This Halacha is an excerpt from our Sefer
Buy me here or on Amazon.com
Check out our state of the art Online Taaruvos course
The Sages decreed that in certain mixtures any Issur which will eventually become permitted to be eaten is not nullified. The reason for their decree is because since one will eventually be able to eat the entire mixture without needing to resort to using nullification, therefore they removed the ability for one to do so.
1. The law of a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin:
Definition: DSL”M is an acronym for Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin. It is defined as any Issur which will eventually become permitted to be eaten.
A. Min Bemino:
Any Issur which is defined as a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirm is Rabbinically not nullified within mixtures of its same species [Min Bemino] even if there is a 1000x against it.
A case of doubt: The above ruling applies even if it is only a doubt whether the item is currently forbidden nevertheless since it will eventually become Kosher without doubt it is not nullified.
The reason: The reason why the Sages decreed that a DSL”M cannot be nullified is because one will eventually be able to eat the entire mixture without needing to resort to using nullification, therefore they removed the ability for one to nullify it.
The law regarding if part of the mixture then mixed with other foods: If a DSL”M Issur mixed into other foods of that same species and then one of those foods mixed into another food of the same species-refer to chapter 110 where this matter is discussed in length.
B. Eino Mino:
The above law only applies by mixtures of Min Bemino. If however the Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirm became mixed with Eino Mino [i.e. food of another species] then it is nullified in 60x. However this only applies if the Issur was not placed into the Eino Mino to give it color and one does not plan to eat it together with that food. If however the Issur was placed into the Eino Mino in order to color it or enhance it [such as it was used to stuff a chicken], then it receives the same laws as a mixture of Min Bemino and is not nullified even in 1000x. [The reason for why we are stringent in the above two cases of coloring and enhancing is because in such a case we view the entire mixture of food as the same species, and by same species mixtures a DSL”M is never nullified. Thus in all cases that one cooked a DSL”M with other foods it is never nullified, as the mixture is always viewed as the same species.]
The reason that the law of DSL”M does not fully apply to Eino Mino:
- First Reason:The reason for why a DSL”M is nullified in mixtures of Eino Mino is because only in a case of Min Bemino in which both the Heter and Issur are the same species do we consider the entire food which we want to permit as a DSL”M, as both the Heter and Issur are called by the same name. However by a Eino Mino mixture since the majority food has a different name we cannot consider it as a DSL”M and hence we allow the minority Issur to be nullified. The Taz negates this reason with the claim that it does not offer a clear enough difference between the two types of mixtures.
- Second Reason:
The Ran explains this matter as follows: It is proven from the Gemara that all agree that by a mixture of Min Bemino which involves two Kosher foods the concept of nullification does not apply. Thus in our case since the Issur will eventually become permitted we view this mixture of DSL”M of Min Bemino as if it is a mixture of Kosher foods, and a Kosher food is never nullified to other Kosher foods of the same species. However by a mixture of Eino Mino certainly a Kosher food is nullified to another Kosher food and hence the concept of DSL”M does not apply b y Eino Mino mixtures. The Taz concludes that this reason is a very proper explanation.
C. What is the definition of Min Bemino with regards to DSL”M [i.e. Do we follow taste or name]?
Regarding mixtures of DSL”M the same species [Min Bemino] is determined by if the foods have the same name irrelevant of whether they have the same taste. Thus if the foods have different taste but the same name it is considered Min Bemino. While if they have the same taste but different names it is Min Beino Mino.
2. The criteria for an Issur to be defined as a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin:
An Issur is only considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin if all the following conditions are fulfilled.
- The Issur will certainly become permitted in the future.
- By the time the Issur will become permitted the food will still be edible.
- The Rama rules that an Issur is only DSL”M if the body of the Issur is found in the food and not just the taste. The Shach and Taz argue on this condition.
- The Rama rules that an Issur is only DSL”M if the Issur is intrinsically forbidden as opposed to being an absorbed Issur. The Shach argues on this condition.
- The Issur must have been distinguishable prior to the mixture.
- The Issur will become permitted forever. However some dispute this condition.
The Issur will eventually become permitted for the person it is currently forbidden for.
A. Condition #1: Will certainly become permitted:
There are opinions which rule that an Issur is only considered a DSL”M if it is certain that the Issur will eventually become permitted. This applies whether the Issur will become permitted on its own or through an action which is done to permit the Issur, if the action does not involve a monetary loss. However if the Issur will not definitely become permitted on its own and no action can be done to permit it [without it involving a loss], then it is not defined as a DSL”M and is thus nullified.
Example-Egg born from Safek Treifa chicken: If there is doubt whether a certain egg was laid by a Treifa chicken and that egg became mixed with other Kosher eggs, even though it is possible this egg will eventually become Kosher, nevertheless it is not considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin being that it is not definite that it will become permitted. [Furthermore some explain the Michaber to mean that even if this Safek Treif egg was laid on Yom Tov it is nevertheless not considered a DSL”M and is thus nullified. Others dispute this ruling. However if the egg is certainly Kosher and it was laid on Yom Tov it is considered a DSL”M according to all as it will certainly become permitted after Yom Tov.]
B. Condition #2: The food will become permitted while it is still edible:
There is an opinion which says that a food is only considered a DSL”M if by the time it becomes permitted it will still be edible. If however by the time it becomes permitted it will be spoiled then it’s not considered a DSL”M and is nullified.
C. Condition #3: The Issur is Beiyn [The body of the Issur is in the food]:
Regarding if the law of DSL”M applies even if the Issur has disintegrated or even if it has been removed from the food the following dispute is recorded:
- Rama: The Rama rules that only the body of an Issur is considered a DSL”M as opposed to its taste. Therefore if the Issur was removed then its taste is nullified in 60x. If however the body of the Issur was not removed such as in a case that one does not recognize the Issur piece then it is not nullified. The law if the Issur disintegrated according to the Rama: If the Issur disintegrated due to the cooking and thus cannot be removed the Shach [and an earlier Taz] learn that the Rama permits nullification even in such a case, as he holds that a DSL”M only applies if the Issur is intact. Thus according to their understanding the Rama rules that even if there is actual Issur still in the pot it is not considered DSL”M if it has disintegrated. The Taz however explains that the Rama rules that any time there is any particle of the Issur in the food it is considered a DSL”M and is not nullified, and only when the entire body of the Issur has been removed do we hold the taste is nullified.
Is Min Bemino defined as having the same taste or name regarding this law: The Taz explains that regarding this law, the taste of a DSL”M is only nullified if the two foods contain the same taste [in addition to the same name] as only then does the Issur not Biblically require nullification. If however the two foods have the same name but different tastes then the taste is a DSL”M and is not nullified.
- Shach; Bach:The Shach argues on the Rama and rules that even the taste of a DSL”M is never nullified just like the body of the Issur. Thus even if one removed the Issur its taste is never nullified if it will eventually become permitted. The Bach rules like the Shach.
- Taz: The Taz rules that any time there is any particle of the DSL”M in the food it is not nullified. If however the entire body of the Issur has been removed and only its taste remains then in a case of Min Bemino and both foods contain the same taste we rule that the Issur taste is nullified.
D. Condition #4: The body of the Issur is intrinsically forbidden as opposed to being forbidden due to absorbing Issur taste:
Regarding if the law of DSL”M applies even to a Heter that absorbed the taste of an Issur and did not have 60x the following dispute is recorded:
The Rama rules that only if the Issur is intrinsically forbidden does it follow the stringency of DSL”M and is never nullified. However if the Issur is a Heter piece that became forbidden through absorbing Issur taste then it does not follow the stringency of a DSL”M and is hence nullified.
The Shach writes that all the Achronim argue on the Rama and rule that there is no differentiation in whether an Issur is an intrinsic Issur or an Issur Balua [absorbed Issur] and either way it follows the stringency of a DSL”M and is not nullified.
The Taz rules that the law of DSL”M applies even by an absorbed Issur [however he rules that if the mixture is Min Bemino of the same taste and there is no substance of the Issur in the mixture then it is nullified].
E. Condition #5: The Issur must be recognizable on its own:
An Issur only receives the stringency of a DSL”M if it was individually recognizable prior to it mixing in with the Heter. If however the Issur was never recognizable on its own prior to mixing with the Heter then it is nullified even if it is a DSL”M.
Example-Juice seeped from grapes and mixed with wine on Shabbos: On Shabbos it is forbidden to drink the juice that flowed from olives or grapes due to a decree that if this were to be allowed one may come to squeeze them on Shabbos. This wine or oil is defined as a DSL”M being that it becomes permitted to drink after Shabbos. Nevertheless if these grapes were placed into a barrel of wine and on Shabbos they began seeping juice into the wine, the Issur wine is nullified and the entire mixture of wine is permitted. The reason that this Issur wine becomes nullified despite it being a DSL”M is because the juice of these grapes was never recognizable on its own prior to the occurrence of the mixture. Thus even though this juice will become permitted after Shabbos we do not apply to it the stringency of a DSL”M.
F. Condition #6: When the Issur eventually becomes permitted it must remain permitted forever:
If an Issur will once again eventually become forbidden after it becomes permitted then it is not considered a DSL”M and is thus nullified. However there are opinions which argue on this and rule it does have a status of DSL”M and is thus not nullified.
Example-Chameitz on Erev Pesach : According to the first opinion mentioned above Chameitz [which became mixed on Erev Pesach] is not considered a DSL”M and is nullified within 60x. However there are opinions which argue and rule that Chameitz has a status of a DSL”M and is thus not nullified even on Erev Pesach.
The opinion of Admur in Shulchan Aruch Harav: The Alter Rebbe rules like the first opinion in the Rama that Chameitz does not have a status of DSL”M and is hence nullified on Erev Pesach. However he differs with the Rama as to the reasoning for this ruling. He rules like the Ran that the reason Chameitz is not considered a DSL”M is because even after Pesach Chameitz remains forbidden if it was owned over Pesach. Thus one cannot say that it is an Issur that will eventually become permitted. [Regarding whether Admur holds also of the reason of the Rama regarding other Issurim seemingly no proof can be given either way.]
G. Condition #7: Will become permitted for the person that it is forbidden for:
Introduction-The ruling of the Rama: The Rama states that a food is only considered a DSL”M if it will eventually become permitted for the person that it is currently forbidden to be eaten by. If however it will remain forbidden forever for this individual then it is never considered a DSL”M even if it is currently permitted for others. Thus, rules the Rama, that if one cooked food on Shabbos [advertently-Bemazid], in which case the food is forbidden for the cook forever, even after Shabbos, the food does not have the status of DSL”M, even though it is permitted for others after Shabbos. Thus if this food becomes mixed with other foods it is nullified. Now, there is a dispute amongst the Achronim as to the intent of the Rama. The simple meaning seems to imply that even if the food that was cooked became mixed on Shabbos, the food is not considered a DSL”M and hence is nullified. As since it will never become permitted for the cook even after Shabbos it therefore is not considered a DSL”M. Others however rule that this only refers to if the food became mixed after Shabbos, while on Shabbos the food is considered a DSL”M since it will eventually become permitted for some people after Shabbos.
The following are the opinions on the matter:
- Opinion of Peri Megadim; Chavas Daas; Kreisy Upleisy; Tosefes Shabbos:An Issur is only considered a DSL”M if it will become permitted for the person that it is currently forbidden for. Thus if one advertently cooked food on Shabbos, since it is forbidden for the cook forever, even after Shabbos, it does not have the status of DSL”M, and even if it became mixed with other foods on Shabbos it is nullified. However for others it is considered a DSL”M on Shabbos since it will be permitted for them after Shabbos. Thus this opinion learns the wording of the Rama literally, that the Issur must become permitted for the person that it is currently forbidden for in order for the Issur to be considered a DSL”M.
- Opinion of Magen Avraham; Shulchan Aruch Harav:
An Issur is only considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin if it will eventually become permitted for either all Jews or even some Jews for whom it is now forbidden for. Thus if one advertently cooked food on Shabbos, although it is forbidden for the cook forever, even after Shabbos, since it will become permitted for others after Shabbos therefore on Shabbos it has the status of DSL”M for all people, including the cook. Thus if this cooked food mixes into other food on Shabbos it is not nullified and the entire mixture is forbidden for the cook forever, and for others it is forbidden until after Shabbos. Others however hold that even according to the Magen Avraham the food becomes permitted for the cook after Shabbos.
In any event this opinion learns the Rama to mean that the Issur must become permitted for even one person that it is currently forbidden for, in order for the Issur to be considered a DSL”M, and in such a case it is considered a DSL”M even for a person who the food will never become permitted for. However a food which is permitted forever for some Jews and forbidden forever for other Jews, such as food which was cooked on Shabbos Bemeizid and became mixed after Shabbos then it is not considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin.
The law of food that was cooked Beshogeg on Shabbos: Food which was cooked Beshogeg on Shabbos is considered a DSL”M on Shabbos, being that it will become permitted for all after Shabbos. Therefore if it became mixed with other foods on Shabbos it is not nullified and the entire mixture is forbidden until after Shabbos.
Summary of Condition 7:
According to all a food that is forbidden forever for one person but currently permitted for another person is not a DSL”M. If it is currently forbidden also for others but will eventually become permitted for those others, then it is disputed whether it is considered a DSL”M.
Summary of food cooked on Shabbos that became mixed with other foods:
Mixed on Shabbos: If the food was cooked Beshogeg and mixed with other foods, the mixture is forbidden for all people until after Shabbos irrelevant of the ratio. If the food was cooked Bimeizid then the mixture is forbidden for others until after Shabbos while for the actual cook it is disputed whether the food is permitted for him even on Shabbos, or only after Shabbos, or if the food is forbidden forever. The Shulchan Aruch Harav rules the food remains forbidden for him forever.
Mixed after Shabbos: The food is nullified in majority for the cook even if he did it advertently.
3. List of Cases:
A. An egg laid on Yom Tov:
An egg which was laid on Yom Tov is forbidden to be eaten until Motzei Yom Tov. If this egg became mixed with other eggs on Yom Tov the entire mixture is forbidden until after Yom Tov. This applies whether the eggs are whole or scrambled. Furthermore even if there is a doubt as to whether it was laid on Yom Tov or before Yom Tov the above law applies and it is not nullified.
B. Are Issur vessels considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin?
Example: A vessel which absorbed Issur meat became mixed with other Kosher vessels.
- Michaber/Rama/Rashba: Vessel is not DSL”M: A vessel which absorbed Issur [such as Issur was cooked inside of it] is not considered a DSL”M and is thus nullified in majority if it mixes together with other vessels. The reason for this is because it is not something which will become permitted on its own. Now although one is able to permit the mixture by Kashering the vessels nevertheless since Kashering involves a monetary loss it therefore does not become defined as DSL”M, as explained above in 2A. [Alternatively, according to the Rama the reason an Issur vessel is not defined as a DSL”M is because it contains an absorbed Issur as opposed to an intrinsic Issur, and the Rama rules an absorbed Issur never becomes DSL”M.]
- Rashal:Vessel is not DSL”M: Since the vessel will not eventually become permitted on its own, but rather requires an action to be done it is therefore not considered a DSL”M, irrelevant of the reason mentioned above. [The Shach questions this assertion based on that it was already established that even if the Issur can become permitted through an action it is considered a DSL”M.]
- Reah:Vessels must be Kashered: The Reah argues on the Rashba and rules that since the Issur vessel is able to be removed through Kashering all the vessels, the Issur is thus considered Beiyn [visibly intact] in which case we rule that the Issur is never nullified.
- Shach; Mahril:Vessel is DSL”M: The Mahril argues on the Rashba and states that’s since the vessel can be Kashered with a very minimal monetary loss the vessel is therefore considered a DSL”M. Practically the Shach concludes that one is to be stringent unless it involves a great loss in which case it is nullified in majority. Nevertheless even in such a case [of great loss] that the vessel is nullified in majority one is not to use any of the vessels until 24 hours have passed in order so that they are no longer Ben Yomo. Furthermore one is to be stringent like the Bach to remove one vessel from amongst this mixture.
- Taz:Kasher the vessels: Although the Issur vessel does not have a status DSL”M and hence all the vessels are permitted to be used, nevertheless one is to be stringent to Kasher the entire mixture of vessels. The reason for this is because it is forbidden to simultaneously eat all the foods of a mixture of Yaveish Beyaveish even if proper nullification of the Issur has occurred. Hence there is suspicion that with the passage of time one may come to forget and simultaneously cook food in all the vessels, and then mix the foods together and eat it. Thus in order to prevent this from occurring one should initially Kasher all the vessels in this mixture.
- Ruling of Admur-Shulchan Aruch Harav:
Vessel is not DSL”M: Vessels which absorbed Issur taste do not have a status of DSL”M with exception to Chameitz in which case, due to the stringency of Chameitz, we rule that a Chameitz pot is considered DSLM since it is able to be Kashered.
C. Miscellaneous laws regarding nullification of vessels:
Above we brought the law regarding if an Issur vessel that can be Kashered is able to be nullified. The following are the details of nullification that would apply according to those Poskim which are lenient to allow nullification of Issur vessels. Likewise these laws would apply according to all regarding mixture of Issur vessels that cannot be Kashered such as an earthenware Issur vessel.
In a case that the vessel is nullified, how much does one require 60x or majority? An Issur vessel that mixes with other vessels is nullified in majority, meaning a 2:1 ratio. However some opinions rule that this only applies in a case of Min Bemino, however by Min Beino Mino [such as a meat vessel became mixed with a dairy vessel] it is not nullified in majority. The Shach and Bach argue on this opinion and rule that even by mixtures of Min Beino Mino the vessels are nullified in majority. [However the Peri Megadim concludes that one requires 60x as perhaps he may come to wash the vessels together in hot water. The Shulchan Aruch Harav rules that Issur pots are nullified in 2:1 even in mixtures of Eino Mino.]
Must one remove one of the vessels from the mixture? The Bach rules that when an Issur vessel is nullified within other vessels one is to remove one of the vessels from the mixture, and avoid using it. The Shach writes that this is not necessary although concludes that it proper to be stringent like the Bach being that no loss is involved for one to do so. [The Shulchan Aruch Harav rules that when an Issur pot is nullified in majority one does not need to remove any of the pots from the mixture.]
In a case that the Issur vessel is nullified must one delay using the vessels for 24 hours until they are not Ben Yomo? The Shach rules that one must wait 24 hours prior to using any of the vessels in a mixture which contains a nullified Issur vessel, as regarding waiting 24 hours according to all the vessel is considered a DSL”M as no monetary loss is involved in this delay. [The Shulchan Aruch Harav rules that when a Issur pot is nullified in majority one does not need to wait 24 hours prior to using the mixture.]
Final Summary of Issur vessels:
If an Issur vessel becomes mixed with other Kosher vessels and one cannot differentiate between the vessels then some Poskim rule the Issur pot is always nullified in majority and one may thus use the entire mixture. Others rule that one must Kasher the pots if the pots are Kasherable, unless it involves a great loss. The Shulchan Aruch Harav seems to rule like the first opinion with exception to a Chameitz pot which is a Kasherable material. According to the Shulchan Aruch Harav whenever an Issur pot is nullified, it is nullified in majority, and one is not required to wait 24 hours or remove one of the pots from the mixture
Summary of opinions in the Rishonim and Early Achronim:
- Rashba:Issur pots are not DSL”M being that Kashering them involves a monetary loss.
- Reih-R. Avraham HaLevi:Issur pots are not nullified as since they can be Kashered their Issur is considered distinguishable [Beiyn].
Issur pots are DSL”M being that Kashering them involves only a minor monetary loss.
The Case: A piece of meat which was not salted and has passed three days from the slaughtering became mixed with other pieces of fresh unsalted meats. Do we allow all the meats to be salted and cooked, or do we apply the rule of DSL”M and hence only permit the meats to be roasted?
The Law: Such meat is not considered a DSL”M and thus if it became mixed with other pieces of meat it is nullified and the entire mixture is permitted to be salted and then cooked.
The reason of the Rama: Even though the meat in the above case is allowed to be roasted, and there are opinions which thus say that something which is allowed to be roasted is considered a DSL”M, nevertheless here it is not considered a DSL”M being that it is not an intrinsic Issur [Machmas Atzmo] but rather is only forbidden due to absorbed blood, and only foods which are intrinsically forbidden receive the stringency of a DSL”M, as explained above in Halacha 2D.
The reason of the Shach/Taz: A food can only be considered DSL”M if it is currently forbidden for a certain matter and that matter will eventually become permitted. In this case however the meat in question is always forbidden to be cooked and always permitted to be roasted. There is no aspect that will eventually become permitted and it is hence not viewed as a DSL”M.
The opinion of the Taz: Some learn the Taz to hold that the meat in the above case is considered a DSL”M and is not nullified. Others learn that the Taz himself agrees with the Rama and Shach.
E. Is food which is forbidden to an individual due to a vow considered a DSL”M for that person?
Example: One who made a vow against drinking a certain bottle of wine and it then became mixed with other wine, is it considered a DSL”M and not nullified for that individual?
The Law: Food which is forbidden to an individual due to a vow that he undertook upon himself is considered a DSL”M for that person. The reason is because one is able to revoke a vow [and permit the food] by asking a Chacham [Sage] or Beis Din to revoke it. Thus it is considered like any other food which can eventually become permitted through an inexpensive action.
F. Chameitz on Pesach:
See Halacha 2F!
G. Food that was cooked on Shabbos:
See Halacha 2G!
Example: If Chadash grains became mixed with non-Chadash:
The Law: If one used yeast of Chadash grains for kneading a non-Chadash dough then the entire dough becomes prohibited irrelevant of the ratio. The reason for this is because since yeast is made to give taste to the dough it does not become nullified even within sixty. Furthermore, all Chadash is considered a “Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirim” which does not become nullified even within a 1000 times.
 Taz 102/1
 Michaber 102/1
 However Biblically every Issur is nullified in a 1:2 ratio by mixtures of Yaveish Beyaveish. [Taz 102/1]
 Michaber ibid
This is unlike the ruling of a Davar Chashuv in which we rule leniently to allow nullification in a case of doubt that involves a Rabbinical prohibition.[Meaning if there is doubt as to whether the food is permitted or Rabbinically forbidden then we are lenient due to a Safek Derabanan.] However by a DSL”M we are stringent even in such a case as eventually this doubt will become removed upon when it becomes Kosher, and hence we decree not to be lenient even by a Rabbinical doubt. [Taz 102/3; Shach 102/2]
Other Opinions: The Bach rules that we are lenient in a case of doubt also regarding a DSL”M. The Shach ibid argues on his ruling.
If the food may not eventually become Kosher: All the above is talking of a case that the possible Issur will certainly become Kosher. If however the food may remain forbidden forever, if it is discovered to be forbidden, then it is not a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin as will be explained in Halacha 2.
 Taz 102/1 in name of Rash
 Taz 102/4
 Michaber ibid
 This means that it was placed in, in order to be eaten together with the Eino Mino.
 Rama 102/1; Admur 513/7; 335/4
 For example bread which includes eggs and salt and flour and water we do not considered four different species. Rather it is all one single food. Thus if one placed a DSL”M egg into dough to give taste or color we view the entire dough as one single species of an Issur DSL”M egg. [Taz 102/6; Shach 102/6]
 Taz 102/6; Shach 102/6
 Toras Chatas 40/6 brought in Shach 102/4; Taz 102/5
 For example in a case of a DSL”M egg that mixed with other eggs we want to permit all the eggs, and since there is an Issur egg within the mixture the entire batch of eggs is considered a DSL”M.
 In other words once the DSL”M mixes into a different species it places into question that species, and that species is not a DSL”M, as even now it is Kosher. Hence we cannot forbid the new species which is not a DSL”M simply because it contains an Issur which is DSL”M.
 Ran brought in Taz 102/5
 Which discusses the dispute between Rebbe Yehuda and Rabanan in whether an Issur is nullified in Min Bemino. Rebbe Yehuda learns it is not nullified being that the Torah refers to the mixture of cow and goat blood, offered on Yom Kippur, as goat blood even though it is the minority. He thus learns that by Min Bemino there is never a law of nullification. The Rabanan however argue that this only refers to a case where both bloods are Kosher [i.e. both are Kosher for offering on Yom Kippur] if however one is an Issur then they are viewed as two different species and the Issur is nullified in the Heter. In any event what results from this dispute is that all are in agreement that by a mixture of Min Bemino of all kosher foods there is no law of nullification. [Taz ibid]
 In other words one can’t say that in a mixture of ten Kosher eggs, one egg is nullified to the other nine eggs which are majority. The reason for this is because by a same species the other eggs actually enhance the taste of the single egg and not the opposite. [Taz ibid]
 Shach 102/3; Rashal 25/88
 In Halachas 2-3 the Shulchan Aruch brings numerous opinions regarding criteria for an Issur to be considered DSL”M.
 Michaber 102/2
 Rashba and Tur. The Shach [102/7] questions why the Michaber brings this ruling in the name of “some opinions” when in truth there are no other Rishonim that argue on them and their opinion is also proven from within the Gemara.
 Meaning that if one has the ability to do an action which will definitely Kasher the Issur then it is considered a DSL”M even if it will not become Kosher on its own without this action. Nevertheless the Michaber stipulates that this only applies if the action does not require an expenditure of money to perform. If however one must spend money in order to perform the action which will permit the food then he does not consider the Issur a DSL”M even though it is within the power of the owner to permit it.
 Such as we are unsure if the chicken it was born from contains a Treifa invalidation or not and this can be verified through waiting twelve months or until it lays another batch of eggs. [In 57/18 it is explained that one can verify whether a chicken is a Treifa or not through waiting 12 months or until it lays a new batch of eggs. If the chicken lives for twelve more months or lays a fresh batch of eggs then this is a sign that it is not a Treifa.] Thus this egg is possibly able to become Kosher through waiting the above amount of time. [So explains Tzemach Tzedek (Kadmon-Nikolsberg) 69]
 Through having its mother live twelve more months or through her laying another batch of eggs, as explained above.
 Beir Heiytiv 102/5
The question of the Mefarshim on the previous case given: The simple understanding of the Michaber is to be referring to a Safek Treifa egg that was laid during the week which became mixed with other eggs, and since this egg may become Kosher through waiting twelve months therefore perhaps it is considered a DSL”M. On this the Mefarshim ask [Beir Heiytiv ibid; Chavas Daas Biurim 102/2; Kreisy Upleisy 102/4]: Why isn’t this egg nullified based on the fact that it may be revealed that its mother was never a Treifa. Hence it is not a DSL”M, as a DSL”M must be currently forbidden and eventually permitted while here it is never possible for this egg to be currently forbidden and then become Kosher, as it will eventually be revealed that it was either always forbidden or always permitted. It is simply that this matter cannot be verified until some time passes. [In other words why must we resort to the reason of the Michaber that “it will not definitely become permitted” in order to not define this egg as a DSL”M, when in truth regardless it is not a DSL”M, as if it will be revealed later on that its mother was a Treifa then it is a typical Issur which follows the laws of nullification. If it will be revealed that its mother is Kosher, then even now the egg is Kosher. Hence irrelevant of the reason given by the Michaber this egg should be nullified and is not a DSL”M.]
Due to the above question the Beir Heiytiv concludes that the Michaber is referring to a case that the egg in question was laid on Yom Tov and hence is currently forbidden even if it were to be revealed later on that its mother is not a Treifa. Thus in this case the Michaber novelizes that since it is possible that the egg will be revealed to be Treif all together it therefore does not receive the DSL”M status and is nullified even when it mixes on Yom Tov, due to that DSL”M only applies it the Issur will definitely become permitted.
 Tzemach Tzedek [Kadmon-Nikolsberg] 69
The Kreisy Upleisy 102/4 and Chavos Daas 102/2 address the question of the Beir Heiytiv and conclude that notwithstanding the question it is still possible to define the egg as a DSL”M if not for the reason brought by the Michaber. The logic behind this is that the entire reason of DSL”M is because we view the mixture as Min Bemino as explained above in the Ran. Hence here too we view the mixture as Min Bemino as perhaps the egg will be revealed that it is permitted, and in such a case there is no status of nullification as explained there that two Kosher foods in Min Bemino are never nullified. Hence even if the egg is really forbidden it cannot be nullified due to this consideration.
 Taz 102/7
 Michaber 102/4
 102/9 as is proven from Rama in Toras Chatas Klal 74; The Shach suggests that perhaps the Rama here agrees that if there is actual Issur in the pot, even if it disintegrated it is not nullified, and only when only taste remains it is nullified. He however differs this based on the Toras Chatas which explicitly states that even disintegrated DSL”M is nullified.
 The Peri Megadim [102 M.Z. 9] explains that it is understood from the explanation of Taz 102/9 that he holds the Rama rules even disintegrated Issur is not a DSL”M. He learns this from the fact the Taz compares this case in Rama to the case in Halacha 1 that one placed an egg into his food, and there it is discussing a case that the egg disintegrated within the food. This understanding of the Taz contradicts the next Taz [102/10] which explains in the Rama that a disintegrated Issur is always remains DSL”M. [See Peri Megadim 102 M.Z. 10 which leaves this matter with a Tzaruch Iyun Gadol]
The above is all in accordance to the explanation of the Peri Megadim in Taz 102/9. However the Beir Heiytiv 102/7 learns the Taz in 102/9 to hold that the Rama rules only if the body of the Issur has been completely removed is the DSL”M taste nullified, otherwise it remains a DSL”M even if it disintegrated.
 This can also be proven from the fact the Rama does not consider meat which was not salted a DSL”M even though the meat contains actual Issur blood and not just taste of it.
 This is not in contradiction to the case of a DSL”M egg which was added to a food in which case we rule the egg is not nullified as in that case the egg is purposely placed there in order to enhance it and give it color, and hence it stands out. Here however there is no sign of the Issur and hence we do not apply to it the stringency of DSL”M. [Shach 102/9; Taz 102/9]
 102/10 as explains Beir Heiytiv 102/7 and P”M 102 M.Z. 10 [According to the Peri Megadim this is in contradiction to Taz 102/9 -See Peri Megadim 102 M.Z. 10; See previous footnotes]
 See background of next footnote for the explanation of this ruling of the Taz.
 Taz 102/10
The Taz explains in length how whenever there is actual body of Issur within the food, even if it disintegrated, it is considered a DSL”M. The reason is because there is no logic to differentiate between the cases of intact Issur and disintegrated Issur. Either way the food will eventually become permitted and is hence not nullified. However when the Issur has been removed and only gives taste, since by Min Bemino if the body is removed Biblically nullification is not necessary [being they have the same taste and there is hence no taste to nullify] therefore the Sages did not apply the rule of DSL”M by this taste. [See however P”M 102 M”Z 10 which questions this ruling] In conclusion it is evident from this explanation of the Taz that he only agrees that the taste of a DSL”M is nullified if it mixed with a Mino of the same taste, as otherwise it would Biblically require 60x.
 If however they do not have the same name they are considered Min Beino Mino as explained above.
 Shach 102/9.
The Shach learns the Rama to rule that even if the Issur disintegrated it loses its DSL”M status. He thus asks on the Rama from different sources which clearly state that in such a case it is not nullified. He draws this implication from the Rishonim [Tur, Rabbenu Tam, Rosh] which rule that a DSL”M Issur which is disintegrated is nullified in 60x in Eino Mino, thus implying that in Min Bemino even taste of a DSL”M is not nullified. He suggests that perhaps one can answer that the Rama here agrees that if there is actual Issur in the pot, even if it disintegrated it is not nullified, and only when only taste remains it is nullified. He however differs this based on the Toras Chatas which explicitly states that even disintegrated DSL”M is nullified. He thus disagrees with the entire ruling of the Rama and concludes based on the above sources that even taste of a DSL”M is not nullified. This is in addition to the fact that there is no real rational to differentiate between the taste and body of the DSL”M.
 Brought in Shach ibid
 Taz 102/10
 See Background in previous footnotes for explanation of this Taz. To note that this explanation of the Taz follows the simple understanding of his words, and so concludes the Peri Megadim and other Mefarshim on this Taz. However the Beir Heiytiv 102/10 seems to have understood the Taz to be arguing on the Rama completely and that he holds that even the taste of a DSL”M is never nullified. Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol!
 Rama 102/4
 The novelty here is that although we rule that a piece of Heter that absorbed Issur becomes Chanan, nevertheless regarding DSL”M we do not apply the stringency. Furthermore, even if the Heter is carrying actual Issur within it, such as in the case of a meat carrying its blood which the Rama brings next, the blood is nullified being that it is an absorbed Issur.
 As in the end of the day the Issur has an eventual allowance and thus there is no reason to differentiate.
 In other words the Taz disagrees with the idea that absorbed Issurim are not considered DSL”M. Nevertheless in certain cases he agrees with the ruling of the Rama that the absorbed Issur is nullified due to the reasons explained in the previous condition, that DSL”M taste is nullified. This is unlike the Shach which rules the law of DSL”M applies even to Issur taste.
 Rama 102/4
 The logic of this condition is that in order for an Issur to receive a status of a DSL”M it must exist prior to mixing into the Heter, and thus be able to receive this status of no nullification. However if it only comes into existence after it becomes mixed with the Heter, as will be explained in the example of grapes in a barrel, then by the time we desire to give it a status of a DSL”M it was already nullified within the Heter. [See Admur 320/4]
 Shach 102/12; Taz 102/11; Admur 320/4
Why this case is not similar to the case of meat which was never salted and contains blood: Meat which was never salted is considered an Issur that is recognizable on its own as the meat is currently forbidden. Thus it does not fall under this category of an Issur that is not recognizable prior to the mixture. [Taz 102/11]
 Rama 102/4
 Meaning the Issur goes through a constant cycle of permission and prohibition depending on the times of the year.
 So rules Mordechai and Rama in Toras Chatas [Taz 102/13]
 Shach 102/13
As starting from the 5th hour of the day until the night of Pesach, Chameitz is forbidden without an Issur of Mashehu. However on Pesach itself, beginning from the night of the 15th, Chameitz is an Issur Mashehu and is never nullified irrelevant of whether it has a status of a DSL”M. Thus the dispute recorded in chapter 447 regarding whether Chameitz is nullified if it became mixed Yaveish Beyaveish on Pesach, is not relevant to our discussion above of whether it is a DSL”M. As those opinions that are stringent to consider the mixture forbidden, this is because they consider Chameitz, even dry, as an Issur Mashehu on Pesach, and it is thus never nullified. However on Erev Pesach they may agree that the Chameitz is nullified and is not a DSL”M. [Shach ibid] On the other hand even according to those that are lenient in the above case of Yaveish Beyaveish, no proof can be given that they hold Chameitz is not a DSL”M as perhaps they only permit a mixture of Min Beino Mino, in which case even a DSL”M is nullified. The above is one way of understanding the dispute in 447 of Chameitz that became mixed with a Yaveish Beyaveish. Alternatively, another way of understanding the dispute is that the dispute is based on the dispute mention here of whether Chameitz has a status of DSL”M or not [Shach 102/14]
 As although the Chameitz will eventually become permitted after Pesach nevertheless it will become forbidden once again the next Pesach. Hence it is a recurring Issur which according to the first opinion is not considered a DSL”M.
 Rambam, and so rules Rashal 87 [brought in Taz 102/13; Shach 102/15]
 Meaning although Admur clearly rules that Chameitz is not a DSL”M, since this is due to other reasons and not due to the reason of the Rama, therefore whether Admur holds of the fundament of the Rama [that an Issur that will eventually become forbidden once again after it becomes permitted is not a DSL”M] is still left unanswered.
 As perhaps in general Admur holds of the reason of the Rama although in this specific case applies also the reason of the Ran, and hence there was no need to mention it.
Regarding why Admur rules that by vessels on Erev Pesach a Chameitz vessel is not nullified only due to a stringency of DSL”M [and not due to it being a DSL”M from the letter of the law, as in truth even after Pesach it is allowed] perhaps this is because he holds that if the Chameitz were to exist Beiyn they would be forbidden after Pesach therefore the absorbed taste also has the same status and does not receive a law of DSL”M. Vetzaruch Iyun. See Piskeiy Admur Yoreh Deah p. 304 which brings two explanations of why Admur recorded the reason of the Ran and not the Mordechai.
Regarding Chameitz ash that became mixed with other ash: If one burned Chameitz after the 6th hour on Erev Pesach, the ash is forbidden in benefit. If the ash mixed with other Kosher ash then the entire mixture is forbidden, as the Chameitz ash is considered a DSL”M, and is thus not nullified even in 1000x. [445/8] Now, although Admur rules that Chameitz is not considered a DSL”M nevertheless in this case the Chameitz ash is considered a DSL”M as it is not forbidden after Pesach, and will not become forbidden again the next Pesach. Hence according to all opinions it is considered a DSL”M.
 Rama 102/4, as is the simple meaning of his wording. However see version 2 where the Magen Avraham and Admur explain in differently.
 Shach 102/15
 As since the food will never become permitted for the cook it is therefore not considered a DSL”M.
 102 S.D. 15
 Chidushim 102/14; Biurim 102/18
 So rules Admur ibid; First understanding in P”M 102 S.D. 15
 Elya Raba 318/3; Rav Poalim 17; M”B 318/13; Kaf Hachaim 318/15 and 102/34; See P”M 102 S.D. 15 which leaves this matter in doubt.
 Shach 102/15 establishes the case to be referring to Meizid and not Shogeg; and so is implied from Admur 318/4
 Michaber 102/1
Although a whole Issur egg is never nullified also due to it being a Davar Shebiminyan as explained in chapter 86/3 [See Taz 7 there] nevertheless the novelty here is that such an egg is also forbidden due to being a DSL”M. The practical ramification here is in a case of doubt in whether the item is a Davar Shebiminyan or a DSL”M. By a Davar Shebiminyan we are lenient in a case of doubt. By DSL”M we are stringent. Hence by a whole egg, since it is also a DSL”M we are stringent even in a case of doubt. [Taz 102/2]
 Michaber ibid
 Rama 102/3; This reason is mentioned in the Rashba
 Taz 102/10
The Rama here did not write this reason because he wanted one to learn the concept that when there is a loss involved in performing the action then the Issur it is not considered a DSL”M. [Taz ibid]
 25/86 Brought in Shach 102/8; Taz 102/8
 Rebbe Avraham Haleivi Brought in Taz 102/8
 Shach 102/8
 Taz 102/8
The Taz ibid asks why must we resort to the reason of the Rama to permit the vessel. We should apply the rule that an item that absorbed an Issur cannot be more stringent than the Issur itself. Thus just like the Issur which the vessel absorbed would be nullified inside the mixture similarly the vessel itself should be nullified. The Taz answers that perhaps when it comes to a DSL”M we are not lenient at all due to any outside reason as in the end of the day since it will once again become Kosher we do not want it to be currently nullified.
 447/23 [See Piskei Admur Yoreh Deah p. 297 which writes that nevertheless one cannot prove from the wording of Admur that he does not hold of the stringency of the Taz or Shach. This contradicts everything else it already wrote in the opinion of Admur. Vetzrauch Iyun.]
 Michaber 102/3
 Teshuvos Ben Lev brought in Shach 102/8
 102 S.D. 8
 447/23 regarding a Chameitz earthenware pot that cannot be Kashered which became mixed with other pots. [See Piskei Admur Yoreh Deah p. 297]
 As the case there in Admur refers to a Chameitz vessels that became mixed with Pesach vessels, hence it is a case of Min Beino Mino.
 Shach 102/8
 As is proven from the fact that all Poskim rule in 109 that when such an occurrence occurs with a piece of Issur one does not have to remove one of the pieces. Hence certainly by a vessel it is unnecessary. The only reason why some Poskim [Mahriy] were stringent to remove an Issur piece is because they were Tzadikim and Talmidei Chachamim and decided to be stringent upon themselves. [Shach ibid]
 Meaning that in a case that an Issur vessel became mixed with Kosher vessels [and they can’t be Kashered, or can but the case involves great loss as explained earlier in the Shach] one is to remove one of the vessels, as anyways one of the vessels are Issur which would have been forbidden in use, and hence he does not receive any loss through following this stringency of the Bach. If however the case involves meat vessels that became mixed with milk vessels, since permanently removing one of the vessels from use causes him to lose that vessel which previously he was able to use, therefore he does not have to remove it. [So is understood from Shach ibid]
 447/23 regarding a Chameitz pot that cannot be Kashered which became mixed with other pots. [See Piskei Admur Yoreh Deah p. 297]
 Shach 102/8
 447/23 regarding a Chameitz pot that cannot be Kashered which became mixed with other pots. [See Piskei Admur Yoreh Deah p. 297]
 Michaber and Rama 102/3; See Admur 447/23
 We do not say that the pot has the status of Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin as it costs money to Kasher it and thus it is not considered to automatically become Kosher. Furthermore there are Poskim [Rama] which rule that by Issur Balua we do not say the concept of DSL”M. [Michaber/Rama Yoreh Deah 102/3]
Removing a pot form the mixture: According to Admur [as well as the simple wording of the Michaber/Rama] there is no need to remove one of the pots from the mixture. However other Poskim [Bach, brought Shach ibid] rule that one of the pots are to be removed.
Mixtures of Eino Mino: According to Admur [as well as the Michaber/Rama/Bach/Shach] there is no difference whether the pot mixed in with Mino or Eino Mino. However other Poskim [brought in Shach ibid] rule that by Eino Mino one requires 60x.
Waiting 24 hours: According to Admur one is not required to wait 24 hours before using the pots.
 The Shach [102/8] rules that it does have the status of DSL”M, as Kashering it only involves a small loss, as well as that by Issur Balua he holds the concept of DSL”M still applies. Furthermore, other Poskim [Taz 102/8] rule that even though the Issur vessel is nullified since there is chance that one may come to use all the pots at once they should all be Kashered.
 See Piskeiy Admur Yoreh Deah p. 297 which writes one cannot bring a clear proof from Admur that he does not hold to be stringent like the Shach or Taz brought in the second opinion, even though this does seem to be leaning opinion from there.
 Meat which has passed three days from when it was slaughtered and has not yet been salted to remove its blood is only permitted to be roasted and may not be cooked, as its blood can no longer be removed through salting.
 Rama 102/4; Michaber 69/14
 Shach 102/11; 69/56
The Shach and Taz differ with the ruling of the Rama that an absorbed Issur cannot become DSL”M, as explained in Halacha 2D. However they agree to the ruling of the Rama in this case for other reasons. They explain that the meat is not considered a DSL”M being that the main opinion holds that something which is always permitted to be eaten a certain way, such as here to roast the meat, is not considered a DSL”M, as only something which is now forbidden and will eventually be permitted is a DSL”M.
 Taz 102/10; 69/35
Analysis of the opinion of the Taz:
In the beginning of the Taz ibid he brings the same reason as the Shach regarding why this meat is not considered a DSL”M. However later on he mentions a few times that this meat would have a status of a DSL”M being that it is permitted to be roasted, and there is no difference between an absorbed Issur or innate Issur. The Beir Heiytiv 102/10 learns the Taz to rule that such meat is considered DSL”M. Others argue that the Taz wrote this simply within the opinion of the Rif that holds such a case would be considered a DSL”M, and is simply coming to negate the opinion that an absorbed Issur is not a DSL”M. However he himself rules like most Poskim that meat is not a DSL”M for the reason he wrote in the beginning of the Taz.
 Beir Heiytiv 102/10
 See Darkei Halacha p. 180; To note that in chapter 69/14 the Taz does not argue with the ruling of the Michaber and furthermore he even explains why the meat is not a DSL”M. See Taz 69/35
 Rama 192/4
 Taz 102/12
 Taz Yoreh Deah 293/1
 According to this latter reason, any Chadash flour mixed with any food etc, makes the entire mixture prohibited.