Siman 107

The Tur wrote in the name of the Pameg [Prohibitions 132]: Small fish that were cooked and an impure fish was found among them—there are those who prohibit even if he recognizes it and throws it away, and there are sixty to nullify it, because when he pours out the hot water, sometimes at the end of the pouring, with a little water, the impure fish remains with two or with thirty fish and they become prohibited, and the water returns and touches all the fish. And there are those who permit because those two or thirty that remain are nullified in the majority of the mixture, for it is not relevant to say a biryah is not nullified except regarding a biryah that was prohibited due to itself and not one that was prohibited due to the absorption of another prohibition. And they do not return and prohibit the rest that are in the pan even though they touch them while hot, because a prohibited substance that is absorbed and its prohibition is not due to itself does not return and become absorbed in a dry substance except through cooking. Thus far his words.

The Se-mag concludes, and this is his wording: However, eggs that were cooked and a chick or blood was found in one of them, everything is forbidden, for it is not common to cook so many eggs together such that twenty eggs that were forbidden, or thirty, would be nullified in a mixture by a majority of permitted ones. Therefore, it is good to wait until they cool before removing them from the water in which they were cooked; and if one wishes to hurry, he should put cold water with them to cool them first. And my teacher, our teacher Yehuda, wrote that even so, our teacher Yitzchak did not require purging the pan, for he said that for such a doubt one should not be concerned in the end, but rather leave the pan in its status of kashrut that it had from the beginning. Furthermore, our teacher Shimshon would say another reason to permit, that we may say that the forbidden substance is in the majority, as we say in Zevachim [74a] regarding a ring of idolatry that was mixed in. Therefore, one should not assume that at the end of the pouring with a little water, the impure fish remained there. Thus far the words of the Se-mag. And behold, the Tur did not bring this permission that the forbidden substance is in the majority, and according to this, for the Tur, even according to the words of the one who permits, he only permitted regarding fish which, due to their abundance, were nullified in the majority, but not regarding eggs. And the commentators disagreed in the explanation of the words of the Tur in the name of the Se-mag.

Some say that the explanation is as follows: when one pours the fish from the frying pan, which is the pot in which the fish are cooked, and pours them into the bowl, he pours the fish together with the water. Therefore, the opinion of the one who prohibits is because, presumably, he does not pour from the pot into the bowl all at once, but rather a little at a time. Therefore, there is reason to fear that the impure fish remained at the bottom of the pot with a few fish and water in a manner where there was not sixty against the impure one, and the fish and the water became prohibited since they are boiling; and afterwards, when he poured them into the bowl, these prohibited all the fish in the bowl. And the opinion of the one who permits is because even if it were so, the latter fish were subsequently nullified by the majority of the former ones according to the law of dry in dry, where one is nullified in two, and there is no prohibition of a biryah here since its prohibition is not due to itself [so explained the Beit Yosef and the Rema in Torat Chattat, and the Yam Shel Shlomo, Perek Gid HaNasheh, siman 44].

The Acharonim raised a difficulty regarding this interpretation, for when one pours the final fish with the water onto the fish in the bowl, the iruy should forbid all the fish in the bowl to the extent of a klipah, according to the law of iruy from a kli rishon which forbids to the extent of a klipah [Bach and Derishah]. Some say that in truth, regarding the matter of klipah they did not disagree, and even according to the opinion of the one who permits, they require klipah [Shach, subsection 1]. But it is impossible to say so, for if it were so, the Tur should have specified [Kereti U-Peleti]. It appears more likely that since one pours the fish and the water together, it is an iruy where the stream was interrupted, as the fish intervene within the water, and it does not forbid [ibid.]. In my humble opinion, it appears that there is no iruy here that forbids to the extent of a klipah, for the iruy falls into the water in the bowl which is in a kli sheni, and they cool the iruy. One cannot say perhaps the iruy first reached the fish and not the water in the bowl, for there is no logic at all to say so. Firstly, it would be a sefek sefeka: a doubt whether the impure fish was at the end, and if you should say it was, perhaps the iruy struck the water first. And one cannot say that in any event the water should be forbidden to the extent of a klipah, for it can be said that klipah does not apply to a liquid substance, and the klipah is nullified in sixty as written in siman 91. Furthermore, the water certainly struck the water first, for it is the nature of fish to fall to the bottom of the bowl with the water above them [Atteret Zev, subsection 4, who wrote in the name of the Yam Shel Shlomo that the liquid remaining at the end does not have the power to extract or absorb, and it is not understood, see there; and in the Pri Megadim it is simply explained].

And also, one should not require them to have a kelipah based on the reasoning of the latter fish that were forbidden, which touched the bowl and all the fish while they were boiling and moist—that in any case a kelipah is certainly required, as there is one who says so [Shach and Pri Chadash, subsection 1]. For regarding this, the one who permits says: "And we do not go back and say that the remainder in the pan, even though the water touches them, because the absorbed prohibition etc. does not return and become absorbed in a dry substance except through cooking," thus far his words. And ostensibly his words are puzzling, for they are moist and not dry. However, in my humble opinion, his intention is clear, for this is what he is saying: that the touching of them now is in the bowl, which is a keli sheni, and this is his intention: even though they are hot, nevertheless it is not "cooking," meaning that this is not the heat of a keli rishon. And even if we say that regarding a davar gush there is no difference between a keli rishon and a keli sheni, nevertheless the water in the bowl is certainly a keli sheni, and therefore the fish themselves are like a dry substance, as is understood. And this is why he was precise to say "it does not return and become absorbed in a dry substance." Furthermore, here it is even worse, for it can be said that the water which is in a keli sheni cools the fish as well. Therefore, even according to the one who holds that regarding a davar gush even a keli sheni is forbidden, he would admit here [but his primary intention is from the perspective that the prohibition of an absorbed substance does not exit without liquid].

And some explain the words of the Tur in another manner, namely, that it is the way of those who cook fish with sauce to first pour only the sauce into a vessel and afterwards they take the fish, for if they would pour the sauce and the fish together into a bowl, the sauce would spill [Derishah]. And this is the reasoning of the one who forbids, for we fear perhaps the impure fish remained at the bottom at the end when the sauce was diminished through pouring, and there remained in the lower sauce about twenty or thirty fish together with the impure one, and they were all forbidden since there is not sixty here, and the fish that are above the sauce do not join for nullification since they are outside the sauce. And afterwards, when he poured all the sauce and all the fish remained mixed in the first vessel, these forbidden fish returned and forbade all the fish through their contact, at the very least a k'dei klipah by the law of "hot into hot" in a first vessel, and they are moist, for they all became mixed and touched one another. And the one who permits holds that since the mixture is after all the sauce was poured, then their touching one another is like "hot into hot, dry with dry" which does not forbid. And even though they are moist, nevertheless, since it is only an absorbed prohibition that they absorbed from the impure fish, a prohibition does not go out from piece to piece without sauce when the prohibition is not of its own essence [Bach and Derishah and Shach and Pri Chadash]. And there is one of the great authorities who said that specifically when he poured all the sauce, but if a little sauce remained, all the fish are forbidden, for the sauce carries the prohibition from piece to piece [Bach and so it appears in the Shach, see there]. And it is a wondrous thing, for if so, let us fear that at the end of the pouring, the remaining sauce carries the prohibition; rather, certainly only the fish placed within the sauce alone are forbidden [Pri Chadash, see there]. However, one could say the intention of the first opinion is this: that when a little sauce remains that they did not pour, it is possible that all the fish were turned over in the sauce by means of spoons and forks in the manner of people. Nevertheless, it appears to me that the primary view is like the opinion that one should not forbid except those placed in the sauce, and we should not maintain a presumption of defect.

And behold, according to this interpretation, if they poured the sauce together with the fish, they are all forbidden as kaveish ke-mevushal even according to the opinion of the one who permits, and according to the first interpretation nothing is required, as we have explained. And since the first opinion is the opinion of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, and with the help of Heaven we have reconciled their system from all that was questioned against them, and there are also some of the great later authorities who it appears hold like them [Taz, subsection 4, and see Kereti U-Peleti, for it implies also that he holds so] and also the Maharshal holds so, therefore it appears to me that we can rely on them for the halacha, and especially in a case of some loss, certainly one should not be stringent in this.

And if they did not pour the fish from the pot into the bowl, but rather took them with a spoon from the pot into the bowl, and after they took all the fish they poured all the broth into the bowl containing the fish as is our custom, there is one who forbids, for if there are not 119 fish, they are all forbidden. This is because we concern ourselves that perhaps the impure one remained at the bottom of the pot, and when it remained with 59 pure ones they became forbidden, as it lacks one part in sixty. And the reasoning of the one who permits is because afterwards, when they are all mixed together, they are nullified by the majority, and there must be at least sixty besides those 59, which together are 119 [Kereti U-Peleti, subsection 1]. But this is not clear to me, for behold, even the broth joins to the sixty, and why do I need all of this? And it appears to me that the early authorities precisely said 20 and 30, for in such a case there is no sixty, but with more than 30 there is certainly sixty when combined with the water. Therefore, according to this, if there are 61 fish in total, they are permitted. And according to this, when they took them with a spoon, the law is the same as when they poured from the pot, and only the spoon is certainly forbidden, for the impure fish was in it while boiling. And the broth was not forbidden at all, for while the broth was in its entirety there was certainly sixty. And if it was poured after they took the fish, it is certainly permitted. And if it was poured together with the fish, it appears that the broth is entirely forbidden; for granted that the forbidden fish were nullified by the majority, this is only in "dry in dry," but in "liquid in liquid" one requires sixty, and if so, the portion of the forbidden broth, when it mixed with all the broth, forbade it. But if they poured the broth first and afterwards the fish, it is obvious that the broth is permitted, for at the time of its pouring there was sixty [so it appears in my humble opinion].

And behold, the Tur did not bring at all the permission of our teacher Shimshon based on the reasoning that the prohibition is found in the majority, but rather the permission due to bitul in the majority, and this is only relevant regarding small fish that are cooked in great quantity, but not regarding eggs. And this is the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 1, who wrote: One who cooks many eggs in their shells should not remove them from the water in which they were cooked until they cool down, or he should pour cold water over them to cool them, and afterwards they are removed; because we concern ourselves that perhaps a chick will be found in one of them, and if he were to remove them before they cooled, perhaps the one containing the chick would remain with the last ones and would prohibit them, because there would not remain sixty there to nullify it. Thus far his words. And he did not write the law of fish at all because he holds like the opinion that permits in fish because they are in great quantity and the prohibition is nullified in the majority, which is not the case with eggs, which are not cooked in such great quantity and there is not a majority of permission to nullify the prohibition.

The reason that the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch did not agree to the permission of our teacher Samson appears to be that they hold, on the contrary, since the prohibition is within the majority, therefore every fish that one takes from the pot until the halfway point, we say that the prohibition is within the majority and the forbidden item still remains in the pot. And even if there are so many fish that even in half of them there are sixty against the impure one, and therefore from the halfway point onwards we say the prohibition is within the majority—meaning that the impure one has already been removed and it is among the majority that were removed from the pot—behold, even in this we can say, on the contrary, that every single fish that we remove from the pot is presumably from the majority of the pure fish. And as long as there are three fish there in the pot, we say that we follow the majority, and what did you see to say the prohibition is within the majority? Let us say that everything removed is removed from the majority. Therefore, there is no proof from Zevachim [74a] because here we can say a different majority, as I have written. Furthermore, there Rashi explained that the permission is not for themselves but for the mixture that follows, see there. [And see the Pri Chadash who raised a difficulty on that of Zevachim from that very place regarding a barrel of terumah where we do not rely on the majority, and he answered that there is a distinction between whether they separated or did not separate, and here it is considered separated and we say it separated from the majority, see there. And the Kereti U'Peleti answered that we follow everything strictly, and if so, it follows that the proof is not decisive, see there. And in my humble opinion, it appears that there is no difficulty at all, for there regarding terumah there is a different majority, as we say every barrel that was opened is from the majority, and the prohibition automatically remains in the sealed ones, just as I wrote here regarding the fish; and delve into this.]

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this matter of eggs that one must leave them until they cool. This is his wording: And if he did not do so, but rather poured them into a bowl and one of them was found to be treifa, some forbid everything, for we fear perhaps the treifa remained for the end and there was not sixty in the pot to nullify it, and what was in the pot was forbidden and in turn forbids everything in the bowl. And similarly with small fish where an impure fish was found in the bowl and he did not pour them all at once into the bowl, for then there is a concern perhaps the forbidden item remained for the end. And some permit in every case, for we do not presume a prohibition to say that the forbidden item remained without sixty, and such is the primary ruling. And even according to the opinion of those who forbid, one should not forbid the vessels in which they were cooked, for we establish the vessel upon its chazaka. Thus far his words. [The annotator wrote regarding "and some permit" that it is the Tur in the name of "there are those who say," but it is not so, for the Tur in the name of "there are those who say" did not permit regarding eggs as he wrote, rather its source is from our teacher Shimshon who was cited in the Beit Yosef as he annotated afterward].

And behold, he permitted even regarding eggs based on the reasoning of our teacher, Shimshon, that we hang the matter by saying the forbidden substance is found within the majority, except that he inclined his intention toward the reasoning that we do not establish a prohibition to say that the forbidden substance remained without sixty; that is to say, we do not establish a prohibition to say that the forbidden substance remained from the latter ones in the pot, but rather we say that at the beginning of the pouring the forbidden substance fell. And he spoke a great matter in this, for behold, we have already explained that the opinion of our teacher, Shimshon, is difficult, for what did you see to say that the forbidden substance is found within the majority? Let us say that anything that is separated is separated from the majority. Therefore, he explained his intention that certainly based on this reason alone one should not permit; however, in any case, since there is a majority against a majority, it is a doubt, and therefore we establish each egg in its status of kashrut. And by virtue of this status, we incline toward this majority—that the forbidden substance is found within the majority—just as in every doubt of a prohibition, if it has a status of permissibility, we establish it upon its status, as in siman 50 and in siman 81 regarding cheeses. And one should not ask according to this why in a case where it was spilled in a mixture of different species and it is not known if there was sixty, that we prohibit the cooked food in siman 98 and do not establish it upon its status of permissibility; for it is different there, as the forbidden substance is still mixed within the cooked food, and just as the permissible substance has a status of permissibility, so too the forbidden substance has a status of prohibition, and they are mixed together, the status of both is canceled and it is a doubt of a Torah law and is prohibited. This is not so here, where each egg and each fish is on its own, and the forbidden substance was removed from there, and this egg and this fish had a status of permissibility, but now there is a doubt if it became prohibited from the absorption of the forbidden substance—we certainly establish them upon their status. And the great ones among the latter authorities brought his words from his book Torat Chatat, and there he wrote based on the reason that it is similar to "spilled," and they questioned him that here it is a mixture of different species [see Shach subsection 1 and Pri Chadash]. But according to what he wrote here and according to our explanation, everything is settled with the help of Heaven [see Shach ibid. and Taz subsection 4 who spoke at length to reject his words in Torat Chatat, and see Pri Megadim in the name of Minchat Yaakov who settles his words, and according to what I wrote all this is unnecessary; and I saw in the Pleiti at the end of subsection 1 who indeed questioned why we do not establish it upon its status, and he wrote because the nature of fish and eggs is to turn over in the stewpot, which is stronger than the status, see there; however, while they are in the stewpot they are certainly permitted as there is sixty, and we are deliberating regarding the pouring, so what is the connection of one to the other? And according to our words, indeed, this is the intention of the Rema, and the words are fitting for the one who said them, and as I wrote, everything is settled with this, and examine it].

And that which he wrote, that the pot is permitted according to everyone since we establish it upon its chazakah, the Acharonim agreed that it is only permitted until after twenty-four hours [Shach, subsection 2]. And certainly it is so, for according to the one who forbids, what difference is there between the food and the vessel? Rather, it is because after twenty-four hours it is notein ta'am lifgam, and in this even the one who forbids admits that we establish it upon its chazakah. And from this there is also a proof to what we wrote, that the reason of the one who permits is also because of chazakah. Furthermore, it appears to me that even according to the one who forbids regarding eggs, it is only regarding an egg with a chick, but an egg that had blood in it, everyone admits there is no concern in this, since the blood of eggs is rabbinic. Therefore, they only wrote of an egg that has a chick in it. And there are those who are stringent even regarding an egg with blood [Taz, subsection 5 in the name of Issur V'Heter]. However, from the words of the Shulchan Aruch and also from the words of the Smag brought in the Beit Yosef, it does not imply so, since they only mentioned a chick. [And regarding the general matter, all the words of the commentators in this siman are complicated and have not been clarified well, see Pri Megadim. And for the halachah, the primary view appears like our teacher, the Rema, for even the Beit Yosef, it appears, was only concerned ab initio, since he did not write that if he did not cool them it is forbidden, but rather wrote "he should not remove them from the water," meaning ab initio, and as the Taz wrote in subsection 1 in the name of the Torat Chattat, see there].

It has already been explained in siman 104 that repulsive things that a person's soul finds loathsome, such as ants and flies and the like, if they were crushed into the cooked food and there is a majority of permitted food, it is permitted; see there. And all the more so their discharge does not forbid. Therefore, an ant or a fly and the like that is found in cooked food, one throws them away and the cooked food is permitted, for the discharge of these defective things does not forbid. And even though there are those who disagree and hold that the discharge of a fly forbids and requires sixty, and so it appears ostensibly in the Tur, see there; nevertheless, the words of those who are lenient are primary. And so is the simple custom, and one should not change the custom. And some say that in vinegar and beer, according to everyone it forbids until sixty [Shach, subsection 7], and the proof is from a mouse in siman 104. And it seems that even in these the custom is not so, and what proof is there from a mouse? For one does not compare one to the other. And so it appears in Torat HaBayit, Bayit 4, end of Shaar 1; see there. And there are people who, when they find a fly in a cup or in cooked food, throw out everything that is in the cup and all the cooked food; and it appears in the Gemara at the end of Gittin that it is not proper to act in this manner; see there well.

And if one took with the spoon from the pot an impure fish or another forbidden substance that is not spoiled, it is forbidden to return the spoon to the pot, for the spoon has absorbed from the forbidden substance. And even if there is sixty in the spoon against the forbidden substance, the spoon is forbidden, for we do not measure sixty in vessels because we do not know if the absorption spreads through the entire vessel, as was written in siman 92. Therefore, if he returned it, sixty is required in the cooked food against the forbidden substance that was in the spoon, and not against the spoon, and we do not say "the piece itself becomes forbidden" regarding a vessel. However, in siman 98 the detailed laws of this were explained, see there. And against the forbidden substance one needs sixty even if he threw the forbidden substance outside. And one should not ask: it is obvious that one needs sixty against the forbidden substance, for the forbidden substance was previously in the pot; for it can be said that you find a case where they afterwards took from the cooked food and it was reduced, or that he inserted it into another pot. And if there was a little cooked food with the forbidden substance in the spoon and it was returned to the pot, one needs sixty also against the little cooked food, for it became "a forbidden piece" in the spoon. And even though the spoon is a second vessel, nevertheless we treat the spoon as a first vessel; since he just now removed it from the boiling pot, we consider it as a first vessel for stringency [Shach, subsection 7]. And in siman 92, section 2, we explained more on this, see there. And there is one who says that in such a case one must measure sixty against the entire spoon, because we do not know how much the spoon absorbed since he returned it with the little cooked food to the pot, and if so, everything it absorbed became "a forbidden piece" in the spoon. However, it can be said that in this they did not see fit to be so stringent regarding absorbed forbidden matter [see Shach, subsection 10, who ruled so, that one needs sixty against the spoon because we do not know how much it absorbed, and ostensibly his words are puzzling as was written in the Be'er Heitev of Rabbi Zalman Margolios, see there; but his intention is for what was absorbed upon its return to the pot, and so it appears the Chavot Da'at understood the intention of the Shach, see there subsection 7, and examine closely].