Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Siman 98
- Keith Posner
- Feb 19
- 13 min read
Updated: Mar 6
This is a section of the Jewish code of law that deals with mixtures of kosher and non-kosher food. There are many twists and turns in this legal text, and this blog will explore my own discovery of the text. We might also learn a little halakha (Jewish law) along the way!
Note: To review this content with the primary sources, see my associated source Sheet on Sefaria.
For a list of terminology to support reading of this admittedly rather dense material see Food Mixtures – Principles and Concepts.
Contents
Se'if 4 Ratios relative to taste alone
In contrast to the first three subsections where the mixture still consists of physical kosher and non-kosher food, here we are dealing with mixtures where there is no physical non-kosher food actually present. Three examples of such mixtures are given, although, as we shall see, the first example is somewhat different to examples 2 and 3. The common factor is our lack of knowledge as to how much taste was actually absorbed, and the resultant need to apply a stringent 60:1 ratio of permitted food to cancel out that taste.
Note: In all of these examples, the 60:1 ratio is only Torah-mandated if the non-kosher and kosher elements of the mixture are min be shelo mino (belonging to food types with different tastes, for example meat and fat). If, however, the elements are min bemino (the same food with the same taste), then the Torah requires only a majority of kosher food, interpreted by some as a 2:1 ratio. In this case the 60:1 ratio is only rabbinically mandated.
Example 1 Piece of fat
A small piece of non-kosher food, such as forbidden fat, falls into the pot of kosher soup. You spot the fat and promptly remove it (or as much of it as you can see) from the mixture. However, that fat has now imparted taste to the soup, and some small unknown anount is still swimming around inside the soup. Nullifying this non-kosher taste requires a volume of kosher meat 60 times the amount of the non-kosher fat that originally fell into it, even though most of that fat is no longer physically there. Of course, if the kosher soup was already 60 times the volume of the forbidden fat, then the soup is kosher and does not require any permitted food to be added to it.
Example 2 Pot
A pot was used earlier today to cook forbidden food (i.e. a ben yomo pot) and has therefore absorbed the taste of the forbidden food. This same pot is now being used to cook kosher food. We have no means of measuring the amount of non-kosher taste that was absorbed, so the ratio of 60:1 is once again employed in a maximalist way. This time, the amount of permitted food required to render the food kosher is 60 times the volume of the pot. Wow, that sounds like a lot of extra food.
Example 3 Spatula
A spoon or spatula was in a pot earlier today when it was used to cook forbidden food, and hence part or all of the spatula acquired the taste of the forbidden food. This same spatula is now accidentally placed into a pot of kosher food, and as a result the amount of kosher food required to annul the prohibition is 60 times the volume of the part of the spatula that was submerged, Some say that when dealing with a metal spoon, the amount required is 60 times the volume of the entire sppon, presumably because metal has powerful heat conduction properties. This law applies regardless of whether the spatula is made of clay, wood, or metal. Presumably this law does not apply to a glass spatula, which does not absorb taste.
In all of these cases it's not clear why we do not ask a non-Jewish chef to taste the food, as we did in the first subsection.
Rema's first gloss
Rema (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds that these rules only apply where the entire pot is boiling on a fire or is roasting in a hot oven. If the taste was imparted under cold conditions by, for example, inserting a salted spoon that had the taste of forbidden food into a pot of cold kosher food, then the taste is assumed to be absorbed around the surface area of the spoon only, and not in the entire mixture. The same applies to the side of the pot under cold conditions; if it was salted than you can annul the non-kosher taste with 60 times the volume of the area immediately adjacent tp the sides of the pot, the kelipa, or shell, as Rema calls it.
Rema's second gloss
Building on example 1 above, Rema points out that even if the issur fell into a volume of heter 60 times its size, we are still obligated to physically remove the issur. He gives an example of forbidden fat falling into a large pot of hot heter soup and suggests a novel way of removing the fat: pour cold water into the soup and the fat will congeal into the water, thereby making it easy to remove. Another commentator, the Pri Megadim, suggests that this only applies if the extra cold water will not ruin the soup.
Rema continues this gloss with a second consideration: if a piece of issur fell into one pot and was promptly removed, but then it fell into another pot, we still require 60 times the original volume of the issur to cancel the non-kosher taste imparted to the second pot. We do not consider that the piece of issur has possibly become considerably smaller following its sojourn in the first pot of soup. The same applies, no matter if the same piece of issur is rescued from the second pot and then falls into a third, fourth, or even hundredth pot. We always measure the amount required to cancel the kosher taste as 60 times the volume of the original issur.
Se'if 5 Frequency of use or material of construction of utensil as determining factor in determining volume of taste transferred
Now that we have begun to discuss the need to cancel issur based on taste alone, the text begins to explore different aspects of cancellation based on taste. Remeber that taste can be absorbed into utensils based on a process known as beli'a (absorption). This se'if explores whether the extent of beli'a is determined based on frequency of use of the utensil (it it a utensil used multiple times in the last 24 hours, a ben yomo utensil) or the material of construction of the utensil (whereby more porous materials are considered to harbour the taste more extensively, or even indefinitely).
Example 1: New spoon
A spoon which has not been used in the past 24 hours absorbed a kezayit of milk, and this was observed and is known. The kezayit of milk is absorbed into the spoon but is not physically present on the spoon as a droplet. If the spoon was then used to stir a pot of meat soup, then to cancel out the associated taste of milk and meat we need 60 kezaitim of meat soup.
Rema's first gloss
Rema entertains the possibility that a drop of milk on part of the surface area of the spoon could render the holding capacity of the entire surface area of the spoon into a volume that requires nullification. This is a rather odd application of the principle of חתיכה נעשית נבלה (the piece becomes prohibited like a carcass) . That principle is usually applied to mixtures of foods, not to kitchen implements. He then rejects this possibility, at least in this case.
Example 2: Used spooon
In contrast to the first case, here the spoon was used multiple times in the last 24 hours but we don't know how much milk was actually absorbed into it, although implicit in the text is the idea that only one kezayit of milk was absorbed into the surface of the spoon in its most recent use. In this case the Mechaber introduces two approaches:
Approach 1
We assume that milk was absorbed into the entire surface area of the spoon. Assuming that the bowl of the spoon can hold 5 kezaitim, then if the spoon was then used to stir a pot of meat soup, to cancel out the associated taste of milk and meat, we need 5*60 = 300 kezaitim of meat soup.
Approach 2
There are opinions that say that even in example 2, if the spoon was used to stir a pot of meat soup, then to cancel out the associated taste of milk and meat we only need 60 kezaitim of meat soup; in other words, we calculate based on most recent use of the spoon, not on the fact that the spoon has been used multiple times in the last 24 hours.
Rema's second gloss
Rema simply explains the rationale for example 2. We adopt a maximalist position because we simply do not know how much milk taste was absorbed into the spoon over the 24 hour period.
Note that up to this point, the amount of absorbed taste that needs to be nullified has been based purely on the frequency of use of the spoon within the last 24 hours.
Rema's third gloss
Rema begins by expressing a preference for Approach 1 above, and this is based on an earlier case where milk was accidentally sprayed onto a meat pot. The exact details of the case are not clear to me right now, but I will update later. The Rema then switches gears entirely and suggests, based on the Mordechai in the chapter on the sciatic nerve, that the issue here is not how frequently the spoon was used in the last 24 hours, rather it is the material from which the spoon is made:
Earthenware: Taste is absorbed into this material so completely that it can never be fully erased, even through intense purging in hot water. In this case, the entire area of contact must be used when calculating the volume required to nullify the taste.
Other materials, such as metal or wood: Taste can fully purged, hence in this case it is permitted to use just the surface area that came into contact with the milk when calcularing the volume required to nullify the taste.
Se'if 6 Half measures also require cancellation
One might have thought that the process of cancellation of issur applies only to full measures of food, in other words, a kezayit (olive's volume) or more. In this se'if, the Mechaber makes it clear that part measures, such as half a kezayit, also require cancellation based on a 60:1 ratio, and that this is a Torah requirement. A reason given is that if people see that they can be lax on half measures, they might come to be lax on full measures. However, the Shach points out that if this requirement is not fulfilled, then one is not subject to the punishment of malkut.
The Mechaber does not distinguish between Torah and rabbinic prohibitions. The assumption therefore made by a number of subsequent commentatiors, among them the Pri Megadim, is that the 60:1 ratio is required whether the mixture is min shebe'aino mino (i.e. a Torah prohibition) or min bemino (i.e. a rabbinic stringency). This ensures that people do not come to take rabbinic restrictions lightly.
Seif 7 Mixture of forbidden and permitted
eggs
The scenario itself is simple: an egg that has a blood spot or a chick growing inside of it and is therefore forbidden, must be boiled with 61 other permitted eggs in order to cancel out the taste of the forbidden egg that is transferred by the action of cooking.
Several questions suggest themselves:
The egg itself would be cancelled out by a majority ratio of 2:1. Why the need for this much larger ratio?
Even if we say that the issue is that we are boling the eggs, isn't it the case that the taste of the forbidden blood spot or chick is only transmitted if the egg is peeled or cracked (see Yoreh Deah 86:5).
Why does the Mechaber require a ratio of 61:1. Isn't 60:1 the standard ratio.
Questions 1 and 2 can be answered by a distinction. A dry uncooked egg that is known to have a blood spot (and hence forbidden) can be cancelled out by two other dry uncooked permitted eggs. This is the principle of simple majority, whereby a forbidden item is cancelled out by two permitted items. Once the eggs are cooked together in water, however, there is an issue of transfer of taste of the blood or the chick within the water. This is due to the principle of min beshe'aino mino, ands seems to apply regardless of the fact that the eggs are still unshelled.
Question 3 has two suggested answers.
The first is not really an answer at all. The Rambam suggests that a whole egg is what is known as a beriya, a complete creature. Since it falls into this category, it cannot be cancelled out, even in 1,000 eggs! The other poskim are puzzled by this approach and suggest that this requires further study.
A far simpler approach is taking by the masters of the Talmud. They suggest that since eggs are not all the same size, we simply add an extra egg as a sort of safety factor, to ensure that by volume we do indeed have a 60:1 ratio of permitted to forbidden.
Seif 8 An udder question
An udder question (boom boom!) regards the udder. The Gemara in TB Chullin 97b distinguishes between those types of food that are cancelled out in a ratio of 1 in 61 (the issur is not included in the count of 60 - here the halakhic terminology is eino min ha minyan) and those foods that are cancelled out in a ratio of 1 in 60 (the issur is included in the count of 60 - here the terminology is min haminyan). Eggs, as wr saw in the previous se'if, fall into the first category. Udders fall into the second. Meat sixty times the volume of the milk contained in the udder is required to cancel out that milk, and the volume of the udder meat is included in that 60 times ratio.
The question of why the udder meat does not combine with the udder milk under the principle of chaticha naaseit neveilah and thereby require a much larger volume of meat for nullification of that chaticha is dealt with elsewhere.
The rest of this se'if is taken up by a rather long and confusing gloss from the Rema dealing with general principles of nullification but seeming to contradict the principles that we learnt at the beginning of this siman, in se'if 1.
Let's translate this gloss and see if we can make sense of it.
"All prohibitions that apply today can be cancelled out by a ratio of 60 to 1, apart from chametz on Pesach and libation wine poured for the purposes of idolatry, as will be explained in the appropriate laws...".
Why is the Rema generalizing from the specific case of cancellation of the issur associated with an udder to the general 60 to 1 cancellation rule? This rule was already presented at the beginning of the siman, so it is not clear why the Rema is presenting it here once again.
Another problem: there are more than two exceptions to the 60 to 1 rule. Give examples of other exceptions. Why does Rema only present these two.
"... and that is as long as the taste of the issur is not apparent in the pot (food), but if it is apparent in that pot, then it is prohibited in its own right, and it cannot become cancelled out in 1000 times its volume, as long as its taste is apparent."
Now things are getting extremely confusing. In 98:1 the Mechaber explained that there are three methods for determining whether an issur was cancelled out. The three methods are described in the following table, and are meant to cover all cases.
Method | Meaning | Applies when | |
1 | ta'ama | Tasting by a Jew | the issur is permitted to certain Jews, such as terumah in chullin |
2 | kefeila | Tasting by a professional non-Jewish taster | the issur is prohibited to Jews |
3 | shishim | Cancellation by 60 times the volume | there is no difference in taste between the issur and the heter, or there is a difference in taste but the mixture is prohibited to Jews and no kefeila is available |
However, Rema is merging two methods. Method 3, shishim, the 60 to 1 method is meant to cover all cases where we cannot use one of the taste methods (1 or 2) as a determiner. However, Rema is merging shishim with ta'ama. He is saying that even though we have already applied method 3, shishim, because the mixture is prohibited to Jews and no kefeila is available, once the mixture is eaten and taste is perceived, it becomes prohibited because of the taste. Surely, once shishim is applied, that should be the end of the story!
"And therefore, salt and spices that are included in those items whose main purpose is to add taste to food, if they are prohibited in their own right, cannot become cancelled out in 60 times their volume."
As with the earlier part of the gloss, it is not clear why the question of why the pungency of the taste of salt and spices is presented here is not clear. Salt and spices simply cannot be cancelled out in a volume of 60, but the Gemara discusses this and dismisses it as an invalid case. The Gemara is willing to consider strong foods such as onions and leeks as a way of deriving the 60 times volume cancellation paradigm, but excludes salt and spices and they are not foods.
Seif 9 Two phases
I'm not sure if "two phases" is the correct title, but it will do for now. This se'if presents two cases of mixtures, each one involving a doube mixing:
Case 1: Two simultaneous mixings
This case concerns a pot that contains 59 kezeitim of heter (let's say potatoes). Into this pot falls a kezayit of blood and separately, a kezayit of forbidden fat. Each of these is an issur in its own right. However, each of these issurim is annulled separately by the 59 kezeitim of potatoes and the one kezayit of the other issur, using the 60 to 1 ratio in each case. The Shach points out that in each incidence of mixing there is not sufficient taste in the issur to render the heter prohibited as each is a case of 60 to 1. If, on the other hand, two kezeitim of the same issur had fallen into the pot, then the ratio of heter to issur would be halved and the resultant mixture would be rendered prohibited.
Case 2: Two parallel mixings
This is an even more extreme case. Here there are two mixings that occur in parallel: one pot containing 29 kezeitim of heter into which falls a kezayit of forbidden fat, and a separate pot containing 30 kezeitim of heter into which falls a kezayit of blood. I would have thought that both pots now contain forbidden mixtures, because in each pot the relationship of heter to issur is 30 to 1 or less. But instead the Mechaber considers a case where the contents of these two points are accidentally mixed, and only at that point does he calculate the ratio of heter to issur. I'm not sure why this is, but in any event, we now have the same ratios as in case 1, and the same logic, leading to a permitted mixture.
Comments