Siman 103

It is a decided law in the Shas that that which imparts a defective taste is permitted [Avodah Zarah 67b]. Therefore, any matter whose taste is defective does not prohibit its mixture. There is no distinction between a prohibited substance that has substance and the prohibited substance was dissolved within a majority of permitted substance, and a prohibited substance that has no substance, such as where the prohibited substance was removed and nothing remained in the permitted substance but its taste alone, and a prohibited substance absorbed in a vessel, such as where they cooked a prohibited substance in a vessel and afterward they cooked a permitted substance in it and the prohibited substance that they cooked imparts a defective taste to the permitted substance, or even if the prohibited substance imparts a beneficial taste but they cooked in it after twenty-four hours from the cooking of the prohibited substance, and after twenty-four hours the taste has already dissipated, and subsequently when it is emitted into another cooked food it is only for defect [Rashi ibid. 76a].

This defect does not require that it be loathsome to eat; rather, even if it is only slightly defective, it does not forbid its mixture. The proof for this matter is that a pot that is not of its day only creates a slight defect, and even so, the Sages, of blessed memory, said that a pot that is not of its day does not forbid [Torat HaBayit, Bayit 4, Shaar 1]. And there is a question regarding this: for the Sages, of blessed memory, derived the principle of "a taste that creates a defect" [ibid.] from the verse, "You shall not eat any carcass; you shall give it to the stranger who is in your gates, that he may eat it." That which is fit for a stranger is called a carcass, and that which is not fit is not a carcass. And there, the meaning is that it is completely unfit, which is to say that it has become putrid until it is not fit for eating at all. But with a slight defect, it is still called a carcass, as is explicitly stated in Bekhorot [23a], and so explained Rashi and all the poskim. According to this, regarding "a taste that creates a defect" as well, we should have said so.

And the answer to this matter is as follows: certainly regarding the prohibition itself, to eat it as is without a mixture, we require that it be completely putrid; as long as it is fit for human consumption even with difficulty, the status of a prohibition still rests upon it. However, regarding the consumption of a prohibition by means of a mixture—for example, where the prohibition fell into a majority of permitted substance, where by the law of the Torah "follow the majority" and the minority is nullified in the majority—why then do you come to prohibit it in a case of a different species? Because of the imparting of flavor into the permitted substance, for "flavor is like the essence" by Torah law. Consequently, since it imparts a foul flavor in any amount within its mixture, it is permitted, for how is it possible to say that it imparts flavor when it in fact fouls and spoils it [Torat HaBayit ibid.]. And one should not ask that if so, how did we learn this from nevelah when they are not similar to one another? For the matter is thus: had the Torah not revealed to us that that which is completely putrid does not carry the negative commandment of nevelah, I would have said that regarding everything the Torah prohibited, there is no difference whether the prohibition is choice or whether the prohibition is completely putrid, just as it is with creeping things which the Torah prohibited; and it is obvious that among the types of creeping things there are those that are completely putrid, such as ants, flies, and gnats, which a person's soul loathes, and nevertheless the Torah prohibited them and they are subject to negative commandments. If so, it would be the same for all types of prohibitions. However, after the Torah revealed regarding nevelah that anything completely putrid is not nevelah, it follows that in all prohibitions regarding the imparting of flavor, it does not prohibit even with a foul flavor of any amount, as I have written.

And there is still a question in this matter: from where do we know to learn all prohibitions from nevelah? Let us learn from sheratzim, for which even a natan ta'am lifgam is forbidden. And furthermore, if so, in any case the imparting of flavor from sheratzim should forbid the permitted substance even with a flavor that is defective, just like the essence of the prohibition itself. And the answer to this matter is as follows: for we have seen that even though the Torah forbade sheratzim, which a person's soul loathes and which are defective and entirely repulsive, nevertheless one who eats them is liable for lashes. And despite this, the Rambam wrote in chapter 14 of Ma'akhalot Assurot, law 11, and this is his wording: Or if one ate a forbidden food after it rotted and became foul and ceased to be human food, he is exempt. Thus far his words. And certainly this refers also to sheratzim, for he said "forbidden food" and did not distinguish between one prohibition and another. And so wrote explicitly the Maggid Mishneh there in chapter 2, law 21; see there. And his reason is clear, since we see that also regarding the matter of tumah it is so, for the flesh of a shereetz that was spoiled and became foul and was spoiled from being fit for a dog's consumption is pure, as he wrote in chapter 4 of Avot HaTumot, law 12; see there. And the reason for this matter is explained in the Gemara [HaSokher 68b] from that which is written "in their death," similar to their death; see there. And automatically the same applies to the matter of prohibition, for how is prohibition different from tumah? It follows that even though the essence of their prohibition is also a complete defect that a person's soul loathes, nevertheless the Torah required that the prohibition be as it is in its essence, but without its essence, when it is corrupted, he is exempt. And if so, the Torah did not forbid its defect except when it is present in its essence. And according to this, it is a kal vachomer that its discharge does not forbid, for how could it forbid? Behold, its discharge is defective and in the discharge the prohibition is not present in its essence. And since the Torah revealed that the flavor of the discharge of sheratzim does not forbid, all the more so the discharge of other prohibitions does not forbid when they are defective. And we learned this from nevelah, for even sheratzim themselves have the law of nevelah regarding the discharge. And this is what the Sages, of blessed memory, said [ibid.] that natan ta'am lifgam we learn from nevelah, and sheratzim is a novelty; see there. [And with this the depth of the Sugya of the Shas there will be clarified for us, in that which the Gemara rejected the words of Rabbi Shimon who forbids natan ta'am lifgam in sheratzim, and what does this have to do with tumah? But according to our words it is well-settled; and examine carefully].

And according to this, we have learned that natlan is not permitted unless there was a majority of heter such that it was nullified by the majority and there remained only the prohibition of "taste is like the substance," and when it imparts a foul taste it is permitted. However, in a majority of issur, it is not permitted unless it is not fit for eating at all, like the nevelah itself, for we require that it be completely putrid, as I wrote in section 2, for the majority is like the whole. And if you say: if so, how do we permit when one cooked in a pot that is not "of its day" based on the reason of natlan? For behold, we permit even if one cooked a small amount of heter in the pot, and when we come to the calculation, the discharge from the entire pot will be more than the heter that was cooked in it. For one cannot say that in truth we only permit when one cooked a large amount, as this is not implied by the Shas and all the poskim. And it can be said: since there is no substance of the issur here at all, but only its taste, we are not concerned with a foul taste even when the issur is the majority and the heter is the minority. For behold, we only prohibit it because of its taste, and its taste only prohibits with an improved taste and not with a foul taste [Torat HaBayit there]. And according to this, if a large amount of foul issur fell into a small amount of heter and the body of the issur was removed from there, it is permitted based on the reason that was explained, since there remained in it only its taste, and the taste does not prohibit in a foul state even when it is the majority [see Shach, subsection 5].

This is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2, and this is his wording: This spoilage does not need to spoil it completely until one would loathe eating it; rather, even if it spoils slightly, it does not forbid its mixture. And there is one who says that this is specifically when a small amount of forbidden substance was mixed with a large amount of permitted substance, but a large amount of forbidden substance into a small amount of permitted substance, and even half and half, we do not say "that which imparts a spoiled taste is permitted" until it spoils completely so that it is unfit for human consumption. And if the substance of the forbidden item is not there, but only its taste, even a large amount of forbidden substance and a small amount of permitted substance is permitted if it spoils slightly. Thus far his words. And his words are explained according to our previous words. And that which he wrote "there is one who says" is not because there are those who disagree on this, but such is his way in the Shulchan Aruch: when he did not find a law explained except in one of the poskim, even though there is no one who disagrees on this, he writes in the phrasing of "there is one who says." And know that the brine of a forbidden substance is considered like its body; therefore, if the actual brine of a forbidden substance was mixed into a permitted substance, it must spoil it completely or there must be a majority of permitted substance [Taz, subsection 3]. And see what I wrote in siman 104, section 16.

He further wrote, and this is his wording: And there is one who is inclined to say that if the forbidden substance increased the measure of the permitted substance to the point that it improves more when one eats it in its increased measure than it impairs through the loss of its flavor, it is forbidden until it becomes unfit for human consumption. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that regarding what has been explained, that the substance of the forbidden matter is nullified in a majority even with a slight impairment, the author of this opinion holds that there is reason to say that he derives more pleasure from the abundance of food that he has than from the spoilage of the impairment. And since the entire reason for the permission is because it is not relevant to say "flavor is like the substance" because it is an impairing flavor and there is no pleasure from the flavor, behold, it could be said that he has pleasure from the flavor because of the increase in quantity. But the first opinion holds that although he has pleasure from the increase in quantity, nevertheless, this is not a prohibition of "flavor is like the substance," for the pleasure comes from another side and we do not care about this. [The "one who is inclined" is the Ran in HaSokher ibid., and the first opinion is the opinion of the Rashba]:

Natel she-hityiru is not specifically that the prohibition is inherently for impairment, but rather even if on its own it is flavorful and excellent, yet it impairs its mixture, it is permitted. And so the sages taught in the Mishnah [ibid. 65b]: This is the rule: anything that results in benefit through the imparting of flavor is forbidden; anything that does not result in benefit through the imparting of flavor is permitted, such as vinegar that fell upon crushed beans. That is to say, even though the vinegar on its own is excellent, and the nature of vinegar is that it improves cold crushed beans and impairs hot crushed beans, if the vinegar fell upon hot crushed beans, this is natel. And against this there is a stringency, which is that it is specifically when it impairs from beginning to end; but if it improved and ultimately impaired, such as if one put the vinegar into cold crushed beans and boiled them, or if it impaired and ultimately improved, such as if one put it into boiling crushed beans and they cooled, it is forbidden. And some say that the prohibition in a case of impairs and ultimately improves is when it has improved, but while it still impairs, such as if he has not cooled them, it is permitted, since it currently impairs and it is permitted to eat them [Shach, subsection 7]. And some say that since it is capable of improving, it is forbidden even while it is still impaired [Pri Chadash, subsection 8]. And some say that if it is destined to improve, such as if it is the way to cool them, it is considered as excellent and is forbidden, and if it is not the way to improve, it is permitted [Kereti U-Peleti, subsection 4]. And so it is implied in the Yerushalmi there.

If it does not impart a flavor for improvement nor for deterioration, the consensus of the great Achronim is that it is like imparting a flavor for improvement and is forbidden [Shach, subsection 2]. There is one who permits [Pri Chadash], and there is one who says that if the permitted substance is the majority it is permitted, and if not it is forbidden [Kereti U-Peleti], even though the essence of the forbidden substance is not there but only its flavor. From the words of our teacher, the Rema, at the end of siman 134, it is implied like the first opinion, as he wrote there, and this is his wording: And all this is with liquids where the wine and the vinegar are in them for improvement or where it does not deteriorate, but if it is for deterioration etc. Thus far his words. Behold, he equated that which does not deteriorate to imparting a flavor for improvement.

This is the wording of the Rambam in the commentary on the Mishnah there: And there are four divisions in this. The first division is that a thing is mixed with another thing and spoils it, whether in its taste or in its smell, at that time and after some time—meaning that its spoilage does not depart from it from beginning to end—and this is, for example, the fat of meat or fish that is mixed with honey, which spoils it always. And the second part is that the thing that was mixed improves the thing it was mixed into at that time and afterward, like the mixing of wine into a cooked dish of meat or fish, and this is called improving from beginning to end. And the third part is that it improves its taste for the time being and after some time spoils it, as in the mixing of meat fat with butter, because it improves its taste and its smell and afterward spoils it, and this is called improving and ultimately damaging. And the fourth part is that it spoils it for the moment and in the fullness of time improves it, such as if one mixed honey in wine, which ruins it immediately, and ultimately the air and the strength of the wine will prevail over it, and then the honey will be something that adds a good smell to it, and this is called damaging and ultimately improving. Thus far his words. And we have learned from his words that even the spoilage of smell is called damage. And it is simple that this is when it does not repair it in the taste; but when it repairs it in the taste, even though in its smell it spoils it, it is called improvement, for taste is superior to smell. And conversely, when it spoils in taste and repairs it in smell, it appears to me that it is called damage, for he needs it for eating.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: However, significant matters such as a biryah or the like, if they are not spoiled in themselves, even though they spoil the cooked dish, they are not nullified even in a thousand. Thus far his words. And certainly this is so, for regarding a biryah we do not follow the imparting of flavor, but rather follow its significance; therefore, when it is not spoiled in itself, its significance still remains upon it. It is explicitly clear from his words that if it is spoiled in itself as well, its significance is lost and it is nullified. According to this, regarding mites or worms that are repulsive in themselves, and likewise flies and fleas and the like, when they are lost in a cooked dish and are not recognizable, they are completely nullified. This is as we wrote in siman 100, section 17, where we taught a merit for the collective of Israel; see there. There is one who says that his intention was for a good biryah, such as an impure bird that has completely putrefied until it is not fit for human consumption at all, but creatures that are repulsive from the beginning of their creation are not nullified even in a thousand [Pri Chadash, subsection 1]. I wonder at this, for if so, he should have said "if they have not become spoiled in themselves," and from the fact that he said "if they are not spoiled in themselves," it implies that they are spoiled from the beginning of their creation [and also in the Issur V'Heter, Klal 32, it is explained according to our words; see there].

Even if the forbidden substance alone does not have the power to impair except through another thing that assists it—for example, if a forbidden substance fell into a pot that contains much salt or spices, and were it not for the salt and spices within it, the forbidden substance alone would not have the power to impair—even so, it is permitted. And similarly in the reverse case, such as if it lacked salt or spices, and were the salt and spices present it would not impair, it is permitted; for in any event, it now impairs, and the principle of "taste is like the substance" does not apply to it because it is an impairing taste. Furthermore, even if it would have improved [the dish] on its own, and now through another thing that is in the pot it impairs, nevertheless it is permitted for the reason that has been explained. [And although from the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch it seemingly does not imply so, see there, nevertheless this is the primary ruling, and their wording can be reconciled; and examine this.]

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: Some say that even though the prohibition is to the detriment of the flavor and the food is permitted, nevertheless the pot is prohibited; and if one subsequently cooked in it within twenty-four hours a dish in which the first prohibited substance imparts a beneficial flavor, the second dish is prohibited if there was not sixty times the volume against the first prohibited substance. However, if one stirred the first dish with a spoon and subsequently returned the spoon to a second dish which is also detrimental to the flavor, the pot is not prohibited. And similarly, regarding something that has no flavor at all, such as the vat in which they melt honey, even though there are legs of bees there, the vat is not prohibited, and anything similar to this. Thus far his words. [And his source is from the Issur Ve-Hetter, rule 32, section 12].

It is implied from his words that the reason for the prohibition of the pot is because perhaps he will later cook in it a dish in which the first prohibition imparts a flavor that improves it, and so it is explained in the Levush, see there. However, in the Issur V'Heter it is written regarding the reason for the prohibition of the pot that it is forbidden forever, even after twenty-four hours and even for a dish in which the prohibition imparts a flavor that impairs it, because we do not permit a flavor that impairs except post facto. And just as they decreed regarding a vessel that is not of its day due to a vessel that is of its day, so too one must decree regarding a flavor that impairs due to a flavor that improves. Furthermore, there is a concern that perhaps he will cook in it within twenty-four hours a dish in which the prohibition imparts a flavor that improves it, see there.

And it appears to me that our teacher, the Rema, intentionally omitted his first reason; for that which he wrote, that we only permitted a giver of a flavor that impairs in a post-facto case, it is certainly so. However, just as we permit the food post-facto, so too one should permit the pot post-facto. And that which he wrote, that one should decree regarding a giver of a flavor that impairs on account of a giver of a flavor that improves—just as they decreed regarding that which is not of its day on account of that which is of its day—it is not comparable. For there, this pot, when it was of its day, was prohibited by the law; therefore, they prohibited it even after twenty-four hours on account of it being of its day, since at one time it was prohibited by the law. But here, the pot was never prohibited. Therefore, he omitted all of this and only wrote regarding the matter of if one subsequently cooks in it a dish in which the prohibited substance provides an improved flavor.

Nevertheless, it appears to me from his wording that regarding the law he does not disagree with the Issur V'Heter, unlike the Levush who wrote that the pot is forbidden in this regard: that if they subsequently cooked in it within twenty-four hours a dish in which the first forbidden substance imparts a flavor for improvement, the second dish is forbidden, etc. Thus far his words. For our teacher, the Rema, did not write this wording; on the contrary, from his wording it implies that the pot is forbidden in any case for the reason that perhaps one will cook in it a dish in which the forbidden substance will be for improvement. Therefore he concludes: and if they subsequently cooked in it within twenty-four hours, etc. And the reason is because they were not so concerned about the pot since it is a small loss. And this is why he did not require sixty in the second dish except against the forbidden substance and not against all that is absorbed in the pot, even though he holds of chatichah na'aseit neveilah even regarding that which is absorbed in the pot as he wrote in siman 92, because here the first absorption is for impairment and did not become neveilah.

It is further explained in the Issur V'Heter there that even if the forbidden substance itself that imparts a foul taste was not cooked in this pot, but rather the forbidden substance itself was cooked in another pot and in this pot they only heated the food in which the forbidden substance was cooked, nevertheless the pot is forbidden. One cannot say, "Behold, this food is permitted for consumption, so how can it forbid the pot?" for it was not permitted by virtue of nullification of the forbidden substance, but rather because the forbidden substance imparted a foul taste to it, and for the pot, a foul taste is not effective. Our teacher, the Rema, did not cite this, and it may be said that he holds that this and that are one and the same and he did not wish to be lengthy; or, he holds that since this is merely a stringency to forbid the pot, it is sufficient for us to forbid the pot when the forbidden substance itself was cooked in it, and not when they heated in it the food of the foul forbidden substance that was cooked in another pot. Regarding the law, one should remain in doubt concerning this.

And that which he wrote, that if they stirred the first cooked food with a spoon and afterwards inserted the spoon into a second cooked food which it also impairs, the pot is not forbidden, and his intention is even if there is not sixty in the pot against the spoon. And the reason for the permission is because this is nat bar nat of a permitted substance: the food in the spoon, and the spoon in the second food, and the food to the pot, and it is still impaired [Shach, subsection 10]. But if so, even if the spoon was forbidden due to a superior prohibited substance, it is also permitted if the prohibited substance impairs the second food, for in the second taste it is still entirely permitted because of the impairment, and with the arrival of the second food into the second pot it is nat bar nat of a permitted substance [Taz, subsection 6]. However, because in siman 95 it was explained that regarding cooking some say that nat bar nat is forbidden until there are three nat of a permitted substance, therefore he wrote in such a case where the spoon was forbidden from an impaired prohibited substance [Nekudot HaKesef]. And furthermore, because there are those who are concerned in siman 95 that the absorption goes directly from the spoon to the pot, and therefore he wrote in such a case [and from this law it is clear that he agrees to the previous law of the author of the Issur VeHeter, and examine carefully].

And that which he wrote, that a matter which does not impart flavor at all, such as the legs of bees, does not prohibit the food nor the vessel, is a simple matter. This is not similar to what was explained in section 9, that a matter which is neither for improvement nor for deterioration is like an improvement; for there, it certainly imparts some flavor, only that this flavor adds neither improvement nor deterioration. But here, it does not impart flavor at all, and it is like mere wood. [However, according to what the Shach wrote in subsection 2, that they derived this from sinews which do not impart flavor, see there—and yet they are like mere wood as is explained in the Gemara, as the Shach himself wrote; and perhaps it is not meant precisely, and this is the explanation: regarding improvement it is like mere wood, but nevertheless it imparts some flavor]:

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 4: Oil and honey of Cutheans, even though they are cooked, are permitted because meat impairs the oil and makes it foul, and likewise for honey. And some say that meat does not impair honey itself, only a drink made from honey, and in a place where there is no great loss, one should be stringent. Meat or milk in wine is for impairment and is permitted. Thus far his words. And some say that also meat in oil gives a flavor for improvement, whether it is raw oil or boiled oil [Shach subsection 14 and Pri Chadash subsection 15]. And some say that it impairs [Kereiti U-Pleiti].

In my humble opinion, it seems possible to reconcile the opinions, for it is truly difficult to say there is a dispute regarding a physical reality—whether it imparts a flavor that is detrimental or beneficial—for "the palate tastes food." Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, also wondered about this in his great work, and this is his wording: "And I wonder, for the world cooks honey with meat and it is very beneficial; and perhaps one could say that through the spices and onions it becomes beneficial, etc." Thus far his words. However, the wonder still stands: can one not taste how it is without spices and onions? Furthermore, regarding oil with meat, it is also known among us that they fry oil with meat in a pan and it is a food for ministers. It appears to me, based on the words of the Rambam in the Commentary on the Mishnah that we brought in section 10, where he wrote there that meat with butter is beneficial at the time [of cooking] but after a time it ruins it, see there. And our eyes see that food of meat in milk is among the choice foods for them, but the flavor is only beneficial immediately upon its cooking, and afterwards it spoils it. According to this, we shall likewise say that honey with meat or oil with meat is good at the time, and afterwards it becomes spoiled. Therefore, regarding the oil and honey of their vessels, we do not concern ourselves with the discharge of their vessels; since the meat has already been cooked and there is nothing here but the discharge of the meat, it spoils the honey and the oil, for their benefit is only in meat with honey or oil in their essence. And regarding the law, it requires further study. [There in the first division he wrote that the fattiness of meat with honey is always detrimental, see there; and see Tosafot, chapter Ein Ma'amidin 38b, starting with "Ei," and Chullin 8b, who also wrote like the Rambam; and see Turei Zahav subsection 7, and it requires further study.]

And that which they wrote, that meat or milk in wine is for impairment and is permitted, thus far his words, some say the intention is regarding milk [chalav] with a kamatz, for milk [chelev] with a tzeirei, which is to say fat, provides a flavor for improvement in wine [Pri Megadim in Shiftei Da'at, subsection 13]. And even though this is a case of "permitted with permitted," and what is the practical difference in this? It can be said that it refers to impure milk, just as with meat, where the intention is regarding treif meat. And some say that the intention is regarding milk [chelev] with a tzeirei, which is to say fat, and it does not provide a flavor for improvement in wine [Noda BiYehuda, siman 31 and Yad Shaul]. And regarding honey in wine, we wrote in section 10 in the name of the Rambam that it impairs and ultimately improves. And it is further written there that wine in a meat cooked dish is for improvement from the beginning and until the end, and in the Yerushalmi, Shevuot chapter 3 [halacha 2], it is explained that it impairs, see there, and it requires further study [see the Noda BiYehuda there, who proved there that it is impossible for it to be milk [chalav] with a kamatz because it is "permitted with permitted," and according to what I wrote there is no proof; and similarly the opposite, the Pri Megadim brought proof from siman 121 that fat provides a flavor for improvement, and there too there is no proof, for there he required another reason because "flavor that impairs" is only after the fact, and as written in the Pitchei Teshuva, subsection 5. And know that what was written in the Shulchan Aruch regarding the vessels of Cutheans, because this is for impairment, its source is from the Rambam at the end of Ma'achalot Assurot chapter 17, and it is well according to his system; but for us, as we hold that "ordinary vessels are not of their day," this is not necessary, but the practical difference is even when we know they are "of their day," and see Shach, subsection 3, and examine carefully]:

Any pot that is not "of its day" is considered a flavor that impairs and does not prohibit, and it is called "of its day" as long as it has not remained for a twenty-four hour period after the forbidden substance was cooked in it. And even though the approach of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam [at the end of HaSokher] is that only when a night has passed does it become impairing, for the passing of a night impairs just as in the case of consecrated items where the passing of a night is called "a lapse of form," nevertheless, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch ruled according to the opinion of most poskim that we specifically require a twenty-four hour period. This will be further explained in siman 122 with the help of Heaven. And since a twenty-four hour period has passed over it after the forbidden substance was cooked in it, and one subsequently cooked in it, the cooked food is permitted, as it is a flavor that impairs. This is provided that it is rinsed well so that there is no visible fat on the surface of the pot from the inside. And ordinarily we say that it is presumed to have been rinsed well, as written in siman 95, for ordinary vessels that one cooks in are presumed to be clean, and it is not prohibited unless it is known that it was not rinsed well [Shach, subsection 15], for the visible fat upon it is like a piece of forbidden substance that has not been impaired, as the impairment is only for what was absorbed in the pot and not what is on the surface of the pot. However, some say that even if one cooked in it before rinsing it, it is permitted, because the fat upon it is also impaired, and from the words of the Rambam at the beginning of chapter 17 there is no definitive proof. And even according to the first opinion, if there is sixty times against what is stuck upon it, it is permitted, and we do not judge this as a "stuck forbidden substance," for as soon as it comes into the cooked food, the forbidden substance is dissolved in the food, and since the pot is not "of its day," it is permitted, and such is the custom.

If one cooked in a pot that is not ben yomo a dish that contains a sharp item such as peppers or vinegar or spices or other sharp items, it is forbidden when there is a large portion of them such that their taste is strongly felt in the dish, because the sharp item sweetens the fattiness absorbed in the pot and makes it for improvement, as with a knife in siman 96, and there several matters regarding this subject were explained. Nevertheless, if one cooked a sharp item in a meat pot that is not ben yomo and afterwards cooked milk in it, it is permitted [Shach siman 122, subsection 2], and the reason will be explained there with the help of Heaven [Chavat Daat subsection 9].

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 7: A pot that has absorbed meat and milk that were cooked in it together or one after the other, and before one night passed water was heated in it, it is considered "ben yomo" until a full twenty-four hour period passes from the time the water was heated in it. However, if a night passed, it is permitted. And likewise, if a night passed between the cooking of the meat and the milk, even though the water was heated immediately afterward, the law is also thus. And the same applies to all prohibited substances according to what we hold, that regarding all prohibited substances "the piece itself becomes prohibited." And in a case of loss, one may permit it in such a manner regarding other prohibited substances in any event, provided that a full twenty-four hour period has passed from the time the prohibited substance was cooked. Thus far their words.

The explanation of the matter is that regarding the principle where we say chanan, if within the twenty-four hour period a permitted substance entered it, the entire thing becomes nevelah. Consequently, this pot which has absorbed basar be-chalav—for according to everyone we say chanan—or that which has absorbed other prohibitions according to the poskim who hold chanan applies to other prohibitions, if one heated water in it within twenty-four hours, the water becomes nevelah, and it is as if one has now cooked the prohibition in it. Thus, it requires twenty-four hours from the heating of the water for the absorbed substance within it to become defective. However, some say that even though we say chanan, this is only regarding the law that if it fell into another pot, one requires sixty against the whole thing; but nevertheless, it is not so stringent as to require twenty-four hours from the heating of the water, since the substance of the prohibition itself is not there [Noda Bi-Yehudah in the name of the Semak]. For this reason, they decided in this specific detail to be slightly lenient and to rely on our teachers who hold that staying overnight renders it defective, as I wrote in section 23. Therefore, if only a night passed between the cooking of the prohibition and the heating of the water, it is considered a defective taste and is permitted. But if a night did not pass, it requires twenty-four hours from the heating of the water according to the opinion of most poskim. Likewise, if a night passed between the cooking of meat and the cooking of milk, we also judge this to be defective and it does not prohibit. In a case of some loss, one may be lenient regarding other prohibitions even before the night has passed, so as not to require twenty-four hours except from the cooking of the prohibition itself, and to rely on the "some say" that we wrote, that regarding this matter we do not say chanan at all. But regarding basar be-chalav, one should not rely on this opinion, because regarding basar be-chalav everyone holds the law of chanan. It is a simple matter that this does not specifically mean water, but rather any permitted substance cooked in the pot has the same law as water [see the Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 11, who is uncertain regarding a pot that absorbed a kezayit of a prohibition, and after a night they cooked meat and there was not sixty and the meat became prohibited, and the meat fell into a permitted substance and there is sixty against the prohibition but not against all the meat, whether we are lenient in such a case, see there. And I do not know the basis for the doubt, for certainly we do not rely on staying overnight for this, as that is only regarding the absorbed substance in the pot and not regarding the prohibition itself, as the Semak wrote. And he further wrote that if one cooked meat and after a night milk, and after twenty-four hours from the meat more milk, we do not rely on staying overnight and it requires twenty-four hours from the previous milk. And certainly it is so, for we are only lenient regarding other things and not regarding basar be-chalav itself; and examine this].

If one cooked in a pot of forbidden matter a dish in which the forbidden matter imparts a flavor for improvement, and the dish became forbidden, and afterward one cooked another dish in which the forbidden matter imparts a flavor for deterioration, and only the first dish imparts a flavor for improvement, there is room for doubt: Do we say that since the forbidden matter itself imparts a flavor for deterioration it is permitted, or perhaps since the forbidden dish imparts a flavor for improvement, and according to the opinion of those who hold that a forbidden substance itself becomes a carcass regarding other forbidden matters, the second dish is also forbidden? However, that which was forbidden cannot forbid more than that which forbade it [as the Tosafot wrote in Chullin 108b; see there], and therefore it appears that it is permitted.