Siman 101

A piece fit to be served before guests is not nullified even in a thousand because of its importance, like a creature. Therefore, a piece of nevela or terefa that was mixed among kosher pieces—if the piece is fit to be served, such as a large piece that is fit to be placed before a distinguished guest, it is not nullified even in a thousand. And perhaps you will ask: how is it fit to be served, given that it is nevela or terefa? This is not a question at all, for it is unnecessary to state regarding nevela and terefa which are fit for a non-Jewish guest, but even a piece of a forbidden benefit, such as meat in milk, is also called "fit to be served." For since if we were to say that it is nullified and permitted, it would be fit to be served, therefore it is not nullified for this reason. And we forbid the mixture for benefit, except that he may sell them all to a non-Jew excluding the value of the forbidden item within them, so that he does not benefit from the forbidden item [Shach, subsection 1]. And in section 5 it will be explained that we require it to be fit for everyone.

The matter is simple, that there is no difference whether this piece was mixed among other pieces dry in dry, or whether they were mixed through salting, or soaking, or cooking. Rather, the difference is if they identified the forbidden item and removed it from there, or if one of the pieces was lost inadvertently, in which case they are all permitted, as was written in siman 110. If they were mixed dry in dry, they are all permitted even with less than sixty, but if they were cooked together, sixty is required to nullify the discharge of the forbidden item; and regarding salting and soaking, each follows its own law. This is what the Rambam wrote in chapter 16, law 5, and this is his wording: And so, a piece of nevelah, or of the meat of a beast or animal or bird or fish that are impure, which was mixed with several thousand pieces, everything is forbidden until he removes that piece, and afterwards he shall measure the remainder against sixty, etc., for he honors guests with it. Thus far his words. His intention is when it was mixed through cooking, and it is not meant exclusively. And that which he wrote, "until he removes that piece," his intention is when they identify it, that this is the forbidden piece.

He further wrote there, and this is his wording: And the same applies to a piece of meat and milk or of non-sacred meat slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, for they are forbidden for benefit by the words of the sages, as will be explained in the laws of slaughtering; they forbid in any amount until one removes them. Thus far his words. And the matter is simple, that he is referring to non-sacred meat in the Temple courtyard, and he follows his own reasoning which he wrote in chapter 2 of the laws of slaughtering, that for non-sacred meat in the Temple courtyard one is struck with the rabbinic lashing, see there, for he holds that it is rabbinic. However, a piece of meat and milk is obvious that it is forbidden for benefit by the Torah, as he himself wrote in chapter 9. And his primary intention is to inform us that a piece fit for presentation of items forbidden for benefit, whether from the Torah or from the words of the sages, forbids all the pieces for benefit, as I have written. [And see the Peri Chadash, subsection 4, who labored over his words, but in my humble opinion the matter is simple as I have written, and so wrote the Beit Yosef, that even a piece fit for presentation that is only forbidden rabbinically forbids all the pieces, see there].

And we have a question regarding this matter: why do we need the reason that a piece is not nullified due to the reason of being fit to be served to guests? For we hold later at the beginning of siman 110 that a thing that is counted is not nullified, and a large piece is certainly a thing that is counted. However, for our teacher, the Beit Yosef, there, it is well-settled, for he indeed ruled there that a thing that is counted is nullified except for seven things that he enumerates there. But for our teacher, the Rema, there, who ruled that a thing that is counted is not nullified, it is difficult. And it must be said that even he only ruled there regarding a thing whose way is to be counted always, like the one who said in Yevamot [81a]: "That which its way is to be counted is not nullified," meaning that they always sell it by count. But pieces are sometimes sold by count and sometimes without count, as is explained there in the Gemara. And so it is explained from his wording there where he wrote, and this is his wording: "And there are those who say that any thing that is counted, meaning that its way is to be counted always, is not nullified." Thus far his words. And according to this, for the poskim who hold that a thing that is sometimes sold by count and sometimes without count is also not nullified—for this is like the one who said in the Gemara there, "Anything whose way is to be counted is not nullified," meaning that if it is only sometimes sold by count it is not nullified—truthfully, there is no need for the reason of a piece fit to be served to guests. [See Turei Zahav there, subsection 1, who brought one who holds thus, and it is the Sha'arei Dura in the name of the Geonim].

The great Achronim wrote that if a matter from which benefit is forbidden was mixed with matters that are forbidden for eating, it is nullified even if they are fit to be honored [Kereiti U-Peleiti and Pri Chadash]. The reason for the matter is that since even if it were nullified they would be forbidden for eating, if so, it is only fit to be honored before a non-Jew; and anything that is not fit to honor every person is not called fit to be honored. This is a great logical argument, and there is proof from what the Sages, of blessed memory, said there, that a piece of an impure chatat that was mixed with a hundred pieces of pure chatat offerings is nullified. The Rashba, of blessed memory, wrote there that therefore we do not adjudicate regarding it the law of a piece fit to be honored, because even if it were nullified they are only fit for Kohanim, and it is only called a piece fit to be honored when it is fit for every person, see there [and with this the difficulty of the Tosafot in Zevachim 72b, beginning with "Ela," against Rashi is answered, see there; but according to the reason of the Tosafot, because Kohanim do not honor one another since they are all equal, see there, there is no proof; and also according to the poskim, anything whose way is to be counted is also not nullified, and examine this].

It has already been explained in siman 100 that all those things which are not nullified are so by rabbinic decree; therefore, when there is a doubt whether this piece is a chatikhah hare'uyah lehitkabed, we follow the lenient view even regarding a Torah prohibition, since by Torah law it is certainly nullified, and a rabbinic doubt is ruled leniently. However, when it is a chatikhah hare'uyah lehitkabed, it is not nullified even regarding a rabbinic prohibition. Similarly, regarding a Torah prohibition, if it is certainly a chatikhah hare'uyah lehitkabed and the doubt is whether there is a prohibition in this case, we follow the stringent view, as will be explained in siman 110. Therefore, if they made large cheeses that are chatikhah hare'uyah lehitkabed and small ones that are not chatikhah hare'uyah lehitkabed, and they were made from several animals, and afterwards an animal was found to be treifah in a manner that the cheeses made from it within three days are forbidden, all the cheeses are permitted because there is a doubt that perhaps the small ones were made from the treifah. But if they are all large and chatikhah hare'uyah lehitkabed, even though they were mixed while they were still in a state of presumed kashrut, nevertheless, it has now been clarified retroactively that some of them are forbidden, and it is a chatikhah hare'uyah lehitkabed and they are not nullified, and all of them are forbidden [Pri Megadim in the name of Issur V'Heter].

The law of a piece worthy of being served to guests does not apply except to a piece whose prohibition is due to itself and not due to a prohibition absorbed within it. For example, if the piece is kosher and became prohibited because it was cooked with treif meat and became mixed, it does not have the law of a piece worthy of being served to guests, for the absorbed prohibition—the taste of the prohibition—is not something worthy of being served to guests. And even according to the one who holds that a prohibited substance becomes itself a prohibited entity and it is like the essence of a prohibition, nevertheless, ultimately the cause of the prohibition is the taste of the prohibition absorbed within it, and this is not worthy of being served to guests. Therefore, this law of a piece worthy of being served to guests applies only to a piece of nevelah, treif, or impure species. And a piece of meat and milk, even though this too is from an absorbed prohibition, nevertheless, since each one on its own is permitted and through their joining together a prohibition is created, it is like a prohibition due to itself, even if the meat and milk were joined through salting or soaking. And so too regarding poultry in milk, we apply the law of a piece worthy of being served to guests, for we have already explained that even regarding a rabbinic prohibition we apply the law of a piece worthy of being served to guests [Pri Megadim in Siftei Da'at, subsection 3].

Cheeses that were made from the milk of a terefah certainly have the law of chatichah hareuyah lehitchabed, and even if one mixed the milk of a terefah with the milk of a kosher animal and there is a majority of kosher milk and it is permitted by the Torah, nevertheless, if there is not sixty it is forbidden by rabbinic law. And if there is enough in the portion of the terefah for it to be fit to be served to guests, it is called chatichah hareuyah lehitchabed [Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav, end of subsection 4]. And so too, cheeses that were curdled with a stomach-lining that is forbidden due to basar bechalav, such as where the milk of the stomach remained in the skin of the stomach for twenty-four hours and it was curdled with the milk of the stomach and there is in it the taste of basar bechalav [Chavat Daat, subsection 3], it is called a prohibition due to itself and has the law of chatichah hareuyah lehitchabed, for it has already been explained that basar bechalav is a prohibition due to itself. And regarding ordinary cheeses of heathens, where there is a concern that they were curdled with the skin of the stomach of a nevelah or terefah, according to the opinion of the author of the Issur Ve-Hetter [Rule 25], a curdling agent is like a prohibition in its essence and we judge it with the law of chatichah hareuyah lehitchabed. Furthermore, since the sages forbade their cheeses and their initial creation was in prohibition, it is like a prohibition due to itself. Our teacher, the Rema, in his book Torat Chattat [Rule 40], disagrees with him and holds that regarding chatichah hareuyah lehitchabed, a curdling agent is not called a prohibition in its essence but rather like an absorbed prohibition, and there is no law of chatichah hareuyah lehitchabed in their cheeses. And one need not fear lest they were made from the milk of a terefah, for the majority of animals are kosher [Taz, subsection 4]. There is one who decided like the Issur Ve-Hetter [Pri Chadash, subsection 4], and there are those who decided like the Torat Chattat [Taz and Minchat Yaakov]. And certainly one may rely on this in a case of loss because one may further join the opinions of the early authorities who said that regarding cheeses the law of chatichah hareuyah lehitchabed does not apply at all, for when it is moist it is not significant, and even when it has dried it is not so significant to eat from it until satiety because it is hard on the body [Taz ibid. in the name of the Mordechai]. And also because of the law of davar she-beminyan one should not forbid it, for sometimes they sell it not by count. And furthermore, even in a davar she-beminyan we require its prohibition to be due to itself and not from an absorbed prohibition [according to the Pri Megadim].

A piece of meat that was not salted does not have the law of a piece worthy of being served to guests, for its prohibition is not due to itself but rather due to the blood absorbed within it. Similarly, a piece of meat that was prohibited to the depth of a peel does not have the law of a piece worthy of being served to guests, for with the peel it is not fitting to honor a guest. Furthermore, the peel itself was prohibited only from the absorption of a prohibition. However, if the peel was prohibited from the absorption of milk, it has already been explained that regarding meat and milk we do not judge with the law of an absorbed substance, but rather as a prohibition due to itself; therefore, we required the reason that with the peel it is not fitting to honor a guest [see Shach, subsection 6]. And there is one who says that if the peel is so large that with it itself it would be fitting to honor a guest, we judge it with the law of a piece worthy of being served to guests [ibid.]. And it requires further study, for even if it were very large, it is not the way to place such a large peel before an important guest. Nevertheless, the great later authorities agreed to the prohibition [Shach and Pri Chadash and Chavat Da'at], and there is one who was lenient in this [Pleti, subsection 4].

The Tur wrote in the name of the Rosh, of blessed memory, that regarding the matter of a piece worthy of being served to guests, opinions are numerous. Some say that a hen in its feathers, and likewise a raw piece, since they are not fit now, are not considered worthy of being served to guests; and even a whole animal is nullified until after it has been cooked and is fit to be placed before a guest to honor him. But this is not clear, for it did not say "worthy of being served to guests" except for its size, that it should be large and fit to honor a guest with it once it is cooked; but because it is raw or in its feathers, its importance is not nullified. And also some say that a whole lamb or a whole goose is not called worthy of being served to guests, for it is not the way to place a whole lamb or goose before a guest. And these too are words of vanity; for because it is fit to be divided into important pieces, should it be worse? All the more so is it more important, as it is its way to be counted. Thus far the words of the Tur in the name of the Rosh, of blessed memory.

However, the Rashba, of blessed memory, in Torat HaBayit [Bayit 4, Sha'ar 1] wrote, and this is his wording: And which piece is called "fit to be honored before guests"? Any that is the manner of people to place before a single guest, which is a medium piece that is neither small nor overly large; for if it is small, it is not significant and a person is not honored by it before a distinguished guest, and similarly the large one is destined to be cut, as it is not their manner to place it in its entirety before a single guest. And you should know this from that which we say there in the chapter "HaTa'aruvot": "and let them be nullified in the majority," and it answers: "because living creatures are not nullified," implying that a slaughtered one in a similar case is nullified. Thus far his words. And consequently, all the more so a lamb in its hide or a goose or a hen in its feathers is not called a piece fit to be honored. And so wrote the Semak. And similarly in Sha'arei Dura [siman 40] he wrote, and this is his wording: And a case came before our teacher Yaakov regarding a nevelah hen that was mixed with two kosher slaughtered ones, and the prohibited one's feathers had not been removed, and Rabbeinu Tam permitted it since its feathers had not been removed, it is not fit to be honored before guests as it is. Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book, decided the halacha according to these opinions, and it is also clear from his words in the Shulchan Aruch, section 3, where regarding the opinion of the Tur he wrote "and there are those who disagree with all of this," see there, and his opinion is like the first opinion he wrote there.

It appears to me that the essence of the dispute depends on this: for the Rosh, it was difficult—granted that with such a thing it is not fit to be honored, nevertheless it is no worse than a thing that is typically counted, as he concludes in his words, "all the more so it is considered significant, that which is its way to be counted." And he follows his own reasoning, for he ruled that that which is its way to be counted is not nullified, as the Tur wrote in siman 110, see there. And according to this, the difficulty of the Rashba is not difficult against him, who questioned from the chapter "HaTa'aruvot" which answers that living animals are not nullified but slaughtered ones are nullified; for we may say that that sugya follows the Rabbanan who hold that only seven things sanctify and no more, and as indeed the Rambam ruled in chapter 16, and so ruled our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in siman 110, see there. But according to what the Tur ruled, that that which is its way to be counted is not nullified, it was not necessary to say it is because living animals are significant, for even slaughtered ones would not be nullified because of being a thing that is typically counted. Therefore, the Rashba, of blessed memory, who in no place explicitly decided the halacha that that which is its way to be counted is not nullified, and there remained only the reason of "fit to be honored," certainly in such a case it is not fit to be honored. And this is also the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam, and the Semak, and the She'arim. And according to this, it follows that the Rambam also holds like these teachers of ours [see Shach, subsection 7, who wrote: "it is implied from the words of the Mechaber that even a thing that is typically counted is not [significant]," thus far his words; and this requires further study, for the Mechaber ruled in siman 110 that a thing that is typically counted is nullified; and see Pri Megadim].

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 3: A chicken with its feathers that was mixed with others is nullified, for it is not fit to be served before guests as it is; and even if after it was mixed they removed the feathers [since at the beginning of the mixture it was nullified, it does not then return and awaken]. And likewise, it is not considered fit to be served unless it is cooked. And likewise, a whole lamb [even if its skin was flayed] or an excessively large piece is not considered fit to be served, for it is not the practice to place before a guest a whole lamb or an excessively large piece. And there are those who disagree with all of this. Thus far his words. And I wonder at what he wrote in the first opinion, that when it is not cooked it is not considered fit to be served; for behold, in their words this law is not clarified. On the contrary, from the fact that Rabbeinu Tam ruled that since its feathers were not removed it is not fit to be served, it implies explicitly that when its feathers are removed it is fit to be served, and behold, then it is still not cooked. And also from the words of the Rashba this is proven, since he brought proof from the chapter "HaTa'aruvot" that a slaughtered animal in such a case is nullified because it is excessively large, and it implies explicitly that only because of its size is it nullified, and not because it is not cooked, for behold, there it is not cooked, as is understood. And it requires further study.

And perhaps because the Tur wrote that there are those who say a wild animal is not "fit to be honored," our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is of the opinion that all those who disagreed regarding a hen in its feathers and regarding an excessively large piece also disagree regarding that which is not cooked. But in truth, this is not proven from their wording, and I also have not found it explicitly stated by any of the Rishonim who would hold so [see Mishna Beitzah 14b: Beit Shammai say one may not send etc. and Beit Hillel etc. and examine closely]:

But our teacher, the Rema, wrote that we follow the practice of "there are those who disagree," except for a chicken in its feathers which lacks a significant act, as we practice that it is nullified; and similarly, feet or a head that have not been singed of their hair, but if they were already singed, they are considered a piece fit to be served even if they were not yet salted, and even a whole lamb is not nullified. However, the feet of birds, except for the feet of a goose, and similarly the feet of small livestock in these countries, are not considered significant at all and are nullified; the head of birds is not significant and is nullified. Thus far his words. And there is one who says that if it was not known until after the removal of the feathers, it is not nullified [Pri Megadim in the name of Panim Meirot], for the knowledge causes the prohibition, just as in siman 109 regarding dry substances when it was not known until after the cooking it is prohibited, and also in siman 99, section 33, we wrote that the knowledge causes the prohibition, see there. [And it seems that in a case of great loss and a time of pressing need, we can include the opinion of the author, and so it appears from the Pri Megadim in Siftei Da'at, subsection 8, see there; but because of the reason that it is not cooked, one should not permit it at all as I wrote, and only because of the reason of an excessively large piece, so it appears to me].

And according to his words, if they already removed the feathers and the belly has not yet been opened and the intestines have not been removed, it is not nullified, as it is not lacking a major action. And similarly, feet that have already been singed, even though their hooves have not been removed, it is not nullified, as this also is not lacking a major action. And goose feet that were not singed, as is the custom to do, are nullified, as it is similar to a chicken in its feathers, and this is called lacking an action [Shach, subsection 11]. And that which he wrote, that the head of birds is not significant and is nullified, the same applies to the head of a beast, it is not significant and is nullified, and only the head of a calf is significant and is not nullified [Taz, subsection 8 in the name of the Rashal]. And in our time, I have not heard that this has significance, and also goose feet are not significant in our time. But the tongue of a beast certainly is a significant thing, for Abraham honored the guests with tongue [ibid.]. Therefore, if the tongue is inside the head, it is not nullified. And the poskim have already written that all these matters regarding "fit to be served to guests" depend on the place and the time, and everything depends on the sight of the eyes of the teacher; if it is significant to serve in that place to an important guest, it is not nullified, and if it is not significant in this place, even though in another place it is significant, nevertheless it is nullified. And if there is a doubt for the teacher whether it is fit to be served or not, we follow the lenient view because it is of rabbinic origin, as he wrote [Shach, subsection 13].

And there is a question regarding this, for how did he write that a chicken in its feathers is nullified? Granted that it is nullified regarding the reason of a piece worthy of being served to guests, nevertheless, it is a thing that is counted, and he ruled later in siman 110 that something whose way is to be counted is not nullified. And some say that anything which lacks a major action is also not considered a thing that is counted, just as it is not a piece worthy of being served to guests [Shach subsection 7 in the name of the Rashal and Minchat Yaakov]. And these matters are astonishing; what connection is there to a thing that is counted? And it appears more likely as one of the great authorities wrote, that this refers to a place where they sometimes sell them not by count, but in a place where they sell only by count, as in our times, it is certainly not nullified due to the reason of a thing that is counted [Kereiti U-Peleiti subsection 5]. And according to this, for us it is not nullified, and it is worse than a large piece which sometimes even in our times is sold not by count; but a chicken in its feathers, and certainly a lamb in its hide, is certainly a thing that is counted. And according to the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, in siman 110, something whose way is to be counted is not nullified.

They further wrote that the fat of the kanta is not fit to be served to guests, but the skin of goose fat is called fit to be served to guests and is not nullified, and the gizzard and likewise the other intestines are not fit to be served to guests. Thus far their words. Behold, the fat of the kanta is certainly not normally eaten as it is, and regarding the kanta of a calf, the great authorities wrote that it is called fit to be served to guests [Taz, subsection 9]. And that which they wrote regarding the fat of the kanta, if their intention is with the kanta itself, meaning the intestine of the kanta, behold it appears that it is fit to be served to guests, for they make from it a good dish when they fill it with flour and much fat. And if their intention is without the kanta, behold it is not the way of people to eat fat alone, and what is this coming to teach us? Therefore, it appears that their intention is with the kanta itself, but because a kanta without the filling of flour has no importance at all, therefore it is not called fit to be served to guests. And in truth, some say that the coil of the kanta with its fat might be called fit to be served to guests [see Shach, subsection 12], and it requires further study.

However, that which they wrote, that the skin of goose fat is called "fit to be honored" and is not nullified, requires further study. For from the skin of the fat they fry small pieces called griben, and each small piece is not fit to be honored except when many are combined together. All the great authorities have already agreed that this is not called fit to be honored [Nekudot HaKesef, Pri Chadash, Kereti U'Peleti, and Ma'adanei Yom Tov], not like the one who says that even this is called fit to be honored [Ateret Zaken subsection 10, and also the Pri Megadim wondered about this, see there]. Furthermore, it is not the practice to strip the skin alone, for they fry the fat, and before the frying they cut the fat into small pieces, and after the frying they pour the fat into a vessel and these griben remain, as is known. And it seems to me from the wording of the Levush, who wrote, and this is his wording: But the skin of a goose is called fit to be honored, for it is the practice to eat it boiled or roasted, and it is not nullified. Thus far his words. In their days they would strip the entire skin and boil it or roast it, and in such a case it is certainly fit to be honored when it is a large piece; but in our time, this law is not applicable.

And that which they wrote, that the gizzard and the rest of the innards are not considered fit to be used for honoring guests, some say that the gizzard of a goose is called fit to be used for honoring guests [Yam Shel Shelomo siman 50], and everything is according to the place and the time [Shach subsection 14]. And the Levush wrote that those livers from fattened geese that they stuff by hand until the liver turns white due to the abundance of fat are fit to be used for honoring guests, for behold, ministers honor themselves with it, and therefore if it was mixed with others it is not nullified. Thus far his words. However, in our country we have not known of this, and if there is some place where they honor themselves with it, it is certainly not nullified. But gizzards and livers of chickens or of turkeys are certainly not called fit to be used for honoring guests, and likewise those of a wild goose.

The sages of Krakow ruled regarding the meat of the goose on the breast, which is called "beilik," that even though the goose was skinned, nevertheless the "beilik" is called fit to honor. The Maharshal, of blessed memory, in his book [Yam Shel Shlomo there] disagreed with them, for since the goose was skinned and its splendor was removed, its importance is nullified. There are some among the great authorities who ruled like the sages of Krakow [Turei Zahav subsection 11], and there is one who ruled like the Maharshal [Pri Chadash subsection 18]. And so it appears to be the primary view, for behold, this is certainly so regarding a chicken or even a turkey, that when they honor a distinguished guest, they will not skin the skin from them. And granted that with geese it is the way to skin the skin because of the abundance of fat, nevertheless, for a distinguished guest they would not do so. And behold, we see in the taverns called "shinkin" they roast whole geese that were not skinned in pans, and the fat flows into the pan and the entire body of the goose remains in its wholeness without skinning, and so they do for a distinguished guest. However, it has already been explained that "a piece fit to honor" depends on the place and the time, and everything is according to the perception of the eyes of the posek.

This rule, that a beriah and a chatichah hareuyah lehitchabed are not nullified, applies specifically while they are whole; but if they were cut or crushed until their form was lost, and similarly if they were crushed through cooking, they are nullified, for they are no longer considered significant. However, a beriah is not similar to a chatichah hareuyah lehitchabed, for regarding a beriah, when a small amount is removed from it, the status of beriah is nullified from it, as I wrote in siman 100. But regarding a chatichah hareuyah lehitchabed, this is specifically until a large piece does not remain; however, when a large piece remains that is still fit to be served to guests, we do not care that a portion of it was removed. And similarly, there is a distinction in the opposite direction: regarding a beriah that has become foul, the status of beriah is still upon it until it becomes foul to the point that it is not fit for eating at all; but regarding a chatichah hareuyah lehitchabed, even if it became slightly foul, its significance is nullified, for in such a state it is not fit to be served before a guest [Pri Megadim in Shiftei Da'at, subsection 15]. And know that regarding that which was crushed or cut, there is no distinction between whether it was crushed before the mixture or after it was mixed with the permitted substance. And even if it was crushed after the mixture became known, we have no concern with it; for even though we wrote in siman 99 that the knowledge causes the prohibition, certainly it is so, but since the entire prohibition is because of the significance, and behold the significance has been nullified. However, this is specifically when there was no intent to nullify the prohibition; but if he intended for this, it is forbidden to the one who crushed it if it is his, and similarly to the one for whom it was crushed, according to the laws that were explained in siman 99 regarding the law that one may not nullify a prohibition; see there.

There is one who says that just as regarding a thing that will become permitted there is a distinction between its own kind and a different kind—for in a different kind it is nullified, as will be explained in siman 102—so too regarding a creature and a piece worthy of being served to guests, they are not nullified only in their own kind, but in a different kind they are nullified [O'ah, Klal 25]. Our teacher, the Rema, disagreed with him and wrote in section 6 that there is no distinction whether they were mixed with their own kind or with a different kind. Thus far his words. All the poskim agreed with his words [Taz, Shach, and Pri Chadash], for is it to be said that in a different kind there is no importance? And a thing that will become permitted, which is not nullified, is not because of importance, but because of other reasons that will be explained there, which are relevant only to its own kind and not to a different kind. But regarding a creature and a piece worthy of being served to guests, what difference is there between one and the other? And should you say, how can you find a case where a piece worthy of being served to guests is mixed with a different kind, for must it not necessarily be recognized? It can be said that it is found, for example, where they slaughtered many kinds and it became known that one kind became nevelah during slaughtering and it is not known which of them, and they became mixed [Shach in siman 109, subsection 8]; or in things that differ in their name but are equal in appearance according to the one who holds that we follow the name [Pri Chadash]. However, a creature that was mixed with its own kind is difficult to depict, for a creature is only from a non-kosher species, as written in siman 100, and how could it be mixed with its own kind? [And the Kereti U'Peleti, subsection 6, wishes to uphold the ruling of the O'ah regarding a piece worthy of being served to guests, but the primary view is like the majority of the poskim; and his proof from the Commentary on the Mishnah of the Rambam, chapter 2 of Orlah, is no proof, for the truth is indeed that in most cases a mixture of a piece worthy of being served to guests with a different kind is not relevant, and therefore he did not concern himself with explaining it, but if it should happen, there is no distinction; and delve into this].

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 7: If one piece was cut, we do not hang the status upon it to say that the forbidden one was cut and is nullified, thereby rendering them all permitted. Rather, only that which was cut is permitted from "whatever the case may be" (mi-ma nafshakh): if it is the forbidden one, then even all of them are permitted; and if it is not the forbidden one, it is certainly permitted. And even if most of them were cut, we do not hang the status upon them to say that the forbidden one is from the majority that were cut; rather, all those that were cut are permitted and the whole ones are forbidden. Thus far their words. And this is not similar to what will be explained in siman 110 regarding anything that is not nullified due to its importance, that if one of them was eaten or fell into the sea, they are all permitted because we hang the status upon it to say that the forbidden one was eaten or lost. This is because it is no longer in the world, and we do not need to judge it as to whether it is kosher or treifa; therefore, we hang the status upon it. But in the case where one of them was cut or crushed, where it still exists in the world, if we hang the forbidden status upon it, we would need to forbid it. And how can we forbid it? Behold, it is permitted from "whatever the case may be," as has been written. If so, it is impossible to do two opposites: to permit it and to hang the forbidden status upon it. And this is the very reason that even if most of them were cut, the whole ones are forbidden. And why do we not hang the status that the forbidden one is in the majority, in the manner that we hang the status everywhere upon the majority? It is only because here it would be two opposites in one subject, for the cut ones must necessarily be permitted from "whatever the case may be," and how can we hang the forbidden status upon them? Behold, they contradict one another [so it appears to me in my humble opinion regarding the reason for this law]. And some say the reason is because, on the contrary, whenever something has changed from its original state, we say that this is from the majority of the permitted ones, and it turns out that the forbidden one, which is the minority, has not changed [Bach and Taz, subsection 14, in the name of Mahari]. And I wonder at this reason, for if we have come to this measure, then how do we hang the status in siman 110 that the forbidden one fell into the sea? Let us say "whatever separates, separates from the majority," and from the majority of the permitted ones it fell into the sea! Rather, certainly the reason is that since from the Torah it was already nullified in the majority, we hang the status on whatever we can hang it on [as the Shach wrote there, subsection 46]. If so, what is the difference between this and that? But according to the reason we explained, it is well-settled [and see the Responsa of the Rashba, siman 325, and delve into it].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 8: A gizzard that was found to be perforated, and that chicken was mixed with others, we compare the fat of the gizzard to the fat of the chicken at the place where the gizzard is attached, and if they are completely similar, we permit the others. And so too in any similar case: the head of a sheep that was found to be treifa and it was not known from which sheep it came, and they placed the head against the neck of one of the sheep and the pieces were found to be similar and aligned well, one may rely on this to permit the others. Thus far his words. And in this, it must be similar in measure and in appearance; and even though regarding the fat of the gizzard appearance alone is sufficient, here, since it is possible to compare both, both things are required [Taz, subsection 15]. And since our teacher, the Rema, did not comment that nowadays we do not rely on this, as he wrote in siman 34 and in several other places, it is inferred that in this we too are expert. And one cannot say that he relied on the other places, for it is impossible to say so, as he actually commented on the previous law: "And so too in any similar case." Thus far his words. And so the Levush wrote them as the law; it is inferred that in these they agree. And the reason for the matter is because here the eye actually sees the equality and there is no room for error in this. Therefore, even though the author of the Issur VeHeter wrote that nowadays we do not rely on this [Taz, ibid.], nevertheless they were not concerned for this for the reason I have written [according to the Pitchei Teshuva, subsection 7; and there is no difficulty at all, for the author is dealing even with one against one].

And know that there is one of the great authorities who wrote that he received from a certain sage that when water was found in the head of one sheep, such that it is treifah because of this, and it was not known from which sheep, that one must examine the spinal cord of the sheep; any sheep in which water is found in the brain that is in the head, there will also be water in the cord that extends from the brain to the spine, and we attribute that the head is from that sheep to permit the rest of the sheep [Bach]. But the great later authorities did not agree with him to rely on this regarding a Torah prohibition [Taz ibid. and Pri Chadash and Kereti U-Pleti], and they wrote that one must deliberate on this, and perhaps through the majority rule of the Torah it is nullified and one may rely on this [Kereti U-Pleti and Pri Megadim]. And a needle that was found in a bird in a manner that the hen is treifah, and the needle was removed and the hen became mixed with several hens, if a black mark is found in any of them, one may attribute it to her if the mark and the stain that the needle made are clearly recognizable [Pri Megadim in the name of the Radbaz]. And it appears that even in a mixture of one in one, one may rely on this, for this is certainly a definitive sign, and we rely on it even regarding a Torah prohibition.

An incident occurred regarding a woman who borrowed from her friend two pans that were for meat, and the borrower thought they were for milk and baked in them pancakes called kreplach with butter and cheese. Afterward, she returned them to the lender and told her nothing. After a while, the lender baked in them kreplach with fat; she baked in nine pans, and among them were these two pans. Behold, the pancakes with butter are certainly kosher, for the pans were not ben yomo from meat usage. Even the second pancakes that the lender baked are also kosher, for these kreplach from the two pans were nullified among the seven according to the law of dry in dry, which is nullified by a majority. And even though kreplach are fit to be served to guests and are a thing that is counted, and in meat and milk it is a prohibition due to itself, nevertheless, here the primary part is the dough, and the meat and milk is absorbed, and we do not apply the law of a piece fit to be served to guests in this case. Furthermore, they were only prohibited to the depth of a peel according to the law of hot in hot without liquid, and to the depth of a peel it is not fit to be served to guests. And although there is one who wishes to say that the prohibition of oil in a vessel prohibits up to sixty [Shach siman 105, subsection 23], we do not rule accordingly, and it only prohibits to the depth of a peel [Magen Avraham siman 451, subsection 36]. And even if they smeared the pans with fat before placing the pancakes, and the fat became prohibited and the pancakes became prohibited due to the presence of actual fat, yet even this is likely that there is sixty against the actual fat, and also there is no concern of a Torah prohibition regarding goose fat. Therefore, it should be permitted through nullification by a majority, and one only needs to prohibit the number of pancakes that were in the two pans, and the rest are permitted [Noda BiYehudah siman 30]. And behold, in truth, even the pancakes of the two pans should be permitted, for they were only prohibited to the depth of a peel, and if so, if they were mixed and it is not known, one should not prohibit them, and they do not even require peeling as written in siman 91 [section 11]. Aside from this, it appears to me that regarding kreplach, the law of a piece fit to be served to guests does not apply, for one does not honor a guest with a single pancake, as is known, and it is like the law of griben in section 19; see there.