« דין חתיכה הראויה להתכבד. ובו ט׳ סעיפים: חתיכה הראויה להתכבד דינה כבריה דאפילו באלף לא בטלה ואפי׳ אם היא אסורה בהנאה כיון שאם תתבטל היתה מותרת וראויה להתכבד: »(שולחן ערוך יורה דעה ק״א:א)
הגה —« ואפילו אינה אסורה רק מדרבנן אינה בטילה (ב״י בשם הרמב״ן) ואם הוא ספק אם היא ראויה להתכבד או לא אזלינן לקולא (ארוך כלל כ״ה) אפילו היא אסורה מדאורייתא: »(רמ״א יורה דעה ק״א:א)
Translation of the se'if.The law of a piece fit to be served; it contains nine se'ifim. A piece with which one may honour one's guests has the same status as a beriyah: even in a thousand it is not nullified, and even if it is forbidden in benefit — since, were it to be nullified, it would be permitted and fit to be served. Rama's gloss: and even if it is forbidden only rabbinically it is not nullified (Beit Yosef in the name of the Ramban); and if there is a doubt whether it is fit to be served or not, we follow the lenient side (Issur ve-Heter he-Arokh, klal 25) — even if it is forbidden by Torah law.
1. Opening the sugya — the piece fit to be served as an “important thing”
The yesod — an importance that blocks nullification
The general rule of the laws of mixtures is that a forbidden item falling into a majority of permitted matter is nullified. The Sages excluded from this rule certain important things, which are not nullified — such as the beriyah (siman 100) and a davar she-be-minyan (Beitzah 3b–4a). One of them is a piece fit to be served before guests: a piece of standing, with which one honours one's guests. The Mechaber does not merely say that it is not nullified; he gives its status by comparison — « דינה כבריה » — its law is that of a beriyah, and from there: even in a thousand it is not nullified. (שולחן ערוך יורה דעה ק״א:א)
Beriyah and a piece fit to be served — two importances that do not match. Both laws — the beriyah (siman 100) and the piece fit to be served (siman 101) — are “important things” that are not nullified, but their importance has a different root. The beriyah is important by its very being: the natural wholeness of a creature. The piece fit to be served is important because it is served — an importance of usage, not of nature. The siman itself shows this, since the commentaries make it depend on place and time, pointing to the Shulchan Arukh at the opening of siman 110: « וכבר כתב השולחן ערוך ריש סי׳ ק״י דהכל לפי המקום והזמן »(ט״ז יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ט)
Forbidden in benefit (Shakh ס״ק א). The Shakh establishes from the gemara in Avodah Zarah (74a) that prohibitions of benefit — such as basar be-chalav — render their mixture forbidden in benefit as well, even in a thousand, once it is a piece fit to be served. But he immediately adds the practical consequence, and it saves the whole of the permitted matter from loss: « מיהו מותר למכרן לעובד כוכבים חוץ מדמי איסור שבהן »(ש״ך יו״ד ק״א ס״ק א) — one may sell the whole to a non-Jew, deducting from the price the value of the forbidden item in it, as the Shakh writes in siman 110 (ס״ק ב).
This is one of the sharpest foundations in the siman, and both the Taz and the Shakh commit their ס״ק ב to it.
The chakira — on what authority is it not nullified? That a piece fit to be served is not nullified: is this a law of the Torah (importance itself blocking nullification), or a law of the Sages (by Torah law it would be nullified in a majority, and the Sages were stringent with an important thing)? The nafka mina bears first of all on the case of doubt.
The position of the Taz and the Shakh (ס״ק ב) — rabbinic. Both write it, and in the same terms. The Taz: « דחומרא זו דחתיכה הראויה אינה בטילה היא מדרבנן »(ט״ז יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ב)
And the Shakh draws the rule of doubt directly from it: « דחה״ל דלא בטלה ברוב הוא מדרבנן וספק דרבנן להקל »(ש״ך יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ב)
By Torah law — it is nullified in a majority, like any prohibition.
By rabbinic law — it is not nullified even in a thousand, because of its importance.
In doubt — safek derabbanan lekula, therefore we are lenient.
Torah or rabbinic — what the commentaries say:
Shitah
“It is not nullified”
Source
Taz and Shakh
Rabbinic — by Torah law it is nullified, the Sages were stringent with an important thing; hence the leniency in doubt
ט״ז ס״ק ב · ש״ך ס״ק ב
The Pitchei Teshuvah points to the question
The She'ilat Ya'avetz treats at length whether “an important thing is not nullified” is by Torah law or only rabbinic
פ״ת ס״ק א (שאילת יעב״ץ ח״א סי׳ קנ״ח)
Nafka mina — the doubt, and its limit. Three points the text imposes, and which it is worth not blurring into one another. (a) The leniency in doubt is not a statement of the Mechaber: it lies in the Rama's gloss, drawn from the Issur ve-Heter he-Arokh — « ואם הוא ספק אם היא ראויה להתכבד או לא אזלינן לקולא »(רמ״א יורה דעה ק״א:א) (b) The Rama adds a decisive clause — even if it is forbidden by Torah law — which shows that the leniency does not rest on the weight of the prohibition but on the fact that the rule of non-nullification is itself rabbinic. (c) And the Shakh at once restricts the scope of that doubt, on a point easily lost: « ודוקא ספק אם הוא חה״ל אבל אם הוא ודאי חה״ל וספק אם הוא אסור לא בטיל »(ש״ך יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ב) — the leniency applies to a doubt about the character of the piece; if the piece is certainly fit to be served and the doubt is about its prohibition, it is not nullified, and the Shakh refers to siman 110, se'if 9. And for practice — ask your Rav.
The Taz's cross-reference in ס״ק א. The Taz's first ס״ק is not on the yesod but on the Rama's words רק מדרבנן, and there he refers to what he wrote in siman 102, se'if 8: « דאפילו בספק איסור דרבנן יש חומרא בדבר שיש לו מתירין דוקא ולא בשאר דברים שאינם מתבטלים »(ט״ז יו״ד ק״א ס״ק א) — the stringency maintained even in a doubt of a rabbinic prohibition belongs to davar she-yesh lo matirin, and not to the other things that are not nullified. A piece fit to be served is therefore treated, in doubt, differently from that whose prohibition will in any case lapse of itself.
« אין לה דין חתיכה הראויה להתכבד אלא אם כן איסורה מחמת עצמה כגון נבילה ובשר בחלב אבל אם נאסרה מחמת שקבלה טעם מאיסור ולא היה בה ס׳ לבטלו אפילו למי שסובר חתיכה עצמה נעשית נבילה אין לה דין חתיכה הראויה להתכבד: »(שולחן ערוך יורה דעה ק״א:ב)
הגה —« ואפילו חתיכה שלא נמלחה בטלה דאין איסורה מחמת עצמה רק מחמת דם הבלוע בה (שם ות״ה סי׳ ק״ע) כל חתיכה שלא נאסרה רק כדי קליפה בטלה דהרי הקליפה אינה ראויה להתכבד (סברת התוספות ובהגהות ש״ד): »(רמ״א יורה דעה ק״א:ב)
Translation of the se'if. A piece has the status of “fit to be served” only if its prohibition comes from itself — such as a nevelah or basar be-chalav. But if it became forbidden because it absorbed the taste of something forbidden without there being sixty to nullify it, it does not have this status — even according to the view that the piece itself becomes nevelah. Rama's gloss: and even a piece that was not salted is nullified, for its prohibition does not come from itself but from the blood absorbed in it; every piece that became forbidden only to the depth of a peel is nullified, for the peel itself is not fit to be served.
The yesod — importance in the body, not in the taste.
The rule rests on the importance of the piece itself. It therefore applies only where the prohibition is in its body: a nevelah, whose whole flesh is forbidden, or basar be-chalav. A permitted piece that absorbed the taste of something forbidden is not an important forbidden piece: it is an important permitted piece that absorbed a little of the forbidden — and that taste is nullified. The Mechaber goes further: this holds even for the view that the piece itself becomes nevelah.
Why basar be-chalav is “of itself” (Taz ס״ק ג, Shakh ס״ק ג). Both give the same reason, and it is not that of chatikhah na'asit nevelah: in basar be-chalav each component was permitted on its own and it is their joining that forbade them — the whole has therefore become one body. The Shakh: « דכיון דכל חד באפי נפשיה שרי וע״י חבורן יחד נאסרו חזר הכל להיות כגוף אחד »(ש״ך יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ג)
And the Taz adds a proof from the liability to lashes: « לפי ששניהם נעשו גוף אחד וראייה דהי׳ לוקה מן התורה אפי׳ לא אכל רק כחצי זית מחלב וחצי זית מבשר »(ט״ז יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ג)
Why the absorbed is not important (Taz ס״ק ד, Shakh ס״ק ד). The Taz says it in one line — « דהא אין הבלוע ראוי להתכבד »(ט״ז יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ד) — and the Shakh brings the formulation of the Rishonim, of the Sha'arei Durah, the Rashba and the Ran: « אין האיסור הנבלע בה חשיב »(ש״ך יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ד) — the absorbed prohibition is, in any event, not the thing that is important.
Kedei kelipah — where the Shakh does not follow the Rama. That a piece forbidden only “to the depth of a peel” is nullified is the Rama's statement, which he attributes to a reasoning of Tosafot and to the Hagahot Sha'arei Durah. The Shakh devotes his longest ס״ק of the series to it, and does two things there. First he sets aside the difficulty of the Lechem Chamudot — whence would a prohibition to the depth of a peel come, if not from a received taste? — answering that it is found in basar be-chalav. Then he questions the source itself: « ומכל מקום מה שהוציא כן הרב מתוס׳ לא מצאתיו »(ש״ך יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ו)
He then brings the Ra'avyah (through the Mordekhai), the Kol Bo and Rabbeinu Yerucham, for whom even at the depth of a peel a piece fit to be served is not nullified, and he does not leave the contradiction open: he proposes that the Ra'avyah and those with him speak of a case where, once the peel is removed, a piece fit to be served would remain. The machloket stands; the Shakh's reading closes it without ruling against the Rama.
Where the distinction leads — the Taz's cheese. The Taz applies the criterion to a case that occupied the Acharonim: cheese set with the milk of a tereifah animal, then mixed with others. He concludes, with the Darkei Moshe and the Torat Chatat (klal 40), that it is not a piece fit to be served, « שהאיסור בה בלוע הוא »(ט״ז יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ד) — the prohibition in it is merely absorbed — against the Issur ve-Heter he-Arokh, who was stringent there. The whole ס״ק consists in distinguishing cheese set in forbidden milk, where the prohibition is absorbed, from cheese into which forbidden milk was mixed, where it is in the body.
« תרנגולת בנוצתה שנתערבה באחרות בטלה שהרי אינה ראויה להתכבד לפני האורחים כמות שהיא ואף על פי שאחר שנתערבה הסירו הנוצה וכן לא חשיבה ראויה להתכבד אלא אם כן היא מבושלת וכן כבש שלם או חתיכה גדולה יותר מדאי לא חשיבה ראויה להתכבד שאין דרך ליתן לפני האורח כבש שלם או חתיכה גדולה יותר מדאי ויש חולקים בכל זה: »(שולחן ערוך יורה דעה ק״א:ג)
הגה —« וכן נוהגין מלבד תרנגולת בנוצתה דמחוסרת מעשה גדול דנוהגין בה שהיא בטילה (טור בשם י״א ובמרדכי וש״ד) וכן רגלים או ראש שלא נחרכו משערן אבל אם כבר נחרכו חשיבי חתיכה הראויה להתכבד אפילו לא נמלחו עדיין ואפילו כבש שלם אינו בטל (בהגהות ש״ד) מיהו רגלים של עופות מלבד רגלי אווז וכן רגלי בהמה דקה במדינות אלו לא חשיבי כלל ובטלים ראש של עופות אינו חשוב ובטל (ארוך כלל כ״ה): »(רמ״א יורה דעה ק״א:ג)
Translation of the se'if. A hen still in its feathers that became mixed with others is nullified, for it is not, as it stands, fit to be served before guests — and this even if the feathers were removed after the mixture. Likewise it is not held fit to be served unless it is cooked. Likewise a whole lamb, or an excessively large piece, are not held fit to be served, for it is not the way to set before a guest a whole lamb or an excessively large piece. And there are those who dispute all this.Rama's gloss: and so is the practice [like those who dispute], except for a hen in its feathers, which lacks a major act, and for which the practice is that it is nullified (Tur in the name of “some say”, Mordekhai, Sha'arei Durah). Likewise feet or a head whose hair has not been singed; but if they have already been singed they are held to be a piece fit to be served even if they have not yet been salted — and even a whole lamb is not nullified (Hagahot Sha'arei Durah). However the feet of fowl, apart from those of a goose, as well as the feet of small cattle, in these lands do not count at all and are nullified; the head of fowl is not important and is nullified (Issur ve-Heter he-Arokh, klal 25).
The yesod — mechusar ma'aseh gadol.
A hen in its feathers is not fit to be served now: an act is still lacking, and a major one. It is the Rama who sets the term, and the Taz who explains it: « לפי שהיא מחוסר מעשה גדול »(ט״ז יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ו) — and the Taz at once draws the measure of the criterion: if the feathers have already been removed but the innards have not been taken out and the belly has not been opened, that is not a major lack and the piece is not nullified; whereas a lamb that has not been flayed is nullified a fortiori compared with the hen.
What does “fit” mean — as it stands, or by size? (Taz ס״ק ה):
Shitah
The measure of “fit to be served”
Source
The Mechaber
What may be set as it stands before a guest; a whole lamb and an oversized piece — no
מחבר ס״ג
The “יש חולקים”, as the Taz explains them
« לאו שתהא ראויה כמו שהיא עתה אלא משום שיעור נקט ליה דגדול כי האי שראוי ליתן לפני אורח אחר שנתבשל »(ט״ז יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ה) — not “fit as it now is”, but a matter of size: large enough to be set before a guest once cooked
ט״ז ס״ק ה
The Rama's ruling — and the sense of his “וכן נוהגין”. The Mechaber closes his se'if with four words that reopen everything — « ויש חולקים בכל זה »(שולחן ערוך יורה דעה ק״א:ג) — and the Rama opens his gloss by saying that the practice follows those who dispute, except for the hen in its feathers. In other words, for the practice the Rama reports, a whole lamb and an oversized piece are fit to be served and are not nullified, while the unplucked hen is nullified. The exception is not a detail: it is there that the criterion of “a lacking act” overrides that of size — and the Rama joins to it, further on in his gloss, feet and a head whose hair has not been singed.
Why removing the feathers afterwards changes nothing (Shakh ס״ק ח). The Mechaber writes that the hen remains nullified even if the feathers were removed after the mixture. The Shakh gives the reason, in the name of the Semak: « מ״מ כיון דבתחלת התערובו׳ נתבטל אין חוזר וניעור »(ש״ך יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ח) — once nullification took effect at the beginning of the mixture, the prohibition does not “reawaken”.
Two further points of the Shakh on this se'if. (a) A hen in its feathers is also not a davar she-be-minyan — the Shakh establishes this from the Maharshal and the Mordekhai, and writes that the Bach rules as he does, against the Torat Chatat, who held that it is nullified as regards the piece fit to be served but not as regards davar she-be-minyan (ש״ך יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ז). (b) On “a whole lamb” he adds three words: « אפי׳ הופשט עורו »(ש״ך יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ט) — even once its hide has been flayed.
Where “everything follows place and time” actually comes from. The phrase is not a gloss of the Rama on this se'if. It comes from elsewhere, and the commentaries bring it three times: the Taz draws it from the Shulchan Arukh at the opening of siman 110 (ט״ז יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ט), then from the Rambam (ט״ז יו״ד ק״א ס״ק י״א), and the Shakh writes it in his own name when concluding his discussion of the goose skin (ש״ך יו״ד ק״א ס״ק י״ג). What varies with place and time is therefore what one serves — and that is exactly where the conceptual gain lies: the importance this siman speaks of is not a property of the thing, but of the use made of it.
« שומן הכנתא אינו ראוי להתכבד »(שולחן ערוך יורה דעה ק״א:ד)
הגה —« אבל עור שומן אווז מקרי ראוי להתכבד ואינו בטל »(רמ״א יורה דעה ק״א:ד)
Translation of the se'if. The fat of the kanta — the fat enveloping the innards — is not fit to be served. (Gloss: but the fatty skin of a goose is called fit to be served and is not nullified.)
The root of the distinction:
The item
The law
Source
שומן הכנתא — the fat of the innards
Not fit to be served → nullified
מחבר ס״ד
עור שומן אווז — the fatty skin of a goose
Called fit to be served → not nullified
רמ״א ס״ד
The Taz and the Shakh on the kanta. The Taz brings the Maharshal, for whom the hadra de-kanta of a calf is important although the other innards are not, and it is here that he sets the measuring rule: « וכבר כתב השולחן ערוך ריש סי׳ ק״י דהכל לפי המקום והזמן ובינינו הדרא דכנתא של עגל חשוב »(ט״ז יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ט)
The Shakh, for his part, starts from the Piskei Tosafot on Nedarim, who leave the question open — « וצ״ע בהדרא דכנתא עם שמנה שמא ראויה היא להתכבד »(ש״ך יו״ד ק״א ס״ק י״ב) — and concludes in the same way that everything follows the time and the place. Both therefore leave the matter to observation, not to a list.
Goose skin cut into strips — a machloket the Rama did not bring. The Issur ve-Heter he-Arokh, in a marginal note, holds that if the goose skin is cut into strips it loses its importance. The Maharshal wonders in one direction — why should it be important whole if it is not important cut? — and the Taz wonders in the other, from what he sees: « דעיקר כיבוד בעור האווזא אחר שחותכין אותו לחתיכות לטגנם »(ט״ז יו״ד ק״א ס״ק י) — the honour done with goose skin is precisely after cutting it into pieces to fry them. The Taz concludes that it remains fit to be served even cut, and that this is why the Rama did not bring this distinction into the Shulchan Arukh.
What the Shakh takes from it (ס״ק י״ג). The Shakh notes that the Maharshal disputes regarding the goose skin, then refuses to settle the matter by a list — and this is one of the most useful lines of the siman: « והכל תלוי בראות עיני המורה אם הוא חשוב להתכבד באותו מקום לא בטיל ואם לאו בטל ואם יש ספק אזלינן לקולא »(ש״ך יו״ד ק״א ס״ק י״ג) — everything depends on what the Moreh has before his eyes; and in doubt we are lenient, as the Rama wrote in his gloss on se'if 1. And for practice — ask your Rav.
« קורקבן וכן שאר בני מעיים אינם ראויים להתכבד: »(שולחן ערוך יורה דעה ק״א:ה)
Translation of the se'if. A gizzard, as well as the other innards, are not fit to be served. — The Rama does not gloss this se'if; everything that follows is the work of the commentaries.
The yesod — internal organs do not do honour.
The gizzard and the other innards are internal organs that it is not the way to present with honour before guests; they therefore have no importance and are nullified in a majority, like any prohibition. The se'if is short and unglossed: it is the commentaries that turn it into a machloket, and it is worth seeing by what road.
A goose gizzard — the machloket is among the Acharonim, not in the text:
Shitah
Goose gizzard
Source
The Mechaber, as the Shakh reads him
« מסתימת לשון המחבר משמע אפי׳ קורקבן של אווז »(ש״ך יו״ד ק״א ס״ק י״ד) — from the Mechaber's unqualified wording it follows that even a goose gizzard is nullified, and so it appears from the other poskim
מחבר ס״ה · ש״ך ס״ק י״ד
The Maharshal, followed by the Bach and the Taz
In most places a goose gizzard is held fit to be served; and since the Rambam writes that everything follows the time, it is important and not nullified — a hen's gizzard is not
ט״ז ס״ק י״א (רש״ל פג״ה סי׳ נ׳)
How the Shakh dismantles the proof. The Maharshal rested his position on a ruling of the Maharam concerning a needle found in a gizzard. The Shakh answers that the reading is inaccurate: « דלא קאי אלא אאווזא שנתערבה בשאר אווזות דחשיב לאווזות חה״ל אלא שהטריפות של האווזא היה בקורקבן שלה שנמצא בה מחט »(ש״ך יו״ד ק״א ס״ק י״ד) — the Maharam is speaking of a goose mixed with other geese, geese themselves being fit to be served; the tereifut was merely located in its gizzard. Nothing about the gizzard itself follows from there, and the Shakh concludes that everything depends on the place and the time.
Goose breast meat — and a machloket that continues among the Acharonim. The sages of Cracow had ruled that goose breast meat remains fit to be served even once the goose has been flayed. The Maharshal contradicted them, holding that once the skin is removed the importance falls away. The Taz rejects that reading with rare force: « ותמה אני אם יצאו דברים אלו מפי רש״ל שמאד תמוהים הם »(ט״ז יו״ד ק״א ס״ק י״א) — a large piece from which a little has been taken does not lose its importance, and the following se'if says so itself by requiring that the form be lost; the case does not resemble the beriyah, whose identity falls away as soon as anything is removed from it. The Taz concludes that one should hold by the ruling of the sages of Cracow. The Pitchei Teshuvah reports that the Peri Chadash disputes the Taz and inclines like the Maharshal, while the Bekhor Shor holds that one should be stringent like the Taz (פתחי תשובה יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ו). The question remains open; for practice — ask your Rav.
« הא דבריה וחתיכה הראויה להתכבד לא בטלי דוקא בעודם שלימים אבל אם נחתכו או נתרסקו עד שנאבדה צורתן בטלי דתו לא חשיבי ואפילו אם נתרסקו לאחר שנתערבו עם ההיתר »(שולחן ערוך יורה דעה ק״א:ו)
« והוא שנתרסקו שלא במתכוין לבטל האיסור אבל אם נתכוין לכך אסור למרסק אם הוא שלו וכן למי שנתרסק בשבילו »(שולחן ערוך יורה דעה ק״א:ו)
הגה —« (ואין חילוק בין נתערבו במינם או שלא במינם) (ד״ע ומשמעות הפוסקים ולאפוקי או״ה): »(רמ״א יורה דעה ק״א:ו)
Translation of the se'if. That a beriyah and a piece fit to be served are not nullified — that is only while they are whole; but if they were cut or crushed until their form was lost, they are nullified, for they are no longer important — and even if they were crushed after they had been mixed with the permitted matter. (Gloss: and even after the mixture had become known.) And this, provided they were crushed without intent to nullify the prohibition; but if one intended this, it is forbidden to the one who crushed, if the thing is his, and to the one for whom it was crushed. (Gloss: and there is no difference between a mixture in its own kind and one not in its own kind.)
The yesod — importance depends on form, and its loss is a threshold.
The importance of the piece depends on its wholeness; cut or crushed, it is no longer fit to be served and is nullified. But the Mechaber does not say “cut” plainly: he sets a threshold — « עד שנאבדה צורתן »(שולחן ערוך יורה דעה ק״א:ו) — until their form is lost. That threshold is what prevents reading the se'if as though it were enough to break into the piece, and it is exactly what the Taz holds against the Maharshal in the preceding se'if.
The chakira — at what moment is importance measured? At the moment of the mixture (in which case, having been whole when it fell in, it would never be nullified), or at the moment nullification operates? The Mechaber decides by the second, and he carries it through: even crushed after the mixture, and — by the Rama's gloss — even after the mixture had become known.
The threshold as the Shakh sees it (ס״ק ט״ו). The Shakh brings from the Torat Chatat a qualification that redoubles the Mechaber's threshold: « הא דבטל אם נתרסק היינו שלא נשאר שם דבר חשוב אבל נשאר חה״ל אף על גב דבטיל מטעם בריה מ״מ עדיין חשוב ואינו בטל מטעם חה״ל »(ש״ך יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ט״ו) — if, after the crushing, something important still remains, the piece may well have lost its status as a beriyah, yet it keeps that of a piece fit to be served and is not nullified. The Shakh adds: and it is a sound reasoning.
One who crushed in order to nullify — and to whom exactly it is forbidden. This is where a quick reading goes wrong. The Mechaber does not write that the piece “is not nullified”: he writes that deliberate crushing makes the thing forbidden to determinate persons — « אסור למרסק אם הוא שלו וכן למי שנתרסק בשבילו »(שולחן ערוך יורה דעה ק״א:ו) — to the one who crushed if the thing belongs to him, and to the one for whom it was crushed. This is the usual form of the penalty attached to ein mevatlin issur lekhatchilah: a personal prohibition, and not a return of the prohibition into the mixture for everyone.
The Rama's gloss on “in its kind or not in its kind” — and the Taz who moves it. Two readings stand opposed, and they bear not on the halakhah but on the place of the gloss. The Shakh explains it in its straightforward sense: « כלומר דחה״ל אפי׳ שלא במינו לא בטיל באלף ולאפוקי או״ה דכתב דחה״ל דוקא במינו לא בטיל »(ש״ך יו״ד ק״א ס״ק י״ח) — a piece fit to be served is not nullified even out of its kind, against the Issur ve-Heter he-Arokh. The Taz, for his part, confesses that he does not see what this gloss is doing here, in the middle of a discussion of crushing, and proposes that a printing error lies behind it: « ולפי הנראה דט״ס יש כאן ומקומה בראש הסי׳ במ״ש הש״ע שאין בטילה וכאן אין מקומה כלל »(ט״ז יו״ד ק״א ס״ק י״ב) — its place would be at the head of the siman, where the Shulchan Arukh states that it is not nullified.
« אם נחתכה חתיכה א׳ אין תולין לומר של איסור נחתך ומתבטל ויהיו כולן מותרות אלא אותה שנחתכה בלבד מותר׳ ממה נפשך אם היא של איסור אף כולן מותרות ואם אינה של איסור הרי היא מותרת ואפילו נחתכו רובן אין תולין לומר שהאיסור מהרוב שנחתכו אלא כל הנחתכות מותרות והשלימות אסורות: »(שולחן ערוך יורה דעה ק״א:ז)
Translation of the se'if. If one of the pieces was cut, we do not assume that it was the forbidden one that was cut — and thus nullified — so that all would be permitted. Only the cut piece itself is permitted, mimah nafshakh: if it is the forbidden one, all are permitted; and if it is not the forbidden one, it is permitted in its own right. And even if most of them were cut, we do not assume that the forbidden one is among the cut majority: all the cut pieces are permitted, and the whole ones are forbidden.
The yesod — the mimah nafshakh permits the cut piece, and it alone.
The reasoning bears not on the whole set but on one piece. The cut piece is permitted on both branches: if it is the forbidden one, it was nullified when it lost its form; if it is not, it was permitted from the start. But that double outcome does not extend to the other pieces — for on the second branch, the forbidden one remained whole among them, and a piece fit to be served is not nullified. Hence the conclusion the Mechaber presses to its limit: even if the majority were cut, the cut ones are permitted and the whole ones forbidden.
What the Taz adds on the first branch (ס״ק י״ג). The Taz explains the phrase “if it is the forbidden one, all are permitted” as the second half of a reasoning — if you wish to say that the forbidden piece too enters this doubt of “perhaps it was cut” — and he brings from the Issur ve-Heter he-Arokh a condition the se'if does not state: « דדין זה היינו ביש ששים באיסור נגד ההיתר »(ט״ז יו״ד ק״א ס״ק י״ג) — this rule applies where there is sixty of permitted matter against the forbidden.
Kashya — why not follow the majority? Everywhere else we attribute a doubt to the majority. Here the permitted matter is the majority: why not say that the cut piece comes from the majority — hence from the permitted — and, better still in the converse case, that the forbidden one is among the cut pieces?
The Taz's terutz, in the name of the Mahara’i (ס״ק י״ד). The Taz does not answer that the majority is inoperative here: he turns the argument from the majority against itself. « יראה דהכא איכא למימר אדרבה כל שנשתנה מקדמותו מן הרוב הוא והוה כמו כל דפריש מרובא קא פריש ונמצא שהאיסור שהוא המועט לא נשתנה והופרש מקדמותו »(ט״ז יו״ד ק״א ס״ק י״ד) — what has changed from its earlier state comes, precisely, from the majority, just as whatever separates separates from the majority; whence it follows that the forbidden one, which is the minority, remained as it was. The Taz explicitly sets aside the other explanation one might be tempted to give — kavua ke-mechetzah al mechetzah — because there are here two fixed sets, that of the cut and that of the whole, and it would lead to the contrary result. He concludes that one must hold by the Mahara’i's reasoning.
« קורקבן שנמצא נקוב ונתערבה אותה תרנגולת עם אחרות מדמין שומן שבקורקבן לשומן התרנגולת של מקום חיבור הקורקבן ואם דומים לגמרי מכשירים האחרות »(שולחן ערוך יורה דעה ק״א:ח)
« ראש כבש שנמצא טריפה ולא נודע מאיזה כבש הוא והקיפו הראש לצוארו של אחד מהכבשים ונמצאו החתיכות דומות ומכוונות יפה יש לסמוך על זה להתיר האחרות: »(שולחן ערוך יורה דעה ק״א:ט)
Translation of the se'ifim.(8) A gizzard found perforated, and that hen became mixed with others: one compares the fat of the gizzard with the fat of the hen at the place where the gizzard is attached; if they are entirely alike, the others are declared permitted. (9) A lamb's head found tereifah, without it being known from which lamb it came: one holds the head up to the neck of one of the lambs; if the sections are found alike and fit well together, one may rely on this to permit the others.
The yesod — identification, not nullification.
When important things have become mixed and one of them is forbidden, no nullification is available, since they are not nullified. The road the Mechaber opens is identification: if the forbidden one can be pointed out, it is removed and the rest is permitted. The Mechaber gives two ways — the fat, which matches its own gizzard; and the cut, which fits its own neck. This is the exact inverse of se'if 7: there the doubt was not resolved and nothing was assumed; here the sign resolves the doubt.
The Taz requires more for the head (ס״ק ט״ו). The Taz notes that the Mechaber writes, in se'if 9, alike and well fitted, and infers that the colour too must correspond: « משמע במראה ג״כ יהיו שוות »(ט״ז יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ט״ו). For the gizzard the colour of the fat alone suffices; for the head, since it is still possible to verify by the fit of the cut, one must verify by that as well. He then brings the Issur ve-Heter he-Arokh: « עתה שאין אנו בקיאין כל כך אין לנו להתיר בכה״ג אם לא שיהיה הפרש גדול וניכר »(ט״ז יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ט״ו) — now that we are no longer so expert, one should not permit in such a case unless the difference is large and evident.
A tradition the Taz refuses — and his reason. The Taz brings from the Bach a tradition received from a sage: when water has been found in a lamb's head, one may examine the spinal cord of the lambs, for the one whose head contains water will have water also in the cord running down from the brain. The Taz refuses to rely on it, and his reason is a principle of method rather than of fact: « כיון שלא נמצא בתלמוד ובפוסקים »(ט״ז יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ט״ו) — a sign found neither in the Talmud nor among the poskim does not suffice to resolve a doubt of tereifut.
A difficulty left open by the Pitchei Teshuvah (ס״ק ז). The Shemesh Tzedakah notes that the Mechaber's words appear to contradict one another: here and in the following se'if it emerges that if the pieces do not match, the others remain forbidden — yet whole lambs are at issue, and the hen spoken of must be raw, since after cooking the fat can no longer be matched; whereas in se'if 3 the Mechaber wrote that a piece is held fit to be served only if it is cooked. The Pitchei Teshuvah refers to the many resolutions proposed there, without adopting one (פתחי תשובה יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ז). The difficulty remains open.
The Radvaz — a tereifut discovered afterwards (Pitchei Teshuvah ס״ק ה, on se'if 3). The Pitchei Teshuvah brings from the Radvaz's new responsa (siman 267) a rule that extends the chakira of se'if 6 from the other end: « דאם לא נמצאת הטריפה עד אחר שנעשה ראויה להתכבד לא בטיל »(פתחי תשובה יו״ד ק״א ס״ק ה) — if the animal was found to be tereifah only after it had become a piece fit to be served, it is not nullified. The importance, once acquired, does not fall away merely because the prohibition came to light afterwards. And for practice — ask your Rav.
The chakira that runs through the siman: what is the “chashivut” that blocks nullification, and under what conditions does it apply?
A rabbinic stringency — by Torah law it is nullified in a majority; the Sages were stringent with an important thing, and in doubt we are lenient (ט״ז ס״ק ב · ש״ך ס״ק ב), with the Shakh's restriction on the nature of the doubt.
Of itself — only where the prohibition lies in the body of the piece (nevelah, basar be-chalav); an absorbed taste, or a prohibition only to the depth of a peel, is nullified (מחבר ס״ב · רמ״א ס״ב), the Shakh showing that the source of this last point is disputed.
Fit, and whole — what counts as “fit” depends on place and time; what lacks a major act, or whose form has been lost, is nullified (מחבר ס״ג · רמ״א ס״ג · מחבר ס״ו).
Crushed in order to nullify — the resulting prohibition is personal: it falls on the one who crushed and on the one for whom it was crushed (מחבר ס״ו).
Doubt and identification — nothing is assumed in se'if 7, but a sign that resolves the doubt permits the rest (מחבר ס״ז–ט׳).
Nafka minot — what the study yields, as the text and the commentaries set them out:
A piece fit to be served is not nullified even in a thousand; if it is forbidden in benefit, the Shakh indicates selling the whole to a non-Jew while deducting the value of the forbidden part (ש״ך ס״ק א, referring to siman 110 ס״ק ב).
Doubt as to whether the piece is fit to be served — we are lenient, and the Rama specifies: even if the prohibition is by Torah law (רמ״א ס״א). But if the piece is certainly fit to be served and the doubt bears on its prohibition, the Shakh writes that it is not nullified (ש״ך ס״ק ב).
An absorbed taste, or a prohibition only to the depth of a peel — nullified; only a prohibition “of itself” is not nullified (מחבר ס״ב · רמ״א ס״ב).
The Mechaber excludes a whole lamb and an oversized piece from the status, then reports that there are those who dispute all this; the Rama writes that the practice follows the latter, except for the unplucked hen (מחבר ס״ג · רמ״א ס״ג).
Cut or crushed until the form is lost — nullified, even after the mixture; but if something important remains, the Shakh writes that it is not nullified (מחבר ס״ו · ש״ך ס״ק ט״ו).
One piece cut, without knowing which — the cut ones are permitted, the whole ones forbidden, even if the majority were cut (מחבר ס״ז · ט״ז ס״ק י״ג–יד).
Identification by the gizzard fat or by the fit of the cut (מחבר ס״ח–ט׳); the Taz requires for the head a match of colour as well, and reports that we are no longer expert enough to permit thus except where the difference is evident (ט״ז ס״ק ט״ו).
Not fit to be served; on the goose gizzard, the Shakh reads the Mechaber as including it, the Taz reports the contrary practice
מחבר ס״ה · ט״ז ס״ק י״א · ש״ך ס״ק י״ד
Cut or crushed until the form is lost (even after the mixture)
Nullified; unless something important still remains
מחבר ס״ו · רמ״א ס״ו · ש״ך ס״ק ט״ו
Crushed with intent to nullify
Forbidden to the one who crushed, if the thing is his, and to the one for whom it was crushed
מחבר ס״ו
One piece cut, without knowing which
We do not assume: the cut ones are permitted mimah nafshakh, the whole ones forbidden — even if the majority were cut
מחבר ס״ז · ט״ז ס״ק י״ג–יד
A perforated gizzard / a tereifah lamb's head in a mixture
One identifies by the fat and by the fit of the cut, and the rest is permitted
מחבר ס״ח–ט׳ · ט״ז ס״ק ט״ו · פ״ת ס״ק ז
Table — the machlokot of the siman
Subject
First reading
Second reading
“It is not nullified” — its status
Taz and Shakh (ס״ק ב) — rabbinic; by Torah law it is nullified, hence the leniency in doubt
The Pitchei Teshuvah (ס״ק א) points to the She'ilat Ya'avetz, who treats at length whether it is Torah or rabbinic
The measure of “fit to be served”
The Mechaber — what may be set as it stands before a guest
The “יש חולקים” according to the Taz (ס״ק ה) — a matter of size, once the piece is cooked; and the Rama writes that the practice follows them
Kedei kelipah
The Rama (ס״ב) — nullified, for the peel is not fit to be served
The Shakh (ס״ק ו) — he did not find this in Tosafot, and brings the Ra'avyah and Rabbeinu Yerucham to the contrary, whom he reconciles
A goose gizzard
The Shakh (ס״ק י״ד) — the Mechaber's wording includes even a goose gizzard
The Maharshal, the Bach and the Taz (ס״ק י״א) — in most places it is fit to be served
Goose skin cut into strips
The Issur ve-Heter he-Arokh — once cut, it loses its importance
The Taz (ס״ק י) — the honour is done precisely with the cut and fried pieces
Breast meat of a flayed goose
The Maharshal — once the skin is removed, the importance falls away; and the Peri Chadash inclines thus (פ״ת ס״ק ו)
The sages of Cracow and the Taz (ס״ק י״א); the Bekhor Shor writes that one should be stringent like the Taz
The gloss “in its kind or not in its kind” (ס״ו)
The Shakh (ס״ק י״ח) — it teaches that it is not nullified even out of its kind
The Taz (ס״ק י״ב) — it is out of place here, and would stem from a printing error
Table — the sources of the sugya
Gemara: ביצה ג׳:–ד׳. (דבר שבמנין ודבר חשוב) · חולין ק׳. (בריה וחתיכה הראויה להתכבד) · עבודה זרה ע״ד. (prohibitions of benefit in a mixture, cited by the Shakh ס״ק א)
Rishonim and works cited in the siman: הרמב״ן (through the Beit Yosef, in the Rama's gloss on se'if 1) · תוספות (invoked by the Rama on se'if 2, and discussed by the Shakh) · הרשב״א · הר״ן · שערי דורה והגהותיו · המרדכי · ראבי״ה · רבינו ירוחם · כל בו · תרומת הדשן · הטור · איסור והיתר הארוך (klal 25)
Acharonim: רמ״א · ש״ך (nineteen ס״ק on this siman) · ט״ז (fifteen ס״ק) · ב״ח · מהרש״ל · לבוש · פרי חדש · פתחי תשובה (seven ס״ק) · שאילת יעב״ץ · נודע ביהודה · רדב״ז · בכור שור · שמש צדקה