Siman 92

The Rambam wrote in chapter 9, law 8: Meat that fell into milk, or milk that fell into meat and was cooked with it, its measure is by the imparting of flavor. How so? A piece of meat that fell into a boiling pot of milk, a gentile tastes the pot; if he says that it has the flavor of meat, it is forbidden, and if not, it is permitted, but that piece is forbidden. In what case are these words said? When he preceded and removed the piece before it could expel the milk it absorbed, but if he did not remove it, they measure it against sixty, because the milk that was absorbed in it and became forbidden emerged and became mixed with the rest of the milk. Thus far his words. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 1 wrote similarly. And the primary law of tasting will be explained in siman 98, and it will be explained there that we do not rely on tasting and require sixty.

And the explanation of the matters is that when he preceded and removed the piece before it could expel the milk it had absorbed, tasting is effective; for the concern regarding the milk is only for the taste of the meat, as there is reason to fear that the meat gave taste into the milk. Therefore, when he tastes and says that there is no taste of meat in it, the pot is permitted. However, when he did not remove it, and the milk absorbed in the meat became nevelah and exited from the piece into the milk, it prohibited the pot by way of the milk, for it is min be-mino. Therefore, even if he does not taste the taste of meat, nevertheless, perhaps there is in it the taste of the milk expelled from the piece, and regarding min be-mino, one cannot rely upon tasting. Therefore, sixty is required. And the one who holds that min be-mino is not nullified, truly the pot is prohibited when he did not precede and remove it even when there is sixty, as the Tur wrote, see there; however, we rule that even min be-mino is nullified in sixty, as written in siman 98.

And there are great questions regarding this: for if he preceded and removed it, why does tasting help for the milk and not help for the meat? Since they wrote that the akkum tastes the pot, etc., and that piece is forbidden, why would tasting not help for the meat? Furthermore, why do we need the tasting? For since he preceded and removed it before the emission—and it was explained in the Gemara (Chullin 108b) that this is while it is still boiling, for it absorbs but does not emit, see there—and since it is established for us that it does not emit, the milk has not yet absorbed from the meat; if so, why do we need tasting? However, our teachers the Tosafists already explained there that it does not emit what it absorbed just now, meaning the milk that it is absorbing now, but what it absorbed previously it always emits, and certainly it emits its own essence. Therefore, we are compelled to have tasting, and therefore tasting also does not help for the meat, for since it is established for us that it absorbs, the akkum is not trusted to contradict this [and this is what Rav said, "meat is forbidden and milk is permitted," meaning meat is forbidden and tasting does not help, and milk is permitted through tasting; and the Pelati in subsection 1 was greatly pressed regarding this, see there].

And there is further to ask: how can we say that when one did not precede and remove it, one requires sixty of the milk against the meat, and when there is sixty, the milk is kosher? For behold, the essence of the prohibition is from the milk that was absorbed into the meat and then returned and was emitted into the milk, for the emitted milk becomes neveilah as has been written. And if so, who knows how many olive-bulks of milk the meat absorbed and emitted, for since the meat was in the pot for a long time, it absorbed and emitted and returned and absorbed and emitted without limit, and perhaps there is not sixty in the pot against the milk that it absorbed and emitted [Pri Chadash, subsection 2]. And furthermore, when we measure sixty against the meat alone, why is it permitted? For behold, an olive-bulk of milk was certainly absorbed and emitted, and if so, we should have required sixty also against the olive-bulk of milk that it absorbed and emitted [ibid.]. And perhaps since "kind with its own kind" is nullified by a majority according to the Torah, they were not so exacting regarding the milk that it emitted [ibid.], but this is not sufficient, as is understood.

It seems more correct to establish a major principle regarding prohibitions that occur through absorption and discharge: it is impossible for that which becomes forbidden to have more power than the thing that forbids it, and the power of the derivative cannot be greater than the power of the source. Since the milk absorbed from the meat derives its prohibition from the power of the meat, it is impossible for it to forbid more than the meat itself. For if this were not so, then regarding all prohibitions—such as a kezayit of nevelah that fell into a pot, where we require sixty against the kezayit—behold, how many units of kezayit did the nevelah absorb from the pot and discharge? And behold, they become nevelah according to us, as we hold regarding all prohibitions that a piece becomes nevelah. Rather, it is certainly the case that that which becomes forbidden cannot forbid more than the power of the forbidder, and here too it is similar. And in truth, the Ran wrote in the name of the Ramban, of blessed memory [at the end of the chapter "Kol HaBasar"], that therefore we are not concerned regarding a piece of nevelah that was cooked in a large cauldron to say that the nevelah absorbs bit by bit and discharges, and if so the entire cauldron becomes nevelah, because each bit is nullified as it comes; see there. And the explanation is as I have written: since you wish to forbid it by means of the nevelah, its power is not greater than the nevelah itself, and automatically, since there is sixty against the nevelah, one must say that each bit is nullified as it comes—meaning, it does not forbid more than itself. [I saw that the Pri Chadash raised a difficulty against the reasoning of the Ran from siman 134, and his intention was that regarding yen nesekh we do not say each bit is nullified as it comes; see there. But according to what I have written, it is a different matter here, and it is only a figure of speech to say "each bit is nullified as it comes." And a reasoning similar to ours is found in Menachot 15b: "If that which forbids does not become forbidden, etc."; and examine this closely.]

And one should not refute this reasoning from that which will be explained in siman 94 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 94) regarding one who thrust a dairy spoon into a meat pot two times, where one requires sixty two times, for the reason that perhaps during the first time the spoon did not emit all of the forbidden substance absorbed within it, and there remained in it a one-sixtieth part, and fifty-nine parts of the permitted substance from the pot entered into it and it became neveilah, and one requires sixty against it as well; and even for the one who disagrees on this, it is only for the reason that regarding what is absorbed in a vessel we do not say "a piece becomes neveilah" as will be explained there, but regarding food we do not say so—behold, that which is forbidden has more power than that which forbids, and it is explained there that if one thrust it several times, one requires sixty against every thrust, according to the one who holds that "a piece becomes neveilah" regarding all prohibitions [see Shach ibid. subsection 4]. However, there is no comparison between them, for there they are two separate acts, as every thrust is an act unto itself, and during the second act the first prohibition has already taken effect upon it, whereas here it is all one act; and on the contrary, from there is a proof for our words, since we did not require sixty two times except for two thrusts, and yet even with one thrust one could say so, that it emitted and absorbed and emitted, but rather because in one act we do not say so for the reason we explained. [And a proof for this is from Tosafot 108b, beginning with "Amai," and this is their wording: But certainly since the milk emitted from the meat did not become neveilah except by reason of the meat etc., it does not have the law of etc., but rather it is nullified in the milk in the cauldron just as the forbidden meat taste is nullified. Thus far their words. And this is similar to our words, and with this all that was questioned by the Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav subsection 1 and the Havat Daat subsection 1 is settled well, see there and examine closely]:

A meat pot full of broth, with pieces of meat inside the broth and pieces above the broth—if a drop of milk fell upon a piece that is inside the broth, all the pieces and all the broth join together to nullify it, for if there is sixty in all of them against the drop, they are all permitted, because through the broth the taste of the drop of milk traveled throughout everything in the pot. However, if the drop fell upon a piece that is outside the broth, there must be sixty in the piece itself against the drop, and the broth and the other pieces do not join together to nullify it, because the drop was absorbed only in this piece and not in the others, for absorbed matter does not exit from piece to piece without broth. And since that piece became forbidden, he removes it from there. And if he did not remove it from there, and he subsequently stirred the pot and this piece entered into the broth, there must be sixty in everything in the pot against the entire piece, for behold, this piece has become neveilah and requires sixty against it. And so too, even if he did not stir the pot but rather covered it with a lid, they also all mix together, for since it is standing near the fire—and even if it was removed from the fire as long as it is boiling—when one covers the pot, the heat, the steam, and the vapor rise upward, and they are as if they mixed together.

In what case are these matters stated? When one did not shake the pot immediately when the drop fell upon the piece that was outside the broth, and did not cover it; but if immediately when the drop fell one shook the pot, or covered it, everything that is in the pot joins together to nullify the flavor of the drop. And this is what the sages taught in the Mishnah (Chullin 108a): A drop of milk that fell upon a piece, if it has enough to impart flavor to that piece, it is forbidden. If one shook the pot, if it has enough to impart flavor to that pot, it is forbidden. And one should not ask: what benefit is there that one shook it immediately or covered it? For in any event, it is necessary that a moment before, this piece received the flavor of the drop, and it has thus become nevelah, and we should require sixty against the entire piece. However, this is not a question, for it is impossible to be exact regarding moments; for if not so, even when the drop fell to a piece that is within the broth, it also cannot be avoided that for some moments beforehand, this piece in which the drop is located will absorb it. And so too, even if the drop fell into the broth, the drop also does not go through the entire pot in a single moment, as is understood. And it is not called premature absorption unless at least some small amount of time passed such that the absorption was only in it and not in another, and it is impossible to clarify how much this small amount of time is, and it depends on the sight of the eyes of the teacher; and see what I wrote in section 10.

And know that there are perplexing matters in this subject regarding the words of the Rambam, for he wrote in this wording (Rambam, Laws of Forbidden Foods 9:10): In what case does this apply? When one did not stir the pot at the beginning when the milk fell, but rather at the end, and did not cover it; but if he stirred from the beginning until the end, or if he covered it from the moment of falling until the end, everything joins together to nullify the taste of the milk. Thus far his words. And many wondered why he required stirring from the beginning until the end, for is it not sufficient to stir at the beginning alone? And some say that in truth it is not meant precisely [the Ri Habib], and this is a clear forced explanation. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great work that his reason is because we fear perhaps he did not stir very well, and therefore the stirring must be from the beginning until the end, and so he ruled without attribution in the Shulchan Aruch following the wording of the Rambam. And this too is perplexing, for the sages did not fear this [as is explained in the Gemara (Chullin 109a)]. Therefore, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2, and this is his wording: And so if he stirred at the beginning, or covered it immediately, even though he did not stir or cover it at the end, the entire pot joins together, provided that he stirred and covered it immediately when the forbidden substance fell there. Thus far his words. And he did not write this in the phrasing of "some say," because in his opinion even the Rambam holds so as was written before, and why indeed did the Rambam employ this wording? Because in the Gemara (ibid.) it is also explained with this wording of "from the beginning until the end," and just as we explain regarding the Gemara that it is not meant precisely, so too it shall be explained regarding his wording [Pri Chadash, subsection 5]. However, in any case, one must contemplate the wording of the Gemara as well, why they employed this wording.

Therefore, it appears to me that our sages, of blessed memory, informed us of a great matter with this phrasing, for otherwise the phrasing is not understood at all—what is "until the end," what end is there in this? It is clear to me that the intention is as follows: for we have already written in section 8 that it is impossible to be exact regarding moments, and even if one hastens to shake upon the falling of the drop, nevertheless, a few moments must necessarily pass, and we wrote that it is impossible to be precise in this. But nevertheless, one must know the measure of how much is "immediately" and how much is "after a time," and we wrote that it depends on the perception of the eyes of the posek. However, who can estimate this? Therefore, our teachers, of blessed memory, in their pure language, set a boundary in this. And the intention is that as long as the absorption of the milk has not passed through the entire piece, shaking is effective; and only when the absorption has passed through the entire piece is shaking not effective. And by what is this known? It is simple: for the milk that fell upon the piece is recognizable as milk on top of the piece, and when it is absorbed into the entire piece, it is no longer recognizable on top, as is understood, for little by little the milk on top diminishes until it is entirely gone. And this is what it says, "from beginning to end"—meaning that the shaking is effective from the beginning of the absorption of the piece, when the milk is still entirely recognizable, until the end of the absorption of the piece, which is when the milk is not recognizable at all; then the shaking is not effective. And according to this, on the contrary, there is a great leniency in this, for as long as the mark of the milk is recognizable on the piece, the shaking or the covering is effective, as mentioned above, clearly with the help of Heaven. And regarding the law, one must deliberate on this whether to rule so in practice or not, and it requires further study. [And the words of the Taz, subsection 6, are very forced; see there].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And so too, if he did not stir at all, neither at the beginning nor at the end, and did not cover at all, if there are sixty in the pot against the drop of milk that fell, only the piece itself is forbidden, and the rest of the pot is permitted. Thus far his words. And it is difficult: since he did not stir and did not cover, why do we need sixty in the pot against the drop? Behold, the pot did not absorb at all. And if it is because of the concern for the absorption of the other pieces from this piece itself, which entirely becomes nevelah—and as there is indeed one who holds so [the Ra'avad in the Hasagot chapter 9]—if so, we should require sixty against the piece. And it must be said that he holds that it is proven in the Gemara that when one did not stir and did not cover, this piece does not forbid others; however, nevertheless, there is a concern for the discharge of the drop itself, and therefore there is a concern and a requirement for sixty [Pri Chadash subsection 6]. And some say that it deals with a case where part of it is inside the broth [Shach subsection 6]. And some say that an error fell into the books and it should say: even if there are not sixty in the pot [Be'er HaGolah], or if there are not sixty in the piece [Beit Hillel]. And all these matters are forced and are not clear, and it requires further study.

It seems more likely that, behold, the Rishonim already raised a difficulty: when the piece is outside the broth, why is it entirely forbidden when there is not sixty against the milk? For it is a settled halacha that a prohibited substance that fell onto a roast when it is not fatty, it shall not be forbidden except for a k'dei netilah, as will be explained in siman 105. And here too, when it is entirely outside the broth, it is like a roast. And there are some of our teachers who answered that milk is a fatty prohibition [Rashba]. And his intention is not literally fatty, for if so, even the piece beneath it should be forbidden, for with a fatty prohibition, the prohibition exits from piece to piece even without broth, as will be explained there in the name of the Rashba, of blessed memory. Rather, his intention is that it contains a little fat, for from the fatness of milk one makes butter, and in every drop of milk there is fatty milk. Therefore, granted that for another piece we consider it lean, nevertheless, regarding that piece itself we consider it as fat that permeates throughout the entire piece [and this is his intention in Mishmeret HaBayit, and all that they questioned him on is settled well, and examine this]. And there are some of our teachers who answered that with a roast, certainly a netilat makom is sufficient, but this piece, since it stands in a pot, because it contains heat and moisture, the milk spreads throughout all of it even when it is outside the broth [Ran at the end of the chapter Kol HaBasar, and see Shach subsection 3, and Pri Chadash]. And it must also be said that this is only effective to forbid that piece, but for another piece, the heat and moisture are not effective. And for this reason, our teacher, the Rema, holds that since in any case there are two factors here—a bit of fatness, and heat and moisture—granted that one need not require sixty in the entire pot against the whole piece, nevertheless, regarding the drop itself, it is obvious that one must be concerned to require sixty against it, for it is as if the drop is in the entire pot. And know that this is an obvious matter, that even if there is sixty in the piece against the drop of milk, nevertheless, it requires a netilat makom according to the reasonings that have been explained.

The commentators on the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch raised a difficulty: for here they ruled regarding a piece outside the broth that one requires sixty against the drop, yet in siman 105 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 105) section 4, they wrote explicitly that a prohibited substance that fell upon a piece that is outside the broth in a pot only prohibits it to the extent of a kedei netilah, and yet there too there is steam and moisture. Some say that there it deals with a case where there is no broth in the pot but only solid items, for in that case there is not so much steam and moisture. But this is a forced explanation, for if so, they should not have left the matters unexplained. It appears more likely that they hold like the first resolution that we brought in the previous section, that milk is considered like a fatty prohibited substance in this regard, whereas there it deals with a lean prohibited substance [and see Shach and Taz].

And behold, all this is when the entire piece is outside the broth, or entirely within the broth, for when it is outside the broth one requires sixty in that piece, and when it is entirely within the broth the entire pot joins to sixty. But if part of the piece is within the broth and part of it is outside the broth, the Tur wrote that there is a dispute of the authorities regarding this, and Rashi, of blessed memory, holds that even if part of it is within the broth it is like it is entirely outside the broth, and Ri, of blessed memory, holds that when part of it is in the broth it is like it is entirely in the broth, because the boiling mixes the flavor in the entire pot, and the entire pot joins to nullify the milk, see there. And there are those who decided like Rashi [Beit Yosef], and there are those who decided like Ri [Shach, subsection 10], and therefore it is a legal doubt and we follow the stringency in every case, [and the Taz, subsection 2, wrote that even according to Rashi the part that is within the broth forbids the others, see there, and these are wondering words, and he was already refuted in the Nekudot HaKesef, but for us there is no practical difference, for in every case we follow the stringency as I have written]:

The Rambam (Rambam, Laws of Forbidden Foods 9:10) and the Shulchan Aruch (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 92) wrote: And so too, if it fell into the broth or into the pieces and it is not known into which piece it fell, he stirs the entire pot until everything returns and is mixed; if there is in the entire pot the taste of milk, it is forbidden, and if not, it is permitted. And if a non-Jew cannot be found to taste it so that we may rely upon him, we estimate with sixty. Thus far his words. And the Tur wrote regarding this: And I do not understand his words, for if the pieces are all within the sauce, why is it necessary to stir, and if they are not in the sauce, what benefit is the stirring that he stirs afterward. Thus far his words. And regarding this, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who disagree and hold that it is of no benefit that he stirs the pot, unless he stirred immediately when the forbidden substance fell, and such is the custom. Thus far his words.

The reasoning of the Rambam is that since it is not known to us which piece it fell upon, all the pieces enter into a state of doubt, and it is impossible to say here "the piece itself becomes nevelah" since it is not known. There is no issue here of nullifying a prohibited substance ab initio, since the entire pot enters into a state of doubt, and it is similar to what will be explained in siman 111 regarding two pots where a prohibited substance fell into one of them and it is not known into which it fell, that both of them combine to nullify it if there is not enough in one of them to nullify it; and here too it is the same [Shach subsection 8, and Taz subsection 6, and Pri Chadash, and it is implied by the Maggid Mishneh]. And even though we only say this regarding a rabbinic prohibition, such as "kind in its own kind," for from the Torah it is nullified by a majority as written there, and here meat in milk is a Torah prohibition—nonetheless, even here it is rabbinic. For while it is true that this piece is prohibited by the Torah if there is not enough in it to nullify the milk, nevertheless it is not recognizable and has been mixed with others, and "dry in dry" is nullified by a majority. And even though they are "pieces fit to be served to guests" and are not nullified, this is only rabbinic. And even though there is also broth, and it is "kind in a different kind" which from the Torah requires sixty, we say "remove the different kind as if it were not there," and its own kind increases over it and nullifies it [see Kereti U-Peleti, and Pri Megadim]. And one should not ask that this is well-settled if it fell upon the pieces, but if it fell into the soup as the Rambam wrote, what is the need to stir? Indeed, there is one who says regarding his intent that his intent is also like the opinion of the Tur, and he is dealing with a case where it fell into the soup or into a piece within the broth, and that which he required stirring was for good advice so that it should mix very well [see Beit Yosef], but it does not imply so. Therefore, it seems that what he wrote, "and so too if it fell into the soup or into the pieces," its explanation is as follows: that this is all in a case of doubt whether it fell into the soup or into the pieces [see Shach ibid.], but despite all this, the language is very difficult. Furthermore, the Rambam concludes there: "we measure by sixty whether it is meat into milk or milk into meat, etc.," see there, and what novelty is there in this? Furthermore, from where did he take this law? It is not his way to bring a law that is not explicit in the Gemara unless he says "it appears to me," as is known throughout his great composition. [However, in the Gra subsection 12, he brought that some have the version in the Mishnah: "a drop of milk, etc., he stirs the pot," see there].

And in my humble opinion, it appears that the Rambam, of blessed memory, had another approach in all of this. For behold, this distinction that we explained between when the entire piece is within the broth or outside of the broth is not mentioned at all in the Gemara, and likewise in the Rambam there is no hint of this. Only our teachers the authors of the Tosafot wrote this regarding the Mishnah (Chullin 97b) concerning a thigh in which the gid hanasheh was cooked, that if it contains enough to impart flavor, it is forbidden; for perforce it must be dealing with a case where there was not sixty together with the broth to nullify the flavor of the gid, or according to the explanation of Rashi, when part of it was outside the broth, see there. For if it were not so, certainly the broth would join together. And they wrote similarly regarding the Mishnah of a drop of milk. And after them followed all of our teachers the Rishonim, except for one who wrote in this wording: It is implied from the explanation of Rashi that even if the piece was within the broth when the drop fell upon it, if one did not stir and cover, the broth does not assist in nullifying the flavor of the drop. Thus far his words. And the Beit Yosef brought it in his great book and wrote concerning it, and this is his wording: It is implied from his words that even though it is entirely within the broth, only that its upper surface is revealed, the whole does not join together; for if it were entirely submerged within the broth, since the broth floats over it, it is obvious that a drop of milk that falls mixes with all the broth. Thus far his words. Because for our teacher, the Beit Yosef, there was no doubt at all regarding this, and therefore he was compelled to explain it so.

But the Rambam does not hold so, since the Shas does not happen to explain so even in one place; on the contrary, the plain meaning of the Mishnah regarding a thigh that was cooked with the gid hanasheh implies explicitly that even though it is within the broth, the broth does not join, and the thigh alone requires sixty. Furthermore, it is difficult regarding that which Rava said (Chullin 100a): Once it has imparted flavor to the piece, the piece itself becomes nevelah and forbids all the other pieces, etc. And it is very difficult, for since that piece alone requires sixty, it implies that the entire piece was outside of the broth; if so, why does it forbid all the other pieces? And indeed, the Tosafot were forced to explain that this is after one stirred the pot, see there; and Rashi, of blessed memory, explains after they placed the other pieces in the pot, see there; and according to this, the main point is missing from the text. And more difficult than this is that we say regarding this in the sugya: What does he hold? If he holds "it is possible to squeeze it out" is permitted, why does the piece become nevelah? Rather, he holds "it is possible to squeeze it out" is forbidden, etc. And Rashi explained: "It is possible to squeeze it out"—a forbidden substance that was absorbed into a permitted substance and imparted flavor to it and forbade it, and one then cooked this permitted substance with another permitted substance, for it is possible for the forbidden substance absorbed in this one to be squeezed out of it and be distributed into the latter permitted substance, etc. Thus far his words. And it is difficult, for one may not nullify a forbidden substance ab initio; therefore, the Tosafot wrote that it deals with a case ex post facto if it was squeezed and exited from it, but ab initio it is forbidden, see there. And it is not understood how the Shas calls it "it is possible to squeeze it out" regarding something where the squeezing is a complete prohibition. And there are further fine points and arguments regarding this [see the Ran at the end of the chapter Kol HaBasar].

Therefore, the Rambam explains that even when the piece is within the broth, nevertheless, without stirring and covering, the essence of the prohibition remains in this piece; however, over time, the prohibition will spread throughout the entire pot. As we see with our own eyes, if one places a fatty substance even in broth in one place, if they do not immediately mix the fat throughout the broth, the fat will remain in one place in the broth, and over time it will spread throughout all of it. And this is what Rav said: "Since it gave flavor to the piece, it becomes neveilah and prohibits all the other pieces," meaning that in the course of time, the prohibition will indeed spread throughout the entire pot. And this is what he means by "it is possible to squeeze it," meaning that the squeezing comes on its own without any action, and that is after the spreading in the pot. And this matter is explicitly stated there in the Rambam, and this is his wording: If milk fell into a pot of meat, one tastes the piece etc., and if there is a flavor of milk in the piece, even though if the piece were squeezed no flavor would remain in it, since it now has the flavor of milk etc. Thus far his words. And this is according to our words, that now it alone contains the milk flavor, and "with the squeezing" means when it will spread throughout the entire pot. And afterwards he distinguishes between one who stirred at the beginning and one who did not stir at the beginning, and afterwards he says: And similarly if milk fell into the soup, or into the pieces and it is not known into which piece it fell, one stirs the pot etc. And this is certainly a simple matter, since the drop is within the soup, or in some piece that is within the broth, for in the course of time the drop will go on its own throughout the entire pot; therefore, he should not wait, and he himself should do immediately what the drop would do in the course of time. And it is simple that this is not in the category of nullifying a prohibition, since ultimately it would spread on its own throughout the entire pot. But if a drop fell onto a piece that is outside the broth, it is certainly forbidden to mix the piece into the entire pot. And this is how the Rambam concludes, that we measure with sixty whether it is meat into milk or milk into meat; meaning, just as with the falling of meat into milk it is certain that we measure with sixty against all the milk, for the meat, which is a solid mass, when it falls into milk the flavor immediately spreads throughout all the milk, so too the reverse: milk into meat, even though at first the milk does not spread throughout the entire pot, nevertheless, since it will eventually spread, he may stir it immediately so that the flavor spreads throughout all of it. [And his source is from the Mishnah regarding the drop of milk, which says: "If he stirred the pot, if there is enough to give flavor in that pot, it is forbidden," meaning if he did not wait until the flavor spread on its own and in the meantime the piece would become neveilah, but rather he stirred it, the entire pot joins to form sixty; and from this the Rambam took this law, and examine it closely]:

When the piece becomes forbidden due to chelev, the entire piece becomes forbidden matter, and if one cooked it with others, one requires sixty to nullify the whole of it. If he recognizes it, he casts it away, and the others are permitted when there is sixty against the piece. If he does not recognize it, the broth is permitted, but all the pieces are forbidden if the pieces of forbidden matter and permitted matter are fit to be served to guests, for if they are not fit to be served to guests, we maintain that dry matter in dry matter is nullified by a majority, and if there are three pieces, they are all permitted; but when they are fit to be served to guests, it is not nullified even in a thousand. And even though it will be explained in siman 101 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 101) that we do not apply the law of "a piece fit to be served to guests" except to an inherent prohibition and not to an absorbed prohibition, nevertheless, meat in milk is considered an inherent prohibition, for the essence of the prohibition is through the combination of both together, while each one on its own is permitted. And know that this requirement that the permitted pieces also be fit to be served to guests is not because of the law, but because it is impossible otherwise, for if not so, he would be able to recognize them; however, when they are also fit to be served to guests, there is a possibility that it is not within his power to recognize them, as is understood. [And in the Shulchan Aruch, section 3, where he wrote "if the forbidden piece is fit to be served to guests," he stated the law, but of necessity it must be said that the others are also so, and examine this].

And know that even though we consider a piece of meat that has absorbed milk to be a forbidden entity in its own right, as has been written, nevertheless, we do not judge it so for all matters. For example, a piece of meat in milk that touched a piece of kosher meat, hot with hot without liquid, it does not forbid it, and we judge it as an absorbed prohibition and not as a forbidden entity in its own right. And there are those who hold that for every matter it is considered a forbidden entity in its own right, and it will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 105, see there. [The Taz in subsection 7 holds that it is like an absorbed prohibition, only that which he pointed to in siman 91, section 4, requires great scrutiny, for there it is with liquid; and the Shach in siman 105, subsection 17, does not hold so, see there]:

There is one of the early authorities who wrote that this rule—that a drop of milk renders forbidden until sixty—applies to the meat of a domestic animal, but if it fell upon the meat of a wild animal or poultry, since the prohibition is rabbinic, we do not require that there be sixty in the piece, but rather it is nullified by a majority [Beit Yosef in the name of Hagahot Ashri]. And these words are astonishing, for the Rambam explicitly wrote in chapter 15, law 27 (Rambam, Laws of Forbidden Foods 15:27) that even with poultry it renders forbidden through the imparting of flavor, except that with poultry one may increase the volume until the flavor is nullified, see there, and even on this there are those who disagree as will be explained in siman 99 (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 99), see there. And so wrote all our teachers, the early authorities, that even for a rabbinic prohibition sixty is required and there is no one who disagrees on the matter. Therefore, this ruling is not accepted, and already one of the great later authorities [Pri Chadash, subsection 11] has critiqued this:

The Tur brought a dispute of the Rishonim regarding the law of "a piece becomes a carcass," for some say that this only applies to meat and milk because each one is permitted on its own, and through their mixing together the prohibition is created, and therefore the entire piece becomes a carcass, for it is the body of the prohibition; but other prohibitions absorbed into a piece of permitted food, even if there is not enough to nullify the prohibition and it becomes prohibited, nevertheless it is not relevant to say of it that it "becomes a carcass," for it is prohibited because of the prohibition absorbed within it, but it itself is not a carcass, rather it is prohibited to eat it because of the absorbed prohibition. Therefore, if the entire piece fell into another place, one does not need sixty against the entire piece, but rather against the prohibition absorbed within it, and such is the opinion of the Rosh, and also the opinion of the Rambam appears so. And so our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in section 4, and this is his wording: They did not say "the piece itself becomes a carcass" except regarding meat and milk, but not regarding other prohibitions, such as a kezayit of chelev that was absorbed into a piece and there is not sixty to nullify it, and it became prohibited, and afterwards he cooked it with others, one only needs sixty against the kezayit of chelev, and then even the piece itself returns to being permitted. Thus far his words. And behold, regarding that which he wrote that even the piece itself returns to its permitted status, he himself ruled to the contrary in siman 106, section 1 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 106) that the piece remains in its prohibited state, see there, [and he does not contradict himself, for here he wrote according to the opinion of the Tur that if we say "a piece becomes a carcass" it is possible to squeeze it out, for in his opinion it is all one, and there he wrote according to the opinion of the poskim that they are two matters, and even if we do not say "a piece becomes a carcass," nevertheless we say that it is impossible to squeeze out the prohibition as the Ran wrote at the end of the chapter "Kol HaBasar," and see the Bach, and examine closely]. [And the Shach in subsection 11 wrote that the intention is that it is nullified by a majority, see there, but his wording does not indicate so, and the words of the Kereti U'Peleti are more forced, and it appears more like our words, and this is the intention of the Taz in subsection 10].

The Ramban and the Rashba, of blessed memory, also agreed with the previous opinion, but Rabbeinu Tam and all our teachers the Tosafists, the Mordechai, and the Smag ruled that regarding all prohibitions we say chatichah na'asait neveilah. One of the great Rishonim wrote that it is certainly so, that regarding all prohibitions we say chatichah na'asait neveilah, for it is thus explained in the Yerushalmi of Orlah [chapter 2, halachah 3] regarding grits of terumah that were cooked with lentils of chullin, and there is not enough in the chullin to nullify the terumah, and afterwards one increased the lentils of chullin upon them; Rabbi holds there that it is necessary for the second lentils to be greater than the chullin and the terumah in order to nullify them. Behold, it is explicitly seen that we say chatichah na'asait neveilah, for if it were not so, it would have been sufficient to add enough to nullify the terumah alone [Ran, end of chapter Kol HaBasar]. However, the matter is that certainly from the Torah we do not say chatichah na'asait neveilah except regarding basar be-chalav for the reason that has been explained, but by rabbinic decree they enacted it regarding all prohibitions similar to basar be-chalav. According to this, we only say chatichah na'asait neveilah by way of cooking, just as the Torah prohibited basar be-chalav, but not by way of cooking we do not say chatichah na'asait neveilah [ibid.]. According to this, if there is a doubt regarding chatichah na'asait neveilah, in basar be-chalav it is prohibited as it is a doubt regarding a Torah law, and in other prohibitions it is permitted as it is a doubt regarding a rabbinic law. However, from several poskim it is implied that also in other prohibitions it is from the Torah, and it requires further study. [And nevertheless, there is no difficulty from this Yerushalmi for the first opinion, for we may explain that it is not because of the reason of chatichah na'asait neveilah that one must increase over the lentils of chullin, but rather because he holds efshar lisochto asur, and they are two different things as I wrote, and a small amount of terumah remains in the lentils, therefore an increase is required, Kereti U-Peleti section 9].

There is one who says that regarding a rabbinic prohibition, even with basar be-chalav, we do not say chatichah na'asit nevelah [Pri Chadash, subsection 17], and the proof for this is from the words of the Rambam in chapter 15 (Rambam, Laws of Forbidden Foods 15:27) who wrote: Regarding a prohibition of their words, one may nullify the prohibition ab initio; how so? Milk that fell into a pot that has poultry meat, and imparted flavor in the pot, one increases other poultry meat upon it until the flavor is increased. Thus far his words. And if we were to say chatichah na'asit nevelah, the entire pot would become nevelah. And consequently, the same law applies to basar be-chalav that is by means of salting or soaking; as long as it is not by way of cooking, we do not say chatichah na'asit nevelah, and certainly regarding other prohibitions that are rabbinic, we do not say regarding them chatichah na'asit nevelah. [And therefore, even though there are places from which it is implied that even in rabbinic matters we say chatichah na'asit nevelah, nevertheless it appears that the primary view is like this opinion; and see Torat Yekutiel who wanted to reject this without any proof, see there and examine carefully]. [See Atteret Zahav siman 90, subsection 4, and there is no proof, for kachal was treated like actual basar be-chalav; and see Atteret Zahav subsection 11 and examine carefully]:

Our teacher, the Rema, ruled according to this opinion that regarding all prohibitions we say "the piece becomes a carcass," only he added many conditions to this, for without them we do not say "the piece becomes a carcass." This is his wording in section 4: And there are those who say that we say regarding all prohibitions "the piece becomes a carcass," and such is the simple custom and it should not be changed. And specifically if the prohibition is attached to the piece of permitted food, or if the entire piece is outside of the broth and a prohibition fell upon it; but if part of the piece is within the broth and the prohibition is not attached to it, we do not say "the piece becomes a carcass," and the entire pot joins together to nullify the prohibition, and nevertheless one should be stringent to prohibit that piece. And all this is regarding other prohibitions, but regarding meat in milk, even though the prohibition is not attached and part of the piece is within the broth, we say "the piece becomes a carcass." There are those who say that we do not say "the piece becomes a carcass" unless a liquid prohibition was mixed with a liquid permitted substance and afterwards everything was mixed with another permitted substance, and one does not require sixty except against the prohibition that fell, and one may rely on this regarding other prohibitions in a case of great loss, but not regarding meat in milk. And if it was mixed dry in dry, we do not say regarding any prohibition "the piece becomes a carcass." And see later in siman 99 regarding the law of "the piece becomes a carcass." A vessel that becomes prohibited from the absorption of a prohibition, we do not say regarding it "the piece becomes a carcass," and we do not require sixty except against the prohibition that it absorbed. Thus far his words. And his words require explanation, [and the Shach in subsection 13 and the Taz in subsection 14 wondered at him, see there]:

And that which appears correct in my humble opinion is that he holds that a reason is certainly required for all prohibitions as to why we say regarding them "the piece becomes a carcass," and he holds that the matter is as follows: just as with dry-in-dry where it is nullified by a majority, the Rosh wrote that the prohibition is transformed into being permitted, for so the Torah decreed as will be explained in siman 109, so too conversely, the prohibition absorbed into the permitted substance where the permitted substance does not have enough to nullify it, the permitted substance is transformed into being entirely prohibited. And if so, this is only relevant when they are attached together and the piece becomes entirely prohibited, or if it fell upon a piece that is outside of the broth, and we establish that "it is possible to squeeze it out" is prohibited, meaning that the prohibition is not entirely squeezed out, and automatically it is like an attached prohibition and becomes entirely prohibited. But when part of it is inside the broth, even according to Rashi who holds that its law is like the whole of it being outside the broth, nevertheless it is impossible to consider it as a truly attached prohibition, for at the time the prohibition fell, this piece had a connection with all the other pieces at any rate, and it is sufficient for us to be stringent and prohibit that piece completely, and this is regarding other prohibitions. But regarding meat in milk, where the reason is simple as to why we say "the piece becomes a carcass," it is prohibited in all manners.

And so too regarding a prohibition of liquid in liquid, where the taste spreads equally throughout all the sauce or the drink, and it is not relevant here to say that the prohibition was not completely squeezed out, we also do not say chatichah na'aseit nevelah regarding other prohibitions. However, against this there is a reasoning that liquid in liquid is worse than the absorption of liquid into a solid, for there the prohibition did not spread equally throughout the entire piece as is understood, whereas in liquid in liquid the prohibition certainly spread throughout all the permitted substance; therefore, we do not rely on this except for the need of a great loss, which is more than a substantial loss. However, in solid in solid, even regarding meat in milk, it is not relevant to say chatichah na'aseit nevelah, for the tastes did not mix at all, and therefore we do not say chatichah na'aseit nevelah regarding this at all. And so too regarding a vessel, it is not relevant to say chatichah na'aseit nevelah, for they can remove the prohibition by means of hag'alah; therefore, regarding an earthenware vessel one should be stringent. And more will be explained regarding this in siman 98 with the help of Heaven, see there, and in siman 99 more will be explained regarding this, see there, [as mentioned above, and there is no need for the reason of importance that the Taz and the Shach in subsection 14 wrote, see there]:

It appears to me that a piece that was already forbidden from the absorption of meat and milk, which subsequently fell into permitted matter in a boiling pot, and further permitted matter was absorbed into it, that we judge it as "the piece becomes a carcass" according to the law of other prohibitions and not according to the law of meat and milk. For the reason in meat and milk is because each one on its own is permitted, but here it was already forbidden and it is like any other prohibition; for what does it matter to me if it is a piece of chelev or a piece of meat and milk? And so I found one of the great later authorities who wrote thus in siman 94 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 94) [Shach ibid. subsection 4], and nevertheless there are those who disagree on this [Pri Chadash ibid.], and it will be explained there with the help of Heaven.

The Tur wrote that even according to the one who holds that a piece becomes a carcass regarding other prohibitions, this is when it was prohibited through the imparting of flavor; however, when it was prohibited by a minute amount, such as according to the one who holds that like-kind with like-kind is prohibited by a minute amount, the piece does not become a carcass [Tosafot 100a (Chullin 100a) s.v. "beshekadam"]. The Rashba, of blessed memory, explained [ibid.] that according to this reasoning, one does not require sixty against the piece that was prohibited by a minute amount, and so he wrote in his book Torat HaBayit [62b]. For us, there is no practical difference in this, for we do not hold that like-kind with like-kind is prohibited by a minute amount; however, he wrote there that this is also the law regarding wine used for idolatry, which we hold prohibits by a minute amount, see there. The Ramban, of blessed memory, disagrees with this entire law, and so the Ra'ah there in his book Bedek HaBayit disagrees with this, see there.

From the words of the Tur that we have written, one of the great later authorities [Taz, subsection 16] learned that regarding chametz on Pesach, where we establish that it is forbidden in any amount (mashehu), nevertheless, this piece that was forbidden in any amount does not forbid others in any amount, and it is sufficient to require sixty against the piece; and likewise regarding yayin nesech. And there are those who disagree with him and hold that it forbids in any amount even to the other piece, and so on forever [Nekudot HaKesef, and Magen Avraham in siman 467, subsection 13]. And I wonder that they disagreed about a matter in which our teachers, the early authorities, already disagreed; and on the contrary, I wonder at the opinion of the one who permits, why he required sixty against the piece [see Pri Megadim there], for the Rashba wrote explicitly that it is not necessary, and it is explained from his words there that a mashehu does not have the power to emit, and it is as if there is no prohibition here at all regarding the matter of forbidding another piece. However, in any case, according to the opinion of the Tur, which is the opinion of our teachers the authors of the Tosafot, certainly also regarding chametz it is so, for the Ramban and the Ra'ah who disagree on this do so because they do not hold at all like this view brought by the Tur, but according to the Tosafot and the Tur there is no distinction, as the Rashba, of blessed memory, wrote. However, regarding a liquid prohibition that was forbidden in any amount and was mixed with more liquid permitted matter, certainly the mashehu forbids the second permitted matter as well [Taz, ibid.], and the reasoning is so: for it is well and good that when the liquid prohibition is absorbed into a solid mass, we say that the mashehu does not emerge from there, but in liquid within liquid, it is necessary that this mashehu will mix also with the second. Not only that, but even liquid within liquid that was forbidden in any amount, and afterwards one cooked it with a solid mass, the mashehu also forbids, because this mashehu enters by itself into the solid mass when it is cooked with it [Chavat Da'at, subsection 12]. And also from the words of the Levush it appears explicitly like the opinion of the one who permits, and he was even more lenient, for he wrote, and this is his wording: And specifically when it was forbidden by imparting flavor etc., but if the piece was not forbidden except from a prohibition that forbids in any amount, such as chametz on Pesach and yayin nesech, and it was forbidden because of a mashehu within it, it does not all become nevelah, and if it fell again into another pot, it is nullified in a majority if he does not recognize it, and if he recognizes it, he throws it out and the rest is permitted. Thus far his words. [And the Nekudot HaKesef wanted to say that his intention was for after Pesach, and I wonder, for behold he wrote also yayin nesech, and it requires further study]:

And know that regarding that which we explained in section 28, that with liquid in liquid we do not say chatichah na'aseit nevelah, the Maharshal wrote [Yam Shel Shlomo chapter 7, end of the siman] that this is regarding a liquid substance that is not by way of cooking, such as wine in wine and the like. However, a liquid substance that is by way of cooking, even liquid in liquid becomes nevelah; for example, if they cooked a prohibited broth with a permitted broth, and afterwards some was spilled into another permitted substance, one must measure sixty against everything that was spilled into the other permitted substance, and not measure against the prohibited broth that is within it. For example, if a kezayit of prohibited broth was cooked with a kezayit of permitted broth, and from there a kezayit was spilled into another permitted substance, and it turns out that there is only a half-kezayit of the original prohibition in this, nevertheless one requires sixty kezayitim against the entire kezayit, because it all became nevelah since it is by way of cooking (see Taz subsection 15).

But from the language of our teacher, the Rema, it does not appear so, and so it is explicit in the Mordechai, and this is his wording: For certainly regarding all other prohibitions it is said "the piece becomes carrion," and specifically regarding the piece itself etc., because the piece is a recognizable and distinct prohibition etc., but in a liquid substance, such as terumah in chullin, or wine in water, or broth in broth, where the prohibition is not recognizable and distinct etc., the second permitted substance mixes with the first and it is not relevant at all to say "the piece becomes carrion," to make everything a prohibition and to require sixty against the entire mixture. Thus far his words. And he agreed there with the ruling of the Ramban, of blessed memory, regarding a cauldron of meat in which a prohibited piece was cooked and there was not sixty in the cauldron to nullify the prohibition, and everything in the cauldron became prohibited, and they took the broth that was in the cauldron and placed it in a pot where there was permitted food, and there was not sixty in the second pot against the entire prohibited mixture, and the Ramban, of blessed memory, ruled that the prohibited broth only prohibits according to the proportion of the prohibited mixture within it; for example, if in the cauldron there was thirty times against the prohibition, we do not calculate the broth placed in the second pot as more than one-thirtieth part of prohibition, and consequently when there is in this pot twice as much as the broth that fell into it, there is sixty here, and so according to this ratio one must calculate in every such case, as it is taught in the Mishnah (Terumot 5:6): "That which is mixed with terumah does not make a further mixture except according to the proportion," see there. And behold, the Ramban ruled so because he holds that we do not say "the piece becomes carrion" regarding other prohibitions, but nevertheless the Mordechai agreed with his ruling even though he himself does not hold so, for the reason that has been explained.

And from this we have learned according to all opinions regarding a case of permitted substance with permitted substance of this sort, that one does not need to measure sixty except against the prohibiting matter. For example, if they cooked a dairy dish in a pot, and the milk was a half or a quarter against the water and the dish, and this broth spilled into a pot of meat or under the pot, that one does not need to measure sixty from the pot of meat against everything that spilled, but rather according to the proportion of the milk within it. And if there is in the dairy pot half milk and half water and food, and a revi'it spilled, one needs sixty against half a revi'it; and if there was a quarter milk in it, one needs to measure against a quarter of what spilled. And so too in a pot of meat where the meat was a quarter of the entire pot, and a revi'it spilled from the pot into a dairy pot or under the pot, that one needs to measure sixty against a quarter of the spill, and so always. And the matter is a kal vachomer: for if regarding a prohibited substance we do not say "the piece becomes a carcass," all the more so regarding a permitted substance we do not say that the piece becomes milk or meat. And even for the one who is more stringent regarding a prohibited substance, who holds that we say "the piece becomes a carcass" even in a liquid-in-liquid mixture as has been written, nevertheless, regarding a permitted substance this is not applicable. [See Chochmat Adam, klal 44, section 9, who found this difficult from the words of our teacher, the Rema, siman 99, section 6, regarding a kezayit of milk that fell into water and was nullified in sixty, and afterwards fell into meat, it is permitted, which implies specifically when there was sixty in the water; and he wrote that the Issur V'Heter HaAruch follows his reasoning etc., see there. I do not know what one matter has to do with the other, and what greater novelty is applicable here; on the contrary, there he says that it does not have the status of milk at all, and examine this]:

All that has been explained is regarding meat that fell into milk, or milk into meat, or a prohibited substance into a permitted one, or a permitted one into a prohibited one, and this is all regarding the actual cooked food. However, if a drop of milk fell onto a pot of meat, or meat gravy onto a pot of milk, or beneath the pot in a hot oven, there are other laws regarding this as will be explained with the help of Heaven. But first, it is necessary to preface what is found in the poskim in this language: Regarding a drop that fell on the wall of a vessel, we are in doubt in the chapter Dam Chatat (Zevachim 96b) whether it spreads through the entire vessel or not. Thus far his words. And in truth, in the Gemara there, there is no doubt here, and they said explicitly there that cooking spreads, and if one cooked sacrificial meat in part of a vessel, it requires scouring and rinsing in the entire vessel, see there. Rather, their intention is this: that we are in doubt whether the reason is because it spreads through the entire vessel, or whether this is only a decree of the Torah to require scouring and rinsing, for this is only regarding sacrificial meat—rinsing with cold water as is explained there, whereas regarding all other prohibitions, hagalah alone is sufficient—and the Torah decreed to require scouring and rinsing in the entire vessel even though it does not spread through the entire vessel [Kreiti U'Pleiti section 11]. However, the Tosafot wrote there [starting with the words "Bishal"] that when the entire vessel is hot, it is obvious that it spreads through all of it, see there, and so it is implied from Rashi there; but to other poskim, they are in doubt [see Shach section 18]. And it requires further study why the poskim and the authors of the Shulchan Aruch and the commentators did not mention that according to Rashi and Tosafot this law is certain, [and in the Mordechai he brought that to the Ri it is obvious to him that it does not spread, from the fact that a verse was needed there that it requires scouring and rinsing in its entirety, see there, and it requires further study].

The Tur wrote: A drop of milk that fell on the pot that is near the fire from the outside, even if there is sixty times its volume in the cooked food of the pot, he cannot nullify it; and if so, the drop forbids the pot all around it and the cooked food within it is forbidden. And the Maharam of Rothenburg wrote that if there is in the cooked food sixty times sixty against the drop, it is permitted, for the drop only forbids up to sixty times its volume, and if there is in the cooked food sixty against those sixty, it is permitted. And in the Sefer HaMitzvot he wrote that if it fell opposite the cooked food, it requires only sixty against it, for it permeates inward and it is as if it fell into the cooked food; and if it fell in the empty space and it permeates the wall of the pot until near the broth to such an extent that there is not sixty against the drop, behold that place of the pot is forbidden, and if he pours the cooked food through the place of the pot that was forbidden, behold the cooked food will be forbidden, and this is its remedy: that he should leave it so and not touch it until it cools. And the world has already accustomed to forbid when it falls on the wall not in the place of the broth, and specifically when it fell on that side that is not opposite the fire, but if it fell opposite the fire, it is permitted, for the fire burns it and dries it. And specifically with a small matter such as a drop, but if much fell, one should not permit even if it fell opposite the fire, unless it is opposite the broth and by means of sixty. And our teacher Yechiel would permit it in a time of pressing need, such as on the eve of Shabbat, even not opposite the broth and even not opposite the fire, by means of sixty. Thus far the words of the Tur. And similar to this is written in the Shulchan Aruch in section 5, 6, 7, see there.

The explanation of the matter is that previously he wrote that one drop forbids the pot and the cooked food, and the reason for the matter is that the proponent of this opinion holds that the drop spreads throughout the entire vessel, and the entire pot becomes neveilah, and one requires sixty against the entire pot, and generally there is not sixty in the cooked food against the pot [Beit Yosef]. And perhaps you will ask, is there not insufficient volume in the drop to impart flavor to the pot? The answer is that specifically regarding a food item which has a flavor of its own, the forbidden substance must also impart flavor to it; however, a pot which has no flavor of its own, even if only a minute amount of forbidden substance entered it, the entire pot becomes neveilah, and one requires sixty against it [Bach]. The SeMag wrote this law, and it is a great stringency, and the reason is not so clarified, and in the Shulchan Aruch this opinion is not mentioned at all.

And afterwards he brings the opinion of the Maharam of Rothenburg that one requires sixty times sixty, whether it fell opposite the food or whether it fell opposite the empty space, for he holds that we do not say that the drop spreads throughout the entire pot, and we also do not say that it permeates inward and is as if it fell into the food and sixty against the drop is sufficient; rather, we are in doubt that perhaps it permeates only into a portion of the vessel in which there is not sixty against it. Therefore, if there is sixty times sixty it is permitted in any case: if the drop spread throughout the pot which has sixty against the drop, it is certainly permitted; and if it spread in less than sixty and was not nullified by the drop and prohibited fifty-nine times its volume against it, since there is sixty times sixty, it will nullify the prohibited matter that spread until nearly sixty within these sixty [Derisha]. And this is when we know how many drops fell upon the pot so that we can estimate that there is sixty times sixty in the pot, but if it is not known to us, and it is possible that much milk fell in a manner that there is not sixty times sixty in the pot against the milk that fell, truly the pot and the food are prohibited [ibid.]. And also this opinion is an extreme stringency and is not understood, for in any case, if we say that it permeates inward, why should we say that it permeates inward but does not enter the food? If it permeates inward, let us say that it entered the food and was nullified. And truly the matter is wondrous that its falling upon the pot should be much more severe than its falling into the food. And also this opinion was not brought in the Shulchan Aruch, see there.

And afterward he brings the opinion of the Sefer HaMitzvot to distinguish between if it fell opposite the food and if it fell opposite the empty space, for opposite the food it is permitted when there is sixty in the food against the drop, for in any case: if it spreads inward, it has entered the food and was nullified in sixty, and if it does not spread, it remains in its place and will never enter the food, for one cannot say that now it only entered the wall of the pot and afterward over time it will enter the food with the absorbed matter in the pot, for this is no logic at all; either it entered entirely or it will not enter entirely [I have written according to the words of the Taz, subsection 19], and therefore by law the pot should also return to its permissibility, for if it did not spread now into the food, it will also not spread during a second cooking [ibid.], except that we are accustomed to forbid the pot always.

But if the drop fell against the empty space, then a large portion of the pot is forbidden, for perhaps it did not spread into the food such that it would be nullified by the food, but rather only until adjacent to the food, in a manner where the spreading remains in the pot in the empty space; and perhaps there is not sixty in the food against the place of its spreading. Therefore, the pot is forbidden by the law and the food is permitted. Consequently, it is necessary to let the food remain in the pot until it cools and then he shall pour it out, for if he pours it while it is hot, perhaps he will pour it through the place where the pot became forbidden—that is, perhaps the spreading traveled around the entire pot, and when he pours, the food will absorb from the prohibition in the pot. Similarly, he shall not puncture the pot from underneath it to drain the food through there, for perhaps through the movement the food will touch the empty space. According to this opinion, they ruled in the Shulchan Aruch, section 5. [And I wonder at the Shach, subsection 21, who wrote that it does not avail to pour from the other side lest he move it, see there; and why was this necessary, for who is to say that the spreading did not encompass the entire circumference of the pot as I have written]:

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that this is specifically if the pot is old, but if it is new, in any case one does not require sixty except against the drop that fell upon it, as [will be seen] below in siman 98 regarding a spoon. Thus far his words. That is to say, even if the drop fell against the empty space. And even though "new" is not applicable here, for they are currently cooking in it, nevertheless, since the concern is perhaps the drop did not spread except in the empty space and not in the place of the food, if so, then automatically the food also did not spread except against itself and not against the empty space; for if this food spread above the place of the food, then the drop also spread below the place of the empty space [Shach, subsection 23]. And one need not fear that perhaps the boiling of the food rose above the food and afterwards its boiling subsided, and afterwards when the drop fell it was not new, for we do not need to fear so much. Furthermore, there is a double doubt in this: perhaps the boiling did not rise above, and if you should say it did rise, perhaps the drop spread into the food and was nullified, for this is also a doubt as has been written; and if so, there is a double doubt. [And with this, that which Rabbi Baruch Frankel questioned in his glosses is answered]:

And know that according to what will be explained in siman 98, that for stringency one can say regarding an earthenware vessel that the vessel becomes nevelah, if so, this law of a new vessel applies only to milk; for with the falling of milk, which is permitted, it is not relevant to say that it should become nevelah, but with the falling of a prohibited substance, one should prohibit even in a new vessel. However, there it will be explained that regarding the body of the earthenware itself it is not relevant to say it becomes nevelah, rather only if there is absorbed food and drink within it do we say that the absorbed substance becomes nevelah. Therefore, according to this, even with the falling of a prohibited substance one should rule thus as a truly new vessel (ibid. subsection 22). And any vessel that is not ben yomo, its law is like a new vessel, for since it imparts a foul taste, it does not become nevelah (ibid.), and there these laws will be explained with the help of Heaven.

And that which the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote, that the world is accustomed to forbid when it fell not opposite the broth, meaning to forbid even the cooked food. The great later authorities disagreed with this, and this custom did not spread and we have not heard of it. And similarly, what they wrote that there is one who permits in a case of great need by means of sixty even not opposite the broth and not opposite the fire, among us it is a simple custom in all the dispersions of Israel to require sixty against the fallen piece, and we do not distinguish between opposite the broth and opposite the cooked food, or between the side opposite the fire and the side not opposite the fire, because it is established for us according to the opinion of Rashi and Tosafot that we brought in section 35, that certainly wherever it falls it permeates through the cooked food. Therefore, if there is sixty it is permitted in any case, and if there is not sixty it is forbidden in any case. And the pot we forbid in any case even if there is sixty against the fallen piece, because we concern ourselves that perhaps something remained on the wall of the pot [Shach, subsection 27]:

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that one should immediately pour the cooked food from it to another side, not opposite the drop. And if they cooked another dish in the pot, its law is like the first time. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote to pour immediately, this is when it fell opposite the broth, and for the reason of concern lest it spread further from here on [ibid. subsection 28], but when it is not opposite the broth it is better to leave it to cool as I have written, however our custom is to immediately pour the cooked food, because in our ovens it is difficult to be precise as to whether the falling was opposite the broth or opposite the empty space, and in most cases it is opposite the broth, and in English kitchens one does not cook without a cover and in this regard it is all one as I wrote in section 46.

And that which he wrote, that if they cooked another dish in the pot its law is the same as the first time, the explanation of his words is that you should not say that the drop was already expelled into the first dish, for this is not certain to us, and therefore one also requires sixty against the first drop in the second time. And it is simple that this is when they cooked in it on the same day that they cooked the first dish, but if they cooked in it the next day, it is permitted in any case, for it is a giver of taste for the worse. And it is written in the Issur V'Heiter HaAruch [Klal 31] that even if the first time the drop was opposite the broth, and the second time it was not opposite the broth, because the second time the dish was less than the first time, it is also permitted, see there, because he holds that a piece of the vessel does not become neveilah, and we have already explained that for us there is no difference [see Havat Da'at subsection 13].

If a drop of milk fell upon a pot in which a dish was cooked that was neither meat nor milk, and the pot was new or not ben yomo, and within twenty-four hours one cooked meat in it, even if there were not sixty against the drop—neither in the first dish nor in the second cooking of meat—the meat is permitted from whatever way you look at it. For if the drop did not previously pass into the dish, then it also did not pass into the meat; and even if it did pass inside initially, nevertheless, there is no milk in the pot except the amount mixed into the dish, for regarding permitted substances we do not consider the entire piece as the absorbed substance itself, and against this mixed amount there is presumably sixty [Taz subsection 24 in the name of Issur V'Heter HaAruch]. But if it initially fell not opposite the dish, and now it fell opposite the meat, one requires sixty in the meat against the drop, because we fear perhaps the drop did not previously pass inside since it was not opposite the broth, and now it passed inside, and the pot was not prohibited previously since it was new or not ben yoma. And similarly, if a kezayit of milk fell into a pot of water that was new or not ben yoma, and afterwards within twenty-four hours one cooked meat inside it, one does not require sixty except against the value of the milk mixed in the water [Chavat Da'at subsection 22]. And know that if one covered the pot, it is always as if it were opposite the broth even if it fell not opposite the broth, because by means of the cover the boiling rises to the top, as has been explained in the law of "stirred and covered" in section 7; and similarly if one stirred very well, it also appears so, and see what I wrote in section 43 and 44.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 7: If milk or another boiling forbidden substance was spilled upon the ground, and they placed a hot pot upon it, if that which was spilled is not near the fire, it is only like a kli sheni; therefore, the pot is forbidden because it absorbs a little, but the cooked food is permitted, for the bottom prevails. And a stream from a boiling pot that went to a cold pot, if the stream was severed from the boiling pot before it reached the cold one, it is also like a kli sheni, and if it was not severed, it is like irui, and the cold pot is forbidden if the hand is scalded by the stream touching the pot, and the cooked food within it is permitted, for irui only forbids to the thickness of a peel. But if the pot is hot and it is a kli rishon, and the kli sheni stands near the fire, even if the stream is cold, everything is forbidden, for the bottom prevails, and it is like cold into hot where everything is forbidden, as I wrote above in siman 91 (Shulchan Aruch siman 91). Thus far his words.

The explanation of the matters is that until now, the law of a drop that fell on a pot in the oven was explained, and now he explains a case where a pot of milk or other forbidden substance was overturned onto the floor of the oven, which is called the "pod." And behold, if the oven is hot, even if they placed a cold pot of meat in this location, everything is forbidden, for "the bottom prevails," if there is substance of milk in the place where they placed the pot, and one requires sixty against the milk; then the cooked food is permitted and the pot is forbidden. And the same law applies if at the time the milk was spilled and flowed over the surface of the oven, and the milk flowed under a meat pot standing there, the law is also thus: that one must estimate how much milk flowed under the meat pot, and if there is not sixty in the entire cooked food against the milk, everything is forbidden, and if there is sixty, the cooked food is permitted, but the pot is forbidden. And it appears to me that if the floor of the oven is level and smooth without pits, certainly there is sixty, because the milk certainly did not enter under the pot, but only around the pot at its bottom, and it is obvious that there is sixty against this, as is understood. And this is all when it was spilled in a place where the oven is hot, such as within the essence of the oven [see Shach, subsection 32].

But if it was spilled not near the fire, such as the place at the top of the oven called a pripetchik, where the heat does not dominate so much, we judge it only with the law of a kli sheni. Therefore, if they placed a pot of hot meat in this place, the pot is forbidden; and even though with an actual kli sheni we would not forbid the pot, nevertheless, since the pot is hot, it absorbs a k'dei klipah according to the law of hot into cold, and this is why he was precise to say that it absorbs a little. But regarding the cooked food, we judge this with the law of a kli sheni; therefore, even when the pot is hot, the food is permitted, as the pot serves in place of the klipah. And that which he wrote that tata'ah gavar requires explanation, for according to what we explained in siman 91, section 11, tata'ah gavar is not applicable in a case where the upper element is much greater than the lower element, as is understood by common sense; and how is it applicable to say that a pot full of hot food standing upon a little milk that is in a kli sheni, that the milk would cool it? However, the intention in my humble opinion is this: on the contrary, because the milk is a small amount, as is the way of milk spilled on an oven where there is not a large quantity of milk in one place, it does not have the power to cause absorption in the entire pot, and it is sufficient when it causes absorption of approximately a klipah or slightly more. Therefore, the thickness of the pot that separates between the milk and the meat food is sufficient. Nevertheless, the phrasing of tata'ah gavar requires further study.

And in truth, there are some of the poskim who said that if the pot is boiling due to the fire, the cooked food is also forbidden if there is not sixty in the food against what is beneath it, even when that which was spilled is cold [Shach, subsection 33 in the name of Yam Shel Shlomo]. And such is the primary ruling, because the heat of the fire in the pot boils the bottom and it absorbs [Taz, subsection 25]. And also what he wrote, that the milk has the status of a kli sheni, is only when the location of the spill is very far from the fire in a manner where the hand does not recoil there, but when the hand recoils there, we judge this location as a kli rishon, and such is the primary ruling [ibid.]. And according to this, in our ovens it is known that at the beginning of the stoking, the place in front of the oven which is called the pripetchik is not hot at all, and after the stoking, if they stoked the oven properly, then this place is also very hot; therefore, the posek must ask when it occurred, for this is a great principle for the ruling, and so one should instruct:

And that which he wrote regarding a stream from a boiling pot to a cold pot, to distinguish between whether the stream was interrupted or the stream was not interrupted, this is its explanation: for example, if a hot pot of milk stood in a hot oven, and before the oven or beneath the oven stood a pot of cold meat, and the pot of milk overturned in the oven and the stream flowed until beneath the pot of meat or into the pot. If it stood beneath the oven, the law is as follows: that if the stream was interrupted, its law is only like a kli sheni, and then even the pot is permitted; for since the stream was interrupted, certainly its great heat was also interrupted, if the place where the pot of meat stands is not yad soledet bo. For if in this place it is yad soledet, it is like a kli rishon even when the pot is cold [ibid. subsection 26]. But when the stream was not interrupted, it is like irui; that is to say, if the pot of meat stands beneath the oven, it is literally irui, and if it stands before the oven, its law is like irui which causes absorption to the depth of a kelipeh, and we do not say that it cooled by means of the crawling flow. And since its law is like irui, therefore if it flowed onto the wall of the pot or beneath the pot, the pot is forbidden because it absorbs to the depth of a kelipeh, and the cooked food is permitted, because the pot is in the place of the kelipeh. And if it fell into the cooked food, the cooked food requires kelipeh when it is a solid matter where kelipeh is applicable. And if it is a liquid matter, either it requires sixty against the kelipeh, or it requires nothing at all according to the laws that were explained in siman 91, section 16, see there; and this is when the hand is scalded by the stream, for if not so, it is nothing. And all this is when the pot of meat is cold, for if it is hot from the heat of a kli rishon, and all the more so when it stood close to the fire, it is obvious that even if the stream is cold everything is forbidden, for tata'ah gavar, and it is like cold into hot where the whole is forbidden. And it is not similar to issur and hetter that stand next to each other, one hot and one cold, where kelipeh suffices; for here, since the stream comes from above it is like ila'ah and the pot of meat is like tata'ah. Furthermore, since the pot of meat stands in its place, and the stream comes from without, it is considered tata'ah [Shach subsection 36]. And there is one who says that this is when it flowed onto the wall of the pot, but when it flowed beneath the pot, the milk has the law of tata'ah and does not forbid the food that is in the pot [Pri Chadash], and according to what I wrote in section 50 it is not so, see there.

The cover of a pot, at the time that the pot is boiling, for then the steam constantly rises and reaches the cover and returns from the cover and descends to the broth, then its law is like the pot itself, such that if a drop fell on the cover, it is the same law as if it fell on the pot. However, if the pot has not yet begun to boil, the cover has no connection to the cooked food in the pot, and if a drop of milk or a prohibited substance fell upon it, the cover is forbidden if it is hot, but the cooked food and the pot are permitted. And there is one who says that even at the time that the pot is boiling and forbids the cooked food if there is not sixty against the drop, nevertheless, even if there is sixty in the cooked food, the cover is forbidden when it does not itself have sixty against the drop, for granted that the boiling rises to the cover, nevertheless the broth does not join with it, and it is not similar to the pot itself which the cooked food is attached to [Taz, subsection 28 in the name of the Rashal]. And there is one who disagrees with this as is implied from the words of our teacher, the Rema, for whichever way you look at it: if it spreads upward, then everything is mixed and considered as one thing, and if it does not spread, why should we forbid what is in the pot [Pri Chadash, subsection 33]. And if a drop fell on the handle of the vessel, it is nothing, and he rinses it, and the pot is also permitted.

If one covered a meat dish with a dairy cover or vice versa, and the cover was ben yomo from the absorption of the first, and it remained for a proper amount of time in its covering over the second, one requires sixty against the entire cover even if it is perforated on top [Beit Yosef in the name of Sha'arei Dura]. And if one took a cover from a meat pot that is cooking near the fire, and covered a cold dairy pot with it, and it remained for a proper amount of time, the cover and the pot are forbidden, for it is impossible that the pot did not absorb from the boiling cover, just as a boiling drop that fell on a pot forbids the pot, and in a cover that is ben yomo there are many drops. But the dish is permitted, since it is cold and it is not certain that drops fell into the dish [ibid.], and it will be explained in siman 93 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 93).

A pan of milk that has milk in it, and they placed it on the stove under a pot of meat, and did not cover the pan, in a manner where the steam rises from the pan to the pot [in our ovens it is impossible for it to be so], the steam rises and forbids it because it is absorbed into the pot, and if there is not sixty in the pot against the milk in the pan, the pot and the meat are forbidden, because the steam rises upward and enters the meat. In what case are these words said? When the pot is so close to the pan that the hand is scalded by the steam exiting from it and it heats the pot, but if the pot is far from the pan to the point that the hand is not scalded by it due to the steam, or if the pan is covered, it is permitted. And for this reason, they hang meat to dry over the stove, even though they sometimes cook pots of milk on the stove, because the meat is very far from it. And that which we permitted with a covered pan, even if they touch one another we have no concern, just as it is with two pots in an oven that touch one another, which do not forbid one another through touching, for absorbed matter does not exit from pot to pot without liquid, and it is more lenient than hot meat and cheese that touch one another where if one is fatty it forbids its fellow, but with pots even when absorbed with fat we have no concern. Therefore, if they baked in an oven a pan of milk, and they set the pan itself on the floor of the oven, and afterward in that same place they set there a pot of hot meat, since the milk is not present in substance, the law of this place is like a pot, and it is like two pots touching one another [Taz subsection 29]. And see Orach Chaim siman 451 section 22 [and in Magen Avraham there subsection 44 and examine carefully]. [See Pitchei Teshuva subsection 6 to distinguish between the steam of liquids and the steam of foods, and there is no distinction, only that it depends on fatness]:

And behold, regarding the law of zi'ah, it is clarified for us from the Mishnah in Makhshirin (Mishnah Makhshirin 5:10) that zi'ah is only relevant in an enclosed place, and not in an open place, such as in a stove where the lower pot is placed within it and the upper one stands upon it, and the zi'ah rises all around because it has no place to exit; but in an open place, such as in our ovens where there is air, the zi'ah rises into the air and does not forbid the pot adjacent to it. And it is also clarified from there that this is specifically when the upper one does not contain a hot cooked food, for if it also contains a hot cooked food from which zi'ah rises, the zi'ah of the lower one also has no effect upon it. And thus we learned there: One who pours from hot into hot, or from cold into cold, or from hot into cold, it is tahor. From cold into hot, it is tamei. And the Rambam explained: Because the column of liquid which is called nitzok becomes heated when its end is in the hot, tamei vessel, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, it is clarified that it is specifically when its end is in the hot, tamei vessel, meaning that its end is enclosed by the lower one, but without this, the zi'ah has no effect upon it. And also from the fact that it says "from hot into hot is tahor," and they explained it with the reason that since the upper one is hot, the effect of the lower one is not discernible in it, see there, [and so wrote the Bartenura and the Tosafot Yom Tov, see there, and it is explicitly proven according to our words. And according to this, for us, where the cooking is in open places, the zi'ah does not forbid at all, and it is like the stream being interrupted, as is understood. And also if the upper one is hot, the zi'ah has no effect. And that which the Beit Yosef wrote in the name of the Mahari, the intention is a pot without liquid, or when it is covered, and in the Responsa of the Rosh, Klal 20, Din 26, it is explicitly so. And that which was questioned in the Chiddushei Hagahot on the Tur there is not a difficulty at all according to what I wrote, see there, and examine carefully].

If they placed a boiling pot on a place where chelev is stuck, or a pot of meat on a place where butter or congealed milk is stuck, in a manner where the chelev or the butter melted due to the heat, the pot is forbidden, and the cooked food is permitted, according to the law of hot into cold which requires kelipah, and here the pot is in the place of the kelipah [Darkhei Moshe, sign 11], and as I wrote in section 49, see there. And a candle of chelev that is wrapped around the wick like our candles and like wax candles, and a drop dripped from it onto a vessel, it requires nothing but scraping which is like kelipah, because we feel through the sense of touch that its heat is not as hot as heat caused by fire; but other melted hot chelev caused by fire that fell on a vessel requires hagalah, and so too with a candle burning from melted chelev that fell from the place where the wick burns, it is considered as boiling due to fire. And so too a candle of chelev when it is burning and it fell into a bowl and was extinguished there, it is like heat caused by fire, and it forbids the bowl. However, with our candles where the chelev stands for many days and is very foul-smelling, it is a giver of a flavor that impairs, and the bowl is permitted after they scrape the chelev [Kereti U-Peleti, small sign 32]. And there are those who are careful not to light a tobacco pipe from a candle of chelev, because he draws the fat of the chelev into his mouth, and there are those who permit it from the upper flame which has no fat at all, and one who is careful, a blessing shall come upon him, and one who is lenient, we do not protest against him. [Atzei Levonah, small sign 30, who elaborated to prove that if one removed a spoon with food from a boiling pot, the status of a kli rishon is upon the spoon, and if he removed it empty, the status of a kli rishon is not upon it, see there, and with the help of Heaven in siman 107 this will be explained, see there]: