Siman 94

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote: One who inserts a dairy spoon into a meat pot, or vice versa, we estimate based on everything that was inserted of it into the pot, if the spoon was "ben yomo," that is, it was used in a kli rishon within twenty-four hours. And there is one who says that if the spoon is of metal, we estimate based on all of it, because "if part of it is hot, all of it is hot," but the first opinion is primary, and so we practice. Thus far their words. And that which they wrote to estimate based on everything that was inserted into the pot, and they did not write what was inserted into the cooked food, was to teach that one must estimate based on everything the spoon was inserted into the pot, even what is outside the cooked food. For example, if the cooked food did not reach the rim of the pot, nevertheless, the steam rising from the cooked food is as if the pot were full of cooked food up to its rim; but regarding what is outside the pot, the steam is not effective, because it spreads throughout the house [Pleiti]. And the proof for this is that in siman 92, section 14, according to the opinion that holds that a piece that is partially in broth is considered as if all of it is in broth, because the broth extracts even from what is outside of it, if so, it is also thus in a pot. And even according to the opinion that does not hold thus regarding a piece, nevertheless, regarding a pot he admits, for the extraction from a vessel is easier than the extraction from a piece, as we established regarding a piece that it is impossible to squeeze out all the forbidden substance from there, as is explained there, but for a pot, hagalah is effective [ibid.].

And this requirement to measure against the entire submerged portion is because we do not know how much the spoon absorbed. Therefore, if we know how much it absorbed—for example, if it is new and they only used it with a kezayit of boiling milk, or if it is an old spoon but within this twenty-four hour period they only used it with a kezayit of boiling milk—one does not need to measure sixty except against the kezayit, and so too in any similar case. And if it is not clear how much he submerged, we say that presumably he submerged it until the head of the spoon, for such is the way [Shach]. However, when he says how much he submerged, he is believed, and we do not say "a matter that is not incumbent upon a person, he does not pay attention to it," for regarding an action that a person performs with his hands for his own use, his mind is focused upon it. [See Pitchei Teshuva subsection 1 what he wrote in the name of the Noda BiYehuda, and he disputed him and from the Pri Megadim; and according to what I have written it is well-settled, for this is incumbent upon him, and also a woman is believed, and there is no reason to doubt this at all; and delve into it]:

There is one who wrote that the measure of sixty against a spoon is one and a half quarts, and the wooden stirring spoon is two quarts, which is half a pot of our country [Ba'er Heitev subsection 6], and such is the custom among the poskim. However, this is regarding wooden spoons, but for a copper or silver spoon, less than this is sufficient, because they are thinner than wooden spoons, and especially if one were to melt them in fire, the quantity would be very small. Furthermore, even with wooden spoons, it depends on the assessment of the eyes of the posek, and it is impossible to give a general rule in this, for spoons are not equal in all places.

And that which they wrote, that it was used as a kli rishon within twenty-four hours, this refers to when it was used with milk; but when it was used with water, or with a cooked dish that contains neither meat nor milk, we do not calculate the twenty-four hours from this usage, but rather from the time it was used with milk. And it is not similar to a spoon of prohibited matter where we calculate the twenty-four hours even from the usage of water alone, as will be explained in this siman, for there it is because it becomes neveilah, and regarding permitted usage this is not applicable [Shach, subsection 2]. And we have already explained in siman 92, section 34, that when there was a cooked dish of milk and water, one only needs to measure according to the proportion of the milk within it, and not like those who were uncertain about this, see there. And know that the kli rishon must be at the temperature of yad soledet bo, and there is one who wishes to be stringent even when it is not yad soledet bo, but it is not the primary view, for even when standing near the fire, if it is not yad soledet bo, it is nothing, and it will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 105 [see Taz, subsection 1, that our teacher, the Rema, ruled so in Torat Chattat].

And just as it is forbidden through insertion, so too it is forbidden through pouring, such as if one poured boiling milk onto a meat spoon, or vice versa; and similarly, if one poured boiling water from a kli rishon onto a meat vessel and a milk vessel and they are dirty, there is a prohibition just as with a kli rishon, according to what will be explained below in siman 95 ibid. However, pouring only causes absorption and discharge to the extent of a k'dei klipah, and if so, one only needs to measure sixty against the klipah. And there is one who holds that in a clay vessel it absorbs into the whole of it, as will be explained in siman 105, but the primary ruling is not so, and there it will be explained with the help of Heaven; and similarly in siman 95 these laws will be explained.

And regarding that which they wrote, that there is one who says that with a metal spoon one measures against the whole of it even if he only inserted part of it, because with metal, when part of it is hot, the whole of it is hot—nevertheless, the first opinion is the primary one, for even granted that the whole of it is hot, nonetheless it does not conduct its absorption throughout the whole of it, and all the more so it does not expel from the whole of it. And even though we said in siman 92, section 40, regarding a pot, that during cooking the absorption permeates throughout the entire pot, this is when it stands near the fire [Pri Megadim in Shiftei Da'at, subsection 3] and is cooking there, and not with a mere insertion. And the benefit from the fact that the whole of it is hot is that if an forbidden substance touched the other end, it is absorbed there, for we judge it as hot and not as cold, but not regarding absorption and expulsion. And there is one who says that also regarding absorption the whole of it is hot, but not regarding expulsion, as in this law where one does not need to measure against the whole of it because it does not expel from the whole of it, but it does absorb in the whole of it [Magen Avraham, siman 451, subsection 24]. And the practical difference is if he subsequently inserted the other side into a cooked food, the food is forbidden if there is not sixty against the place of the insertion. However, the opinion of most of the great Acharonim is not so [as the Shach wrote in siman 121, subsection 17].

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 2: If one thrust the spoon into the pot two times and it was not known in between, one requires two times sixty. Thus far their words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: And there are those who say that one time sixty is sufficient, and such is the custom. Thus far his words. The commentators explained that the reason they required two times sixty is that initially one requires sixty against the milk, and we concern ourselves that perhaps the spoon did not expel all that was absorbed within it and a small amount of milk remained in it, and when he removed it from the pot the entire spoon became neveilah from meat in milk, and one requires another sixty against that which was newly created in the second thrusting; therefore, one must nullify the spoon with sixty also in the second time [Shach, subsection 4, and Taz, subsection 2]. And therefore they only wrote "two times," for more than this is not necessary even if he thrust it several times, for they follow their reasoning in siman 92 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 92) that we do not say "a piece becomes neveilah" except regarding meat in milk and not regarding other prohibitions; therefore, against the second time that it became meat in milk one requires another time sixty, but that which he thrust afterward when it was already prohibited and is like other prohibitions as is written there in section 29, one does not require another sixty [ibid.].

And that which they wrote, "and it was not known in the interim," for if it had been known the first time that there was sixty against the spoon, everything in the pot would have already been permitted, and it would be as if it had not been inserted at all; therefore, if he inserted it afterward, he only requires sixty one time as before. But their words are puzzling, for while it is true that we find in the fifth chapter of Terumot (Mishnah Terumot 5:8) a distinction regarding the falling of terumah into chullin two times between "known" and "not known," nevertheless our teacher, the Beit Yosef, himself in his great work at the end of siman 99, wrote that one cannot learn from terumah for other prohibitions. Furthermore, the Tur himself in siman 109 regarding the law of "dry in dry" wrote this distinction between "known" and "not known," that in a case where it was known, even if he cooked it afterward, a majority is sufficient, and in a case where it was not known, sixty is required; and nevertheless, he wrote that if after it was nullified by a majority more of the prohibited substance was added, it becomes prohibited again even when it was known, see there. And so too our teacher, the Beit Yosef, at the end of siman 99 in his great work, it is explained from his words that when a kezayit of prohibited substance falls into sixty zaitim of permitted substance and is nullified, if another kezayit of prohibited substance falls afterward, it is "awakened again" (chozer veni'or). If so, what benefit is there here in it being "known"? For the spoon remains in its prohibited state as will be explained, and if so, when we consider the spoon as neveilah, when they insert it another time, it is as if the prohibition was added to and it is "awakened again," and what does the knowledge avail? And if we say that here, regarding a swallowed prohibition where it is all one prohibition and one piece, it is not applicable to say "awakened again," if so, from where do we have it to say that when it is "not known" one requires two times sixty, since this is no comparison at all to a prohibition that was added to? And indeed, this is the opinion of our teacher, the Rema. And our teachers, the Rishonim, the Rosh [Chapter Gid HaNasheh, section 37] and the Mordechai [Chapter 9 of Bava Kamma] did not write this law that one requires two times sixty except regarding a food item in "dry in dry," as the Tur wrote in siman 109, and not regarding a swallowed substance and in one piece like this spoon. [See Shach, subsection 5, who was precise from the words of the Beit Yosef at the end of siman 99, and I do not know why he did not raise a difficulty from the words of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch in siman 109; and the Peleti, subsection 4, labored much over what "added prohibition" there is here; and see Bach; and delve into this]:

Therefore, it appears to me that a different intention is hidden in this entire matter. For behold, we have already written in siman 92, section 4, regarding that which was explained there concerning a kezayit of meat that fell into a cauldron of milk, that sixty against the kezayit of meat is sufficient. For by the letter of the law, we should have required, in a case where one did not preemptively remove it, no less than two kezayitim, since the kezayit of milk that it absorbed and then expelled becomes neveilah. And the Ramban similarly raised a difficulty regarding all prohibitions according to the one who holds that a piece becomes neveilah in all prohibitions; see there in section 5. And we explained there that the reason is because that which was prohibited does not have the power to prohibit more than the prohibiting substance itself. According to this, regarding a milky spoon that was thrust into a pot of meat, if they did not remove it immediately from the pot, it has absorbed a kezayit of meat and expelled it with the kezayit of milk into the pot. We should have required two times sixty: one against the meat and one against the milk. However, because of the reason we stated, it is not necessary. And this is only with one thrusting; but with two thrustings, where each one is an act unto itself, it is certainly necessary to have two times sixty. And their intention is not to compare this to terumah or to a prohibition of dry-in-dry where two kezayitim fell one after the other, for these matters are not related to each other; for here, even in a single falling, we should have required two times sixty. And that which they distinguished between if it became known and if it did not become known is also not because of the matter in terumah and dry-in-dry, but is merely an example. For just as there, when it became known, the previous prohibition was nullified, so too here. And when it did not become known, one needs two times sixty just as there, since the prohibition was not nullified and they are two acts; therefore, one needs two times sixty: one against the milk that the spoon expelled, and one against the meat that the spoon absorbed and subsequently expelled. And I found support for my words from the words of the Terumat HaDeshen, siman 183 [who wrote, and this is his wording: In the chapter "Kol HaBasar" we maintain (Chullin 108a) a kezayit of meat that fell etc., and it is brought there in Tosafot etc., and if so, the milk becomes a piece of neveilah etc., and we require sixty etc., and one of the great ones wanted to bring proof for the words of the Smak above to require two times sixty even with a spoon of other prohibitions etc. Thus far his words. Behold, he linked this to that, and this is exactly like our words; see there where he concludes the law like our teacher, the Rema, and delve into it]:

However, regarding the law, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that one time sixty is sufficient, and such is the custom not to ask whether there was one insertion or two insertions, because that which is absorbed within the spoon does not become nevelah. And even though in siman 98 it will be explained that we are concerned to say that the absorbed matter becomes nevelah, see there, nevertheless, in this case where the primary reason for the prohibition is not certain to us, and there is no new matter added beyond the first insertion since it is the very same spoon from the first insertion, we are not concerned for this stringency to say that the absorbed matter becomes nevelah. Therefore, one time sixty is sufficient, whether regarding meat in milk or regarding other prohibitions, even if one inserted many insertions one after another. And such is the simple custom and one should not change it. Also, the author of Terumat HaDeshen wrote there that he did not see from teachers of law that they would ask how many insertions there were, see there.

Nevertheless, there is one who wrote that if one inserted the spoon into a pot and there were sixty, and afterward one inserted it into another pot that did not have sixty, and afterward one returned and inserted it into the first, that one requires sixty two times [Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 4 in the name of Chamudei Daniel]. And his reasoning appears to be because a new prohibition was renewed in the spoon that the second pot prohibited, and everything it absorbed from the second is certainly a prohibition. Nevertheless, it does not appear to me to say so, for since the primary foundation of the permit is built upon the fact that the absorbed substance does not become neveilah, if so, there is no distinction in this; for the spoon itself was prohibited even from its first insertion, and despite all this, one only requires sixty one time, and if so, even when it prohibited the second pot, no essence of prohibition was added to it, and the absorbed substance does not become neveilah.

If there is sixty to nullify the spoon, the pot and the cooked food are permitted, but the spoon is forbidden whether with meat or with milk, and so too with other matters, because the spoon becomes neveilah as it has absorbed both meat and milk. We do not say that what was inserted into the pot is like hagalah from the first absorption since there is sixty against it, and that the status of the spoon should be like the status of the pot—if meat, meat, and if milk, milk—for hagalah is only in boiling water that produces bubbles, whereas regarding the requirement of sixty, it is sufficient with yad soledet bo. Furthermore, we require sixty from the entire spoon even in a case of doubt if all of it was inserted, and hagalah is only effective if it is certain that all of it was inserted [Beit Yosef in the name of the Semak]. Furthermore, regarding what is absorbed from meat, hagalah is not applicable in milk, and so too the reverse, for ultimately that which is inside becomes neveilah [Kreiti U'Pleiti subsection 9].

And even ex post facto it is forbidden if they used the spoon with a boiling substance from a kli rishon, whether with meat or with milk, as long as it is within its day from the first usage. And even if it is not within its day from the time of the cooking of the milk, if it is within its day from its first prohibited absorption, it renders it forbidden even ex post facto [Shach, subsection 10]. However, if they used it after a twenty-four hour period from the first prohibited absorption, it is permitted, for it is a giver of a flavor that impairs; but initially it is forbidden to use it for any boiling usage even after a twenty-four hour period, since it has become nevelah [ibid.]. And know that all of this is when the spoon was used in a truly milky pot, where there was milk in the pot, and they thrust it into a truly meaty pot, where there was meat in the pot. But when there was no meat in the pot, even though it was within its day from the cooking of meat, there are other laws for this; and likewise when there was no milk in the pot in which they used the spoon, and it will be explained before us with the help of Heaven in section 16.

And if there is not sixty in the pot against the spoon, everything is forbidden for benefit according to the law of basar be-chalav, and the food should be thrown into the lavatory or to another filthy place, and it is forbidden to give it even to a dog, even if it is not his [Taz subsection 4]. And there are those who permit giving it to a dog that is not his, and only regarding chametz on Pesach is it forbidden, and not regarding other prohibitions of benefit. And in the pot, it is forbidden to place any boiling cooked food, and even cold cooked food should not be placed in it as was written in siman 91 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 91) section 4, and there are detailed laws in this as is explained there. And it is permitted to place within it fruits or other dry cold things, since he does not benefit from the essence of the prohibition, and likewise it is permitted to heat within it lye for washing the head, and likewise other things that are not for the purpose of eating and drinking are permitted [Taz subsection 4], and such is the law regarding the spoon. And if he cooked in it afterwards when it was not ben yomo, the cooked food is permitted, and there is one who requires casting the value of the pot into the river so that he does not benefit from the cooking of the pot, but it is not the primary view [Shach subsection 11], and all this is when the spoon was ben yomo.

But if the spoon was not ben yomo and they thrust it into a pot of meat, even if there is not sixty in the cooked food against the spoon, the pot and the cooked food are permitted, and the spoon is forbidden lekhatchila whether with meat or with milk, whether there was sixty against it or there was not sixty against it, for in any event it has absorbed meat in milk, and even to use it with boiling liquids of other things is forbidden according to the custom that will be explained in section 20. Nevertheless, bediavad, if they thrust it into the species that they thrust it into the first time, even within twenty-four hours it is permitted; but if they thrust it into the species that it had absorbed initially, if it was within twenty-four hours of the first thrusting, the pot and the cooked food are forbidden if there is not sixty against it. And the reason is simple, for against the first species it is after twenty-four hours, and against the species they thrust it into it is within twenty-four hours. And it is simple that if it is after twenty-four hours of the first thrusting, in any case it is permitted bediavad, and likewise even within twenty-four hours and they thrust it into hot water or vegetables that have neither meat nor milk, it is also permitted bediavad. And likewise it is a simple matter that a spoon that was forbidden from meat in milk, or from other prohibitions by law, and they thrust it into cooked food that has neither meat nor milk, that one requires sixty against the spoon when it is bat yoma, and if there is not sixty in it everything is forbidden, and such is the law regarding a pot when it was forbidden and they used it for some hot thing within twenty-four hours, everything is forbidden.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: If they boiled water in a new pot and inserted a dairy spoon into it, and afterwards they again boiled water in it a second time and inserted a meat spoon into it, and both spoons were used within the day, and in neither of the times was there sixty in the water, it is forbidden to use the pot for either meat or milk, but other things are permitted to be boiled, since it was new and they had never boiled in it. However, if one transgressed and boiled meat or milk in it, it is permitted, as it is like a secondary flavor. Thus far his words.

The great Acharonim challenged him: why is it forbidden to cook meat or milk ab initio? Behold, there are three transfers of flavor here, for the milk gave flavor to the spoon, and the spoon to the water, and the water to the pot, and it is still permitted flavor. According to all opinions that will be explained in siman 95 regarding the laws of nat bar nat, everyone agrees that with three flavors it is permitted even ab initio. If so, it is permitted even ab initio to use it for whichever one desires, meat or milk [Shach subsection 15, and Peri Chadash subsection 14]. However, nevertheless, one should ab initio establish for it the last usage, and here, since the cooking of meat was last, one should establish for it meat usage [Shach ibid. at the end]. Furthermore, even if the pot was of meat and ben yomo, and one inserted into it a milky spoon that was ben yomo, and there was not sixty in the water of the pot against the spoon, the pot is also not forbidden due to the reason of nat bar nat, since there is currently no meat in the pot [ibid.]:

And I say that certainly it is so, and this matter was not hidden, Heaven forbid, from the eyes of our teacher, the Beit Yosef; rather, he holds that regarding a food item, it is certainly permitted to have nat bar nat even l'chatchila, as in siman 95 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 95) regarding fish that were served on a plate, where it is permitted to eat them with kutach. Since his desire is to eat the fish with milk, and according to the law it is permitted, it is impossible to say to you "eat them without milk," and this is considered like b'di'avad. However, regarding a pot, certainly when the pot is of meat and they cooked in it within twenty-four hours a dish without meat, and they inserted into it a milky spoon that was ben yomo and there is not sixty in the pot, the pot remains permitted to cook meat in it as before. But in a new pot where two opposing nat bar nat of milk and of meat occurred and there is not sixty here—for if there were sixty, it would be considered as if it were not there at all—but when there is not sixty here, although nat bar nat is permitted, this is in a case of b'di'avad like with food. But regarding a pot, it is like l'chatchila, and why should he use it for meat or milk? Behold, it is within his power to use it for other things. This is the reasoning of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, that nat bar nat is permitted only b'di'avad, for in any event there is a bit of taste, and although it does not forbid, this is b'di'avad and not l'chatchila. And it is not similar to where there is sixty, for with sixty it is considered as if it were not there, and it is a clear reasoning with the help of Heaven, [and I learned this from the words of the Taz, of blessed memory, on the last page cited in the Pri Megadim in the Siftei Da'at at the end of subsection 15, see there, and examine it closely]. And this is why it says "since it was new and they never cooked in it," meaning that if the pot were old, whether within twenty-four hours or after twenty-four hours, a matter that comes through nat bar nat does not prevent the previous usage, for this is like b'di'avad since they already used it. But with a new pot, it is like l'chatchila, and he can use it for other usages.

And according to this, a new law will be innovated for us regarding nat bar nat in vessels: in a new pot in which one cooked water or vegetables or another dish without meat and without milk, and one inserted into it a dairy spoon that was ben yomo and there is not sixty in the pot against the spoon, the pot becomes dairy, and one may establish for it dairy usage ab initio. And similarly, when one inserted into it a meat spoon that was ben yomo and there is not sixty in the pot against the spoon, one may establish for it meat usage ab initio [and this is also according to the opinion of the Shach at the end of subsection 15]. And when one inserted into it both spoons, they shall use it for other things. And this is all when there is not sixty, but with sixty it is considered as if it is non-existent, because the reason is that more than sixty is considered as if it is non-existent. Therefore, if one spoon is not ben yomo, they shall use it like the spoon that was ben yomo, as will be explained. And if both of them are not benei yoman, it is permitted to establish for it whichever usage one desires.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: A pot in which one cooked vegetables or water, and one inserted into it a spoon that was ben yomo and the pot was not ben yomo, or vice versa, or if there is sixty in the food, everything is permitted; however, we are accustomed to be stringent to eat the food as the type of the vessel that is ben yomo, and to forbid the vessel that is not ben yomo, and it is merely a general stringency, for according to the law everything is permitted. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote, "and we are accustomed to be stringent etc.," does not apply to where there is sixty in the food, for with sixty one should not be stringent at all [Shach subsection 17], and one may eat the food with whichever type one desires.

The explanation of his words: for example, if there was a meat pot that was not a ben yomo from the cooking of meat, and now they cooked vegetables or water in it without meat, and they inserted into it a dairy spoon that was a ben yomo, and there is not sixty in the pot against the spoon, according to the essential law everything is permitted. For the pot remains meat as it was, and the spoon did not forbid it, because it is nat bar nat. And even though regarding the law of two spoons in a new pot it was explained not to use it for either meat or milk, that is because the pot is new; but with an old one, one does not nullify the previous usage, as I wrote in section 18. [And this is also the intention of the Shach at the end of sub-section 21, see there; and see Taz sub-section 9, and according to what he himself wrote on the final page, this is not necessary, and examine this closely.] And the cooked food, according to the law, one may eat either with meat or with milk. For with milk it is certainly permitted, because the pot, which is meat, is not a ben yomo and imparts a flavor for the worse (noten ta'am lifgam); and with meat it is also permitted, because the dairy spoon is nat bar nat. And even according to the one who is stringent in siman 95 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 95) regarding nat bar nat in cooking, it can also be said that the insertion of a spoon is not complete cooking. However, the custom is to forbid the pot entirely even to cook other things in it, and to eat the food in dairy vessels, and not to eat it with either meat or milk. And there is no reason for these stringencies, except that some are accustomed to this. Therefore, one who cannot eat without meat or milk should eat it with milk, which is the ben yomo [Kereti U-Peleti sub-section 15]. And consequently, if the matter is the opposite—that the pot is a ben yomo and the spoon is not a ben yomo—it is the opposite. And we have already written in section 18 that regarding the eating of the food, the distinction between "lekhatchila" and "bedi'avad" does not apply, and likewise with an old pot. Therefore, this stringency is only in a place where they are accustomed to it. And with this, all his words are explained. [And there is no need for the emendation of the Shach sub-section 18; and regarding the ruling, the Shach also agrees, except that he holds that the insertion of a spoon is like cooking, and therefore for the one who forbids nat bar nat in cooking, it is forbidden to eat the food with the substance that is opposite the ben yomo; and examine this closely.]

The Tur wrote in the name of the Sefer HaTerumot: even though regarding other prohibitions, a pot of a prohibited substance that remained for a twenty-four hour period without a prohibited substance, if water was heated in it within the twenty-four hour period, it is considered as "within its day" etc., and it requires a twenty-four hour period after the heating of the water; regarding meat and milk it is not so, for if they cooked meat in it and within the twenty-four hour period water was heated in it, and after it remained for a twenty-four hour period from the cooking of the meat they cooked milk in it, it is permitted even though it is within the twenty-four hour period of the heating of the water. Thus far his words.

Now, according to the one who holds that a piece becomes carrion regarding other prohibitions, the reason for the distinction is simple: for with meat, it is a second-generation flavor of permitted matter—from the meat to the pot, and from the pot to the water, and from the water to the pot—and consequently the flavor of the meat is weakened. However, regarding a prohibition, it is entirely carrion, and when the water was cooked within the twenty-four hour period, it is like the cooking of the prohibition itself; therefore, one requires twenty-four hours from the cooking of the water. But even according to the one who does not hold that a piece becomes carrion regarding other prohibitions, nevertheless, regarding a prohibited matter, wherever there is the flavor of the prohibition, it is like the substance of the prohibition, and the concept of a second-generation flavor does not apply to a prohibition [Shach, subsection 22, and Derishah]. And even though ultimately, since the prohibition is not from the water but rather because of the flavor of the prohibition within it, and behold the flavor of the prohibition has already become tainted as it is after twenty-four hours—as indeed there are those who wish to say so [Pri Chadash, subsection 20]—yet in truth, twenty-four hours have not passed over the prohibition either. For when they heated the water in the pot, the pot expelled the prohibition into the water and re-absorbed it, and since the prohibition was expelled into the water, it is then as if the prohibition itself is present, and one counts the twenty-four hours from that time. But with meat, since it is permitted, the flavor is weakened, and it is a second-generation flavor; and granted that at the time of heating the water it is as if the meat itself is present, nevertheless, it is only a weak flavor [and so it appears from the Pri Megadim there]. Therefore, the Tur transcribed this law even though he holds in siman 92 (Tur Yoreh Deah 92) that we do not say a piece becomes carrion except regarding meat in milk. [And the Beit Yosef wrote the reason is because a piece becomes carrion, and therefore he did not transcribe this law in the Shulchan Aruch because he also holds like the Tur in siman 92 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 92); however, this requires further study, for if so, how did the Tur write it? And the Shach and the Derishah have already questioned him]:

The Tur further wrote that even though regarding other prohibitions in the Torah, a prohibited substance absorbed in a permitted substance—such as onions that have absorbed a prohibition and one cooked them in a permitted pot—requires sixty times against all the onions, and sixty against the absorption alone is not sufficient, in the case of meat and milk it is not so. For if onions or vegetables have absorbed meat, and one cooked them in a dairy pot, if it is known how much meat is absorbed in the onions and vegetables, one only requires sixty against the meat and not against all the onions and vegetables. Thus far the words of the Tur. And ostensibly, also in this case the reason implies that because regarding prohibitions we say "the piece itself becomes a carcass," it is as if all the onions have become a prohibition, and therefore one requires sixty against all the onions; and so wrote the Levush, see there. But it is impossible to say so, for the Tur does not hold this way, as I have written. Therefore, there is one who wrote that in this, even according to one who does not hold "the piece itself becomes a carcass" regarding all prohibitions, the reason here is that it deals with a case where he cut the onions very thin with a prohibited knife, and for each piece we require sixty against the whole knife, and when he threw all the thin pieces into the pot we require many times the volume of the whole knife, like the insertion of a spoon into a pot two times which was explained above, and therefore it follows automatically that one certainly requires sixty against all the onions [Derisha]. And the reason is not so clear, and besides this, it is not explained in the Tur that he cut them into thin pieces. And it appears more likely to me from the source of the law [brought in the Beit Yosef] that in truth it is only a mere stringency, because the status of a prohibition took effect upon all the onions and all the vegetables, therefore one requires sixty against all of them, [and particularly according to what the Ran wrote at the end of the chapter "Kol HaBasar" that even for the one who does not hold "the piece itself becomes a carcass," nevertheless "that which can be squeezed out is prohibited," it fits even better, and so it appears in the Beit Yosef, see there, and examine this carefully]:

And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 6: Onions or vegetables that have absorbed meat, and one cooked them in a dairy pot—if it is known how much meat is absorbed in the onions and the vegetables, one does not require sixty except against the meat, for the concept of "the piece itself becomes forbidden" is not applicable since it is all still permitted; therefore, one only needs to measure against what was absorbed. And all the more so in a dairy pot in which one cooked water within twenty-four hours, and afterwards one cooked meat in it, we do not say that one must measure against all the water, but only against the milk that the pot absorbed. Thus far their words. And "until against the meat" is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and from there onwards is the wording of our teacher, the Rema. And there is one who wrote that what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote regarding "absorbed meat" was not to exclude other prohibitions, for he holds that we do not say "the piece itself becomes forbidden" regarding other prohibitions; rather, his intention was to exclude onions that were entirely absorbed with milk that subsequently absorbed meat, where sixty against the meat is not sufficient [Shach, subsection 23], and how forced this is. And there is one who wrote that it comes to teach us a novel point: that even regarding meat and milk where we say "the piece itself becomes forbidden," nevertheless, there are times where even regarding meat and milk we do not say "the piece itself becomes forbidden," and that is when it is all still permitted [Pri Chadash, subsection 21]. And this is even more wonderous, for it is obvious that since there is no prohibition in the meat alone, how is it relevant to say "the piece itself becomes forbidden," and this is nothing but astonishing.

In my humble opinion, his intention is clear: even though in his great work it implies that the reason depends on "the piece itself becomes a carcass," nevertheless, since he saw that the Tur transcribed this law even though he also holds that we do not say "the piece itself becomes a carcass" regarding other prohibitions, it proves that it is not due to this reason, but rather because of the weakening of the flavor. Therefore, he only wrote this law regarding those absorbed from a permitted state and not regarding those absorbed from a prohibited state. Our teacher, the Rema, who wrote "and it is not relevant to say 'the piece itself becomes a carcass' etc.," did not trouble himself to explain another reason, because he ruled in siman 92 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 92) that we do say "the piece itself becomes a carcass" regarding other prohibitions, and if so, the reason is simple. Afterward, he wrote: and all the more so in a milk pot in which one cooked water within twenty-four hours, and afterward one cooked meat in it within twenty-four hours of the cooking of the milk [Taz, subsection 11], that one only needs to measure against the milk that the pot absorbed. And this is "all the more so" from the previous law, because here there is no absorption from the milk itself, and the flavor of the absorbed milk was already weakened by the water [Taz]. And the essence of his intention is also explained according to what we explained: that just as in this law regarding the cooking of a prohibition, if one cooked water within twenty-four hours it is not relevant to say that the prohibition was weakened even according to the one who does not hold "the piece itself becomes a carcass" regarding other prohibitions—and as we explained in section 23, that this is why the Tur transcribed this law—so too in the previous law. And the essence of his intention is that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, also holds so, as is proven from his words.

And know that this which has been explained regarding onions that have absorbed from meat and one cooked them in a dairy pot—that one requires sixty against the meat they absorbed—if there is sixty, even the onions are permitted; even if they did not dissolve or become crushed, one does not need to discard the onions. However, if one cut onions with a forbidden knife, even if there is sixty, one must separate the onions from the cooked food by means of straining or in another manner, for we establish that "it is possible to squeeze it out" is forbidden [Shach, subsection 23 in the name of Maharam of Lublin]. And there are those who disagree and hold that even with those that have absorbed from meat, one must clarify the onions and discard them. For while we say that the milk entering the onions does not become nevelah because the entire pot joins together, nevertheless, the taste of the meat that is in the onions certainly becomes nevelah by means of the milk, for regarding the absorbed taste, the joining of the pot is not relevant. And since that which is absorbed in the onions becomes nevelah, how can they be permitted? And one cannot say that the pot extracts all the meat taste that is in the onions, for it is impossible to say so, as we establish that "it is possible to squeeze it out" is forbidden, meaning that it is impossible to squeeze out all of the forbidden substance, and consequently, it is impossible to squeeze out every bit of taste [Peleti, subsection 8], and so it appears primary for the law. [And every law of onions mentioned here refers to where they had absorbed from meat throughout, such as if they were cooked with meat, or were cut very finely; but if one cut the onions in one place, it was explained in siman 96 that one only requires sixty against the place of removal, as the Taz wrote in subsection 10, see there]:

Hot meat that was cut with a dairy knife, the entire piece is forbidden if it does not have sixty times against the place of the knife that cut the meat. And it is not similar to the knife of a non-Jew that one slaughtered with, where a peeling is sufficient as written in siman 10, even though we hold the place of slaughter is hot as written there; for there, the entire animal is not hot, only the place of slaughter, but a piece that is entirely hot, when one cuts it with a dairy knife, it spreads through the whole of it [Tur], and therefore one needs sixty against the place of the knife that cut. And even though in siman 105 it will be explained that anything without liquid requires only the removal of the place because the flavor does not spread further, nevertheless here, where there is the pressure of the knife, it can be said that the flavor spreads through the entire piece [Shach, subsection 27]. And even though regarding a sharp food it will be explained in siman 96 that it does not spread further than the removal of the place, it can be said that regarding the spreading of the prohibition, heat is more potent than a sharp food [ibid.]. But in truth, it is a difficult thing to say that the pressure of the knife would cause it to spread through the entire piece, and it is explicitly proven from the words of the Rashba and the Ra'avad [in Torat HaBayit] that regarding the matter of the pressure of the knife, a sharp food is equal to complete heat [Pri Chadash, subsection 23]. Therefore, it appears more likely that the reason is because an ordinary dairy knife has the fattiness of butter upon it, and also in meat there is fat, and regarding a fatty substance it was explained in siman 105 that it forbids up to sixty [Shach, ibid.], and all this is when the knife is ben yomo from use with hot dairy in a kli rishon.

And this, that we only required [sixty] against the area of the knife that cut and not against the entire knife, even though we hold that regarding metal, if part of it is hot, all of it is hot, nevertheless, it does not conduct its absorption throughout its entirety, as I wrote in section 6. However, this is when he knows with certainty up to which point he cut, but in an ordinary case, we say that he cut with the entire knife, and one requires sixty against the entire knife except for the handle. And there are those who are stringent that even if he says, "It is clear to me that I did not cut with the entire knife," we do not listen to him, because it is a matter that is not incumbent upon a person, and he does it without realizing [Taz, subsection 12 in the name of the Rashal]. However, we should not be so stringent; nevertheless, it is certainly so that when it is not known to him with certainty up to which point he cut, we say that he cut with the entire length of the knife [Shach, subsection 28], and see what I wrote in section 2.

And this is when the knife is certainly ben yomo as has been written, but if it is not ben yomo, or if it is not known whether it is ben yomo or not, and we hold that "standard vessels are not ben yomo," even though a standard knife has its fat congealed upon its surface as has been written in siman 10 and will also be explained in siman 96, nevertheless it only forbids up to kedi klipah because it is a small amount. And in siman 96 it will be explained that it forbids up to kedi netilah, and this is regarding a sharp food as has been written there [Bach, and Shach subsection 29]. And there is one who says that against the fat one requires sixty [Taz subsection 13], but the primary view is like the first opinion [Pri Chadash]. And when the knife is wiped clean and is not ben yomo, a mere rinsing is sufficient. And it is a simple matter that even with a ben yomo where there is sixty, nevertheless klipah is required, as will be explained in siman 105 that regarding something without liquid, even though it requires sixty, nevertheless at the place of the cut it requires klipah, for there the absorption is greater than in the rest of the piece since there is no liquid [Taz ibid.]. And there is one who wishes to strain himself to say that klipah is not required in this, but it is not the primary view, for it is obvious that klipah is required in this as well, [and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch at the end of section 7 refer to both cases as the Taz wrote, see there, and examine carefully].

The knife requires hagalah whether it is ben yomo or whether it is not ben yomo, for it has absorbed basar be-chalav, and its law is like the law of a meat pot that is not ben yomo in which milk was cooked, where the pot is forbidden as written in siman 93, and only for a knife that is metal does hagalah avail. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 7 that all this applies to hot meat in a kili rishon, and then if the knife is ben yomo and there is not sixty in the meat against the knife, everything is forbidden, and even the knife requires hagalah; but if it is a kili sheni, the meat requires kelipah, and the knife requires ne'itzah in the ground, and so we practice, and even if the knife is not ben yomo one should peel the meat slightly because of the fatness of the knife. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote that for a ben yomo it requires hagalah, his intention is not that for one that is not ben yomo it does not require hagalah, but rather his intention is that for one that is not ben yomo it is permitted to use it for other things like fish and vegetables as written in siman 93, and for a ben yomo even this is forbidden because the knife becomes neveilah. And that which he wrote that in a kili sheni the meat requires kelipah, this is because of the fatness of the knife, and therefore when it is known that it is wiped clean, hadachah is sufficient; and the ne'itzah he required for the knife even though the meat is soft, nevertheless since it has the heat of a kili sheni it requires ne'itzah, for if it were a hard thing, even in cold it would require ne'itzah, such as a meat knife with which one cut hard cheese requires ne'itzah and it will be explained in siman 121, and there is one who disagrees in this.

And know that our teacher, the Rema, holds that any kili sheni does not possess the capacity for absorption or emission even when the item is a solid mass (gush), such as this meat that was taken while boiling from a pot to a bowl, it has the status of a kili sheni. And there are those who say that any solid mass, even in a kili shelishi, such as boiling meat that was placed on a plate (teller), has the status of a kili rishon as long as it is boiling, for the senses testify that specifically a liquid substance cools from vessel to vessel but not a solid mass, and as long as the hand recoils from it (yad soledet bo), its status is like a kili rishon [Shach (subsection 30) in the name of the Rashal]. And so too millet and rice and all types of groats in a thick cooked dish called kasha, even if placed from vessel to vessel, they have the status of a kili rishon as long as the hand recoils from them [Taz subsection 14 in his name]. And there is one who distinguishes that with the pressure of a knife (duchka desakina) it is certainly so, and that is when one cut hot meat with a knife even in a kili sheni or shelishi, the meat has the status of a kili rishon, but without the pressure of a knife, such as if one took the meat or the kasha with a spoon, it has the status of a kili sheni [ibid.]. And there is one who says that when they poured the meat alone from the pot to the bowl and the plate, they have the status of a kili rishon, but if they poured the meat with the broth, it has the status of a kili sheni, for since the broth cools, the meat within it also cools [Minchat Yaakov]. And it is certainly proper to be stringent like this opinion as there is a correct reasoning in this; however, in a case of great loss or after the fact (bediavad), our teacher, the Rema, is worthy to rely upon, for the primary heat of a kili rishon is by means of the walls of the vessel, and therefore even in a solid mass, since the walls of the vessel are not present, it does not have the status of a kili rishon. And from the Yerushalmi Ma'asrot [Chapter 1, Halacha 4] there is clear proof for our teacher, the Rema, which says there the difference between a kili rishon and a kili sheni, for one says that there is a difference between them in the heat itself, and one says that there is no difference between them in the heat, and despite all this, the law of a kili sheni is not like a kili rishon, and he brings proof for this opinion from the fact that we see in bowls of hot rice or hot groats that they pour them from a kili rishon to a kili sheni and they remain in their initial heat, see there; and if it were like the first opinion, what proof does he bring? Behold, in a solid mass the law truly changes! Rather, it is certainly like the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, [unless the Rashal holds that a solid mass is like a kili rishon regarding emission and absorption, and the Yerushalmi is dealing with the matter of cooking; nevertheless, the plain meaning of the Yerushalmi is clear proof for the Rema], and in siman 105, section 20 and section 24, more will be explained regarding this with the help of Heaven.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 8: If a cheese panade fell into an oven, even if it was moist, and similarly hot cheese in a meat bowl that was used within the day, it only forbids to the extent of a kelipeh. Thus far his words. And the intention is not that they make the panade in the oven, but rather in a meat bowl they make a meat food called a panade, and they place it in a hot oven to roast and bake; if cheese fell upon the food, even if it was moist, a kelipeh is sufficient. And it is not similar to hot meat that one cut with a dairy knife, which requires sixty, for there there is the pressure of the knife and it absorbs much, and furthermore a typical knife has grease upon it [Beit Yosef]. And even though we hold later in siman 105 that a prohibited substance that fell upon a hot permitted substance requires a netilah, and why is a kelipeh sufficient here? Because it is not the way of cheese to enter deeply [ibid.], meaning that it essentially tends toward dryness and hardness even when it is soft and fatty, and therefore it does not enter deeply and a kelipeh is sufficient. Therefore, the cheese itself perhaps requires a netilah because it absorbed from the panade [Shach, subsection 32].

And similarly, hot cheese in a meat bowl that was used within the day does not forbid more than the thickness of a peel, for here too there is no pressure of a knife; and since there is no sauce here, a peel suffices even when the bowl is also hot, and for the cheese as well a peel suffices since there is no food at all [see Shach, subsection 33]. And for the law, the great authorities agreed that if it is dry, a peel suffices, and if the cheese is slightly moist, it requires the removal of a finger's breadth, and if it is completely wet, it requires sixty against the bowl [see Pri Chadash, subsection 30, and Shach there], and it is similarly explained from the words of our teacher, the Rema, in siman 105 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 105), see there; and the reason he did not provide a gloss here is because he relied on what comes later, and it seems more likely that here he was not stringent because the early authorities held that cheese is lighter than anything else and its nature is not to emit much nor to absorb much, and it requires further study. [See Beit Yosef in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham and it implies as I have written, see there, and examine it closely]:

He further wrote in section 9: If one boiled honey in a meat pan that was used within the day, and emptied it while hot into a milk bowl that was used within the day, it is permitted, because it is a case of "flavor from flavor" of a permitted substance. Thus far his words. And even according to the opinion that will be explained in siman 95, that regarding boiling one forbids "flavor from flavor," that is concerning eating it with the second species, but in a vessel of the second species it is permitted; and here the bowl contains no milk food and therefore the honey is permitted. However, the bowl should be forbidden according to what will be explained there, that if one poured from a meat "first vessel" used within the day onto a milk vessel, it forbids the vessel; yet from his wording it implies that even the bowl is permitted. And it can be said that since in the source of the law another reason is explained—that fat in honey is a "flavor that impairs"—therefore, even though we do not hold so as will be explained in siman 103, nevertheless regarding this they were lenient, and therefore our teacher, the Rema, did not gloss anything on this [and see Shach subsection 34, and Taz subsection 17]. And know that regarding a milk knife in our regions, when a question comes before the sage, he should investigate in what way it is a milk knife, for most often they do not use a milk knife with heat at all, but only cut cheese and butter, and it does not have the law of a milk knife at all. Therefore, the sage must investigate this so as not to lose the money of Israel in vain, for the questioners are not experts in this, as is known to us.