Siman 91

Meat and cheese that touched one another, even if one of them is moist, or even if both are moist, are completely permitted without even a <i>kelipah</i>, since they are cold. Nevertheless, one must rinse the place where they touched, for due to their moisture it is unavoidable that they adhered slightly to one another; therefore, a light rinsing is sufficient and scrubbing is not required. It is permitted to bundle them in one cloth in a manner where each is placed by itself, and we are not concerned that they might touch one another. This is what the sages taught in the Mishnah (Chullin 107b): A person may bundle meat and cheese in one cloth, provided they do not touch one another; and if they touched, they require rinsing. This is all when both or one of them is moist, but when both are dry, nothing is required [Shach, subsection 1]. And there is no difference between raw meat and cooked meat. If one of them is fatty, it requires rinsing with scrubbing, and all the more so when there is the pressure of a knife, which requires rinsing and scrubbing well until it is known to him that the fattiness has been removed [Torat HaBayit, and see Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 1, and in Havat Da'at, subsection 2]. Similarly, if moist blood fell upon meat and congealed, or melted milk, or cold melted butter fell upon meat and congealed, scrubbing alone or rinsing alone is not sufficient; rather, it also requires rinsing and great scrubbing, as has been written [Yad Ephraim].

It is not specifically two foods that touched one another that require rinsing; rather, even meat placed in a milk vessel, or milk in a meat vessel, if one of them is moist, it requires rinsing. According to this, those travelers who eat salted herrings in the vessels of Cutheans do not act properly, for it requires rinsing after being placed upon them [Taz, subsection 2, in the name of the Rashal]. If they peel the skin from it, it is well, for peeling the membrane from the herring is better than rinsing. Certainly those who eat salted cucumbers, which are called "ogurkes," in their homes, and place them on their vessel with the pickling water, do not act properly [ibid.]. Regarding the "ogurkes" alone, they can peel the skin and place them on the peels and not on the vessel. Even though they are on the road and it is a time of pressing need, nevertheless there is an easy remedy for this: to wash the plate well with clean water, and then it is permitted to place cold food or a cold drink upon it [Pri Megadim ibid., see there and examine carefully].

Anything that requires rinsing, such as placing cold permitted meat in a cold forbidden bowl, or conversely, cold forbidden food in a cold permitted vessel, is prohibited ab initio, for perhaps he will forget and eat without rinsing. And one should not say that since it is permitted ex post facto, it should be permitted to rely on the basis that he will rinse it afterward, and we say such a thing in siman 1 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 1) regarding the matter of slaughter; for it can be said that there, there is no certain prohibition but merely concerns, and even though the concerns are great and involve a great prohibition, nevertheless it is only a mere concern and against the majority as is explained there, therefore we rely on the afterward. This is not the case here; even though it is a light prohibition, nevertheless it is certainly a prohibition, therefore we do not rely on this, that he will rinse it afterward [and this is the intention of the Taz, subsection 1]. And this, that we do not rely on the afterward, is specifically regarding something whose way is not to be rinsed, such as cooked meat and the like. But something whose way is to be rinsed, such as raw meat and the like, we rely on the rinsing afterward, and it is permitted to place it ab initio on this basis. And there is one who wishes to say that this is only upon a vessel, but upon a forbidden food, even in such a case it is prohibited ab initio [Pri Megadim in the Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 1], and one should deliberate on this, for what prohibition is there in this, rather the matter is unseemly.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2 regarding the law that was explained, that it requires rinsing, and this is his wording: And specifically something that has a bit of moisture, but a truly dry thing, if the vessel only absorbed through cold, it is permitted to place a dry thing in it without rinsing at all, and see below siman 122. Thus far his words. And they wondered about him, for regarding a dry thing, what does it matter to me if the absorption of the vessel was through heat, ultimately it is a dry thing, and what prohibition is there in this? Therefore, there are those who emended his words that it should be said as follows: but a truly dry thing, or if the vessel only absorbed through cold, even a moist thing is permitted; meaning, to place a truly dry thing is permitted even when the vessel absorbed through heat, and if the absorption of the vessel was only through cold, it is permitted to place even a moist thing upon it, because the vessel was not prohibited by a cold absorption [Taz, subsection 3]. And that which he wrote to see in siman 122 is a printing error, and it should be said as siman 121, for there in section 5 it was explained that occasionally it is permitted to use a prohibited vessel for cold through rinsing the vessel and scrubbing it well, and it is explained there that even a moist thing like vinegar is permitted, see there, and if so, it is a kal vachomer for this law here that it is certainly permitted, and so it appears primary for the law, and see what I wrote at the end of section 2, and regarding an earthenware vessel one should be stringent.

One must be careful that meat does not touch bread, for if meat touches it, it is forbidden to eat it with cheese; and similarly, one must be careful that cheese does not touch it, for if it touches it, it is forbidden to eat it with meat. And some say that through rinsing even bread is permitted [Shach, subsection 4], and some say that bread is forbidden even through rinsing, for in bread it adheres and clings more [Pri Megadim in the name of Knesset HaGedolah], and so it appears to be the primary view; however, all this is when one of them is moist, but when both are dry, we have no concern [ibid.]. And similarly, with a meat knife that had fat upon it, and one cut bread with it, it is forbidden to eat that piece with milk, and similarly the reverse; but if the knife is clean and wiped well, it is permitted, and more has been explained regarding this in siman 89, section 16, see there.

One of the great Acharonim established rules for the laws of using a vessel of forbidden substance: that a vessel which was used regularly for a forbidden substance, even cold, and even not by means of soaking, and one comes to use it for hot substance even occasionally, or for cold substance regularly, rinsing the vessel is not sufficient; rather, it requires significant scrubbing. To use it for cold substance occasionally, wiping is sufficient, and to use it for hot substance regularly is forbidden in any case. A vessel that was used for a forbidden substance with heat is forbidden to be used for hot substance by law; even if it is not a "ben yomo," it is forbidden lechatchila. Similarly, to use it for cold substance regularly is forbidden, as a decree lest one use it for hot substance. However, to use it for cold substance occasionally is permitted by means of scrubbing, and then it is permitted to place in it occasionally even a liquid or sharp substance like vinegar and the like. A vessel that was used for a forbidden substance occasionally, wiping it well is sufficient to use it for cold substance even regularly, if it was not forbidden entirely by the heat of a kli rishon; however, to use it for hot substance is forbidden even if it was forbidden by means of pouring from a kli rishon. But if the absorption was by means of a kli sheni, it is nothing; only if they used it regularly for hot forbidden substances even by means of a kli sheni, or even a kli shelishi, such as a plate of treifot, it is like the usage of a kli rishon, since the usage was regular. And when one used a vessel that requires wiping and rinsing without wiping and rinsing, one must rinse the item that was used now; if it is not a liquid item where rinsing is impossible, it is permitted bediavad [Chavat Da'at subsection 4 with my additions]:

All these matters that have been explained regarding meat and cheese that touched one another, this is specifically when they are cold. However, hot meat and milk that were mixed together, or even cold meat into hot milk, or cold milk into hot meat, everything is forbidden, for we maintain "the bottom prevails," meaning the hot bottom element heats the cold top element. And specifically when it fell into hot meat resting in a pot, but not onto hot roasted meat, for in a pot one requires sixty, which is not the case with roasted meat, as will be explained in siman 92 and siman 105, and there it will be explained that for us, even with roasted meat one requires sixty. And hot milk that fell into cold meat, even if the meat is in a pot, or hot meat that fell into cold milk, it does not forbid the whole, for "the bottom prevails" and it is cold, and it cools the top element before it can emit and cause absorption into the bottom element, and certainly it will not absorb from the bottom element. But nevertheless, the meat requires kelipah, for it is impossible that it did not absorb a small amount before the heat cooled. And the measure of the heat will be explained in siman 105 with the help of Heaven.

And know that regarding this matter of tata'ah gavar there are great questions. The first: behold we maintain in siman 98 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 98) regarding any forbidden substance that was mixed with a permitted substance, that according to the essential law of the Gemara, a kapila should taste it to see if there is the taste of the forbidden substance in the permitted substance or not, and likewise milk in meat as is explained there. If so, what relevance is there to investigate whether tata'ah gavar or ila'ah gavar, which is a dispute in the Gemara Pesachim (Pesachim 76a)? Let a kapila taste it; if there is the taste of meat in the milk or milk in the meat, it is forbidden in any case, and if not, it is permitted in any case [Kreti U-Pleti]. And granted that according to the method of Rashi that is explained in the Tur there, it is not difficult at all, for the tasting of a kapila only avails for more than sixty, but for less than sixty, even if there is no taste it forbids; they certainly disagreed about this when there is not sixty here, and we maintain tata'ah gavar. But according to the method of the Ri and the Rosh there, that in any case a kapila avails, it is difficult:

And in its simple sense, one could say it refers to a case where there is no kapila, but this does not seem so. However, in truth the matter is as follows: the credibility of the kapila is only when there is certainly a prohibition according to the tradition of our sages of blessed memory, but in a place where there is no prohibition according to the tradition, he is not credible. To what is this comparable? To a kli sheni which, according to most poskim, does not expel or absorb, or a kli shelishi according to all poskim; and if the kapila should come and say that there is a taste of prohibition in it, we would not pay him any heed, for we have a general rule that a non-Jew is not credible either to permit or to prohibit. And here too, when the lower one is cold, we do not pay any heed at all to the statement of the kapila, since we hold that tata'i gavar.

And it can further be said that since even when the bottom one is cold, it nevertheless absorbs to the thickness of a klifeh as has been written, if so, there is no proof at all from the tasting of the kapila; for even if he says that there is a taste of the forbidden substance in this, we will not contradict him, and we will say that the taste is from the klifeh [and the Pelati answered similarly]. According to this, regarding irui which causes absorption to the thickness of a klifeh as has been written in siman 105, the tasting of a kapila would not be effective. However, according to these answers, the tasting of a kapila would only be effective to be stringent when the bottom one is cold; but to be lenient, such as when the bottom one is hot and the kapila says that there is no taste of the forbidden substance in this, why should it not be effective? Is this any worse than when both of them are hot? But it can be said that in truth it is so, and the sages of blessed memory only spoke of the reverse: that when the bottom one is cold it is certainly permitted, but when the bottom one is hot it is forbidden until a kapila tastes it, and it is like all forbidden substances where a kapila is effective. [And the Noda BiYehuda, siman 28, answered that it is not a rule that it will always impart taste, see there; but it is not understood, for if so, how did they rely on the tasting of a kapila?]:

One must further ask: how did the sages give a general rule in this matter to say that the lower one prevails? If so, if a large amount of boiling milk fell upon a small amount of cold meat, and we say that the lower one prevails and cools the upper one—there is nothing more astonishing than this! For behold, our eyes see that the milk remains in its boiling state, and the small amount of meat also becomes boiling. And similarly the opposite: if a large amount of cold milk fell upon a small amount of boiling meat, how can we say that the lower one prevails and the milk is forbidden when there is not sixty? For behold, our eyes see that the milk is completely cold, and the meat has also cooled. And according to what is seen, when one is four or five times against the other, it must necessarily act upon the second to be like it. And if we say that there is indeed some measure in this, why did the sages not teach us how much that measure is?

It appears clear to me that this deals with a case where they are equal in quantity, and the quantity of the meat is according to the proportion of the fat, and therefore the Sages of blessed memory disagreed as to whose quality prevails, the upper or the lower, and the halacha was decided that the lower prevails. And there is clear proof for this from the words of the Tosafot in Shabbat (Shabbat 42a) regarding that which was taught: A person may put hot water into cold, but not cold into hot, and Rashi explained that this is because the lower prevails, and the Tosafot challenged that if so, this would be a difficulty from here for the one who holds the upper prevails, and Rabbenu Tam explained that this is not related to that, rather hot into cold implies that the cold is more numerous than the hot, and cold into hot implies that the hot which is below is more numerous, see there; behold it is explicit that wherever there is an abundance in quantity, this reasoning of "the lower prevails" or "the upper prevails" is not applicable, and the Gemara did not need to explain this, and on the contrary, since it did not explain it, we learn from this that they are equal. [And I have a slight difficulty with their words, for even regarding that of "the lower prevails" it uses this language of "hot into cold" etc. And it must be said that regarding a person's pouring it is appropriate to say that it implies thus, and not regarding falling on its own, or that only in the language of the Baraita is it so, and it requires further study and look closely into it]:

And know that the law of "the lower prevails" applies whether a solid fell into a liquid, or conversely a liquid upon a solid, such as meat in milk and the like, or a solid into a solid, as he wrote in the Sha'arei Dura [siman 23]. This is his wording: And the halacha is the lower prevails, and such is the law if below is hot kosher meat, and upon it is cold nevela meat, even raw, and even if the meat above is not salted, the meat below is forbidden, because the heat of the lower causes the upper to exude, etc., and all the more so if the nevela meat is boiling below and the slaughtered meat is cold upon it, that it is forbidden, for the lower prevails, and if the cold is below, whether nevela or slaughtered, the slaughtered meat is kosher, etc., however it requires kelipah, etc. Thus far his words.

And in the Issur V'Heter HaAruch [siman 29] he added further matters regarding this, and this is his wording: We establish that the bottom prevails. And it is written in the Semak, and therefore two pieces, one of prohibition and one of permission, that are lying one upon the other, and only one of them is hot such that the hand recoils from it, if the hot one is on the bottom, even the permitted one is entirely prohibited etc., for the upper one weighs down upon the lower one and causes it to exude, and therefore the bottom prevails whether to heat or to cool, whether for stringency or for leniency, for if the bottom is hot, even if the kosher one is on the bottom and upon it is cold neveilah meat, even if it is raw and unsalted, they are judged as boiling, and even the kosher one on the bottom is prohibited, because the upper one causes the heat of the lower one to exude, and also the force of the fire always rises and they both become hot, and it is like hot within hot, and all the more so if boiling neveilah meat is on the bottom etc. And he concludes in the Semak that even if the lower hot piece of prohibition is short, such that it is not as wide as the upper cold one, even so they are all prohibited etc., and if the bottom is cold they are judged as cold etc., and it nonetheless absorbs the thickness of a peel etc. Thus far the words of the Issur V'Heter HaAruch.

And it appears to me that even though the poskim equated both of them regarding a gush and a liquid, this is only regarding the essence of the two pieces, but not regarding another matter. For example, cold meat that fell into boiling milk, and another piece of meat fell upon that meat, it is certainly forbidden according to the law of "the lower one prevails." However, if a piece of kosher cold meat fell upon a piece of hot nevelah, it is obvious that there is no reason to say that when another piece falls upon the upper cold one, it should be forbidden because of it. And so wrote one of the great ones [Chavat Da'at, subsection 5], that when both are gushim, we only say "the lower one prevails" to cause the discharge and absorption of flavor, but not to make it actually boiling hot, for the senses contradict this; whereas a cold gush in a boiling liquid becomes actually boiling hot. And know that all of this is regarding the heat of fire, but regarding the heat of salting, we do not judge the law of "the lower one prevails," as will be explained with the help of Heaven. Similarly, regarding soaking, we do not judge this, for the heat is not entirely equal. And know that every "cold" mentioned in this matter is not specifically cold, but rather anything that is not the heat of a kli rishon is called "cold," and the heat of a kli rishon is like the heat that is near the fire. However, regarding a gush, some say that we always judge it with the law of a kli rishon, even after it was removed from the kli rishon, as long as it remains in its heat, and it will be explained in siman 94 with the help of Heaven. And it is also a simple matter that the law of "the lower one prevails" regarding two gushim is only when they are placed one upon the other, and not one next to the other, for in such a case, even when both are hot, it only requires a kelipah, as will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 105 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 105). And the reason for the matter is that when one is upon the other, the upper one weighs down upon the lower one and causes it to discharge flavor, as I wrote in the previous section in the name of the Issur Ve-Heter HaAruch, which is not the case when they are one next to the other [and see Pri Megadim, Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 5].

And regarding that which has been explained, that if the upper is hot and the lower is cold it requires klipah, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4, and this is his wording: But hot milk that fell onto cold meat, or hot meat that fell onto cold milk, one peels the meat and the rest of the meat is permitted, and the milk is entirely permitted. And if they fell into one another while cold, one rinses the meat and it is permitted. Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And in a place where the meat requires klipah, if they did not peel it and cooked it thus, it is permitted ex post facto. Thus far his words. And it appears that he holds that this klipah is merely a stringency of rabbinic origin, and therefore the milk, where klipah is impossible, is entirely permitted, and they did not require that there be sixty against the klipah; and consequently, according to this, the meat as well, if they did not peel it and cooked it thus, it is permitted ex post facto, since it is nothing more than a mere stringency.

But in a place where according to the essential law a kelipah is required, even post facto we require sixty against the kelipah. And behold, in the Tur he brought two opinions regarding the matter of chelev, for the Ri does not require sixty against the kelipah, and the Riva requires it, see there, and our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, adopted the opinion of the Ri. And it appears that their dispute depends on whether that which they required a kelipah for the meat is from the essential law or from the side of stringency. According to this, for the Riva it is simple that if they did not peel the meat and cooked it thus, that one requires sixty against the kelipah, and if not it is forbidden; and so it is for our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in every place where kelipah is by law, [and so it appears is the opinion of the Magen Avraham siman 467, subsection 33, see there]:

According to what we have explained, one should not raise a difficulty from other places in the Shulchan Aruch where they were stringent regarding the kelipah even post facto, for that is in a case where the kelipah is required by the letter of the law. However, the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch did not descend to this distinction, and they raised a difficulty from other places where the authors of the Shulchan Aruch were stringent regarding the kelipah even post facto to require sixty against it, and there is one who rejected their words here because of this [Taz, subsection 7]. And there is one who answered that here the reason that the milk does not require sixty against the kelipah is because the kelipah became mixed in and is not recognizable on its own, and therefore they were lenient regarding it; and also that which they wrote regarding the meat, that if they did not peel it and cooked it thus it is permitted post facto, this is also specifically when the meat became mixed in and it is impossible to recognize it, but when it did not become mixed in, one requires sixty against the kelipah [Shach, subsection 8, and Pri Chadash]. And the distinction is forced, for what difference does it make if the kelipah is recognizable or mixed in, for it is revealed before Heaven that there is a kelipah of forbidden matter here [Kreiti U'Pleiti, subsection 2]. And there is one who distinguished between the kelipah of meat and milk, which is lighter, since each one is permitted on its own, and furthermore because kelipah is a weak taste, and regarding meat and milk the Torah only prohibited by way of cooking which is a complete taste, and therefore we are not stringent post facto, whereas regarding other prohibitions we are stringent regarding the kelipah even post facto [ibid.]. And it is possible that it could be so, and there is reason in this distinction, but the main point is according to what we answered in the previous section. [However, it can be said that this is also the reason that they hold that here it is merely a stringency, based on the reason of the Kreiti U'Pleiti to distinguish between meat and milk and other prohibitions; but it seems more likely because they hold that the reasoning that "while it cools it absorbs" is nothing but a mere stringency, and so it is implied from the Magen Avraham there].

And this is what they wrote, that if they fell one into the other while cold, one rinses the meat and it is permitted. Some say that this is only regarding meat in milk, for from the Torah they are not forbidden even with pickling for a full day; however, if a forbidden substance fell into a clear, cold permitted substance, and the forbidden substance was also cold, it requires peeling. And there are those who disagree on this, for it is so regarding all forbidden substances as well: since there was no pickling, a mere rinsing is sufficient. And so it appears primary for the law [Shach subsection 10, and Pri Chadash subsection 7, and Pri Megadim ibid.]. Consequently, in that manner which we wrote where the permitted substance is clear, such that rinsing is not applicable, it is permitted even without rinsing. And conversely, rinsing is applicable, such as if a solid permitted piece fell into a clear, cold forbidden substance, for the permitted substance requires rinsing. And know that there is no difference whether the liquid was a sharp substance or was not sharp; even if it fell into strong salt water or into vinegar, where the measure of pickling is a small amount, as much as it takes to place it on the fire and for it to begin to boil as was written in siman 105 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 105), as long as it did not remain for this duration, it is permitted with rinsing. Or, when the permitted substance is clear such that rinsing is impossible, it is entirely permitted without rinsing as we wrote. [And so it is implied in the Pri Megadim in Siftei Da'at subsection 10, who wrote that according to the Riva the salt water of cucumbers is forbidden, see there; and we, who do not hold like the Riva, it is permitted]:

That which we have said, that when they fell into one another while cold it is permitted, this is when they were not salted; but if they were salted, and while they were still in their salt they fell into one another, we hold that "salted is like hot as a roast," and not like "hot as a cooked dish." Therefore, the whole is not forbidden according to the law of cooking, but rather it requires a kelipah at the place where they touch one another. And even though a roast requires a netilat makom, and why do we not also require this in salting? Indeed, there is one who holds that salting requires a netilat makom, and it will be explained in siman 105 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 105), [see there in the Beit Yosef who wrote thus in the name of the Ra'ah]. Nevertheless, according to most poskim, a kelipah is sufficient. And indeed, there is one who says that even regarding a roast, a kelipah is sufficient for lean items, as will be explained there with the help of Heaven. However, according to most poskim, salting requires a kelipah and a roast requires a netilat makom.

That which has been explained, that regarding salting a peeling is sufficient, this is when both pieces—the meat and the milk—are both lean. However, if one of them is fatty, both are entirely forbidden just as in boiling. The fatty one is forbidden because when it absorbs from the second, the prohibition spreads through the entire piece due to the fat; and also the second lean one is entirely forbidden, for this one goes and fattens that one and spreads through it entirely. Therefore, meat and cheese that touched one another and they are salted, one must peel the place of their contact when both were lean; but if both are fatty, or even if one of them is fatty, both are entirely forbidden and require sixty. And there are those who say that in every case of salting we measure by sixty, and we do not distinguish between lean and fatty, because there are those who hold that salting is more severe than roasting, for it spreads more than roasting because of the moisture that exits by means of salting, which is like a sauce; and it will be explained in siman 105 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 105). And know that salting only forbids when they are moist, but when they are dry, even if they are salted, it is nothing. The general rule of the matter: dry ones when they are salted, or if they are not salted and they are moist, rinsing is sufficient; and if one of them is moist and the second is dry, having dried in its salt, and they touched one another, rinsing is also sufficient [Levush].

And know that regarding salting we do not say "the lower prevails," for specifically with heat from fire, where the heat raises steam and heats the upper, such that the lower has the power to cause the upper to emit, the law of "the lower prevails" applies, and not regarding salting. For there is no difference between upper and lower; whether the salted is upper and the unsalted is lower, or the upper is unsalted and the lower is salted, the salted always causes absorption into the unsalted to the thickness of a kelipeh or more according to the opinions that have been explained, and it does not absorb anything from it. Therefore, meat and cheese that touched one another, if both are salted and moist, both require a kelipeh at the place of their contact, because each absorbs from its fellow and causes absorption into its fellow, and its salting does not prevent it from absorbing. Only regarding blood do we say "since it is occupied with emitting it does not absorb," and similarly "as it absorbs so it emits," but regarding other matters this does not apply. And if the meat is salted and the cheese is unsalted, rinsing is sufficient for the meat, and the cheese requires a kelipeh. And if the meat is unsalted and the cheese is salted, rinsing is sufficient for the cheese, and the meat requires a kelipeh. And we do not say that the unsalted will become as salted by means of the second salted item, for the salted does not have the power to make the unsalted like a salted item. And there is no difference whether they are placed one upon the other or one literally next to the other. And some say that even if they are not attached to one another, but only the emissions touch one another, it is as if they touched one another [Levush], and one should not be stringent in this as will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 105 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 105).

That which we have said, that the salted item does not absorb from the unsalted, this is when the unsalted is a solid mass like meat or cheese and the like, and even if it is a very soft thing like soft fat that is not melted. However, a truly liquid thing, such as salted meat that fell into milk that is not salted, the meat is also forbidden; for since the meat is salted in a manner that it is inedible due to its salt, it consequently absorbs from the milk as well, and both are forbidden either to the extent of a kelipeh or entirely. Yet this is also specifically if the salted item is somewhat moist, but if it is completely dry, we are not concerned for it even if it fell into a liquid thing, and he removes it and rinses it and it is permitted. Therefore, if the salted meat dried out and fell into milk, he rinses it and it is permitted, and the milk is also not forbidden at all. [See Shach subsection 16 who cited from the Mordechai and the Issur V'Heter HaAruch that when the milk alone is salted, the milk is permitted; and this requires further study, for they are explicitly dealing there with when the meat is completely dry, and not when the meat is moist, for so it is in the Issur V'Heter HaAruch, Klal 30, letter 14, and this is his wording: Because it does not absorb at all from the meat which is dry. Thus far his words. And so it is in the Mordechai, see there]:

And know that this law which we wrote, that a liquid substance—such as salted meat that fell into unsalted milk—both are forbidden either according to the thickness of a peel or entirely; that is to say, according to the one who holds that salting forbids to the thickness of a peel, here too it forbids to the thickness of a peel, and according to the one who holds until sixty, here too until sixty, for so it appears according to logic. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote this law in this wording: And that which was said that a salted pure item and an unsalted impure item are permitted, that is when the impure item is dry; but if it is a liquid substance, the pure item is forbidden, since it cannot be eaten due to its saltiness, it absorbs from the forbidden item next to it, and both are forbidden. Thus far his words. And one of the great commentators wrote, and this is his wording: And it is not similar to hot meat that fell into cold milk, which is not forbidden except to the thickness of a peel, and we do not say that due to its heat it absorbs from the liquid forbidden item next to it, for there, since the bottom prevails, the meat cooled down, but regarding salting, "the bottom prevails" is not applicable. Thus far his words. [Shach, subsection 15]. And it appears to me that this is the explanation: for he holds according to what we explained, that here the law is that for the one who holds that salting is sufficient with a peel, here too it is sufficient with a peel, and for the one who holds with sixty, here too with sixty. And according to this, our teacher, the Rema, who holds that salting requires sixty, it is worse than hot meat that fell into cold milk; and why is it so? And he answers that there "the bottom prevails," and regarding salting "the bottom prevails" is not applicable. And with this, that which he wrote here "and both are forbidden" also works out well, for the liquid is also forbidden, whereas with hot meat the milk is permitted, since it is impossible to forbid with a peel, and as he wrote in section 16, but this is also because of the reason that "the bottom prevails."

And I saw one who raised a difficulty against the words of our teacher, the Rema: do we not maintain in siman 69 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 69) that even a small amount of water nullifies the potency of the tzir, and if so, the potency of the salted meat that fell into milk should be nullified by the milk, just like the water that nullifies the potency of the tzir? And he answered that before it nullifies it, it absorbs the thickness of a klipah [Chavat Da'at subsection 11 in the name of the Tzemach Tzedek]. And according to this, the intention of our teacher, the Rema, in what he wrote—that both are forbidden—is only for the thickness of a klipah, even for us who forbid in salting until sixty. But according to this, it is difficult why the milk is also forbidden, for in a case where the meat requires only a klipah, the milk is permitted as has been written. And one must say that it is dealing here with a case where the milk is very minimal, in a manner that the meat is not covered by it [ibid.]. And all these matters are baffling in my eyes; besides the fact that the wording of our teacher, the Rema, does not indicate this, for in any such case he should have specified and not left it vague, furthermore, I do not know the comparison to siman 69 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 69). For there, the prohibition is only because of the tzir, and when the potency of the tzir is nullified it is completely permitted, so we rightly say that the water nullifies the potency of the tzir. But here, the prohibition is basar be-chalav, or other prohibitions and permissions, or impure and pure; therefore, even if the milk slightly weakens the potency of the salted item, nevertheless it does not nullify it entirely, and the prohibition remains standing. And furthermore, water rinses away the blood, but milk has fatness in it and does not rinse well, and it clings, and so too other liquid prohibitions that have some fatness in them, and this is no comparison at all to siman 69 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 69).

Regarding what degree of salting is considered like boiling, our sages, of blessed memory, said (Chullin 112a) that it must be salted such that it cannot be eaten because of its salt, but when it is edible despite its salt, it is not considered like boiling. And there are several opinions on this, as the Tur wrote (Tur Yoreh Deah 91), and this is his wording: That which salting is considered like boiling refers specifically to when it is not edible because of its salt; and Rashi explained that this refers to the salting of meat for preservation, which is not edible until they soak it in water and rinse it well. And some say that it is not called "not edible because of its salt" except for something like processing, where they salt it extensively for the needs of travel. And Rabbeinu Tam explained that any salt with which they salt for the pot is called "not edible because of its salt," but that which is edible despite its salt is not considered like boiling. Thus far his words. And most of the poskim agreed with this opinion, and so we hold [Beit Yosef]. And salting like the salting for roasting is not considered like boiling [ibid.], because it is edible while still in its salt, but with salting like the salting for the pot, it is impossible to eat until they rinse it well in water, and therefore as long as it has not been rinsed, it is like boiling [ibid.]. And that which is salted more than this, namely like salting for preservation or to transport on a journey, even after rinsing it is considered like boiling, until they soak it in much water [ibid.].

And know that from the wording of most of the poskim it is explicitly implied that this salted item, which is considered like boiling hot immediately upon being salted until it is rinsed, even if it was left for several days it is considered like boiling hot. This is not similar to the salting of meat in siman 69 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 69) regarding the incident of Rashi there, who ruled that after the duration of salting it is no longer considered like boiling hot; for there it is different, as the salting was to extract the blood, and when the salt extracted it, its strength was weakened since it was occupied with the removal of the blood. This is not the case with the salted item here which did not extract blood, for here we are dealing with kosher meat that was already salted, rinsed, and rendered fit, and afterwards they salted it like the salting of a pot, where the salt performed nothing, and it remains in its sharpness forever until they rinse it [as the Shach wrote in subsection 11 and the Taz in siman 69 subsection 47]. And also that which we said, that immediately upon being salted it is considered like boiling hot—even though in the Gemara they said "it cannot be eaten because of its salt"—we do not require that it stay in its salt for the duration of salting so that it then cannot be eaten because of its salt. For the Gemara only said that it requires this degree [of saltiness], but not until it stays for this duration. Nevertheless, there are some of the great Rishonim who hold so, as the Ran, of blessed memory, wrote in the name of the Ri Al-Bargeloni, and this is his wording: Anything that stayed in its salt for the duration of salting for a pot is like boiling hot, but before this, no. Thus far his words. [Cited in the Beit Yosef]. And he wrote this regarding the salting of meat to extract blood, as the Tur wrote in siman 69 (Tur Yoreh Deah 69), and this is his wording: And meat that was salted in a vessel that is not perforated is forbidden, etc. And Rabbeinu Tam wrote that it is forbidden immediately, etc., and the Ri Al-Bargeloni wrote that it is not forbidden unless it stayed in the vessel for the duration of salting. Thus far his words. And there we do not rule accordingly, as the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote there in section 18; if so, here too we do not rule accordingly.

But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5, and this is his wording: Salted food that cannot be eaten due to its saltiness—that is, similar to the salting performed for the pot—and it remained for the duration of salting for the pot, as long as it has not been rinsed, it is called "inedible due to its saltiness." And salted food similar to the salting required for travel, even after it has been rinsed, it remains "inedible due to its saltiness," and as long as it has not been soaked in water, its law is like that of a boiling substance to forbid to the extent of a kelipeh. Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this, and this is his wording: And there are those who say that after it has remained in its salt for the duration of salting, it is not called "boiling" thereafter, and for a great need, such as a substantial loss and it is for the need of a seudat mitzvah, one may rely on those who are lenient, but otherwise one should not be lenient at all. Even if the meat was not salted on two sides but only on one side, as long as it was salted with a salting that makes it inedible due to its saltiness, it is considered boiling; but as long as it was not salted that much, it is considered cold even if it was salted on two sides. And there are those who say that we are not experts in the matter, and we must consider even the salting for roasting as boiling, and it is good to be stringent in a place where there is no substantial loss. Thus far his words.

It is implied from the language of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who wrote "and it remained for the duration of salting for a pot," that he holds like the Ri Al-Bargeloni that before this duration it is not considered boiling. Thus the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch understood, and they wrote that even though in siman 69 he did not adopt this opinion, that is because the blood and the salt are boiling at the time of salting, and on the contrary, after the duration of salting its power ceases; whereas here, where it does not emit anything, it does not become boiling until after the duration of salting [Shach, subsection 11]. Furthermore, one can distinguish: for there in siman 69 we are dealing with the blood and the brine dripping from the meat, which is considered boiling, and here too regarding the brine, if it drips it is certainly considered boiling immediately after the salting, as our teacher, the Rema, wrote in this section, and this is his wording: Any brine from meat that was salted, even if it was only salted for roasting, is considered boiling. Thus far his words. And all the more so when it was salted for the duration required for a pot. And that which he wrote here, "and it remained for the duration of salting for a pot," refers to the meat itself, which does not become boiling until after the duration of salting. And there is one who challenged him and says that even the Ri Al-Bargeloni only said this regarding the salting of meat, for since it is occupied with extracting blood, it does not perform another action to heat the meat so that it be boiling, and when the emission of blood ends, it begins to occupy itself with heating the meat; but here, where the salt is not occupied with emission, it immediately heats the meat because it has no other occupation [Pleiti, subsection 3]. But these words are not understood, for this and that are one and the same, and behold, the emission is also by means of heating, and it appears more likely as I wrote previously.

However, regarding the essence of the matter, I am astonished that he would rule without specification against the opinion of most poskim. Furthermore, if so, the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, is exactly the opposite of his opinion; for according to his opinion, until the duration of meliha it is not considered as boiling, and afterward it is considered as boiling, whereas according to our teacher, the Rema, until the duration of meliha it is as boiling and afterward it is not considered as boiling. If so, why does he say, "And there are those who say that after etc.," when he should have said: "And there are those who say the opposite, that until the duration of meliha it is as boiling, and afterward it is not called boiling." Rather, it is certain that what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote—"and it remained for the duration of meliha for a pot as long as they did not rinse it etc."—his intention was not that until the duration of meliha it is not considered as boiling, but rather his intention was that even if it remained for the duration of meliha it is considered boiling, and on this our teacher, the Rema, disagrees, that after the duration of meliha it is not considered as boiling. And for the halacha, most of the great authorities agreed that even after the duration of meliha it is as boiling, and one should not be lenient even for a great need, for such is the primary ruling for the halacha.

Any brine from meat that was salted, even if it was only salted for roasting, is considered boiling. For that which we said—that it requires the amount of salting used for a pot—this refers to the piece itself, as less than this is not considered boiling; however, the brine is always considered boiling, as it drips by means of the heat of the salt. Therefore, if brine from salted meat fell upon cheese or upon a vessel, it prohibits it, and it prohibits it to the extent of a kelipeh. And it appears to me that according to the opinion of those who hold that salting requires sixty, when a drop of brine falls upon a foodstuff, it requires the removal of its place, which is the thickness of a finger. When it falls upon a vessel, it requires hagalah, and an earthenware vessel requires breaking. Regarding a wooden vessel, if it fell on one spot, he peels its place and that is sufficient, but for an earthenware vessel, peeling is not applicable, and likewise for a copper vessel. Therefore, for copper or other metal vessels, it requires hagalah. Regarding a wooden vessel, when it fell over the entire length of the vessel, if he wishes to peel it entirely, he has the permission to do so; otherwise, he shall perform hagalah [see Shach, subsection 18].

And since brine does not forbid a vessel except for the thickness of a peel, therefore, even though for an earthenware vessel a peel is not applicable, nevertheless, if brine fell on an earthenware vessel from the outside, it is possible to permit it in a case of great need to cook in it [Pri Megadim, subsection 18]. And so too, any fatty substance does not forbid a vessel more than the thickness of a peel [ibid.], and it is not similar to foods where the fat permeates throughout the whole, but not in a vessel, and it is no better than hot into cold which requires only a peel as I have written. And know that a vessel that was forbidden through salting for the thickness of a peel, or through another substance dripping upon it, and requires a peel, hagalah through pouring does not avail, for pouring is a doubt whether it acts to the thickness of a peel or not, and for stringency we maintain that it absorbs to the thickness of a peel, but not for leniency to say that it also expels to the thickness of a peel, and therefore one must perform hagalah on it specifically in a kli rishon [ibid.].

In the Gemara (Chullin 112a) it is brought: An incident occurred regarding a fledgling that fell into a jug of kutach, in which there is milk whey and salt, and they permitted the fledgling, and they said that even though "salted is like boiling," this is only when it is not edible due to its saltiness, but kutach is edible despite its saltiness. And these words apply to raw meat, but roasted meat requires peeling from above all around [Rashi]. And if it has pili, the whole thing is forbidden; pili are cracks, and since it is roasted, peeling is not sufficient for it, because it absorbs through the holes, and the whole thing is forbidden [Rashi]. And if it is seasoned with spices, the whole thing is forbidden; the spices that were cooked with it soften it and it is easy to absorb, and when it fell into the kutach it was thirsty to absorb and it absorbed [Rashi]. And behold, according to the explanation of Rashi, the dove was cooked or roasted, and "raw" is what it is called when it is cold, and "roasted" is what it is called when it is boiling, and it is the way of the Talmud to call boiling roasted meat simply "roasted," as in Pesachim regarding the matter of the Paschal offering (Pesachim 75b), where it says: If one greased it with oil of terumah, if it is raw he shall rinse it, and if it is roasted he shall peel its place; and there certainly it means boiling roasted meat, for one only greases the roast while it is still boiling when they roast it over the fire, but cold roasted meat is like any other cold item in the world for which rinsing is sufficient. And also that which they said, that if it has pili the whole thing is forbidden, this refers to boiling roasted meat that has pili, and by means of the pili it absorbs, and if it is seasoned with spices and it is like boiling, even though it does not have pili, the whole thing is forbidden, because the spices pull the kutach and cause it to be absorbed into the whole thing [Ran, and so wrote the Rashba]. And according to this, cold roasted meat in any case requires only rinsing, and boiling roasted meat requires peeling, and if it is boiling and has cracks, or is seasoned with spices, the whole thing is forbidden.

But the Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote there that "raw" means literally raw and not cooked, and therefore rinsing is sufficient; however, roast meat, even if cold, requires peeling, and if there are cracks in the roast, or if it is seasoned with spices, even if cold, it is entirely forbidden. And in the Sefer HaTerumah he wrote that even if it is raw, if there are cracks in it or it is seasoned with spices, it is entirely forbidden, because the spices or the cracks cause the kutach to be absorbed throughout it, see there. And so wrote the Tur, and this is his wording: And specifically regarding raw meat is there a distinction between that which is edible because of its salt and that which is not edible because of its salt, but regarding roast meat there is no distinction, for even if it fell into a salted substance that is edible because of its salt, it requires peeling. And if there are cracks, or if it is seasoned with spices even if there are no cracks, and it is raw, it is entirely forbidden. Thus far his words. And it appears from the Tur that he understood that the Rosh agreed with the Sefer HaTerumah, that with cracks or with spices even raw meat is forbidden; but in truth, there are several of the Rishonim who in this matter hold not like Rashi, and that is regarding cold substances, that cold roast meat requires peeling, and if the roast meat has cracks or is seasoned with spices, even if it is cold, it is entirely forbidden, but with raw meat in any case rinsing is sufficient [and this is the opinion of the Semak, and the Or Zarua, and the Hagahot Mordechai, and so appears to be the opinion of the Rosh].

It emerges that there are three approaches regarding this matter. According to the approach of Rashi, the most lenient of them all, when it is cold it requires nothing but rinsing, even if it is roasted and contains cracks and spices. The approach of the Sefer HaTerumah, the most stringent of them all, rinsing is only sufficient if it is raw and contains no cracks and is not seasoned with spices; but roasted meat, even if cold, requires peeling, and if it contains cracks or is seasoned with spices, even if it is raw, it is entirely forbidden. And the opinion of the Rosh and the Semak: for raw meat, it requires only rinsing when it is cold, and if the cold roasted meat contains cracks or is seasoned with spices, it is entirely forbidden. And the Tur ruled according to the most stringent of them all.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 7 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 91) ruled like Rashi, and this is his wording: This distinction we make between that which is edible because of its salt and that which is not edible because of its salt, these words apply to raw meat; but a hot roast that fell onto salted food, even if it is edible because of its salt, requires kelipah, and if it has cracks or it is seasoned with spices and it is a hot roast, it is entirely forbidden, and the same law applies to baked and cooked food. Thus far his words. Meaning that baked and cooked food have the same law as a roast, for if they are hot they require kelipah, and when there are cracks or spices and they are hot, it is entirely forbidden, and this is exactly the system of Rashi. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote on this, and this is his wording: And some say that even if they are cold the law is such, and so one should practice if there is no great loss. Thus far his words. And his intention is clear that he did not intend for the system of the Tur, but rather for the system of the Rosh and the Semak, that regarding a roast even if they are cold the law is such that it requires kelipah, and with cracks or with spices it is entirely forbidden. And for the primary law he holds like Rashi, since he permitted it in a case of great loss when cold, and so he wrote explicitly in his book Darkhei Moshe, sign 7, in the name of the Hagahat Sha'arei Dura, that we do not practice like the Tur, see there.

And behold, from the language of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, who wrote "even if it is eaten due to its saltiness," it implies explicitly that all these prohibitions, according to the opinions that have been explained, apply entirely to that which is slightly salted, like that of the kutach in the Gemara; but without any salt at all, it is permitted in every case. According to this, when roasted or cooked meat falls into cold milk, whatever it may be, one rinses it and it is permitted. However, there are some of the great authorities who wrote that it is all one—slightly salted and not salted at all [Shach, subsection 22, and Pri Chadash, subsection 19]. Behold, according to this, roasted and cooked meat that fell into milk, even if cold, requires kelipah according to both opinions; and if there are cracks or it is seasoned, the whole thing is forbidden. Generally, in roasted and cooked meat there are cracks, and according to the decision of our teacher, the Rema, where there is no great loss one should forbid it, but regarding raw meat one should not forbid it. And one of the great later authorities decided like the Sefer HaTerumot and the Tur, that with cracks and seasoning, even raw meat is entirely forbidden [Pri Chadash], but this is not the opinion of most poskim. However, it is certainly true according to everyone that regarding hot roast when it does not have cracks or seasoning, kelipah is sufficient [Shach, subsection 26]. And know that all this deals with meat that fell into milk, but milk that fell onto meat—its law will be explained in siman 92 and siman 105 [ibid.]. And it is a known matter that basar be-chalav is not forbidden through melichah or through kavush except for eating and not for benefit, because this is only rabbinic, and this has already been explained in siman 87, see there. Therefore, in a case of doubt regarding basar be-chalav through melichah or kavush, one should be lenient according to the law of a rabbinic doubt [Beit Hillel], and in a case of doubt regarding kavush in basar be-chalav, our teacher, the Rema, ruled accordingly at the beginning of siman 105 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 105), see there, and it follows that all the more so in a case of doubt regarding melichah.