Siman 104

There is a great principle regarding the nullification of prohibited items, that nullification only applies to that which is not discernible, but regarding a discernible thing, nullification does not apply. Likewise, a discernible permitted item does not nullify a non-discernible prohibited item. How so? Behold, if a piece of a prohibited item fell into a pot that contains broth and cooked food, and one piece of a permitted item similar to the prohibited piece, and it is impossible to distinguish between them; even though there is sixty in the permitted food to nullify the prohibited piece and the broth and cooked food are permitted, nevertheless the pieces are prohibited. For the broth and the cooked food do not nullify the prohibited piece itself, but only its exudation, because the exudation was mixed in and is not discernible. However, the piece itself is discernible and is not subject to nullification, and only the permitted piece can nullify it. And for this, one needs two permitted pieces to nullify it according to the law of a dry item in a dry item which is nullified by a majority, but one against one, both are prohibited.

And so too, if there are many pieces of permitted matter, for example, such as if there are ten pieces of permitted matter against the piece of forbidden matter, and nine of them we recognize as not being completely similar to the piece of forbidden matter, and only the tenth is completely similar such that it is impossible to recognize it—in this case as well, the tenth permitted piece and the forbidden piece are forbidden. This is because these nine do not have the ability to join for the nullification of the forbidden matter since they are recognizable, and there remains for the nullification only the tenth piece, and one in one is not nullified.

And according to this, the dry is not nullified in the liquid, nor the liquid in the dry, because the forbidden matter is recognizable on its own and the permitted matter on its own, for this is liquid and this is dry, and the nullification is only effective regarding the discharge. Therefore, a sheretz that fell into a beverage and was cut into thin pieces that are impossible to separate has no nullification even in a thousand, for they are recognizable within the beverage, and there is no remedy for this except through straining. But if the sheretz was mixed into a thick food, such as lentils or crushed grits and the like, which is a thick sauce, if the sheretz is crushed or cut like the food and it is impossible to distinguish between them, it has nullification either according to the law of liquid in liquid or according to the law of dry in dry. But if the food is so crushed that it becomes a liquid sauce and the sheretz is cut into thin pieces, there is no nullification there even in a thousand, for the thin pieces of the sheretz are recognizable, as it is like dry in liquid. Only if there is also kosher meat in the cooked dish that is cut into thin pieces like the sheretz, and it is impossible to distinguish between one and the other, is there nullification if the meat is more than the sheretz [all this I learned from the Taz, subsection 1, and from the Pri Chadash, subsection 3].

And there are those who wish to distinguish between the eight sheratzim, whose prohibition for lashes is in the size of a lentil like their tumah [Meilah 16b] and as I wrote in siman 85, for these, even a portion of them is not nullified even in a thousand like a beriah; but other prohibitions, even if the substance of the prohibition is recognizable, if it is cut into thin pieces that are impossible to select, it is nullified if it is not in a liquid where it is possible to strain them. And it is not so, for regarding a beriah, it has already been explained in siman 100 that whenever a portion of it is cut, the name beriah does not apply to it, see there. And if it is because their prohibition for lashes is in the size of a lentil, behold, even in all prohibitions, a half-measure is prohibited by the Torah [and so it appears from the words of the Beit Yosef, see there]. And there is one who strengthens this reasoning to distinguish between when there is a measure for lashes, for then nullification is not applicable, but in a half-measure nullification is applicable even though it is by the Torah, because the reason that a half-measure is prohibited is due to importance, and since it is so mixed that it is impossible to gather it, it has no importance [Chavat Da'at, subsection 1]. And there is no basis for these words, for the reason for a half-measure was written by all the poskim as being because it is fit to combine, and not because of importance [and from Pesachim 44a there is no proof, see there and examine closely].

And there is one who upholds this opinion to distinguish between sheratzim, whose measure is like a lentil, and other prohibitions in this manner: for behold, it is true that the reason for half a measure is because it is "fit to be joined," however, when it is in a mixture, even dry in dry of a different species, it has already been nullified and "fit to be joined" is not applicable [Kereiti U-Peleiti siman 109, subsection 4]. And the nullification of dry in dry of a different species is neither by a majority nor by sixty, but rather by a kezayit within the time of eating a pras; and that is, if in the eating of a pras one will not eat a kezayit of the prohibition, behold, there is no possibility to come to a Torah prohibition, and consequently, even the prohibition of half a measure is not here, for it is not "fit to be joined" to a Torah prohibition, and consequently it has already been nullified. But when there is a kezayit within the time of eating a pras, the half a measure is prohibited by the Torah, for it is "fit to be joined" when he eats it within the time of eating a pras. And therefore, this prohibition that was cut into thin pieces and mixed, even though it is recognizable on its own, nevertheless, since there is no possibility that he will eat a kezayit of it within the time of eating a pras—for even in one hundred kezayitim a kezayit of the prohibition will not be gathered—therefore it is nullified in the permitted substance, for there is no Torah prohibition here. But the sheratzim, whose measure is like a lentil, certainly within the time of eating a pras he will eat a lentil of the sheretz, and if so, even less than this is a Torah prohibition because it is "fit to be joined," and therefore it is not nullified at all [Kereiti U-Peleiti subsection 2]. And according to this, regarding other prohibitions, even if the prohibition is recognizable, there can be nullification when it is not possible for there to be a kezayit within the time of eating a pras. However, the opinion of most poskim is that dry in dry of a different species is in sixty, and even this is when the prohibition is not recognizable on its own; but when it is recognizable, it has no nullification at all, as will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 109.

It is stated in the Gemara [Avodah Zarah 68b] that a field mouse is served on the table of kings because its taste is good, whereas a city mouse is loathsome. However, regarding beer and vinegar, there is a doubt in the Gemara whether it perhaps improves them; for even though it is itself loathsome, nevertheless, in beer and vinegar, due to their sharpness, perhaps it improves them, and a doubt regarding a prohibition is ruled stringently. Other than beer and vinegar—for example, if it fell into wine and oil or into other liquids—it certainly impairs, and one does not need sixty to nullify its discharge; rather, one throws away the mouse and drinks the liquids. Only in beer and vinegar does one need sixty. All this applies to an ordinary mouse, but regarding a field mouse it is not so; since it is served on the table of kings, its taste also prohibits up to sixty in everything. This is the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 1, see there.

But the Rambam in chapter 15 and the Tur did not mention at all a distinction between one mouse and another mouse, but rather wrote plainly that a mouse that fell into beer or into vinegar, the sages were concerned lest it improves them, and therefore one requires sixty to nullify its discharge, but for wine and oil it certainly impairs; see there. And the great later authorities wrote that they hold that regarding their discharge there is no distinction, for even though a field mouse is served on the table of ministers, nevertheless its discharge impairs in everything except for beer and vinegar, just like a house mouse, and therefore they did not distinguish in this [Bach, and Shach subsection 1, and Pri Chadash]. And I wonder at this, for behold, it is an a fortiori argument: if a house mouse, which is loathsome, nevertheless there is a doubt lest its discharge improves in beer and vinegar, all the more so a field mouse which ministers eat, that its discharge would improve everything; and from where do we have the authority to innovate such a thing that does not exist in all types of forbidden items? Therefore, it appears to me that the primary view is like the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and the fact that the Rambam and the Tur did not distinguish in this is because they are dealing with plain mice that are found by the thousands in every single place. For in the Gemara as well, they did not mention a field mouse except incidentally, when it questioned that which they said that a mouse is loathsome, and behold it is served on the table etc., and they answered that this is a field mouse, whereas we are dealing with a plain mouse. And the entire sugya of the Shas is regarding a plain mouse and does not deal with a field mouse, and it is like all forbidden items, such as impure birds and impure fish, which forbid with their discharge until sixty [and one must further examine the Shach who wrote that in the Shas it is proven so, and also the words of the Pri Chadash require further examination, see there; and the Kereti u-Peleti agreed with the Beit Yosef, see there, and see Pri Megadim there, and delve into it].

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef: A field mouse is a source of improvement in flavor, for it is served on the tables of ministers; but regarding a city mouse, we are in doubt whether it improves beer and vinegar or if it impairs them. Therefore, if it fell into beer or into vinegar while cold and one removed it whole, if it did not remain within it for twenty-four hours, it is permitted. But if it was boiling, or even cold and it remained within it for twenty-four hours—whether one removed it whole, or whether it was cut into thin pieces and one can strain it in a manner that nothing of it remains within it, or whether it dissolved within it entirely and became completely liquid and no substance of it remained—it is permitted by there being sixty of the permitted substance against the mouse. And if it was cut into thin pieces and it is in a manner where one cannot strain it, such as if the beer or the vinegar was mixed into a thick food, everything is forbidden and there is no nullification there, for we fear perhaps he will encounter the substance of the forbidden matter and not realize. Thus far his words. And his words are founded upon what we have explained, that whenever the forbidden matter is recognizable, it is not nullified. And this is what he wrote: "And if it was cut etc. such as if it was mixed etc. into a thick food, everything is forbidden and there is no nullification there etc." meaning that every small piece of the forbidden matter is recognizable on its own, and for this there is no nullification.

And our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this that specifically with a sheretz is there a concern that if it remains there he will not be able to remove it, but with other prohibited items there is no concern. Thus far his words. And all the Acharonim understood that his intention was to distinguish between sheratzim, whose measure is like a lentil, and other prohibited items, whose measure is like an olive. Many rejected his words, and some upheld his words, as has been explained. And I wonder, for if such was his intention, he should not have said "sheretz" without qualification; he should have specified one of the eight sheratzim that transmit impurity in the size of a lentil and whose prohibition is in the size of a lentil, for other sheratzim, their prohibition is in the size of an olive. And even more difficult than this: since he is standing upon the words of the Mechaber, why did he change his wording from "mouse" to a general "sheretz"? He should have also written "mouse" like the wording of the Mechaber, which is one of the eight sheratzim. And it is true that the annotators noted that his words are taken from the Issur VeHeter, Klal 32, and he also brings it in his book Darkei Moshe; but even there he wrote that from the Tur it does not imply so, and he agreed with the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and there his words are very stammered, and it is evident that there is some omission; see there carefully.

And regarding his words here, it appears to me that there is another intention: that he does not distinguish between a sheretz and other prohibitions because its measure is like a lentil, but rather he distinguishes between a case where the prohibition is recognizable on its own, in which case it is not nullified, and a case where the prohibition is not recognizable on its own, in which case it is nullified. Since our teacher, the Beit Yosef, did not explain this explicitly, he therefore explained this matter. And this is the explanation: behold, most prohibitions, such as nevelot, terefot, impure animals, and impure birds, when they are mixed with kosher meat and cut into thin pieces, are certainly not recognizable on their own, since they all have the appearance of meat like kosher meat. But sheratzim have a different appearance and they are recognizable among all types of meat. And for this reason he says that specifically regarding a sheretz one must be concerned, etc., meaning that the sheretz is recognizable on its own, and not other types of prohibitions.

This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 15, law 31: A mouse that fell into beer or into vinegar is measured in sixty, for we fear that perhaps its taste in beer and in vinegar improves it; but if it fell into wine or into oil or into honey, it is permitted, and even if it imparted taste, because its taste impairs, for all of these must be fragrant and this makes them malodorous and ruins their taste. Thus far his words. And they were uncertain regarding his words as to what the law is in other things besides these. And some say that the same law applies to other things, that it does not prohibit, and this is the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who wrote in section 2: If it fell into wine and oil or into other liquids, it certainly impairs, and there is no need for sixty to nullify its discharge. Thus far his words. And according to this, if it fell into fat, the law is also thus, like wine and oil; and that which the Rambam specified only these three things, his intention was not only these three things, but he cited them merely as an example, for should he reckon them like a peddler? And in the Gemara it is only explained that in beer and vinegar there is a doubt that perhaps it improves, and so as not to err that the same law applies to other things, for this he wrote that it is not so. But some say that since he wrote the reason regarding these three liquids, that they must be fragrant, we learn from this that it is specifically these and not others; and according to this, if it fell into fat, it prohibits. And this is the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, who wrote there: And there are those who are stringent regarding fat, etc. Thus far his words. And at the end of his words he concludes that in a place of great loss, one may rely on the words of those who are lenient. Thus far his words. And it appears that regarding the essence of the law, he also holds that it is not so, and only in a place where the loss is not great did he concern himself with the words of those who are stringent. And for the halakha, the primary view is like our teacher, the Beit Yosef, for so ruled explicitly the Rashba in his book Torat HaBayit, and the Ran in the name of our French teachers, that only in beer and vinegar is there a concern; see there [see Beit Yosef].

Regarding the opinion of those who are stringent concerning fat, our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: There are those who are stringent concerning fat; even if it is hard before us, if they poured fat into the pot day after day and there is a doubt that perhaps the mouse was there when they poured boiling fat upon it, everything is forbidden, even if there is sixty in the fat against the entire mouse. But if they did not pour upon it, or if they poured upon it and it is known that the mouse was not there when they poured upon it, and the fat comes before us while it is hard and the mouse was found upon it likewise, it is sufficient for it with the removal of its place, and we do not presume a prohibition that perhaps the fat was soft when it fell there—and "soaked is like cooked"—for it is permitted by force of a double doubt: perhaps it fell there when it was hard, and if you say it was when it was soft, perhaps it hardened before the duration of soaking. And in a place where the fat is loathsome to eat, it is forbidden to light it as well in the beit knesset because of "present it now to your governor." And in a place of great loss, one may rely on the words of those who are lenient. Thus far his words.

The explanation of his words is as follows: Behold, if they place a mouse at the bottom of the pot and pour boiling fat over it, even if there is more than sixty times its volume, all the fat is forbidden, because every bit of the pouring touches the mouse and becomes forbidden. And even if the pot was filled halfway or more, nevertheless, the pouring that follows, because it is boiling and fatty, descends until the mouse and touches it. Moreover, even if the lower fat that was upon the mouse was cold, nevertheless, when one pours boiling fat upon this, it clears a path for itself through the cold fat and touches the mouse and becomes forbidden. And this is what he wrote, that if they poured day after day into the pot and he does not know when the mouse fell there, all the fat is forbidden because we fear perhaps the mouse was there from before, and every bit of boiling fat that he poured touched the mouse and became forbidden. And even though yesterday's fat had already cooled, nevertheless, even if the mouse was at the bottom when he poured boiling fat over it, it clears a path for itself and touches it. However, if they did not pour day after day, but rather they poured all the fat into the pot at one time, and then it was known that the mouse was not there and it fell afterward, if the fat comes before us while it is hard, it is sufficient for it to remove the area surrounding the mouse. And even though there is a doubt that perhaps it fell when the fat was soft, and "pickled is like cooked," nevertheless it is permitted by reason of a double doubt: a doubt whether it fell while the fat was hard, and furthermore a doubt that perhaps the fat hardened before twenty-four hours passed. And even though it is all like a single doubt whether it was pickled or not, nevertheless we are lenient in this, for the essence of the law is also a doubt, as has been explained. But if the fat comes before us soft, or if it is known that it was soft when the mouse fell, it is a doubt of pickling and is forbidden if there is not sixty times its volume, unless it is known that twenty-four hours did not pass while the fat was soft. And even though in this too there is a double doubt—a doubt if it was pickled for twenty-four hours, and if you say it was pickled for twenty-four hours, perhaps the halacha follows those who permit it, and furthermore, for in vinegar and beer themselves there is a doubt in the Gemara as I have written—nevertheless, our teacher, the Rema, did not wish to combine a doubt of the law to this, because the entire essence of this law is a mere stringency as I have written, and it deals with a case where there is no great loss; therefore he did not wish to combine a doubt of the law to this, even though in other places we combine this doubt according to the primary law [see Shach subsection 4 and Pri Megadim, and according to what I have written it is well-settled, and examine it]. And it is simple that vessels in which they ate and cooked the fat are permitted in any case, since all of this is a stringency as we explained. But the vessel in which the fat and the mouse were, the law of the vessel is like the law of the fat; and if the fat is forbidden, this vessel is also forbidden when there is no great loss [according to Pitchei Teshuva subsection 3 in the name of Minchat Yaakov, and examine it].

And that which he wrote, that in a place where the fat is loathsome to eat it is forbidden to light it even in the beit din, some say that the intention is only in a place where the fat is forbidden for eating [Taz, subsection 4]. However, some say that even in a place where it is permitted for eating, if it is merely loathsome to him, one should not light it in the beit din, and so too for any use of a mitzvah such as a Chanukah candle and a Shabbat candle and the like [Magen Avraham, siman 154, subsection 19]. Indeed, in a place where it is loathsome to him even to eat it, it is forbidden due to "do not make yourselves detestable" [as is implied in Shach, subsection 8]; rather, even if his mind is refined and he is permitted to eat it, nevertheless, if it is loathsome to others, he too is forbidden to use it for a matter of a mitzvah. And some say that everything depends on him: if it is loathsome to him, even if it is not loathsome to others, it is forbidden for a matter of a mitzvah; and conversely, if it is not loathsome to him, even if it is loathsome to others, it is permitted. And this requires further study [so wrote the Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 4; and it requires further study, for if so, this is equal to eating like the Taz, yet according to the Magen Avraham it is not so, as he himself wrote, and how will he sustain the words of the Magen Avraham? See there and examine closely].

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 3: Repulsive things that a person's soul loathes, such as ants, flies, and mosquitoes, which every person avoids due to their repulsiveness, even if they were mixed into a cooked dish and their bodies were dissolved into it—if the permitted substance is greater than it, they are permitted. Nevertheless, as long as it is possible to check and pass it through a strainer, one checks and strains. Thus far their words. Our teacher, the Rema, emended: However, in vinegar and beer, one must be concerned as with a mouse. Thus far his words. And his reasoning is that the source of this law is from the Rashba, as the Tur wrote, and he derived this law from a mouse, and if so, their law is like a mouse [see Beit Yosef]. And I wonder greatly at this, for the Mordechai wrote explicitly in the second chapter of Beitzah that bees are like a carcass that was putrid from the beginning, and all of these are worse than bees. And he also wrote there in the name of the Rokeach that a fly, even in beer, is nothing and is not similar to a mouse; see there. And the Ran, of blessed memory, who wrote this, wrote explicitly in this wording: And from this we learn that all repulsive things like a mouse and its like do not prohibit with their discharge except in vinegar and beer [brought in the Beit Yosef]. Behold, he only wrote regarding repulsive things like a mouse, and not regarding ants, flies, and mosquitoes; and this requires great study.

And I have a major question on the Tur and Shulchan Arukh: what did they innovate for us in this law? For they already wrote in the previous siman that any nosef ta'am lifgam is permitted when the permitted substance is greater than the forbidden substance, and all the more so regarding repulsive things. And behold, according to what one of the great Acharonim wrote, regarding repulsive things it is permitted even when there is a kezayit of the forbidden substance within a k'dei achilat pras of the permitted substance—and so the Rashba wrote explicitly in Torat HaBayit, see there—whereas in nosef ta'am lifgam it is forbidden in such a case; for it is true that it is explained there that when the permitted substance is greater it is permitted, but that is when there is not a kezayit in a k'dei achilat pras [Bach]. And if we say so, certainly there is an innovation in this law; but if so, they should have explained it, and since they left their words unspecified, it implies clearly that in both of them it is permitted even with a kezayit in a k'dei achilat pras. And one of the greats already wondered at this reasoning, for since they said that when the permitted substance is greater it is permitted, it must necessarily be that there is a kezayit in a k'dei achilat pras [Pri Megadim in Shiftei Da'at, subsection 9]. And perhaps their intention is that even though they were dissolved, they are in their entirety—as it is understood that an ant, due to its smallness, is not subject to division, and even its dissolution is only that it was lost in the cooked dish and it is impossible to recognize it due to its smallness—nevertheless it is permitted because it has no importance, and this is like the permission we wrote in siman 100, see there. And know that even one who is inclined to say in the previous siman, section 7, that when the forbidden substance increased the measure of the permitted substance until one derives more benefit from the size of the measure than from the defect of the taste it is forbidden, see there, nevertheless here he admits since the soul is repulsed by them [Shach subsection 9; and one cannot say that this comes to inform us of that, for it does not imply so, and furthermore, the Tur there did not bring this opinion at all].