskabeid[206]] all the pieces in the mixture are forbidden, while the rest of the pot requires 60x the largest piece. If the Chanan piece is not Charal, then it is nullified in 1:2 as explained in detail in chapter 109.[207]

Pot does not contain 60x:[208] If a Chanan food was cooked with Kosher food, and the Kosher food does not have 60x, then the Kosher food in turn becomes Chanan.[209] [Thus, in the above example, the third mixture requires 60x versus 1000 grams of now forbidden meat [i.e. 60,000 grams], and it does not suffice to have 60x merely versus the original 100 grams of Chanan meat i.e. 6,000 grams]. However, some Poskim[210] rule that a Chanan food never has ability to make another food become Chanan, and hence in the above example, the third mixture only requires 60x versus the original 100 grams of Chanan meat, in which case everything is permitted. Practically, in a case of great loss or for the need of Shabbos, one may be lenient to measure 60x versus the original Chanan Issur.[211] [If only part of the 1000 grams of now forbidden Heter became mixed with the third pot, then in a time of great need one may measure 60x versus the estimated amount of Issur being carried by the food that fell in. Meaning, if 200 grams of meat fell in from the 1000 grams of meat, then instead of measuring 60x versus the 200 grams, or even versus the original 100 grams, one measures 60x versus 20 grams, as 200/1000 grams of meat is only carrying 20% of taste of the original Chanan Issur.[212]] 

E. Tatah Gavar by a Chanan food:[213]

• If a Kosher food which became Chanan [i.e. Kosher meat that was cooked with milk/Issur] fell onto a solid dry Heter [i.e. Kosher meat], or vice versa, and the Heter does not contain 60x the Issur, does the Heter become forbidden?

The law-Chanan of other Issurim:[214] Although in general we rule that Tatah Gavar, and if the bottom food is hot then the Kosher food becomes completely forbidden due to the Issur, this only applies if the Issur is intrinsically forbidden [i.e. Issur Machams Atzmo], such as a piece of Neveila meat. However, if the Issur is an Issur Balua [a Kosher food which absorbed forbidden taste and became forbidden] then it cannot transfer any taste without liquid unless it absorbed a fatty Issur. [Thus, in the above example, if a dry piece of meat which became Chanan due to absorbing lean Neveila gravy, fell on top of a hot dry Kosher steak, the steak remains permitted. This applies even according to the Rama who holds of Chanan by other Issurim.]

The law-Chanan of Basar Bechalav: There is a dispute amongst the Poskim as to the status of a piece of meat/cheese that has become forbidden due to Basar Bechalav, and as to whether it is viewed as an Issur Balua, or as an Issur Machams Atzmo.

• Shach:[215]

Forbidden-Issur Machmas Atzmo: When a piece of meat/cheese becomes forbidden due to Basar Bechalav, it has the status of an Issur Machmas Atzmo and the full rules of Tatah Gavar apply. [Thus, in the example given above, the Heter food requires 60x if one of the pieces are fatty.]

• Taz:[216]

Permitted-Issur Balua: When a piece of meat/cheese becomes forbidden due to Basar Bechalav it has a status of Issur Balua[217], and thus if it comes into contact with Heter, the Heter does not need 60x or even Kelipa, even if the bottom is hot, unless there is liquid in the mixture or the original Issur was fatty. [Thus, in the example given above, the Heter food remains permitted.]

4. In what type of mixtures does Chanan apply?

In the previous Halacha we explained that the application of Chanan is dependent on the type of Issur as well as the type of mixture that occurred. We already determined that the concept of Chanan applies to a food that has become forbidden due to Basar Bechalav, and according to the Rama and Ashkenazim, it also applies to other Issurim. In this Halacha we will explore which forms of mixtures cause a now forbidden food to become Chanan.

A. Keli Rishon Lach Beyaveish-Issur fell into a hot piece of Heter that is/was cooking on a fire:[218]

The classical case mixture in which Chanan applies is where a piece of Kosher food which on the fire, had a liquid Issur fall inside [i.e. milk fell onto a hot pot of meat]. The liquid and heat cause the forbidden taste to spread everywhere, and the pieces of meat thus become Chanan if they do not have 60x the milk or Issur liquid. In the coming cases, we will explore whether Chanan applies even towards liquids [i.e. the gravy of the meat, and the milk], and even in cases of mixtures where taste has not been transferred through liquid and heat of a fire [i.e. cold mixtures].

B. If Milk/Issur fell onto a piece of meat/food that is partially sticking out of gravy, does the piece become Chanan?[219]

*See Halacha 2 for the full details of this matter!

Basar Bechalav? If milk fell onto a partially submerged piece of meat/food then some Poskim[220] rule that we view the piece as if it was outside of the gravy and the entire piece becomes Chanan if it does not contain 60x the milk. Accordingly, if one then mixed it into the food, or covered the pot, prior to removing it, then the entire pot requires 60x that piece of meat. If he did not mix the pot, the pot requires 60x versus merely the milk.[221] Other Poskim[222], however, rule that we view the piece as if it was fully submerged within the gravy and the piece does not become Chanan, and in all cases the food requires 60x the milk, in which case everything is permitted. Practically, we rule like the former opinion, by all cases of [Biblical] Basar Bechalav.[223] [However, by a Rabbinical prohibition, such as chicken and milk, one may be lenient like the second opinion, that if there is 60x in the entire food versus the milk, everything remains Kosher.[224]]

Other Issurim? If Issur fell onto a partially submerged piece of food then in addition to the debate of whether we apply Chanan by other Issurim [See Halacha 3B], it is also subject to the debate mentioned above regarding if the piece is viewed as if it is outside of the gravy, or as if it is submerged within the gravy. Practically, we rule that the food does not become Chanan, although one is to be stringent to not eat the piece of food onto which the Issur fell. Thus, the remainder of the pot requires 60x only against the original Issur, even if one mixed or covered the pot prior to removing the piece. See above Halacha 3B in Rama for the full details of this matter!

 

C. Tatah Gavar-Does Chanan apply in a case of Tatah Gavar?

• An Issur [i.e. milk/Niveila meat] fell onto a solid dry Heter [i.e. Kosher meat], or vice versa, and one of the foods is hot, and the Heter does not contain 60x the Issur, does the Heter become Chanan?

In all cases that we rule that the Heter becomes completely forbidden as explained in chapter 91 Halacha 5 [i.e. the bottom food was hot and one of the foods are fatty or moist, or according to the Rama who prohibits in all cases that the bottom is hot[225]] then the Heter becomes Chanan if it does not have 60x the Issur. If, however, the Heter is only forbidden a Kelipa worth [i.e. the bottom piece was cold], then the Kelipa does not become Chanan.[226] Likewise, in all cases that the Heter is only forbidden a Netila worth [i.e. the bottom piece was hot but both pieces were lean and dry, according to the Michaber], then the Netila does not become Chanan.[227] See chapter 91 Halacha 5-6 for further details on this subject!

Tatah Gavar by an Issur Chanan food: See Halacha 5!

D. Cold mixtures of Lach Belach-Cold Issur Lach fell into cold Heter Lach:[228]

• Definition & Example: 10 milliliters of cold milk or Non-Kosher gravy fell into 100 milliliters of cold Kosher gravy. Does the mixture become Chanan? If this mixture then became cooked with other foods, must one have 60x versus the entire mixture [i.e. 60 x 110 = 6,600 milliliters] or 60x versus only the Issur gravy [i.e. 60 x 10 = 600 milliliters]?

The Dispute: There are opinions[229] who rule that although the liquid mixture becomes forbidden if it does not contain 60x the Issur, nevertheless, it does not become Chanan.[230] [Thus, if this mixture fell into other Kosher food, one would need 60x versus merely the original non-Kosher gravy [60 x 10^ml] and not versus the entire mixture which fell in [60x 110^ml]. However, other Poskim[231] rule that liquid mixtures do become Chanan, and one hence does require 60x versus the entire mixture of 110^ml.]

The Final ruling: Practically, by Lach Belach mixtures of Basar Bechalav [i.e. milk fell into meat gravy] one is to be stringent[232] even in a case of great loss [and even by Rabbinical Basar Bechalav[233]], to consider the mixture of liquids as Chanan. [Hence if 100^ml of meat gravy fell into 10ml of milk and it then fell into a pot of meat, the pot of meat would require 60x 110^ml.] However, by other non-Kosher mixtures, one may be lenient in a case of great loss to not apply the status of Chanan to liquid mixtures.[234] [Hence, in the example given above, in a case of great loss it suffices to measure 60x versus merely the 10^ml of original Treif gravy.]

If the liquids were cooked together: See next!

E. Hot mixtures of Lach/Yaveish Belach-Issur Lach/Yaveish fell into hot Heter Lach:[235]

• Definition & Example: 10 grams of milk/cheese/Issur [liquid or solid] fell into 100 milliliters of hot Kosher gravy that is on the fire. Does the mixture become Chanan? If this gravy then became cooked with other foods, must one have 60x versus the entire mixture [i.e. 60 x 110 = 6,600 milliliters] or 60x versus only the Milk/Issur [i.e. 60 x 10 = 600 milliliters]?

Some Poskim[236] rule that the above leniency [in C] to not apply the rule of Chanan by liquids, applies even if the two liquids were cooked together, and applies even if an Issur solid was cooked with a Kosher liquid, as a Kosher liquid can never become Chanan.[237] [Hence, in the above example, the second mixture only requires 60x versus the original milk/Issur.] Other Poskim[238], however, rule that the above leniency only refers to cold mixtures, in which case the taste of the Issur food has not transferred to the Heter. However, if the Issur [whether solid or liquid] falls into a hot Keli Rishon Heter liquid, then the mixture becomes Chanan if it does not contain 60x.[239] Accordingly, even in the case that an Issur and Heter liquid became mixed while cold, if one then cooked the mixture together, the entire mixture becomes Chanan even by other Issurim [according to the Rama], and even in a case of great loss. Practically, by Basar Bechalav we are stringent to consider the mixture Chanan even in a case of great loss, and even by cold Rabbinical mixtures of Lach Belach, as stated in C, and certainly here where the meat gravy and milk were cooked together. [However, by other Issurim, this matter remains non-arbitrated regarding if one can be lenient in a case of great loss even if the liquid Heter was cooked with the Issur, and one is to ask a Rav.]

F. Cold Yaveish Beyaveish [dry Issur mixed with dry Heter]:[240]

• Example: A piece of cold Neveila or Basar Bechalav meat became mixed with a piece of cold Kosher meat, and one does not know which piece is which. In such a case we rule that both pieces are forbidden due to the doubt, being that there isn’t two Kosher pieces in the mixture.[241] If both pieces then became cooked with other foods in the same pot, must one have 60x both pieces or 60x versus only the larger of the two pieces? Likewise, if the two pieces became mixed with another dry Heter, and one cannot tell which is which, is the Issur nullified 1:2?

The law: The law of Chanan is never applied to cold mixtures of Yaveish Beyaveish. [This applies by all Issurim, including Basar Bechalav.[242] Thus, in the above example, if both pieces fall into a pot of food one only requires 60x versus the largest of the pieces and not versus both pieces. Likewise, if the two pieces became mixed with another dry Heter, and one cannot tell which is which, the Issur is nullified 1:2.[243] Nonetheless, by meat that became Chanan due to milk and then became mixed with another two piece of meat, it is only nullified in majority if the two pieces contain 60x versus the original milk that it absorbed.[244]]

If the solids were cooked together: See next!

 

G. Hot Yaveish Beyaveish:[245]

• Example: A piece of Neveila/Basar Bechalav meat became mixed with a piece of Kosher meat, and the two became cooked together, or were hot [i.e. Tatah Gavar], and one does not know which is which. If both pieces then became cooked with other foods in the same pot, must one have 60x both pieces or 60x only versus the larger of the two pieces?

The law: The laws of Chanan apply by an Issur and Heter solid that were cooked together and thus transferred taste to each other. [According to the Michaber only by Basar Bechalav, and according to the Rama even by other Issurim. Thus, if in the above example one went ahead and cooked the two pieces together, and both pieces then fell into a second pot of food, one needs 60x versus both pieces.]

Q&A If Issur meat fell into a stew which contained one piece of Kosher meat, and then another piece of Kosher meat was placed inside, what is the law?[246] If the pot originally contained 60x versus the Issur meat, then everything remains Kosher, including all three pieces of meat.[247]

H. Do we say Chanan by vessels?[248]

• Example: 10^mil of milk was cooked in a meat pot that weighs 100 grams. Although is certainly forbidden to use this pot until it is Kashered, does the actual pot become Chanan? Meaning, if one went ahead and cooked meat in this pot within 24 hours of it becoming Treif, does he now need 60x in the meat versus the volume of the 100-gram pot, or would he only need 60x versus the 10^mil of original milk? The same question applies in a scenario that a Kosher pot absorbed non-kosher food.

The Halacha: We do not apply the rule of Chanan to vessels. Hence, if a vessel absorbs an Issur, any Heter food that is later cooked in it requires 60x only versus the Issur.[249] [Thus, in the above example, the meat/Heter only requires 60x versus the original 10mil of milk/Issur.] This, however, only applies if the pot was not Ben Yomo at the time that the milk/Issur was cooked in it.[250] If, however, the pot was Ben Yomo at the time that the milk/Issur was cooked in it, then we do apply Chanan to the vessel.[251] [Hence, if in the above example the pot was Ben Yomo, the meat needs to have 60x versus the volume of the 100-gram pot.] However, in a case of loss, one may be lenient by other Issurim to measure 60x versus the Issur [unless the material is made of earthenware in which case one needs a great loss].[252] See Taaruvos chapter 98 Halacha 12 [Michaber 98:5] for the full details of this matter!

I. Do we say Chanan by Melicha:[253]

• Example: If 100 grams of fatty meat fell on top of 10 grams of salted moist cheese and that meat in turn was cooked with other foods, must the food have 60x the 100 grams of meat, or does it suffice to have 60x the 10 grams of cheese.

The law: [It is disputed amongst the Poskim[254] as to whether we apply the rule of Chanan by food that became prohibited due to salting.] Practically, we are stringent to apply the rule of Chanan even to foods which became forbidden due to Melicha, although in a case of great loss one may be lenient to.[255] This leniency applies even if the pieces are fatty.[256] [In cases that the food is only forbidden a Kelipa worth due to the salt[257], then the Kelipa does not become Chanan.[258]]

J. Do we say Chanan by Kevisha:[259]

• Example: If 10 grams of meat/Issur soaked in a bowl of water together with 100 grams of cheese/Heter for 24 hours and that cheese/Heter was in turn cooked with other foods, must the food have 60x the 10 grams of meat/Issur, or does it suffice to have 60x the 100 grams of cheese/Heter?

The law: It is disputed amongst the Poskim[260] as to whether we apply the rule of Chanan by food that became prohibited due to Kevisha. Practically, the Rama is stringent on this matter. [Vetzaruch Iyun if here too one may be lenient in a case of great loss.]

Summary of Halacha 4: Kosher food/meat which became forbidden due being mixed with Issur/milk receives the status of Chanan in the following cases: 1. Keli Rishon Lach Beyaveish: If an Issur fell into a hot piece of Heter that was cooking on a fire and it does not contain 60x, the Heter becomes Chanan. 2. Piece sticking out of gravy: If Milk/Issur fell onto a piece of meat/food that is partially sticking out of gravy, then by a Biblical Issur of Basar Bechalav the piece becomes Chanan, while by other Issurim it does not become Chanan, although the piece remains forbidden. 3. Tatah Gavar: If an Issur fell onto a solid dry Heter, or vice versa, and one of the foods is hot, and the Heter does not contain 60x the Issur, then in all cases that the Heter becomes completely forbidden, it becomes Chanan. 4. Mixtures of Lach Belach: If cold Issur Lach fell into cold Heter Lach and it does not contain 60x, then by Basar Bechalav the mixture becomes Chanan, while by other Issurim we are lenient in a time of great loss to not consider it Chanan. It is questionable whether this leniency applies even if the liquids were cooked together. 5. Yaveish Beyaveish: If cold Issur Yaveish became mixed with cold Heter Yaveish the mixture does not becomes Chanan. However, if they were cooked together, the Heter piece becomes Chanan. 6. Vessels: If a Kosher vessel absorbed Issur, it does not become Chanan unless it was Ben Yomo, or made of earthenware. However, in a case of great loss one may be lenient by other Issurim. 7. Melicha: If a Kosher food absorbed the taste of a non-Kosher food through salting, then in all cases that the Kosher food becomes completely forbidden, it is considered Chanan, unless it is a case of great loss. 8. Kevisha: If a Kosher food absorbed the taste of a non-Kosher food through Kevisha, then we are stringent to consider it Chanan.

5. Milk falls on the outside wall of a pot of meat:[261]

In this Halacha, we will discuss the law in a case that a drop of milk has fallen onto the outside of a hot pot of meat that is or was on the fire. Based on the ruling of Tatah Gavar, being that the meat pot is hot, it is possible that the taste of the milk will enter into the food.[262] Thus, the general discussion in this Halacha is with regards to how the milk travels in such a case. Does the milk penetrate through the metal of the pot into the food, hence potentially forbidding it if it does not contain 60x? Does it stay locked in the metal of the pot and not travel into the food? Can it prohibit other foods cooked in this pot? Practically, we will explore various cases and scenarios, which contain a variety of opinions and accustomed stringencies. The main difference in cases is regarding if the milk fell on a covered pot, or directly near the fire [Halacha A] versus if it fell on an uncovered pot in an area that is not near the fire [Halacha B-C]. If the latter, then the Halacha is dependent on if it fell onto a lower area of the pot that contains food on that level, in its inner side [Halacha B], or if it fell on a higher area of the pot, that is above the food level in the pot [Halacha C].

Yad Soledes:[263] In all cases under discussion, it refers to a drop of milk that fell onto an area of the pot that is Yad Soledes, otherwise everything remains permitted in all cases.   

Drying the milk:[264]  In all cases, one is to dry the drop of milk as soon as it falls.

 

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

Pot on fire:[265] If a small drop of milk fell by the side of a pot of meat which is on the fire[266], then the food is permitted [even if it does not contain 60x versus the milk[267]], as the fire evaporates the drop prior to it having a chance to spread into the food. This applies whether the drop fell by food level or above food level. Furthermore, even the pot itself remains permitted.[268] [For this reason, it is permitted for the food to be poured out even immediately after the occurrence. However, some Poskim[269] rule the pot itself is initially forbidden and must be Kashered, and only Bedieved do we say that food cooked in it prior to Koshering remains permitted.] The above only applies if a small drop of milk fell on the pot. If, however, a large amount of milk fell onto the pot, then it makes no difference whether that area was near the fire or not, and the pot itself is forbidden, and carries all the laws explained in cases B-C regarding the status of the pot and food. [Likewise, the above only applies if the fire was strong enough to burn the drop of milk that fell on it, otherwise it follows the same laws explained in B-C.[270] In all cases, one is to dry the drop of milk as soon as it falls, even if it falls near the fire and will become evaporated.[271]]

Pot was covered:[272] If a drop of milk fell by the side of a hot pot of meat, and the pot was covered [at the time, or immediately after the occurrence[273]], then the food is permitted if it contains 60x the drop.[274] This applies whether the drop fell by food level or above food level, as either way, the steam has caused the milk to penetrate into the food. [This, however, only applies if the pot was hot enough to release steam, otherwise, it follows the same laws explained in B-C. Furthermore, in all cases, the pot itself remains forbidden, following the same laws explained in cases B-C.[275] Based on the above, in all cases that the drop fell above food level and the pot was uncovered, one should immediately cover the pot in order to nullify the drop and permit the food, hence avoiding entering into the nuances of cases B-C.]

                                        

B. The drop fell within food level [by area not near fire]:[276]

If a drop of milk [whether hot or cold[277]] fell onto the external wall of a pot of meat [in an area of the pot that is not directly under the fire[278]], within food level, it is considered as if it fell within the food itself, and thus the food requires 60x versus the drop of milk.[279] If it contains 60x the drop, the food is permitted.

The law of the pot:[280] In all cases, the actual pot remains forbidden even if the food in the pot  had 60x versus the drop of milk.[281] [Other Poskim[282], however, rule that if there is 60x versus the milk within the food, then from the letter of the law, the pot remains Kosher.[283] Nevertheless, even they agree that initially one may not continue cooking meat in the pot without Koshering it.[284] The practical ramification is in a case that one cooked meat in the pot while it was still Ben Yomo, prior to Koshering it. According to the former approach, if one did not Kasher the pot and cooked meat within the pot while it was still Ben Yomo, then the food requires 60x versus the drop.[285] Practically, one may be lenient in a time of great loss or great need to permit the food even if it does not have 60x the drop.[286] The above, however, only applies if the original food had 60x versus the drop of milk. If, however, the original food did not have 60x versus the milk, then according to all opinions the pot becomes Treif, and any food cooked in it while it was still Ben Yomo requires 60x versus the entire pot or the original food[287], otherwise everything is forbidden.[288]]

Pouring out the food immediately:[289] As soon as the drop of milk falls onto the pot within food level, one is required to immediately pour out the food from the opposite side of where the drop fell.[290] [Nevertheless, Bedieved if one did not do so, the food remains permitted.[291]]

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

Scenario 1: A pot which is Ben Yomo:[292]

The case: A drop of milk [whether hot or cold] fell onto the wall [whether internal or external[293]] of an [uncovered[294]] hot pot of meat above food level [in an area of the pot that is not directly under the fire[295]], and the pot was Ben Yomo from meat use. What is the law of the pot and what is the law of the food?

The definition of Ben Yomo:[296] In general, Ben Yomo refers to a pot that was used with hot meat within the past 24 hours. Thus, this case scenario refers to one who used a pot to cook meat and within 24 hours used the same pot to cook meat a second time, and a drop of milk then fell on the pot.  

The law of the pot:[297] The area of the pot where the drop fell becomes forbidden and must be Koshered.[298] [The exact area of the pot that becomes forbidden is up to 59x the circumference of the drop of milk in the area where the milk fell.[299]]

The law of the food-Letter of the law: However, from the letter of the law, the food itself remains permitted [so long as it has 60x the drop of milk[300]].[301] Nevertheless, one may not pour out the food, [even from the opposite side of where the drop fell[302]], until the food cools off.[303] [Likewise, one may not make a hole in the bottom of the pot in order to release the food.[304]] Thus, one is not to touch the food at all, and one’s only option is to wait until the food cools down below Yad Soledes, and it may then be removed.[305] [It is forbidden to pour out the food from the side that the drop fell, even if the food contains 60 x 61 times the drop in the pot.[306] However, one may pour it out from the other side, if it contains 60 x 61 times the drop. Bedieved, if one went ahead and poured out the food from the side that the drop fell, the food is forbidden unless it has 60 x 61 times the drop, in which case the food remains permitted.[307] Even in the case that it does not contain 60 x 61 times the drop, and the food becomes forbidden, we do not give the entire vessel the status of Chanan, and hence if one cooked a new food in it, one would only require 60 x 61 times the drop in the new food.[308]]

The Custom-Forbid food:[309] The above follows the letter of the law, however, the custom is to prohibit the food in the pot in all cases that the pot is Ben Yomo and the drop fell above food level.[310] [This applies even if the food contains 60x versus the drop, and one does not remove the food until after it cools down.[311] However, some Poskim[312] rule that even according to the custom, the food may be eaten after it cools down, even initially.[313] Practically, the widespread custom is to only be lenient in a case of great loss or time of need, as explained below.[314]]

Food has 3,660 times the drop:[315]  The above custom to prohibit the food only applies if the food does not contain 3,660 times the drop of milk [60x 61 drops[316]]. If, however, the food does contain 3,660 times the milk, then the food remains Kosher even according to the custom. In such a case, one is to delay pouring out the food until the food cools down.[317] [In all cases, the pot itself remains forbidden and needs to be Koshered.[318]]

Erev Shabbos or time of need, great loss:[319] In a time of need, such as Erev Shabbos [or any great need such as for the sake of guests, to prevent a great loss, or for the poor[320]], there are opinions who permit eating the food so long as it has 60x versus the drop of milk in the food.[321] Practically, so is the custom.[322] In such a case, one is nevertheless required to wait until the food cools down prior to pouring it out. If, however, one needs the food right away, such as if guests are waiting, then one may pour the food from the other side of the pot.[323] In all cases, the pot itself remains forbidden and needs to be Koshered.[324]

Scenario 2: If the pot is not Ben Yomo:[325]

If a drop of milk [whether hot or cold] fell onto the wall [whether internal or external] of an [uncovered[326]] hot pot of meat [in an area of the pot that is not directly under the fire[327]], above food level, then if the pot is new [or is not Ben Yomo[328]] then the area where the drop fell does not become forbidden/Chanan.[329] Accordingly, the food remains permitted. [This applies even according to the above-mentioned custom in the previous scenario.[330] However, seemingly the pot itself becomes forbidden to be used until it is Koshered.[331]]

Pouring out the food: If one pours out the hot food from the side where the drop fell, the food is forbidden unless it contains 60x the drop of milk. Thus, Lechatchilah one may never pour the food out from the pot until it cools down, even if it contains 60x the drop.[332]

Summary & Final Ruling: Pot on the fire: If a drop of milk fell onto the external wall of a pot of meat that is near the fire and it was a mere drop of milk, then if the fire is strong enough to evaporate the milk, the food is permitted while the pot is to be Koshered. If, however, a large amount of milk fell, then it follows the same laws as the coming cases. Pot is covered: If a drop of milk fell onto the external wall of a pot of meat that is covered and is hot enough to release steam, then the is permitted if it contains 60x the drop while the pot is forbidden. This applies irrelevant to where the drop fell and irrelevant of how much fell. Fell within food level: If the hot pot of meat was off the fire, or was on the fire but a large amount of milk spilled onto it and it was uncovered, then if a drop of milk fell onto the external wall of the pot, within food level, the food is permitted if it contains 60x the milk while the pot is forbidden and must be Koshered. In such a case one is to immediately remove the food from the pot. Fell above food level-Pot is Ben Yomo: If in the above case the drop fell above food level, then if the pot was used with meat within 24 hours, the pot is forbidden. Regarding the food, one is to wait until the food cools down prior to removing it. If the food contains 3,660x the drop of milk, the food is permitted while the pot must be Koshered. If it only contains 60x the milk, the custom is to forbid the food even after it cools down. However, one may be lenient to permit the food in a time of need such as on Erev Shabbos, a case of great loss, for the need of guests, or if one is poor. In such a case one must wait until the food cools down prior to touching it. Fell above food level-Pot is not Ben Yomo: If in the above case the pot was not used for meat within the past 24 hours, the [pot is forbidden although the] food is permitted and one is to wait for it to cool down prior to removing it.                                    The final ruling is dependent on the following factors: 1. Was the pot on the fire? If yes then how much milk spilled?[333] 2. Was the pot covered while on the fire?[334] 3. Did the drop fall within food level? 4. Did the drop fall above food level? If yes, then has the pot been used within the past 24 hours for meat? One sentence summary: The food in the pot is always permitted if it contains 60x the drop of milk unless it fell above food level, and was not on the fire, and the pot was uncovered, and the pot was Ben Yomo, in which case we require the food to contain 3,660x the milk, unless it is a time of great need. The pot itself is always forbidden in all cases.   Q&A What is the law if the milk spilled onto the counter and eventually touched the bottom of the hot Keli Rishon pot? If milk spilled onto a surface and the milk flowed under the pot and hit the bottom of the pot [and not its side], then the pot is forbidden while the food remains permitted.[335] This, however, only applies if the surface area under the pot is not Yad Soledes, otherwise the milk is considered like it is hot and everything is forbidden unless there is 60x.[336]   Is the cover forbidden when milk spilled on the walls of the pot?[337] No. The cover always remains permitted. If one is in doubt as to whether the food contains 60x or 3,660 times versus the drop of milk, what is the law?[338] In all cases that the food requires 60x or 3,660 times the drop of milk and one is unsure as to if it contains this amount, one may be lenient to permit the food.[339]   Q&A on Pareve If milk or meat splashed onto the side of a Pareve water heater, does it remain Pareve?[340] Some Poskim[341] rule it becomes meaty/dairy and should not be used for any of the two foods until it is Koshered.[342] Other Poskim[343] rule the vessel remains Pareve.[344] Practically, it is best to Kasher it by pouring boiling water over the area of the splash.[345] At the very least one is to wait 24 hours prior to using it for water a second time, if he plans to drink the water with the opposite food.[346] If, however, a large amount of meat or dairy spilled on it, then it is to be completely Koshered to return to its Pareve state.[347] If milk fell on the side of a meat pot with Pareve cooking inside and one then cooked meat in it within 24 hours, what is the law of the food and the pot? Not Ben Yomo: If the meat pot was not Ben Yomo at the time that the milk fell, and the milk fell within food level, then although it is initially forbidden to cook meat in it [until it is Koshered], if one did so, the meat remains permitted even if it was cooked within 24 hours of the milk. This applies even if the Pareve food did not contain 60x the milk.[348] If, however, the milk fell above food level of the Pareve food, then the meat requires 60x versus the drop of milk for it to remain permitted.[349] Ben Yomo:[350] If the meat pot was Ben Yomo of meat at the time that the milk fell, then if the milk fell within the food level of the Pareve food, and the Pareve food did not contain 60x the drop, the food and pot is forbidden and if one cooked food in it within 24 hours, everything is forbidden. If the drop fell above the food level, then the pot is forbidden and status of the Pareve food follows the same status as Halacha C scenario 1. If one cooked food in it within 24 hours, the food is forbidden.

 

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

See Halacha 8!

 

6. Milk fell on the cover of a meat pot:[351]

• Rama:[352]

Pot reached a boil: If milk fell onto the cover of a hot pot of meat, then if the pot had begun to boil and thus released steam, it is considered as if the drop fell onto the side of the pot within food level[353] [as explained in Halacha 5B, in which we ruled that the food in the pot requires 60x the milk, in which case the food and the pot[354] remain Kosher. However, in all cases, the cover itself is forbidden.[355]]

Pot did not reach boil:[356] If milk fell onto the cover of a pot that is on the fire and the pot had not yet reached a boil [and has yet to begin releasing steam], then the food [and pot[357]] remains completely permitted even without 60x versus the milk.[358] However, the cover itself is forbidden if it was Yad Soledes when the milk fell on it.[359] If the cover was not Yad Soledes, then it requires a mere rinsing.[360]

• Maharshal; Taz:[361]

The Rashal rules in all cases the cover of the pot becomes Chanan if the cover does not have 60x the drop, and hence in such a case the food requires 60x the pot cover. The Taz sides with the Maharshal, as it’s possible that the food did not begin steaming until some time passed after the drop fell, thus giving the cover enough time to become Chanan. The Taz concludes that by a Biblical Issur of Basar Bechalav one is to be stringent, while by a Rabbinical Issur one may be lenient like the Rama.

Compilation & Final Ruling: Pot reached a boil: If milk fell onto the cover of a hot pot of meat, then if the pot had reached a boil and begun releasing steam, then some Poskim[362] rule it is considered as if the drop fell into the actual food and the food requires 60x the drop.[363] [If the food contains 60x the milk, then both the food and pot remain Kosher. However, the cover itself is forbidden in all cases.[364]] Other Poskim[365], however, rule that the cover requires 60x the milk, and if it does not contain 60x the milk, then the food requires 60x versus the entire cover.[366] Practically, by a Biblical prohibition of Basar Bechalav one is to be stringent like the later opinion, while by a Rabbinical prohibition one may be lenient like the former opinion.[367] Likewise, in a case of great loss, or time of need, one may be lenient like the former opinion even by a Biblical prohibition of Basar Bechalav.[368] Pot did not reach boil:[369] If milk fell onto the cover of a pot that is on the fire and the pot had not yet reached a boil [and has yet to begin releasing steam], then the food [and pot[370]] remains completely permitted even without 60x versus the milk.[371] However, the cover itself is forbidden if it was Yad Soledes when the milk fell on it.[372] If the cover was not Yad Soledes, then it requires a mere rinsing.[373]   Q&A What is the law if one cooked using the forbidden cover prior to Koshering it?[374] If one used the forbidden cover for cooking another food within 24 hours of it becoming forbidden due to the milk, then the food requires 60x the entire cover, and not merely versus the drop of milk.[375] This applies whether the food is meat, dairy or Pareve. If, however, one removed and replaced the cover onto the same pot of food that it was sitting on when the milk fell, then the food continues to only require 60x the milk, as it did originally.[376]

 

Keli Sheiyni

7. A hot/cold meat pot that was placed on top of hot/cold milk or cheese:[377]

Pot is very hot:[378] If a very hot pot of meat which was just removed from the fire was placed on top of spilled milk [or cheese], the food in the pot requires 60x versus the milk [that is directly under the pot[379]]. If it does not contain 60x the milk, then both the pot and the food are forbidden. This applies even if the spilled milk was cold.[380]

Pot is hot:[381] If a hot [but not very hot] pot of meat [which came off the fire some time ago] was placed on top of spilled milk [or cheese[382]], then the pot is forbidden, while the food remains Kosher. This applies whether the spilled milk was hot[383] or cold.[384] [The status of the milk is debated amongst the Poskim, as explained in Chapter 91 Halacha 6. If, however, the dairy was cheese, the cheese is forbidden a Kelipa’s worth.[385] Furthermore, if the cheese was hot, some Poskim rule that even the food is forbidden, as explained in the Q&A! Bedieved, if one cooked in this pot prior to Koshering it, everything remains permitted even if one does not have 60x a peels worth of the pot.[386]]

Cold pot-Hot spilled milk:[387] If hot Keli Rishon milk spilled onto a table/counter, and a cold pot of meat was placed on top of it, the food and pot remain permitted.[388] [Regarding hot cheese-see Q&A!]

Milk spilled on top of a hot stove:[389] If milk spilled on a hot Yad Soledes stove top which contains a lit fire [i.e. electric stove], and one then placed a pot of meat on top of the milk, the food in the pot requires 60x the milk. If it does not contain 60x the milk, everything is forbidden. This applies even if the meat pot was cold.[390]

Summary: If a pot of meat was placed on top of spilled milk, then if the pot was cold, everything remains permitted even if the spilled milk was hot. If the pot was hot, the pot is forbidden while the food is permitted, unless the pot was very hot [having just been removed from the fire], in which case everything is forbidden unless it contains 60x the milk. If milk spilled on a hot area, such as a stove top, then anything which is placed on it requires 60x the milk.   The law if the milk spilled in a dirty area:[391] If milk spilled in a dirty area, such as a stove top surface or oven floor which is laden with ash, and one then placed a meat pot on top of it, then if the milk became inedible due to the ash, the food remains permitted even if the pot and milk were hot from a Keli Rishon, and the flame was on.[392] What is the law if a pot of cold meat was placed on top of hot cheese?[393] If a hot or cold pot of meat was placed on top of hot cheese[394] [such as if there was leftover cheese on the counter] then the pot and food are forbidden unless it contains 60x the cheese, while the cheese is also forbidden.[395] What is the law if a meat pot was placed on dairy counter? Cold: If a cold meat pot was placed on a counter that contained cheese, or vice versa, then everything remains Kosher and the pot is to be rinsed with cold water. Pot is hot and counter is dirty: If the pot was hot when it was placed on the cheese, then the pot becomes forbidden and requires Koshering, although the food that is inside the pot remains Kosher.[396] Counter clean but wet: If the counter was clean but wet, then that area of the counter becomes Treif and requires Koshering.[397] The pot and food, however, remain permitted unless one knows that this area of the counter absorbed hot dairy within the past 24 hours and the counter was wet.[398] Counter is clean and dry:[399] If the counter and bottom of the meat pot is clean and dry then everything remains permitted in all cases.[400]

Iruiy Keli Rishon

8. Hot/cold Milk spilled onto the counter and eventually touched a hot/cold pot of meat:[401]

Milk spilled onto a hot pot of meat:[402] If milk spilled onto a surface and eventually hit a hot Keli Rishon pot of meat [either on its cover from on top[403] or from the sides[404] within food level[405]] then both the pot and the food are forbidden unless there is 60x in the food versus the milk [that is in directly contact with the pot[406]]. This applies even if the milk is cold and the hot meat pot has already been taken off the fire.[407] [This, however, only applies if the milk hit the top or sides of the pot. If, however, the milk flowed under the pot and hit the bottom of the pot, then the pot is forbidden while the food remains permitted.[408] This, however, only applies if the surface area under the pot is not Yad Soledes, otherwise the milk is considered like it is hot and everything is forbidden unless there is 60x.[409]]

Hot Keli Rishon milk spilled onto a cold pot of meat:[410] If hot milk from a Keli Rishon spilled onto a surface and eventually flowed onto a pot of cold meat, then if the stream broke from its origin by the time it hit the meat [i.e. Nifsak Hakiluach], the milk is considered a Keli Sheini and everything is permitted.[411] [See Q&A regarding a case that the drop fell directly from the pot onto the meat!] If, however, the stream of milk was still attached to the hot milk pot when it hit the meat pot [i.e. Lo Nifsak Hakiluach] then the pot is forbidden [a Kelipa’s worth[412]], while the food remains permitted.[413] If, however, the milk which spilled from the Keli Rishon was not Yad Soledes by the time it reached the meat pot, everything remains permitted.

Hot Cheilev which dripped onto a vessel:[414] If [edible[415]] Cheilev [i.e. forbidden fat] dripped from a congealed wax Cheilev candle onto a vessel, one is to scrape vessel material off the surface of the vessel[416] [i.e. Greida; sandpaper], and the vessel remains Kosher.[417] If, however, Cheilev dripped from the flame of a liquid Cheilev candle, the vessel needs to be Kashered.[418] [This, however, only applies if the Cheilev fell from near the wick/flame. If, however, it fell from an area of the candle that is distanced from the wick/flame, then it does not have ability to prohibit a Kelipa worth of the vessel.[419] Likewise, if Cheliev was heated in a pot over the fire, and a drop fell onto a cold Kosher vessel, the vessel requires a mere scraping, as explained above.[420]]

Summary: Spilled on top or by side within food level: If milk spilled onto the top or side of a pot of meat, within food level, then if the meat was hot, the food requires 60x versus the milk. If the pot was cold but the milk was hot, then the pot is forbidden while the food is permitted. If the hot milk was Nifsak Hakiluach by the time it hit the pot of meat, then if it fell directly from the pot of milk onto the pot of meat it is disputed as to whether the pot is permitted or forbidden, as explained in the Q&A. If, however, it fell onto a surface and eventually flowed onto the meat pot, then if it was Nifsak Hakilauch, everything is permitted. Spilled by side above food level: See Halacha 5C! Spilled under pot: If milk spilled under a pot of meat, then if the meat pot is hot, the food requires 60x versus the milk. If the meat pot is cold, then it depends on whether Nifsak Hakilauch, as explained above.   Q&A If milk spilled but one is unsure if it reached the meat pot, what is the law?[421] The food is permitted.[422] This applies even if both the milk and the pot were hot and sitting on the fire.   What is the law if a drop of hot milk or chicken soup spritzed onto a cold dairy/meaty vessel or food? If one removed a hot pot of Issur or meat from the fire, and while moving it, a single drop flew/spritzed onto a cold Kosher/dairy food or pot, then if by the time the drop hit the pot it was no longer Yad Soledes, everything remains permitted. If, however, the drop was Yad Soledes by the time it hit the food or pot, then its law is subject to a debate brought in Poskim regarding the status of Nifsak Hakiluach.[423] Some Poskim[424] rule that if the drop fell on a food, the food requires 60x the drop. Likewise, if it fell on a vessel, the vessel needs to be Kashered.[425] Other Poskim[426] rule that if the drop fell on a food, the food would require 60x the drop, and if it fell on a vessel, the vessel is Kosher. Other Poskim[427] rule that whether the drop fell on a food or vessel everything remains Kosher. [Practically, regarding Basar Bechalav, one may be lenient to use the vessel after 24 hours.[428]] Davar Gush-A solid item that fell:[429] The above dispute and subsequent ruling is only applicable in a case that a drop of liquid fell out of a Keli Rishon pot, onto a food or vessel. If, however, a hot Yad Soledes solid fell onto it, then the above dispute is not relevant, and it would follow the classical rule of Tatah Gavar which prohibits the food or vessel a peels worth. [Thus, if a piece of hot meat fell onto a dairy vessel, or a piece of hot cheese dripped onto a meat vessel, the vessel must be Kashered.]

9. Baking meat and milk in the same oven:[430]

The subject of baking Kosher foods in a non-Kosher oven, or baking dairy in a meat oven or vice versa, is discussed in chapter 108 and contains many different aspects of worry. These include 1) Reicha, or the smell of an Issur penetrating the Heter. 2) Zeiah, which is the vapor of an issur penetrating a Heter.[431] 3) Mamashus, which is having the Kosher food contact the non-kosher food that is in the oven and hence receive forbidden taste. Chapter 108 deals mainly with the first concern regarding Reicha/smell, and defines in which situations it is problematic and in which it is not. The concern of Zeiah and Mamashus is the main subject of this Halacha, although is also briefly discussed in chapter 108. This Halacha found in the Rama, and based on the Rosh, innovates or emphasizes the Kashrus concern found in the vapor of a food and how vapor is treated as actual food itself. The case in discussion here refers to a scenario in which there is no other concern of Reicha or Zeiah or Mamashus, other than the concern to be discussed below. This can only be accomplished in the types of ovens that existed in previous times which were very large in size and/or contained a large hole [the size of a pot] which allowed the vapor to escape. These typical medieval ovens did not contain a Zeiah concern as they were too large[432], or had a wide-open vent which released the vapor, and their only concern was that of Reicha. However, our ovens today which are a small closed off box, contain a serious Kashrus concern of Zeiah upon the vapor of the food hitting the ceiling of the oven.[433] Thus, for practical purposes, when the Shulchan Aruch discusses baking Kosher/meat foods in a non-Kosher/dairy oven, it refers to the medieval ovens.

                                                       

A. Baking meat and milk in oven simultaneously-One under the other:[434]

Lechatchilah:[435] One is initially to avoid baking milk and meat simultaneously in the same oven in all cases, [even if they are covered and no steam is being released or the steam will not be Yad Soledes by the time it hits the other pot]. Thus, the following discussion is only with regards to Bedieved.

Bottom pot covered:[436] If dairy and meat foods were baked simultaneously in the same oven [of medieval times], with one of the foods, such as the milk, on the bottom rack and the other, such as the meat, on the top rack, then if the bottom milk pot is covered, everything remains permitted.[437] [This applies even if the dairy and meat pot were sitting one on top of the other and were both very hot, so long as the area of contact remains dry.[438] If, however, the dairy bottom pot was uncovered while the top pot was covered, everything is forbidden, as explained next.[439]]

Bottom pot not covered:[440] If the bottom milk pot of food was not covered[441], then the meat food which is sitting on the top rack requires 60x versus the dairy food[442], otherwise it is forbidden.[443] [However, even in the event that it contains 60x, the meat pot remains forbidden.[444] Furthermore, even the dairy food and pot become forbidden.[445] Other Poskim[446], however, rule that the dairy food and pot remain Kosher.[447] If the oven is so enflamed that the vapor becomes immediately burnt by the fire upon touching the meat pot, then everything, even the meat pot, remains permitted.[448]]

Bottom pot not covered-Steam is cold:[449] If the steam of milk is no longer Yad Soledes by the time it contacts the bottom of the meat pot which is sitting on the upper rack, such as when the two pots are sufficiently distanced from each other, then everything remains Kosher. [This, however, only applies if the meat pot is cold. If, however, the upper meat pot is Yad Soledes, then the milk steam prohibits the meat food and pot even if the steam itself is no longer Yad Soledes by the time it reaches it.[450]]

Cooking meat and dairy simultaneously side by side:[451] If one cooked meat and dairy foods, or Issur and Heter, next to each other in the same medieval oven, then [if the pots were dry[452]] they are both permitted even if they were both uncovered, and released steam, and even if the pots were touching each other.[453]

Today’s ovens: As explained in the introduction, modern ovens today contain a Zeiah prohibition even if the two foods are side by side, and not under one another. Accordingly, it is forbidden to cook meat and milk, or Issur and Heter, simultaneously in the same oven, unless both foods are properly covered to the point that they will not release vapor.[454] Likewise, the oven must be cleaned beforehand from any leftover meat or dairy or Issur substance [unless the food is doubly wrapped[455]].[456] See our corresponding Sefer “The Practical Laws of Basar Bechalav” Chapter 7 for the full details of this subject!

           

B. Baking one after the other:

Baking in a pot on the floor of the oven:[457]  If meat was cooked in a pot within a [medieval] dairy oven, or vice versa, then although the meat pot is resting on a dairy surface, nevertheless, if the oven surface is clean from any residue of dairy [and both the pot and surface are dry[458]], everything remains Kosher. This applies even if the surface had a dairy food directly baked on it within 24 hours, and it had thus absorbed milk.[459] [Nonetheless, this only applies if one verified beforehand that the surface of the oven was clean of residue.[460] Practically, it is proper to initially avoid baking meat in a dairy oven, even if the surface area is clean, if the matter is not necessary.[461]]

Baking directly on the floor of the oven?[462] It is forbidden to rest and bake dairy products directly on the surface of a meat oven [without a pot, tinfoil, etc] if gravy of meat at times spills on the surface of the oven, unless the oven is Kashered through performing Libun Gamur.

Today’s ovens:[463] As explained in the introduction, modern ovens today contain a Zeiah prohibition. Accordingly, the roof and walls of an oven are saturated with taste of the foods cooked in it and receive a meat/milk/Issur status similar to that of a meat/dairy/Issur pot. Thus, it is forbidden to cook uncovered meat in a dairy oven or vice versa, or cook uncovered Heter in an Issur oven, unless the oven was Koshered beforehand. If, however the meat/dairy/Heter which is now being cooked in the oven is covered to the point that it will not release vapor, then [in a time of need[464]] it is permitted to be cooked in a dairy/meat/Issur oven, so long as it is clean from any leftover meat/dairy/Issur substance and the pot and surface area are dry.[465] See our corresponding Sefer “The Practical Laws of Basar Bechalav” Chapter 7 for the full details of this subject!

C. Cooking meat and dairy on the same stove top:[466]

If one cooked meat and dairy foods, or Issur and Heter, next to each other on the same stove top, then [if the pots were dry[467]] they are both permitted even if they were both uncovered, and released steam, and even if the pots were touching each other.[468] [Nonetheless, initially, one is to avoid doing so.[469]]

Using the same grates for meat and milk, Issur and Heter:[470] Based on the above ruling [here and in B], it is permitted to cook meat and milk on the same grates, so long as the grates are clean of any residue and the pots and grates are dry. Likewise, Kosher food may be cooked on non-Kosher grates so long as the above conditions are fulfilled. Nonetheless, it is proper to initially avoid doing so, even if the surface area is dry and clean, if the matter is not necessary.[471] See our corresponding Sefer “The Practical Laws of Basar Bechalav” Chapter 7 for the full details of this subject!

Q&A What is the law if a Ben Yomo dairy pot baked in an oven simultaneously under a meat pot? Empty dairy pot:[472] If an empty Ben Yomo dairy pot baked in an oven simultaneously under a meat pot, the meat remains permitted.[473] Dairy pot contained Pareve food:[474] If a Ben Yomo dairy pot which contained Pareve food, such as water, baked in an oven simultaneously under a meat pot, the meat pot remains permitted.[475] [However, seemingly according to Admur, the food is forbidden.[476]] Issur pot contained Kosher food:[477] If a Ben Yomo non-Kosher pot which contained Kosher food, such as water, baked in an oven simultaneously under a Kosher pot, the Kosher pot is forbidden.[478]   What is the law if meat was hung over a boiling pot of milk? If meat was hung over a boiling pot of milk and received milk vapor, then if the vapor was Yad Soledes upon hitting the meat, both the milk and meat are forbidden.[479] If, however, the meat is a great distance from the milk, and there is no worry that [hot] vapor has hit it, then everything remains permitted and so is the custom to do so even initially when hanging meat to dry.[480] Nonetheless, if cold vapor did hit the meat, then it must be washed prior to use, and may only initially be done if it is common to wash the food. If one did not wash the meat and already cooked it, then the food is forbidden.[481] By today’s modern ovens, what is the law if the bottom dairy food was covered while the top meat food was not?[482] Being that today’s ovens contain a vapor prohibition, if any of the foods are uncovered, possibly both foods become prohibited.   What is the law if one cooked dairy on a meat stove top grate which was dirty or wet? If one cooked a dairy pot of food on grates that were visibly dirty from meat, the pot and its content are forbidden unless the food contains 60x versus the meat residue, in which case the food is permitted while the pot must be Koshered.[483] If the grates were clean but wet, or the bottom of the pot was wet, then if the grates had not had meat cooked on them in the past 24 hours, the dairy food and pot remains permitted. Furthermore, even if meat was cooked on the grate within the past 24 hours, the food is permitted if one does not know for certain that meat food spilled on it within the past 24 hours.[484] If, however, one knows for certain that meat spilled on it within the past 24 hours, then even if it is now clean, some Poskim[485] rule the food is forbidden. Do all food products release vapor, whether liquid or solid? Some Poskim[486] rule that all food products release vapor, whether liquid or solid. Other Poskim[487] rule that all dry foods that do not contain liquid or gravy [such as dough kneaded with milk] do not release a forbidden form of vapor[488] [and hence if they were baked even uncovered in a clean Issur/meat oven, or baked under meaty in a medieval oven, everything remains permitted]. Practically, if one sees that the food gave off vapor, then one is to be stringent even according to this opinion.[489]   Using the same microwave for meat/milk: See our corresponding Sefer “The Practical Laws of Basar Bechalav” Chapter 7 for the full details of this subject!

10. The status of a ladle or serving spoon:[490]

In this chapter we were introduced with the concept of a Keli Rishon versus a Keli Sheiyni in regard to its ability to prohibit a food.[491] The following will discuss the status of a ladle, or serving spoon that is plunged into a Keli Rishon for the sake of serving. What is the status of the food in the ladle, and the food that is poured out of the ladle. Is it considered a Keli Sheiyni, of which some Poskim rule that it cannot transfer taste, and thus pouring from it is considered Iruiy Keli Sheiyni of which we rule that it cannot transfer taste? Or, since it was plunged into the Keli Rishon, it has the status of a Keli Rishon, and hence one who pours from it prohibits a Kelipa of the food. These ramifications relate also to the laws of Shabbos regarding the Bishul prohibition.

The opinions:   

• Maharil:[492]

If the vessel remained within the Keli Rishon until it began to boil, then the vessel is considered a Keli Rishon.  If it was removed before the food reached a boil, it is considered a Keli Sheiyni. 

• Taz:[493]

If when one removed the spoon from the food, the spoon was empty of food, it is considered a Keli Sheiyni. If it contained food it is considered a Keli Rishon.

 

Compilation & Final Ruling (Regarding Issur and Shabbos) What is the law of a food which is removed with a ladle from a Keli Rishon?[494] The food in the ladle: If the ladle stayed in the pot enough time for the food to boil then it has the status of Iruiy Keli Rishon.[495] If the ladle has sat in the Keli Rishon for some time, but not to this extent, then it is questionable as to whether it is considered a Keli Rishon, and one is to be stringent that the food that is in it has the same law as a Keli Rishon.[496] If one removed it immediately after entering, it is considered a Keli Sheiyni.[497] Pouring from the ladle onto other food: If the ladle stayed in the pot enough time for the food to boil then it has the status of Iruiy Keli Rishon.[498] If it did not stay this amount of time but was not immediately removed, then this matter is disputed amongst Poskim. Some Poskim[499] rule it is considered like Iruiy Keli Rishon due to doubt. Other Poskim[500] rule it is considered Iruiy Keli Sheini. Practically, one should be stringent to consider it like Iruiy Keli Rishon. If the ladle was removed immediately after being inserted into the Keli Rishon then it has the status of the pouring of a Keli Sheiyni, as stated above. If the food was poured from the ladle into an empty vessel, does that vessel have the status of a Keli Shelishi?[501] According to all, the bowl has the status of a Keli Shelishi.

_____________________________________

[1] See Rashal Gid Hanashe 42 and Issur Viheter Shelo 65; Bach 94; Noda Beyehuda Tinyana Y.D. 16; Chochmas Adam 46:6; Zivcheiy Tzedek 94:2; Kaf Hachaim 94:3

[2] Tashbeitz 4 Chut Hameshulash 42; Erech Hashulchan 94:3; Zivcheiy Tzedek 94:5; Kaf Hachaim 94:5; This is unlike the ruling of Beis Yehuda Y.D. 1:41 who rules that we do not believe a woman. [Poskim ibid]

[3] See dispute in Poskim brought in Chapter 94 Halacha 1B regarding if a Rav must inquire regarding if a spoon was inserted twice; See Rama 99:5 that the custom is for the Rav not to inquire if more Heter was added after the Issur fell in

[4] Michaber and Rama 92:1

[5] Michaber 98:1; Michaber and Rama 92:1 regarding if the meat remained in the milk for some time.

[6] The reason: Everyone agrees, including the Michaber, that one needs to measure 60x, as it is simply not possible for a gentile to taste the Issur as it has the same taste as the Heter.

[7] Recorded in Taz 92:1; Tur 92:1

^[8]  Michaber 92:1; 98:1

[9] Shach 92:1; Beis Yosef as explained in Shach 98:2; Taz 98:2

[10] A casual statement of the gentile which is said without knowledge of the ramifications of his statement.

[11] Michaber 92:2

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

[13] Shulchan Gavoa 92:3; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:2; Ben Ish Chaiy 92:1; Kaf Hachaim 92:2; 93:1

[14] Maharshag 3:34; See Rav Poalim 1:9

[15] Maharsham 3:377

[16] Maharsham ibid

[17] Michaber 92:1

[18] Taz 92:1; Kneses Hagedola 92:1; Peri Toar 92:1; Lechem hapanim 92:1; Shulchan Gavoa 92:1; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:1; Kaf Hachaim 92:1

[19] If the meat was removed while the milk was still boiling, then the meat is unable to expel its newly absorbed milk taste back into the milk, and hence a gentile can ascertain whether it contains the taste of meat and is hence forbidden or not. [Michaber ibid] See Admur 452:18; Piskeiy Admur p. 129

[20] The reason: As it is impossible to differentiate between the Treif milk and Kosher milk being they are both the same taste.

[21] Kaf Hachaim 92:3

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

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

[23] Rama 99:5

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

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

Background: The Michaber 99:6 rules one may always add to a Rabbinical Issur; However see Taz 98:5 that chicken with milk has the same status as meat with milk which is Biblical, and hence, accordingly, it would be forbidden to add food to the mixture. Furthermore see Shach 99:9 that even according to the Michaber this allowance to add Heter only applies by a mixture that does not become Chanan, and since Basar Bechalav is Chanan perhaps the allowance would not apply even by chicken and milk which is a Rabbinical Chanan. Practically some Poskim rule that we apply the rule of Chanan by all Basar Bechalav mixtures, even of Rabbinical nature, even according to the Michaber. [Erech Hashulchan 92:6; Koheles Yehuda 92:4 that so is the opinion of the Besi Yosef in chapter 100] Other Poskim however rule that the rule of Chanan does not apply by any Rabbinical mixture, even of Basar Bechalav, and hence according to the Michaber one may even initially add more food to the mixture to attain 60x versus the milk. [Rambam Machalos Assuros 15; Peri Chadash 92:17; Peri Toar 99:11] The Kaf Hachaim ibid concludes that practically even those that follow the Michaber are to be stringent unless it is a case of great loss, great need, or is needed for Kavod Shabbos.

[25] 92:2

[26] Rashi ibid

[27] See Rashi and Tosfos Chulin ibid, as brought in Tur 92 and explained in Beis Yosef 92

[28] The Tur ibid writes that this is the opinion of Rashi. The Beis Yosef ibid however explains that in truth this understanding is not explicitly written in Rashi but can be understood from his commentary.

[29] 92:2

[30] Rama 92:22 “Others argue that mixing does not help”; Shach 92:8 and Taz 92:6 explain that the Rama is also be referring to the case that milk fell into the gravy and not just to the case that it has fallen onto a piece protruding from the gravy as is implied from the Rama; Tur 92

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

[32] Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:5; Kaf Hachaim 92:6

[33] Rambam Machalos Assuros 9:10

[34] Tur 92

[35] Michaber 92:2; Beis Yosef 92

[36] See Beis Yosef ibid

[37] Rama 92:2 as explained in Shach 92:8 and Taz 92:6

[38] Tur ibid

[39] Bach 92:6

[40] The Bach rules those pieces which are above the gravy do not join to nullify the milk unless they are fully submerged within the gravy. See P”M 92 M.Z. 2 brought above regarding the ramification between Rashi and Riy.

[41] The Bach ibid uses a rather sharp tone against the Rama’s gloss on the Michaber, saying “Veshareiy Lei Mareiy Leharav Behagahs Hahsulchan Aruch..”

[42] Shach 92:8

[43] Taz 92:6

[44] Yad Avraham 92:2

[45] Michaber 92:2; Bach 92

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

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

[48] Yad Avraham 92:2

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

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

[51] Michaber 92:2

[52] Michaber ibid

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

[54] Taz 92:4; Mahari Chaviv

[55] Taz 92:6 in his explanation of the Rambam/Michaber.

[56] Shach 92:5

[57] As explains Taz 92:6 to be the understanding of the Tur in the Rambam

[58] Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:6; Kaf Hachaim 92:7

[59] Rama 92:2; Tur 92; Mahariy Chaviv in explanation of Rambam ibid [brought in Shach 92:8]

[60] Shach 92:5

[61] Taz 92:4

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

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

[64] 3-4 times. [Poskim in next footnote]

[65] Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:6; Kaf Hachaim 92:7

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

[67] Brought in Tur 92; Beis Yosef 92; Taz 92:2; Shach 92:4; P”M 92 M”Z 2; Kaf Hachaim 92:5

[68] Implication of Rashi on Mishneh Chulin 108a [The Tur ibid writes that this is the opinion of Rashi. The Beis Yosef ibid however explains that in truth this understanding is not explicitly written in Rashi but can be understood from his commentary]; Baal Haittur Shaar 1:16, brought in Tur ibid; Rambam, as understood by Taz 92:2; Rashba and Rabbeinu Yerucham, brought in Shach ibid

[69] The reason: As the milk taste that has penetrated the piece of meat/food does not dissipate into the area that is submerged within the gravy, and hence no other food in the pot can join its nullification of the milk in 60x. [See Darkei Moshe 92:2; Bach 92:6]

[70] Taz  92:2; Opinion in Darkei Moshe 92:2; Ran Chulin 43; Maggid Mishneh Machalos Assuros 9:8

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

[72] Tosfos Chulin 108a

[73] The reason: As the milk taste that has penetrated the piece of meat/food dissipates into the area that is submerged within the gravy, and from there it dissipates to the entire food in the pot. [See Shach 92:4; Darkei Moshe 92:2; Bach 92:6]

[74] Michaber 92:2

[75] The reason: The reason the Michaber requires the piece to contain 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 removed and does not require 60x], is because a) There are opinions who hold that milk is a fatty substance which transfers taste into the entire piece. Or b) The liquid gravy in the stew causes the milk taste to spread throughout the entire piece. or c) The case in discussion is referring to a piece of fatty meat. [Shach 92:3; Taz 92:3; Rashal; Kaf Hachaim 92:4] According to the Rama, all pieces of meat are considered fatty and thus he always requires 60x by any case of Issur falling on Heter meat.

[76] Taz 92:2 that “from the words of the Michaber and Rambam it appears to me that they are ruling like Rashi”; Implication of Rama 92:2 who rules like the stringency of the Riy, thus understanding the Michaber’s case to be referring to that the food was partially submerged in the gravy.

Background: In truth it is not clear whether the Michaber is referring here to a case that the meat is partially within the stew, or completely out of the stew. It is however clear from Taz 92:2 that he learns the Michaber is referring to a case that the meat is partially in the stew. This is also evident from the fact the Michaber permits the entire pot if there is 60x the original piece and does not prohibit the piece which the original piece supposedly was resting on. Meaning that if the case were to be referring to that the piece which the milk fell on was on top of another piece and hence completely above the gravy, the Michaber should have forbade the piece under it a Netila worth. From the fact he did not implies this is not the case being discussed and rather the meat is partially within the gravy.

[77] See Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:5; Kaf Hachaim 92:5 who do not understand the case here in Michaber to be arbitrating like Rashi. In their words “Maran has not revealed to us his opinion on this debate”

[78] Michaber 105:4

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

[80] Implication of Michaber ibid if we understand him to be referring to a case of a partially submerged food; Beis Yosef 92 in his understanding of Rashi, as seen from his explanation of Mahariy Chaviv; See Yad Avraham 92:1, Shach 92:13; This is unlike the Taz [92:2] understanding of Rashi, Vetzaruch Iyun how he would understand the Michaber.

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

[82] Rama 92:4 that by Basar Bechalav the piece becomes Chanan; Shach 92:13; Peri Chadash 92:15; Lechem Hapanim 92:23; P”M 92 S.D. 13; Kaf Hachaim 92:27

[83] Rama 92:4

[84] The reason: The reason the Rama is lenient to not consider the piece Chanan, even though in the similar case of Basar Bechalav he does render the meat Chanan, is because the entire concept of Chanan by other Issurim is disputed [and is only Rabbinical]. Hence, by other Issurim one may be completely lenient like the Riy to not consider the protruding piece to be Chanan. [Shach 92:13; Taz 92:14; Lechem Hapanim 92:21; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:92:12; Kaf Hachaim 92:26] This applies even according to the Taz 92:5 who rules like Rashi by Basar Bechalav, as Chanan by other Issurim is only Rabbinical, and is itself debated whether it is truly applicable. [See Taz 92:14; P”M 92 M.Z.Z 14]

[85] The reason: The reason the Rama rules to be stringent not to eat the food that the Issur fell on if it did not have 60x, is because we are in doubt whether to rule like Rashi [i.e. piece is not-Kosher] or Riy [i.e. piece is Kosher], as explained above in Halacha 2. [Shach 92:13; Lechem Hapanim 92:21; Beis Lechem yehuda 92:92:12; Kaf Hachaim 92:26] Now, although regarding the individual piece the same dispute of Chanan also applies, nevertheless, since we rule that an Issur Balua always remains forbidden irrelevant of the concept of Chanan [as explained in opinion of Michaber ibid], therefore we are stringent to suspect for the opinion of Rashi.

[86] Shach 92:6

[87] Shach 92:4 and 13 that so rule majority of Poskim and so ruled Rashal in his glosses on the Tur [unlike the Rashal’s ruling in Chulin 61]

[88] Taz 92:5 and 14

[89] The reason: According to the Taz’s understanding of Rashi, the food in the pot must have 60x the piece of meat. Hence it is not possible that the Rama who requires 60x versus the drop to be ruling like Rashi.

[90] This contradiction in the Rama is in the viewpoint of the Taz who understands Rashi to require 60x in the pot versus the entire piece. However, in truth, if one follows the Rama’s ruling in Darkei Moshe that even according to Rashi, the food does not require 60x the piece [unless sit was mixed in], then there is no contradiction. As both in 92:2 and 92:4 the Rama is stringent like Rashi and Riy regarding Basar Bechalav, and in neither area does he require the food to have 60x the piece if it was not mixed back in. [See P”M 92 M.Z. 14]

[91] Taz 92:2; 92:14; P”M 92 M.Z. 14 that the Taz holds like Rashi that the piece requires 60x and if it does not have 60x then he prohibits the entire pot if it does not have 60x the piece.

[92] Admur 447:4; Piskeiy Admur p. 135

[93] Tzemach Tzedek Piskei Dinim 92:2-3 p. 180

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

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

[96] Shach 92:7; 105:17 and so rules Mahriy in Hagahos Sheid 91; Darkei Moshe; Derisha; Issur Viheter Klal 29 and other Achronim

[97] Michaber 105:9

[98] Taz 105:13; 92:7

[99] The reason: As the Taz rules Basar Bechalav has a status of Issur Balua with regards to Tatah Gavar.

[100] Michaber 92:2-3

[101] 92:2

[102] Michaber 92:2; Rambam Machalos Assuros 9:10

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

[104] Shach 92:8; Taz 92:6

[105] Maggid Mishneh, brought in Taz ibid that we do not say Chanan by a questionable piece; Issur Viheter 29:4

[106] Shach 92:8

[107] Taz 92:6

Question on Taz ibid: Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol on this explanation of the Taz, as although it holds true regarding a drop of milk that fell into the gravy, in which case even without mixing, it is nullified in 60x. However, if it fell on a piece of meat which is sticking out of the gravy, then there is a Safek Issur that has not yet become Chanan, and if one does not mix it, it will remain a Safek Issur and never become nullified in 60x! Vetzaruch Iyun!

[108] Rama 92:2

[109] Tur 92, explained in Shach 92:8

[110] If one delays mixing the stew then the unknown piece which the milk fell on becomes Chanan and one now requires 60x that piece rather than the mere drop of milk. Now, although we only say Chanan when one knows which piece it fell on, nevertheless since one can have a gentile taste which piece the milk fell on, it is not considered an unknown piece. [See Shach 92:8 [in end]; Taz 92:6]

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

[112] As rules Rama earlier that when the piece is partially submerged in the gravy, we are stringent like both opinions of Riy and Rashi.

[113] Due to doubt, as perhaps this largest piece is the one that is not-Kosher.

[114] Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:7; Kaf Hachaim 92:9

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

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

[115] What is Charal? Charal is an acronym for Chaticha Hareuya Lihiskabed. A piece of Issur which is large enough to be served to [respectable and honorable ] guests, is considered a food of importance [Davar Chashuv] and is never nullified even in 1000x. [Michaber 101:1]

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

[117] Michaber 109:1; Shach 92:9; Peri Chadash 92:11; Lechem Hapanim 92:13; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:8; P”M 92 S.D. 9 and M.Z. 8; Chavas Daas 92:6; Aruch Hashulchan 92:20; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:9; Kaf Hachaim 92:13-14

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

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

[120] Michaber 92:2; Bach 92

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

[122] Yad Avraham 92:2

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

[124] Michaber 92:2

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

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

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

[128] 3-4 times. [Poskim in next footnote]

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

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

[131] Shach 92:4 and 13; Tosfos Chulin 108a [i.e. Riy]; Rashal in his glosses on the Tur; Tzemach Tzedek Piskei Dinim 92:2-3 p. 180 rules one may be lenient in a case of great loss; See Piskeiy Admur p. 135

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

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

[134] Michaber 92:2-3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[150] This ruling follows the ruling of Rama in 92:2, and the conclusion of the Poskim regarding Basar Bechalav to suspect for both the opinion of Rashi and Riy, and require 60x the milk in both the individual piece and the food. However, according to Rashi alone, only the protruding piece requires 60x, while according to the Riy alone, the entire pot as a whole requires 60x and not the individual piece. See Halacha B!

[151] Rama 92:4; Taz 92:14; Shach 92:13; Taz 92:14; Lechem Hapanim 92:21; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:92:12; P”M 92 M.Z.Z 14; Kaf Hachaim 92:26

The reason: The reason the Rama is lenient to not consider the piece Chanan, even though in the similar case of Basar Bechalav he does render the meat Chanan, is because the entire concept of Chanan by other Issurim is disputed [and is only Rabbinical]. Hence, by other Issurim one may be completely lenient like the Riy to not consider the protruding piece to be Chanan. [Shach 92:13; Taz 92:14; Lechem Hapanim 92:21; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:92:12; Kaf Hachaim 92:26] This applies even according to the Taz 92:5 who rules like Rashi by Basar Bechalav, as Chanan by other Issurim is only Rabbinical, and is itself debated whether it is truly applicable. [See Taz 92:14; P”M 92 M.Z.Z 14]

[152] Rama 92:4; Poskim ibid

The reason: The reason the Rama rules to be stringent not to eat the food that the Issur fell on if it did not have 60x, is because we are in doubt whether to rule like Rashi [i.e. piece is not-Kosher] or Riy [i.e. piece is Kosher], as explained above in Halacha 2. [Shach 92:13; Lechem Hapanim 92:21; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:92:12; Kaf Hachaim 92:26] Now, although regarding the individual piece the same dispute of Chanan also applies, nevertheless, since we rule that an Issur Balua always remains forbidden irrelevant of the concept of Chanan [as explained in opinion of Michaber ibid], therefore we are stringent to suspect for the opinion of Rashi.

[153] See Doveiv Meisharim 2:24

[154] Michaber 92:3-4

[155] There is a second ramification regarding if the absorbed Issur can return to becoming Kosher if it later became cooked with other foods that contain 60x versus the original Issur. [See Peri Chadash 106:2; Lechem Hapanim 92:10; Kaf Hachaim 92:19-20] Practically, however we conclude that the absorbed Issur never returns to becoming Kosher, irrelevant of the rule of Chanan, as we suspect that some absorbed Issur always remains concentrated inside. See Halacha B in the opinion of Michaber for the full details of this subject!

[156] Michaber 92:4

[157] Michaber 92:3-4; Rav Yochanon in Chulin 108b

[158] Shach 92:10; Taz 92:9; Ran Chulin 44, brought in Beis Yosef 92:4; Peri Chadash 92:12; Peri Toar 92:4; Lechem Hapanim 92:15; Kreisi 92:11; P”M 92 S.D. 10; Kaf Hachaim 92:15

[159] Taz 92:11; Shach 87:3, as explained in Hagahos Rav Akiva Eiger 92:4; Beis Yosef 100 regarding chicken and milk; Issur Viheter 24:10; Soles Lemincha in end of Toras Chatas 29:7; Lechem Hapanim 92:17; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:9; Kehilas Yehuda 92:4; Erech Hashulchan 92:6; Kaf Hachaim 92:23; 99:63; See Q&A!

Other Opinions: Some Poskim rule we do not apply Chanan to Rabbinical Issurim. [Rambam Machalos Assuros 15, brought in Beis Yosef 99; Peri Chadash 92:17; Peri Toar 99:11] The Kaf Hachaim ibid concludes that one may be lenient in a case of great loss. Or great need, or for Kavod Shabbos

[160] Shach 92:10; Taz 92:9; Ran Chulin 44, brought in Beis Yosef 92:4; Peri Chadash 92:12; Peri Toar 92:4; Lechem Hapanim 92:15; Kreisi 92:11; P”M 92 S.D. 10; Kaf Hachaim 92:15

[161] Michaber 92:4; 106:1; Rabbeinu Efraim [brought in Rashba Toras Habayis 4:1, Tur 92:4, Rosh Chulin 38]; The following Poskim concord with Rabbeinu Efraim: Rashba ibid; Teshuvos Ramban 167, Rambam, as explained in Maggid Mishneh Machalos Assuros 9:8; The Tur ibid concludes that his father the Rosh agreed with Rabbeinu Efraim [see Beis Yosef 92:4 for sources in Rosh]

[162] Kneses Hagedola 92:4; Peri Toar 92:11; Shulchan Gavoa 92:15; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:10; Kaf Hachaim 92:16 and 22

[163] Michaber 92:4

[164] The reason: As the non-Kosher taste which was absorbed in the Kosher piece has dissipated and becomes nullified in 60x. It thus no longer carries any detectable forbidden taste. 

[165] The Shach 92:11 addresses this contradiction and explains that 92:4 refers to a case where the originally forbidden piece is no longer recognizable, as will be explained shortly. The Rama in 106:1 and Taz 92:10, however, learn it is a true contradiction and that the Michaber retracted from his earlier ruling. The Rama and Taz ibid thus conclude that the main ruling of the Michaber follows his ruling in 106:1; See Kaf Hachaim 92:19

[166] Shach 92:11 based Michaber 106:1

[167] Rama in 106:1; Taz 92:10; Shach 92:11 and 106:1 that so write many Poskim and so agree the Achronim; Peri Chadash 92:13; 106:2; Lechem Hapanim 92:16; 106:2; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:13; Kaf Hachaim 92:19

The reason why we must remove the Issur Balua even if there is 60x: Although according to the Michaber the Issur Balua [i.e. the 250 gram steak] is not considered Chanan, nevertheless, it must be removed because the Issur which it absorbed does not fully dissipate into the Heter and hence we suspect that some concentrated Issur taste has still remained within the food and has thus not become nullified. [Michaber 106:1; Shach ibid]

[168] Rama 92:4 “There are opinions who rule Chanan applies by all Issurim. Practically this is the custom and one may not swerve from it.”; Peri Chadash 92:3

[169] Tosfos [Rabbeinu Tam] Chulin 108a, brought in Tur 92:4, and Taz 92:16; Semag Lavin 140-141 that we do not rule like Rabbeinu Efraim as all of our earlier Poskim argued on him; Semak 213; Mordechai 697; Rashba Toras Habayis Haruch 4:1 and Ran 44b in name of Raavad

[170] Shach 92:12; Taz 92:11; Iggur in name of Mahariy, brought in Beis Yosef 92; Ran Chulin 44, brought in Beis Yosef 92:4; Kaf Hachaim 92:21

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that Chanan is Biblically forbidden by all Issurim. [Kneses Hagedola 92:38 that only according to the Ran is it Rabbinical]

[171] Taz 92:11; Beis Yosef 100 regarding chicken and milk; Issur Viheter 24:10; Soles Lemincha in end of Toras Chatas 29:7; Lechem Hapanim 92:17; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:9; Kehilas Yehuda 92:4; Erech Hashulchan 92:6; Kaf Hachaim 92:23

Other Opinions: Some Poskim rule we do not apply Chanan to Rabbinical Issurim. [Rambam Machalos Assuros 15, brought in Beis Yosef 99; Peri Chadash 92:17; Peri Toar 99:11] The Kaf Hachaim ibid concludes that one may be lenient in a case of great loss. Or great need, or for Kavod Shabbos

[172] The reason of Chanan by other Issurim: The reason we apply Chanan by all Issurim is because when the now forbidden piece is recognizable on its own, its recognition gives the food Chashivus and we now view it as intrinsically not Kosher to not allow it to join the other pieces to nullify itself. [Shach 92:14; Taz 92:15]

[173] If however it did not become cooked with the Issur and simply touched it while cold, and hence carried remnants of the Issur, then even if one later cooks that piece with other food everything in the pot joins to nullify the Issur. [Taz 92:13]

[174] Rama in 106:1; Peri Chadash 106:2; Lechem Hapanim 92:10; Kaf Hachaim 92:19-20; Practically, this applies even if we do not say Chanan, as explained in the opinion of Michaber-see there!

[175] See Shach 92:11

[176] This ruling of the Rama ibid follows his similar ruling in 92:2 regarding Basar Bechalav to suspect for both the opinion of Rashi and Riy, and require 60x the milk in both the individual piece and the food. However, according to Rashi alone, only the protruding piece requires 60x, while according to the Riy alone, the entire pot as a whole requires 60x and not the individual piece. See Halacha 2B!

[177] The reason: The reason the Rama is lenient to not consider the piece Chanan, even though in the similar case of Basar Bechalav he does render the meat Chanan, is because the entire concept of Chanan by other Issurim is disputed [and is only Rabbinical]. Hence, by other Issurim one may be completely lenient like the Riy to not consider the protruding piece to be Chanan. [Shach 92:13; Taz 92:14; Lechem Hapanim 92:21; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:92:12; Kaf Hachaim 92:26] This applies even according to the Taz 92:5 who rules like Rashi by Basar Bechalav, as Chanan by other Issurim is only Rabbinical, and is itself debated whether it is truly applicable. [See Taz 92:14; P”M 92 M.Z.Z 14]

[178] The reason: The reason the Rama rules to be stringent not to eat the food that the Issur fell on if it did not have 60x, is because we are in doubt whether to rule like Rashi [i.e. piece is not-Kosher] or Riy [i.e. piece is Kosher], as explained above in Halacha 2. [Shach 92:13; Lechem Hapanim 92:21; Beis Lechem yehuda 92:92:12; Kaf Hachaim 92:26] Now, although regarding the individual piece the same dispute of Chanan also applies, nevertheless, since we rule that an Issur Balua always remains forbidden irrelevant of the concept of Chanan [as explained in opinion of Michaber ibid], therefore we are stringent to suspect for the opinion of Rashi.

[179] Taz 92:12

[180] Taz ibid as he learns from Issur Viheter; Maharil

[181] The reason: As if they did not grow attached to each other, the liquid spreads everywhere, including in the area where the Issur is attached, hence causing the Issur taste to spread everywhere and become nullified in 60x. [Taz ibid] The reason to be lenient regarding the definition of Issur Davuk, despite it being found in Poskim contrary to this definition, is because the entire concept of Chanan by other Issurim is merely Rabbinical, hence due to the above logic that the liquid spreads everywhere one may be lenient to consider a food an Issur Davuk only if they grew attached together. [Taz ibid]

[182] Michaber 92:3-4; Rav Yochanon in Chulin 108b

The reason: As Basar Bechalav is the formation of a new prohibition. Independently, meat and milk are permitted to be eaten, and it is only when they are combined that they become forbidden. Thus, one must conclude that when this combination occurs and the meat becomes Biblically forbidden due to the absorption of milk, then the entire piece of meat becomes intrinsically forbidden, as the milk that became absorbed into meat makes a new formation of an Issur that never existed beforehand. [Shach 92:10; Taz 92:9; Peri Chadash 92:12; Peri Toar 92:4; Lechem Hapanim 92:15; Kreisi 92:11; P”M 92 S.D. 10; Kaf Hachaim 92:15]

[183] Rama 92:4 “There are opinions who rule Chanan applies by all Issurim. Practically this is the custom and one may not swerve from it.”; Peri Chadash 92:3; Tosfos [Rabbeinu Tam] Chulin 108a, brought in Tur 92:4, and Taz 92:16; Semag Lavin 140-141 that we do not rule like Rabbeinu Efraim as all of our earlier Poskim argued on him; Semak 213; Mordechai 697; Rashba Toras Habayis Haruch 4:1 and Ran 44b in name of Raavad

[184] Michaber 92:4; 106:1; Rabbeinu Efraim [brought in Rashba Toras Habayis 4:1, Tur 92:4, Rosh Chulin 38]; The following Poskim concord with Rabbeinu Efraim: Rashba ibid; Teshuvos Ramban 167, Rambam, as explained in Maggid Mishneh Machalos Assuros 9:8; The Tur ibid concludes that his father the Rosh agreed with Rabbeinu Efraim [see Beis Yosef 92:4 for sources in Rosh]

[185] Kneses Hagedola 92:4; Peri Toar 92:11; Shulchan Gavoa 92:15; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:10; Kaf Hachaim 92:16 and 22

[186] Shach 22:10; Peri Chadash 92:17; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:21; Kaf Hachaim 92:35

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule the Kelipa does become Chanan. [Poskim recorded in Shach ibid; Kneses Hagedola 92:47]

[187] See Kneses Hagedola 92:47; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:22; Kaf Hachaim 92:36

[188] Taz 92:12

[189] Taz 92:12

[190] See Kaf Hachaim 92:23; 99:63

[191] Erech Hashulchan 92:6; Kihilas Yehuda 92:4 that so is the opinion of the Beis Yosef in chapter 100; see Taz 98:5 that chicken with milk has the same status as meat with milk which is Biblical, and hence, accordingly, it would be forbidden to add food to the mixture.

[192] Rambam Machalos Assuros 15; Peri Chadash 92:17; Peri Toar 99:11

[193] Kaf Hachaim ibid

[194] Taz 92:13; Issur Viheter 28:3; Kneses Hagedola 92:40; Lechem hapanim 92:19; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:11; P”M 92 M.Z. 13; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:15-16; Kaf Hachaim 92:24-25

[195] The reason: As the cold food with attached Issur does not begin to receive taste and become forbidden until it falls into the hot pot, and if there is 60x versus the Issur, the Issur becomes nullified before it ever has a chance to prohibit the food. [Poskim ibid; See P”M ibid “Vehu Pashut as there is no Issur here at all, as the moment it falls into the water, the Issur falls off.]

[196] The reason: As its Issur taste has already dissipated and become nullified in 60x. [Poskim ibid]

[197] See Chapter 92 Halacha 7 in book; Michaber 91:7 for the various disputes involved in this case

[198] P”M 92 M.Z. 15 in name of Ran regarding all cases that the Issur is only Rabbinically forbidden; Certainly this applies according to Michaber 91:7 even by Basar Bechalav, and seemingly it applies even according to Rama 91:7 and the stringent Poskim, as explained next.

The reason: On the one hand, being there is no heat involved, the food has not received any Issur taste, and is simply prohibited due to it holding Issur substance. Now, the moment the food falls into a hot pot, that substance begins to spread everywhere equally and becomes nullified in 60x, thus leaving no taste or substance in the original piece of meat. On the other hand, however, perhaps we say “Iy Efshar Lesochto” and we suspect that there is always some substance of Issur remaining in the meat, which in turn makes it Chanan when it gets cooked, and hence we would require 60x in the pot versus the actual meat. So is also implied from the Poskim ibid, that only if the food remained Kosher prior to falling in do we say that it does not become Chanan, as opposed to this case where the meat already became forbidden. Practically, since in any event the ruling that a cold piece of cooked/slit/spiced meat becomes forbidden upon falling into milk/Issur, is under Halachic debate amongst the Poskim [Michaber versus Rama ibid], seemingly one may be lenient to not consider it Chanan. This is in addition to the fact that by other Issurim there is a debate [Michaber versus Rama 92:4] regarding if Chanan applies at all, and hence this is a case of triple Sfek Sfeika [Maybe all the substance dissipates, maybe we rule like Michaber that it remains Kosher, maybe we rule like Michaber that no Chanan by other Issurim]. Furthermore, this applies even by Basar Bechalav in which everyone agrees to the concept of Chanan, as so long as the meat was not cooked together with its absorbed milk, it is merely a Rabbinical prohibition, and hence the case here is a Sfek Sfeika in a Rabbinical matter, of which certainly one may be lenient. This is in addition to the fact that Ran, brought in P”M 92 M.Z. 15, rules that we never say Chanan by a mixture of Basar Bechalav that is not Derech Bishul. Nonetheless, this is only regarding being lenient in the concept of Chanan, however, regarding the actual piece of meat, perhaps we suspect [according to the Rama in 91:7] that it retains some of the Issur and is hence forbidden. Vetzaruch Iyun!

[199] Taz 92:16

[200] Shach in Nekudos Hakesef on Taz ibid

[201] See Piskeiy Admur Yoreh Deah p. 141-142

^[202] Admur 447:15

^[203] Admur 447:16

^[204] Admur 447:16

[205] Michaber 92:3

[206] This refers to a nice size piece of meat which is fit to serve to guests. Such a large size piece is never nullified. See 101:1

[207] Shach  92:9

[208] See Kaf Hachaim 92:18

[209] Michaber and Rama 103:7 and Shach 103:18 regarding if one cooked Pareve in a Ben Yomo Issur pot that the 24 hours restart, and so understands Peri Chadash 103 and Peri Toar 94:6 to be their opinion; Sefer Hateruma, brought in Shach ibid; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:12; Kaf Hachaim 92:18

[210] Smak, brought in Shach ibid; Maharikash 92; Peri Toar 94:6; Peri Chadash 103; Birkeiy Yosef 92 Shiyurei Bracha 6; Erech Hashulchan 92:7; 94:10

[211] Rama ibid is lenient by other Issurim in a case of great loss; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:12; Kaf Hachaim 92:18

[212] Kaf Hachaim ibid

[213] Taz 92:7

[214] Michaber 105:7; See “The laws of Taaruvos” Chapter 105 Halacha 3C!

[215] 105:17

[216] 105:13; 92:7

[217] The proof for this is the ruling chapter 92:3 in which the Michaber rules that when milk falls on a piece of meat sitting on top of other pieces only the upper piece of meat becomes forbidden while the lower pieces are completely permitted, thus proving that Issur Basar Bechalav has a status of Balua. Vetzaruch Iyun, as according to the above milk is not a fatty substance while in Basar Bechalav it had been stated that it was a fatty substance.

[218] See Shach 92:14; Taz 92:15; Peri Chadash 92:16; Lechem Hapanim 92:24; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:15; P”M 92 S.D. 14; M.Z. 15; Kaf Hachaim 92:28

[219] See Rama 92:4; Michaber 92:2; Halacha 2 above in great length

[220] Rama 92:4 “However, by Basar Bechalav, even if the Issur is not Davuk, and the meat is partially protruding from the gravy, we apply Chanan” ; Rama 92:2; Implication of Michaber 92:2; Opinion brought in Michaber 105:4; Taz 92:2; 92:14; Rashi on Mishneh Chulin 108a; Baal Haittur Shaar 1:16, brought in Tur ibid; Rambam, as understood by Taz 92:2; Rashba and Rabbeinu Yerucham, brought in Shach ibid; Rashal’s ruling in Chulin 61

[221] Shach 92:13; Peri Chadash 92:15; Lechem Hapanim 92:23; P”M 92 S.D. 13; Kaf Hachaim 92:27

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the individual piece requires 60x the milk, and if it does not have 60x the milk, then the entire pot requires 60x that food, even if it was not later mixed in. [Taz  92:2 and 92:14 in his understanding of Rashi, as explained in P”M 92 M.Z. 14; Opinion in Darkei Moshe 92:2; Ran Chulin 43; Maggid Mishneh Machalos Assuros 9:8; Hakashrus 10:59]

[222] Opinion brought in Michaber 105:4; Shach 92:4 and 13; Tosfos Chulin 108a [i.e. Riy]; Rashal in his glosses on the Tur

[223] Rama 92:2; Shach 92:13; Peri Chadash 92:15; Lechem Hapanim 92:23; P”M 92 S.D. 13 and M.Z. 14; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:5; Kaf Hachaim 92:5 and 27; However see Hakashrus 10:59 who suspects for the ruling of the Taz ibid and requires 60x the piece

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

[225] See Chapter 91 Halacha 5; Michaber 91:4; 105:9; Vetzaruch Iyun if by other Issurim, or Rabbinical Basar Bechalav, we consider the food Chanan if the foods are dry and not fatty, as although the Rama is stringent to consider all foods as fatty, perhaps regarding Chanan, which is itself a debate, and is Rabbinical at best, he would be lenient.

[226] Shach 22:10; Peri Chadash 92:17; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:21; Kaf Hachaim 92:35

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule the Kelipa does become Chanan. [Poskim recorded in Shach ibid; Kneses Hagedola 92:47]

[227] See Kneses Hagedola 92:47; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:22; Kaf Hachaim 92:36

[228] Rama 92:4

[229] Mordechai Chulin 697; Rashba Toras Habayis Haruch 4:1 and Ran Chulin 44b in name of Raavad in Tamim Deim 7; See Beis Yosef 92:4, P”M 92 M.Z. 15; Shach 92:15 that this opinion is only in reference to other Issurim, and not Basar Bechalav.

[230] The reason: The above Poskim rule that the law of Chanan does not apply by cold mixtures of Lach BeLach as only when the absorbed Issur [meaning the piece which has now become forbidden due to absorbing non-Kosher] is recognizable on its own do we say Chanan, as we view this food as intrinsically not Kosher and do not allow it to join the other pieces to nullify itself. However, when the absorbed Issur is not recognizable on its own, such as when liquids mixed with other liquids [i.e. the original mixture of liquids has now fallen into other liquids], we do not say Chanan as the Issur liquid is not recognizable on its own. [Rishonim ibid; Shach 92:14; Taz 92:15; Peri Chadash 92:16; Lechem Hapanim 92:24; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:15; P”M 92 S.D. 14; Kaf Hachaim 92:28] Alternatively, the reason is because by meat and milk it is only Rabbinically forbidden if it has not been cooked together, and hence we do not apply the rule of Chanan in any case that the two foods have not been cooked. [Ran ibid, brought in Beis Yosef ibid, P”M 92 M.Z. 15] The practical ramifications between these two reasons is regarding a hot mixture of Lach Belach, and regarding if we say Chanan by a slated or Kavush Issur. [See P”M ibid]

[231] Other Rishonim recorded in Rashba and Ran ibid, brought in Beis Yosef ibid; Shach 92:15 understands that by Basar Bechalav everyone agrees we say Chanan by liquids

[232] Rama ibid; Apei Ravrivi p. 53; The Shach 92:15 rules that by Basar Bechalav this is not a mere stringency but is required from the letter of the law, as is clearly evident from the Talmud that by Basar Bechalav we say Chanan by liquids as well. [The reason is because Chanan by Basar Bechalav is Biblical.]

[233] Gloss of Rav Akiva Eiger 92:4

[234] Rama 92:4

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule one may be completely lenient by cold mixtures of Lach Belach, if the liquids were not cooked together, even if it does not involve a loss. [Rashal brought in Taz 92:15 and Shach 92:14]

[235] See P”M 92 M.Z. 15 in length; Gloss of Rav Akiva Eiger 92:4

[236] Understanding of Rama 92:4, as explained in P”M ibid; Implication of Mordechai Chulin 697; Rashba Toras Habayis Haruch 4:1 and Ran Chulin 44b in name of Raavad in Tamim Deim 7 [See Beis Yosef 92:4] as explained in P”M 92 M.Z. 15 “In their opinion every Lach Belach, even Derech Bishul, does not become Chanan” and Rav Akiva Eiger ibid; Shach 92:14, although in 92:15 he adds that this opinion is only in reference to other Issurim, and not Basar Bechalav; See Erech Hashulchan 92:9, Chavas Daas 92:11 and Kaf Hachaim 92:29 who all understand the stringency of Basar Bechalav in a case that milk was cooked with meat

[237] The reason: As we only apply Chanan to a solid piece of Kosher food that is individually recognizable.

[238] Taz 92:15; Rashal Gid Hanashe 60, brought in Taz ibid, explained in P”M ibid; So is ruling according to 2^nd reason in Ran 44, brought in Beis Yosef ibid, explained in P”M ibid

[239] The reason: As the entire reason for leniency by cold Lach Belach is because by Basar Bechalav it is not considered Derech Bishul, and hence by hot Lach Belach, certainly it becomes Chanan.

[240] Rama 92:4

[241] See Michaber 109:1

[242] Shach 92:16; Kneses Hagedola 92:43; Lechem Hapanim 92:27; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:17; Kaf Hachaim 92:31; This refers to a piece of meat that absorbed milk and became forbidden and then mixed with another piece of meat and is not recognizable. [See P”M 92 S.D. 16]

[243] See Shach 92:16; Taz 92:16; Kneses Hagedola 92:43; Lechem Hapanim 92:27; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:17; P”M 92 M.Z. 16; Kaf Hachaim 92:31

[244] P”M 92 M.Z. 16; Kaf Hachaim 92:32

[245] Taz 92:16; Lechem Hapanim 92:26; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:16; Chavas Daas 92:12; Kaf Hachaim 92:30

[246] P”M 92 M.Z. 16; Kaf Hachaim 92:32

[247] The gravy is permitted as it contains 60x. The meat is also permitted as it did not become Chanan, and now is nullified in majority.

[248] Rama 92:4; See 98:5 for the full details on this subject.

[249] Rama 92:4; Michaber and Rama 98:5; Mordechai Chulin; Ran in name of Ramban

[250] If the pot is not Ben Yomo from meat, it never becomes Chanan according to any opinion, with exception to earthenware, in which some Poskim are stringent. [See Rama 98:5; Shach 98:21]

[251] First and main opinion in Michaber 98:5, Final ruling in Rama 98:5; Shach 98:21; Taz 98:8

[252] Shach in 98:18; Rama in Toras Chatas Klal 51; See Peri Megadim 98 S.D. 21; Taz 98:8;

[253] Shach 92:16

[254] See P”M 92 M.Z. 15 that according to the reason of the Rashba/Raavad we do apply Chanan by Melicha while according to the reason of the Ran we do not apply Chanan by Melicha.

[255] Shach 92:16; Toras Chatas 38, unlike the opinion of the Beir Sheva.

The reason: As there are opinions which hold Melicha can only forbid up to a Kelipa’s worth. [ibid]

[256] Shach ibid

[257] See Chapter 91 Halacha 10!

[258] Shach 22:10; Peri Chadash 92:17; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:21; Kaf Hachaim 92:35

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule the Kelipa does become Chanan. [Poskim recorded in Shach ibid; Kneses Hagedola 92:47]

[259] P”M 92 M.Z. 15

[260] See P”M 92 M.Z. 15 that according to the reason of the Rashba/Raavad we do apply Chanan by Melicha while according to the reason of the Ran we do not apply Chanan by Melicha.

[261] 92:5

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

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

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

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

[265] Michaber 92:6

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

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

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

[268] Rama ibid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[279] Michaber 92:5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[286] Kaf Hachaim 92:42

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

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

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

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

[291] P”M ibid; Kaf Hachaim ibid

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

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

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

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

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

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

[297] Michaber 92:5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[309] Michaber 92:6

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

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

[311] Taz 92:20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[319] Michaber 92:7

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

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

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

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

[322] Rama 92:7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[337] Maharsham 2:23

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

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

[340] Hakashrus 1:70 and 10 footnote 207

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

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

[343] Chochmas Adam 45 Binas Adam 58; Shearim Hametzuyanim 46 in Kuntrus Achron; Eretz Tzevi 129; See Darkei Teshuvah ibid

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

[345] Eretz Tzevi 129

[346] Binas Adam ibid

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

[348] Taz 92:24; Issur Viheter 31:3; Lechem Hapanim 92:45; Chavas Daas 92:22; Chochmas Adam 45:4; Beis Yitzchak 92:7; Kaf Hachaim 92:76

The reason: As if the milk did not initially enter into the Pareve food, then likewise it won’t enter now into the meat, and even if the milk did originally penetrate into the Pareve food, nonetheless, the pot only contains a diluted amount of milk [as the Pareve food did not become Neveila due to the milk], and certainly the meat contains 60x versus this diluted milk. [Poskim ibid]

[349] Chavas Daas ibid; Beis Yitzchak ibid; Kaf Hachaim ibid

[350] See Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:53; Kaf Hachaim 92:78

[351] 92:7

[352] Rama ibid; Minchas Yaakov 56:12 based on Hagahos Sheid and Issur Viheter; Peri Chadash 92:33; Lechem Hapanim 92:53; Kreisy 92:29; P”M 92 M”Z 28; Chochmas Adam 45:9; Beis Yaakov 37; Pischeiy Teshuvah 92:5; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:66

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

If one removed the cover and then put it back on: Even in the case that the cover was removed and then replaced after the milk fell, this food only requires 60x the milk as regarding the original pot of food, we view it as if the drop fell inside of the gravy. [Minchas Yaakov 56:12; Kaf Hachaim 92:91]

[354] Pashut as how would the pot become forbidden. See Maharsham 2:23 regarding a case the drop fell opposite the food that the cover remains permitted.

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

The reason: The cover is forbidden, as explained in the previous Halacha regarding food that fell on the side of the pot within food level, in which case the pot is forbidden. [Toras Chatas ibid] Alternatively we suspect by a cover that the food did not boil and hence the entire cover has in truth become forbidden. [P”M 92 M”Z 28; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:67] The practical ramification between these reasons is regarding the following case in which the cover was used prior to being Kashered.

If the cover was used for cooking prior to being Kashered: The food requires 60x the entire cover as we suspect the cover has become completely forbidden, as explained above. [P”M 92 M”Z 28; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:67; Kaf Hachaim 92:90] See Q&A!

[356] Implication of Rama ibid, as explained in Shach 92:37; Taz 92:28

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

[358] Shach 92:37; Taz 92:28; Toras Chatas 56:4; Peri Chadash 92:34; Lechem Hapanim 92:53; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:39; Chochmas Adam 45:9; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:68; Kaf Hachaim 92:92

Ruling of Rama elsewhere: See Rama 93:1 and Chochmas Adam 46:5 that when a hot cover is placed on a hot pot of food, the food requires 60x. Vetzaruch Iyun why in this case it would be any different. Perhaps one must say there is a difference between a cover that was on a boiling pot and a cover that is simply hot but not from a boiling pot. The difference is that the cover that was on a boiling pot contains moisture and hence is able to absorb, as opposed to the case here in which the food has not yet begun boiling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[367] Taz ibid

[368] Kaf Hachaim 92:91

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[377] Rama 92:7

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

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

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

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

[381] Rama 92:7; P”M O.C. 173

[382] P”M O.C. 173 A”A Hakdama

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

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

[385] P”M O.C. 173 A”A Hakdama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[393] P”M 173 A”A Hakdama

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

[395] See P”M ibid that although the cheese did not touch any actual meat, but rather the meat pot, nonetheless it is completely forbidden [and is not just prohibited a Kelipa’s worth] as the pot contains food/liquid which helps spread the taste throughout the cheese.

[396] See Chapter 8 Halacha 16! Likewise, seemingly the counter also remains Kosher as the cheese is in the place of the Kelipa.

[397] This applies even if the counter was clean and not Ben Yomo. See Chapter 8 Halacha 20C

[398] P”M 92 M.Z. 29; Regarding Ben Yomo versus non-Ben Yomo -See Chapter 8 Halacha 2D and 20C!

The reason: As if there is moisture in between the two materials, it serves as a conduit to transfer taste and prohibit the food.

[399] See Rama 93:1; Taz 92:29; 97:3; Admur 451:41 and 67; Kneses Hagedola 92:73; Peri Chadash 92:36; Minchas Yaakov 56:22; Lechem Hapanim 92:54; 97:1; Halacha Pesuka 97:1; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:40; P”M 92 M.Z. 29; 97 M.Z. 1; Sheilas Yaavetz 103; Erech Hashulchan 92:15 that so is opinion of all Achronim; Chochmas Adam 50:2; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:79; Kaf Hachaim 92:103; 97:29; See Tzemach Tzedek O.C. 43

[400] The reason: As this is similar to two pots touching each other in which we rule that both pots are Kosher, even though both pots contain absorption of taste of the opposite food. [Taz ibid]

[401] Rama 92:7

[402] Rama ibid

[403] Shach 92:36; Bach 91

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

[405] However, if it hit above food level, see Halacha 5C for the different case rulings of when the food is forbidden and when not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[410] Rama ibid

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

[412] Kaf Hachaim 92:87

[413] Rama ibid

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

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

[414] Michaber 92:9 [as explained in Shach 92:38 and Taz 92:30]; Terumas Hadeshen 176; See Peri Chadash 92; Soles Lamincha on Toras Chatas 55:6; Kaf Hachaim 92:107

If a lit Cheilev candle fell onto a vessel: If a lit Cheiles candle fell onto a vessel and remained on the vessel for some time, then if the vessel is made of metal it requires Libun, while if made of wood, it is not Kasherable. [P”M 92 S.D. 38; Chochmas Adam 45:20; Kaf Hachaim 92:108]

Lighting a cigarette or pipe from a Cheilev candle: See Poskim brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah 92:7; Kaf Hachaim 92:111-114

[415] Kreisi 92:32; Chochmas Adam 45:20; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:87; Kaf Hachaim 92:109; If, however, the Cheilev is inedible, as occurs during the manufacturing of the Cheilev for wax candles, then it is considered Pagum and does not prohibit the vessel. [Poskim ibid]

[416] Gilyon Maharsha 92 based on Shach 96:21; P”M 92 S.D. 38 that Greida is less than a Kelipa from the vessel. In other words, this means that one is required to actually sand down and scrape off part of the material of the vessel and it does not suffice to simply scrape off the wax!

[417] Michaber ibid; Teurmas Hadeshen ibid; Shach ibid

The reason: The reason for this is because a drop of wax that falls from a candle is not as hot as a regular Iruiy Keli Rishon as can be vividly seen by anyone who had wax fall on them. [Teurmas Hadeshen 176; Levush 92; Bach 92; Kaf Hachaim 92:104] In addition, the drop was “Nifsak Hakiluach” by the time it reached the pan, and is hence not considered like a Keli Rishon, as explained next. [Terumos Hadeshen ibid in name of Maharam]

The opinion of Michaber regarding Nifsak Hakiluach: The Michaber 92:9 [and Terumos Hadeshen ibid in name of Maharam] 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]

[418] Taz and Shach ibid

The reason: The novelty here is that even though Nifsak Hakiluach, since the flame of the candle is very hot and the drop fell from that area, it has the ability to penetrate taste into a Kelipa worth of the pot. [Terumas Hadeshen 176; Kaf Hachaim 92:104]

[419] Taz 92:30; Kneses Hagedola 92:92; Chavas Daas 92:32; P”M 92 M.Z. 30; Chochmas Adam 45:20; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:81; Kaf Hachaim 92:104

[420] Taz 92:30; Shach 92:38; Terumos Hadeshen ibid in explanation of Maharam; Issur Viheter 58:6; Toras Chatas 56:6; Kneses Hagedola 92:87; Chavas Daas 92:32; Chochmas Adam 45:20; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:82; Kaf Hachaim 92:105

The law by a knife: If the Cheilev dripped from a pot onto the cold blade of a knife, the knife requires a mere Neitza ten times in hard ground, and it may then be used for even hot foods. [Taz ibid; Issur Viheter ibid; Toras Chatas ibid; Kneses Hagedola ibid; Halacha Pesuka 92:56; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:42; P”M 92 M.Z. 30; Chochmas Adam 45:20; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:89; Kaf Hachaim ibid] If the knife was used prior to doing Neitza, then if the knife was clean, the food requires a Kelipa removed, if applicable. [Issur Viheter 58:8; Kneses Hagedola 92:88; Beis Lechem Yehuda ibid; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:91; Kaf Hachaim 92:106]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ruling of Admur: Admur in 451:32 states, “Vessels that have absorbed Chametz through a Keli Sheiyni, such as eating spoons which are used to eat from the bowl, which is a Keli Sheiyni (after the stream has stopped from the Keli Rishon), are 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.

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

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

[430] 92:8

[431] There are two possible ways of understanding the prohibition of Zeiah: 1) Due to Nitzuk Chibur [See Admur 451:41 and Levush 93 who learns that the vapor prohibits due to the law of Nitzuk Chibur] 2) Due to Mamashus [See P”M 92 M.Z. 29 and O.C. 441 A.A. 44 and Yad Yehuda 92:52 who learns that the prohibition of Zeiah is due to Mamashus falling back inside.]

[432] A large oven negates a Zeiah concern as a) It dissipates the Zeiah evenly everywhere, and by the time it reaches the oven roof, there may be no vapor left; b) the oven roof would not get hot to the point of Yad Soledes, and the vapor was below Yad Soledes by the time it hit the oven, thus avoid any issue of Zeiah. This applies even if the oven contains no vents during the cooking or baking.

[433] See Igros Moshe Y.D. 1:40 in length for the Zeiah concerns in our ovens and that they have the same status as a pan placed over two uncovered foods, brought in Rama 108:1; Maharsham 3:208; Minchas Yitzchak 5:20; Chelkas Yaakov 2:136; Kinyan Torah 1:24; Badei Hashulchan 92:166; Darkei Halacha p. 242

The reason: As the roofing is very close to the food and it is hence just like the case of a cover on two pots. Now, this prohibition of Zeiah is either due to Nitzuk Chibur [See Admur 451:41 and Levush 93 who learns that the vapor prohibits due to the law of Nitzuk Chibur] or due to Mamashus [See P”M 92 M.Z. 29 and O.C. 441 A.A. 44 and Yad Yehuda 92:52 who learns that the prohibition of Zeiah is due to Mamashus falling back inside.] Thus, although some Poskim entertain that perhaps our ovens today do not have a Mamashus prohibition, as the vapor will not fall back down [Shut Beis Hayotzer], nevertheless, it would still be forbidden due to Nitzuk Chibur.

[434] 92:8

[435] Rama 92:8

[436] Rama ibid

[437] The reason: As when it is covered the vapor cannot escape and it is thus similar to two dry pots touching each other [of which we rule that they both remain Kosher, as without liquid in between taste cannot spread]. [Rama ibid]

[438] Issur Viheter 31:17; Toras Chatas 56:8; Kaf Hachaim 92:101

[439] As in such a case the dairy vapor becomes absorbed in the bottom of the meat pot, and what difference does it make if the meat pot is covered or not!

[440] Michaber and Rama 92:8; Tur 92 in name of Rosh Kalal 20:26

[441] Rama ibid

[442] Rama ibid “The [meat] food in the pot requires 60x versus the milk in the pan”; However, see Beis Yosef 92:8 in name of Rosh ibid that one needs 60 x 60 of the milk. Vetzaruch Iyun!

[443] The reason: As the vapor from the milk hits the bottom of the meat pot and penetrates into the food. [Michaber ibid] And the vapor of a food is considered like the actual food. [Michaber and Rama 92:8; 123:24; and so is proven from chapter 93 regarding the prohibition of the covers of a pot; Tur 92 in name of Rosh Kalal 20:26; Admur 442:9 “The vapor of Chametz is like actual Chametz”; Tzemach Tzedek O.C. 43; Rav Poalim 3:24 that this is Davar Pashut!] And even the vapor of vapor is considered like the actual food. [Chida in Maras Ayin p. 76; Maharsham 3:60; Rav Poalim ibid, unlike the lenient opinions] Now, this prohibition of Zeiah is either due to Nitzuk Chibur [See Admur 451:41 and Levush 93 who learns that the vapor prohibits due to the law of Nitzuk Chibur] or due to Mamashus [See P”M 92 M.Z. 29 and O.C. 441 A.A. 44 and Yad Yehuda 92:52 who learns that the prohibition of Zeiah is due to Mamashus falling back inside.] Thus, although some Poskim entertain that perhaps our ovens today do not have a Mamashus prohibition, as the vapor will not fall back down [Shut Beis Hayotzer], nevertheless, it would still be forbidden due to Nitzuk Chibur.

How to measure the 60x: One measures 60x versus the entire milk that is in the pot. However, there is no need to measure 60x versus the dairy pot, being that its absorbed taste is Nat Bar Nat Dihetera. However, if the pot contained Issur, then one must measure 60x versus the Issur and the absorbed Issur within the pot. [P”M 92 M.Z. 29; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:74; Kaf Hachaim 92:97]

[444] P”M 92 M.Z. 29; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:74; Kaf Hachaim 92:96

The reason: As this is similar to the case where a drop of milk fell on a pot within food level, explained in Halacha 5B. [Poskim ibid]

[445] Peri Toar 92:16; P”M 92 M.Z. 29; Degul Mirivava 92

The reason: As the vapor forbids the meat pot and then returns and forbids the dairy pot.

[446] Peri Haaretz 2:14; Erech Hashulchan 92:14 [implies he agrees with Peri Haaretz]; Implication of Michaber and Rama ibid and Toras Chatas 56:8 [Kaf Hachaim 92:93] The Kaf Hachaim ibid concludes that one who is lenient does not lose out.

[447] The reason: As the vapor has ability to absorb into a food, but not to absorb, extract and then return to the original food it was sent from. [Poskim ibid]

[448] Peri Toar ibid; Kaf Hachaim 92:93; See Halacha 5A and Michaber 92:6

[449] Rama 92:8; Terumos Hadeshen 2:103; Beis Yosef 92:8

[450] Beis Yosef 92:8; Gloss of Rav Akiva Eiger on 92:8 in name of Mahariy; Pesakim Ukesavim 103; Levush 92; Shut Bach Hachadashos 24; Minchas Yaakov 56:27; P”M 92 M.Z. 29; Erech Hashulchan 92:14; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:75; Kaf Hachaim 92:97; See, however, Yad Avraham on 92:8 that it has a status of hot that falls on cold in which case we rule that only a Kelipa worth is forbidden.

In a case of doubt: If one is unsure whether the steam was Yad Soledes, and the meat pot was cold, everything remains permitted. [Shut Bach ibid; Erech Hashulchan ibid; Rav Akiva Eiger ibid; Poskim ibid]

[451] Issur Viheter 31:16; Kneses Hagedola 92:71-72; P”M 92 M.Z. 29; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:78; Kaf Hachaim 92:102

[452] P”M 92 M.Z. 29

If the pots became wet with their own condensation: Some Poskim rule that if the pots became wet with their own condensation, nevertheless they remain permitted if they are touching. [P”M ibid based on Toras Chatas 8; See Tzemach Tzedek O.C. 43 for a lengthy discussion on the status of condensation of a pot and the implication is that he too is lenient.]

[453] The reason: As taste cannot transfer from the material of one pot to another [without moisture in between], and we do not suspect that milk and meat may have splashed into each other, as we are not Machzik Issur. Likewise, there is no issue of Reicha to be worried of. [Poskim ibid]

[454] If only one food was covered: See Admur 447:10 and Michaber 108:1 that it suffices for even one of the foods to be covered, however, that is regarding Reicha. However, regarding Zeiah, so long as the vapor of one of the foods hits the other food, it is forbidden, and thus both foods must be covered. Accordingly, if either the meat or milk food is uncovered, then seemingly both foods are forbidden as it is similar to the case of Rama 92:8 where the uncovered milk pot prohibits the even covered meat pot, as the vapor travels towards it. Similarly here, the vapor travels from the meat to the covered milk, and prohibits the covered Heter. Furthermore, even the uncovered food becomes forbidden as perhaps the vapor of the uncovered travels to the covered food, becomes prohibited, and then returns back to the uncovered food and prohibits it. [See Peri Toar 92:16; P”M 92 M.Z. 29; Degul Mirivava 92 regarding that the dairy uncovered pot also becomes forbidden even if the meat pot was covered.] This especially applies according to Admur 451:41 [and Levush 93] who learns that the vapor prohibits due to the law of Nitzuk Chibur, and hence it is as if one poured meat onto a Ben Yomo dairy pot, in which the Rama 95:3 rules it is forbidden. [This is unlike the P”M ibid and O.C. 441 A.A. 44 and Yad Yehuda 92:52 who learns that the prohibition of Zeiah is due to Mamashus falling back inside.] Vetzaruch Iyun from Kaf Hachaim 108:32 who explains that the Zeiah case which prohibits is if both the Heter and Issur are uncovered.

[455] The reason: If the food is doubly wrapped it remains permitted even if the oven is dirty with residue as the vapor only becomes absorbed in the external covering, and the internal covering does not absorb from the external one, being there is no moisture in between, and is similar to two dry pots touching each other. [See Taz 92:29; 97:3]

[456] As if there is leftover meat/milk/Issur, it will release vapor and prohibit even the covered foods!

[457] Taz 92:29; 97:3; Kneses Hagedola 92:73; Peri Chadash 92:36; Minchas Yaakov 56:22; Lechem Hapanim 92:54; 97:1; Halacha Pesuka 97:1; Beis Lechem Yehuda 92:40; P”M 92 M.Z. 29; 97 M.Z. 1; Sheilas Yaavetz 103; Erech Hashulchan 92:15 that so is opinion of all Achronim; Chochmas Adam 50:2; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:79; Kaf Hachaim 92:103; 97:29; See Admur 451:41 and 67; Tzemach Tzedek O.C. 43

[458] P”M 92 M.Z. 29

The reason: As if there is moisture in-between the two materials, it serves as a conduit to transfer taste and prohibit the food.

[459] The reason: As this is similar to two pots touching each other in which we rule that both pots are Kosher, even though both pots contain absorption of taste of the opposite food. [Taz ibid; Admur ibid]

[460] Beis Lechem Yehuda ibid in answer of the question of Nekudos Hakesef 97 against Taz; Minchas Yaakov ibid; Tzemach Tzedek ibid; Poskim ibid; Kaf Hachaim ibid;

[461] Erech Hashulchan 92:15; Kaf Hachaim 92:103

[462] Admur 494:16

[463] See Igros Moshe Y.D. 1:40; Maharsham 3:208; Minchas Yitzchak 5:20; Chelkas Yaakov 2:136; Kinyan Torah 1:24; Badei Hashulchan 92:166; Darkei Halacha p. 242

[464] Erech Hashulchan 92:15; Kaf Hachaim 92:103

[465] As if there is leftover meat/milk/Issur, it will release vapor and prohibit even the covered foods!

[466] Issur Viheter 31:16; Kneses Hagedola 92:71-72; P”M 92 M.Z. 29; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:78; Kaf Hachaim 92:102; See Admur 451:41 and 67; Tzemach Tzedek O.C. 43

[467] P”M 92 M.Z. 29

[468] The reason: As taste cannot transfer from the material of one pot to another [without moisture in between], and we do not suspect that milk and meat may have splashed into each other, as we are not Machzik Issur. Likewise, there is no issue of Reicha to be worried of. [Poskim ibid]

[469] See Rama ibid; Admur 451:65-67; Erech Hashulchan 92:15; Kaf Hachaim 92:103

[470] See Chochmas Adam 45:19; Sheilas Yaavetz 1:113; Chavos Daas 92; Hakashrus 1:20; M”B 451:34; Kaf Hachaim 87:65; Pischeiy Halacha 1:30; Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:40 and 59

[471] Erech Hashulchan 92:15; Kaf Hachaim 92:103; See Admur 451:65-67

[472] Toras Chatas 56:12; Bach 92; Kneses Hagedola 92:69; P”M 92 M.Z. 29; Tzemach Tzedek O.C. 43 [even regarding Chametz]; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:73; Kaf Hachaim 92:95

[473] The reason: As the dairy taste absorbed in the vessel does not become expelled and release vapor to prohibit the meat vessel. [Poskim ibid] Alternatively, as the vapor of an empty vessel does not prohibit. [See Tzemach Tzedek ibid]

[474] P”M ibid; Zivcheiy Tzedek ibid; Kaf Hachaim ibid

[475] The reason: As this is a case of Nat Bar Nat Dihetera. [Poskim ibid]

[476] See Admur 451:41 [and Levush 93] who learns that the vapor prohibits due to the law of Nitzuk Chibur, and hence it is as if one poured from a meat pot onto a dairy pot, in which the Rama 95:3 rules it is forbidden. This is unlike the P”M ibid and O.C. 441 A.A. 44 and Yad Yehuda 92:52 who learns that the prohibition of Zeiah is due to Mamashus falling back inside.

[477] P”M ibid; Zivcheiy Tzedek ibid; Kaf Hachaim ibid

[478] The reason: As this is a case of Nat Bar Nat Dissura. [Poskim ibid]

[479] Peri Haaretz 2:14; Erech Hashulchan 92:14; Kaf Hachaim 92:93

[480] Levush 92

[481] Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:80; Kaf Hachaim 92:100

[482] See Admur 447:10 and Michaber 108:1 that it suffices for even one of the foods to be covered, however, that is regarding Reicha. However, regarding Zeiah, so long as the vapor of one of the foods hits the other food, it is forbidden, and thus both foods must be covered. Accordingly, if either the meat or milk food is uncovered, then seemingly both foods are forbidden as it is similar to the case of Rama 92:8 where the uncovered milk pot prohibits the even covered meat pot, as the vapor travels towards it. Similarly here, the vapor travels from the meat to the covered milk, and prohibits the covered Heter. Furthermore, even the uncovered food becomes forbidden as perhaps the vapor of the uncovered travels to the covered food, becomes prohibited, and then returns back to the uncovered food and prohibits it. [See Peri Toar 92:16; P”M 92 M.Z. 29; Degul Mirivava 92 regarding that the dairy uncovered pot also becomes forbidden even if the meat pot was covered.] This especially applies according to Admur 451:41 [and Levush 93] who learns that the vapor prohibits due to the law of Nitzuk Chibur, and hence it is as if one poured meat onto a Ben Yomo dairy pot, in which the Rama 95:3 rules it is forbidden. [This is unlike the P”M ibid and O.C. 441 A.A. 44 and Yad Yehuda 92:52 who learns that the prohibition of Zeiah is due to Mamashus falling back inside.] Vetzaruch Iyun from Kaf Hachaim 108:32 who explains that the Zeiah case which prohibits is if both the Heter and Issur are uncovered.

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

[484] The reason: As Ein Machzikin Issura, and hence if one did not see any spillage we do not assume that it occurred. [See Chochmas Adam 45:15; Zivcheiy Tzedek 92:60; Kaf Hachaim 92:84] However, if the

[485] See Rama 95:3 as opposed to Michaber ibid who is lenient

[486] Tur 451:15 regarding Charara “And it releases vapor”; Bach 451:13; M”A 451:30; Yad Yehuda 92 Aruch 53; Masas Binyamin 42:58; Chacham Tzvi 20; P”M 451 A.A. 30; Rivash 295; Tzemach Tzedek O.C. 43; Shoel Umeishiv Chamisha 4; Beis Shlomo Y.D. 1:162 and 164; Maharsham; Daas Sofer; Levushei Mordechai; Poskim in Darkei Teshuvah 92:164; Rav Elyashiv in Beis Yitzchak; See Peri Haaretz Y.D. 2:14

[487] Toras Chatas 35:6 [See Minchas Yaakov ibid]; Masas Moshe 4:30; P”M O.C. Hanhagos Horaos Issur Viheter Seder Sheiyni 37, brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah 92:6 that only liquids release vapor; Beis Meir 461; Poskim in Darkei Teshuvah 92:164; Igros Moshe 1:40 unless one sees that it released vapor; See Tzemach Tzedek ibid who brings the P”M but then negates his conclusion as being not substantive; See Admur 451:42 regarding a Chararah who states the pot requires Libun because it touches it most of the time, and does not mention the aspect of Zeiah [brought in Tur and Bach ibid], however seemingly, this is simply because Admur is explaining why it needs Libun, and not simply Hagalah due to the vapor; Likewise, see Admur 447:9 who permits

[488] Meaning that their vapor is viewed as feces rather than as Mamashus, and does not prohibit a food. [See Tzemach Tzedek ibid]

[489] Igros Moshe ibid

[490] Taz 92:30; See also Admur 451:28; Shach 107:7; Shabbos Kehalacha Vol. 1 p. 84-86; Minchas Yitzchak 5:127

[491] See Rama 92:7; Halacha 7. This matter is fully elaborated on in The laws of Taaruvos Chapter 105

[492] Brought in Taz ibid

[493] Taz 92:30

^[494] Shabbos Kehalacha Vol. 1 p. 84-86; See Admur 451:28; Shach 107:7; Taz  92:30

[495] Admur 451:28; M”B 318:87; Maharil brought in Taz ibid

[496] Shach Yoreh Deah 107:7; Taz 92:30; Admur ibid; M”B ibid;

[497] Tzemach Tzedek Yoreh Deah 74; Piskeiy Dinim 92:9 [However there he concludes with a  Tzaruch Iyun]; See Shabbos Kehalacha ibid

[498] Admur 451:28; M”B 318:87; Maharil brought in Taz ibid

^[499] From Tzemach Tzedek 74 it is evident that it has the status of Iruiy Keli Rishon.

[500] Ketzos Hashulchan 124 footnote 39 based on Admur 253 Kuntrus Acharon 11; Chavas Daas 92:27

^[501] M”B 318:45; Minchas Yitzchak 5:127; Shabbos Kehalacha ibid

Bookmark