Siman 102 — Something That Has a Way to Become Permitted (Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirin) Is Not Nullified — Practical psika
סימן ק״ב · הלכה למעשה
דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין אֵינוֹ בָּטֵל
פסק המחבר והרמ״א · הכרעת נושאי הכלים · פסיקת הספרדים והאשכנזים בזמננו
⚖️ פסק הלכה ולמעשה ⚖️
✦ ❖ ✦
Halakha le-ma'asse — the practical psika
From the ruling of the Mehaber and the Rama, to the arbitration of the Shach, the Taz, the Pri Megadim
and the Pitchei Teshuva, all the way to the contemporary Sephardic and Ashkenazi poskim
Subject:
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן ק״ב (ד' סעיפים)
עם נושאי הכלים: ש״ך, ט״ז, פרי מגדים, פתחי תשובה
⚠ Level disclaimer:
This level is not "Da'at HaRav": the Shulchan Aruch HaRav
(the Admur HaZaken) does not cover Yoreh De'ah, hence not Siman 102.
It is a level of practical psika: what one does, and whom to ask.
Writing and iyun:
הרב יוסף חיים סממה · DAAT
How to read this level. Every statement is anchored either in the text of the Shulchan Aruch and its nossei kelim (Shach, Taz, Pri Megadim, Pitchei Teshuva), or in a named responsum of the poskim. On Yoreh De'ah there is neither a Mishnah Berurah (which comments only on Orach Chaim), nor a Shulchan Aruch HaRav / Da'at HaRav (the Admur HaZaken did not write the YD). Every concrete application (le-ma'asse) concludes with the referral to your Rav: real cases blend factual details (same species or not, the prohibition in substance or mere taste, the certainty of the matir, type of utensil) that only a posek who sees your situation can decide.
A davar sheyesh lo matirin is not nullified. Anything that has a way to become permitted — such as an egg laid on Yom Tov, fit [to be eaten] the next day — if it became mixed with others, whether whole or beaten, is not nullified, even in a thousand.
And even in a case of doubt whether it was laid on Yom Tov and it became mixed with others → they are forbidden. But if it became mixed with a different species → it is nullified in sixty.
1. שורש הסימן — why a davar sheyesh lo matirin is never nullified
The foundation. Siman 102 deals with a singular case: a prohibition that, without resorting to nullification, will anyway become permitted later — the archetype being the egg laid on Yom Tov, permitted as soon as the next day. Such a דבר שיש לו מתירין (davar sheyesh lo matirin) is never nullified, even in a thousand — but only min be-mino (in its own species). The whole siman turns on two questions: what makes a thing a davar sheyesh lo matirin (a certain matir, or one in one's power), and where the rule does not apply (a different species, a utensil, mere taste).
The reason for the stringency (Taz s.k. 1). The Taz explains that min ha-Torah chad be-trei batel — by Torah law, a prohibition is lost in a majority of the permitted (acharei rabbim le-hatot). The davar sheyesh lo matirin that is not nullified is therefore only a rabbinic stringency (Rashi, Beitza): "as long as you will be able to eat it [later] be-heter, do not eat it [now] be-issur through nullification." The lever is not the substance of the prohibition but the existence of a heter to come: it would be a waste to consume now, through nullification, what will soon be permitted in its own right.
More severe than a beriah and than a chatichah ha-re'uyah le-hitkabed
The Taz (s.k. 3) stresses that the davar sheyesh lo matirin is more severe than other important items: even in a case of ספק (and even a rabbinic doubt), the davar sheyesh lo matirin remains forbidden — hence the teaching of seif 1: "even in doubt whether it was laid on Yom Tov." For a beriah or a chatichah ha-re'uyah le-hitkabed, doubt would often be permitted; here not, for the lever is not the chashivut but the existence of a future heter: one does not permit nullification now.
2. פסק המחבר והרמ״א — the map of the siman
Siman 102 contains 4 seifim. The Mehaber lays down the rule (a davar sheyesh lo matirin is not nullified, its conditions, the utensil exception); the Rama (הגה) glosses, above all in seif 4, where he sets the limits of the rule: the prohibition must be in substance (בעין), and it must be forbidden in its own right. Here is the overall map, as it emerges from the text itself.
Seif
Subject
Psak (anchored in the text)
1
דשיל"מ אינו בטל אפילו באלף
Any davar sheyesh lo matirin (Yom Tov egg, fit the next day) that became mixed, whole or beaten, is not nullified even in a thousand; even in doubt → forbidden. But shelo be-mino (a different species) → batel in 60. Rama: what one puts לתקן הקדרה / לבנו במאכל (a fowl stuffed with an egg) → not nullified (see OH 513).
2
תנאי המתיר
Yesh mi she'omer: it is a davar sheyesh lo matirin only if the matir will certainly come (עתיד לבוא על כל פנים) or is in one's power without loss (בידו בלא הפסד). What is neither is not a davar sheyesh lo matirin — hence the egg of a doubtful tereifah, which is not one.
3
כלי אינו דשיל"מ
A utensil that became forbidden by absorption, mixed with others and not recognized → batel ברוב; one does not judge it as a davar sheyesh lo matirin, since koshering it (הגעלה) costs an expense.
4
גבולות הדין (Rama)
Yesh mi she'omer: no davar sheyesh lo matirin where the food spoils. Rama: the rule applies only to the prohibition בעין / ממשות; its טעם is nullified. אין איסורו מחמת עצמו (absorbed blood, meat unsalted for 3 days) → nullified. Not recognizable before the mixture → nullified. נדר → davar sheyesh lo matirin (לדידיה). חמץ בפסח → a machloket. המבשל בשבת → not one.
כלל הפסק של הסימן : דבר שיש לו מתירין אינו בטל אפילו באלף — חומרא דרבנן, שמדאורייתא חד בתרי בטל ; אך דווקא מין במינו, ובתנאי שהמתיר ודאי שיבוא או בידו בלא הפסד ; ולא נאמר אלא באיסור בעין שהוא מחמת עצמו ; וכלי (שהגעלתו בהוצאה) — בטל ברוב.
3. אינו בטל אפילו באלף — and even in doubt
כל דבר שיש לו מתירין, כגון ביצה שנולדה ביום טוב שראויה למחר, אם נתערבה באחרות בין שלימה בין טרופה אינה בטלה אפילו באלף ; ואפילו ספק אם נולדה ביום טוב ונתערבה באחרות אסורות.
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ב:א
"Whole or beaten" (Taz s.k. 2). The Taz notes that the whole egg is already a דבר שבמנין that is not nullified (siman 86, a davar hashuv); the chiddush of the siman is that it also has the stringency of a davar sheyesh lo matirin — hence the inclusion of the beaten case (where it is no longer "counted"), and above all the nafka mina of the ספק: it is precisely because it is a davar sheyesh lo matirin that even the doubt is forbidden.
More severe than a beriah (Taz s.k. 3). The Taz rules that the davar sheyesh lo matirin is more stringent than other important things: even a rabbinic doubt remains forbidden. The logic: the severity does not depend on the "value" of the object (which a doubt could dissolve), but on the fact that a heter will come; and "azil le-ta'amei" — one does not permit a nullification when one will anyway be able to eat be-heter.
Le-ma'asse (not nullified in a thousand). A prohibition that will become permitted of itself (the Yom Tov egg, and more generally what will be permitted after Yom Tov / Shabbat) is not nullified in its own species, even in a thousand, and even in doubt: one waits, one does not eat through nullification. Knowing whether your case is truly a davar sheyesh lo matirin (a certain matir? the same species? in substance?) is a question of fact and of din — for the application to your situation, ask your Rav.
4. מין במינו בלבד — shelo be-mino is nullified in sixty
ואם נתערבה בשאינה מינה בטלה בששים.
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ב:א ; הגה: ומיהו אם לבנו בה מאכל או שנתנה בקדרה לתקן הקדרה, כגון שמלאוה בתרנגולת, אינה בטלה (ועיין באו״ח סימן תקיג).
Why only min be-mino (Shach s.k. 4). The Shach explains that the "chashivut" of the davar sheyesh lo matirin comes not from the prohibition itself but from the future heter; shelo be-mino, the other species around it does not "bear the name" of the prohibition, and one returns to the ordinary rule — batel in sixty. The Taz (s.k. 5) cites here the Ran (min be-mino dam ha-par ve-sa'ir lo batil). The Shach (s.k. 2-3) defines the criterion of "its species": batar shema azlinan ve-lo batar ta'ama (one follows the name, not the taste — Rava, AZ 66) — a detail that weighs in qualifying mino.
לתקן הקדרה / לבנו במאכל (Rama, and Taz s.k. 6; Shach s.k. 6). The Rama adds: what one uses to improve the food or to improve the pot — for example a Yom Tov egg with which one stuffed a fowl — is considered min be-mino and is not nullified. The Taz compares it to water and salt in the dough (Tosafot): even from a formally different "species," what serves to shape the dish counts as of the same. The Rama refers to Orach Chaim 513 (the Yom Tov egg), a legitimate source to keep.
Le-ma'asse (min be-mino). The rule "not nullified even in a thousand" applies only in the same species; mixed with a different species, the davar sheyesh lo matirin is nullified in 60. Exception: what one has put to prepare / improve the dish or the pot is treated as min be-mino (not nullified). Qualifying "same species" and "to improve" requires defining the mixture precisely — for the application to your situation, ask your Rav.
5. תנאי המתיר — a certain matir or one in one's power
יש מי שאומר דלא אמרינן דבר שיש לו מתירין אלא כשהמתיר עתיד לבא על כל פנים, או כשהוא בידו לעשותו בלא הפסד ; אבל דבר שאינו בידו, ואין ודאי שיבוא המתיר — אינו בכלל דבר שיש לו מתירין.
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ב:ב
The two conditions of the matir (seif 2)
(a) ודאי שיבוא: the means of permitting will certainly come — the Yom Tov egg will surely be permitted the next day.
(b) בידו בלא הפסד: or the matir is in one's power to bring about without loss.
Conversely: what is not in one's power and whose matir is not certain to come is not in the category of davar sheyesh lo matirin — hence the egg of a doubtful tereifah that became mixed: no certain matir nor one in one's power → nullified.
Why "yesh mi she'omer" (Shach s.k. 7). The Shach wonders at the Mehaber's tentative wording, while the Rashba and the Tur accept it; he concludes that the rule is indeed adopted. The Taz (s.k. 7) explains "עתיד לבוא על כל פנים": this is the Yom Tov egg, certainly permitted afterwards. The condition is not incidental: it governs the entire practical use of the category.
Pitchei Teshuva (s.k. 4): on "עתיד לבוא," the Tzemach Tzedek (responsa 69), the Pri Chadash and the Minchat Yaakov discuss the egg of a doubtful tereifah: for some, the issur ha-kolel "nolad" (being laid on a forbidden day) dissipates after Yom Tov, which would make it a davar sheyesh lo matirin. The Pri Megadim and Rabbi Akiva Eiger (responsa 65) weigh the case of a vow on a neveilah. A fine distinction, not to be decided alone.
Pitchei Teshuva (s.k. 1): on כל דפריש — what separates from a mixture of a davar sheyesh lo matirin. The Siddur Shel Shabbat, the Tzemach Tzedek (69), the Tzlach and the Chavot Yair rule that one does not say "kol de-parish me-ruba parish": what separates is itself a davar sheyesh lo matirin and forbidden. A major practical point of seif 1-2.
Le-ma'asse (the conditions). A thing is a davar sheyesh lo matirin only if the matir is certain (it will come anyway) or in your power without loss. A mere doubtful prohibition whose lifting is not guaranteed (the egg of a doubtful tereifah) is nullified normally (60 / a majority depending on the case). Assessing the "certainty" or the "power without loss" is a question of fact — for the application to your situation, ask your Rav.
6. כלי אינו דשיל"מ — a utensil is nullified in a majority
כלי שנאסר בבליעת איסור, ונתערב באחרים ואינו ניכר, בטל ברוב ; ואין דנין אותו כדבר שיש לו מתירין, לפי שצריך להוציא עליו הוצאה להגעילו, וכן כל כיוצא בזה.
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ב:ג
Why the utensil is not a davar sheyesh lo matirin. One might think a forbidden utensil is a davar sheyesh lo matirin: it "could" become permitted by הגעלה (scalding). The Mehaber rules that it is not: because koshering costs an expense (להגעילו), the "matir" is not regarded as freely available — and the utensil is nullified in a majority (batel ברוב) like an ordinary object. The Rashba's reason: הגעלה is an expense, so the matir is not "בידו בלא הפסד" of seif 2.
The Shach's nuance (s.k. 8). The Shach discusses the reason "צריך הוצאה": the loss of the הגעלה is minimal (Maharil) — why should it suffice? He disputes the Maharshal and clarifies: the lever also rests on the fact that one can simply wait (שהייה) until the utensil is no longer בן יומו, which is not a "matir" in the strong sense. The practical ruling remains: the utensil is nullified ברוב.
Le-ma'asse (the utensil). A utensil forbidden by absorption, mixed with permitted utensils and no longer distinguishable, is nullified in a majority — it is not a davar sheyesh lo matirin, since making it permitted requires an expense (הגעלה). But the use of a forbidden utensil, the quality of "not recognized," and the procedure to follow (הגעלה, waiting until no longer בן יומו) are questions of fact — for the application to your situation, ask your Rav.
7. גבולות הרמ״א — in substance vs taste, ein issuro mechamat atzmo
הגה: ולא אמרינן דבר שיש לו מתירין אינו בטל אלא כשהאיסור בעין, או שיש בו עדיין ממשות האיסור בתערובת ; אבל טעמו בטל. וכן אם אין איסורו מחמת עצמו, בטל.
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ב:ד (הגה)
The central machloket of psak: Rama vs Shach (s.k. 9-10)
Rama (seif 4): the rule applies only if the prohibition is in substance (בעין) or there remains ממשות האיסור in the mixture; but its taste is nullified (טעמו בטל). Likewise, if the prohibition is not in its own right (אין איסורו מחמת עצמו), it is nullified — hence the piece of meat unsalted within three days: although some hold it a davar sheyesh lo matirin (it is permitted by roasting), it is nullified, since it is forbidden only because of the absorbed blood (דם הבלוע).
Shach (s.k. 9-10): the Shach disputes the Rama: in his view, even the taste is not nullified min be-mino (Nedarim 52, Ran, Rosh); and he rejects "אין איסורו מחמת עצמו בטל." The Bach is stringent like him. The Taz (s.k. 10) lays down the great principle: כל איסור שעיקר היתירו ע"י ביטול אין בו דין דשיל"מ — any prohibition whose essential heter is through nullification is not in the category of davar sheyesh lo matirin.
הכרעה. In practice, the common custom follows the leniency of the Rama: only the prohibition in substance (בעין / ממשות) is not nullified; mere taste is nullified, and a prohibition that is not מחמת עצמו is nullified. The Pitchei Teshuva (s.k. 7-8) reports the Pnei Aryeh (2-3) who supports the Rama (taste is nullified, and a prohibition not in its own right is nullified), with the approval of the Pri Megadim. The Shach is stringent; where one follows his positions, one is stricter. As always, the community follows its posek.
Pitchei Teshuva (s.k. 8): on the piece of meat unsalted within three days, the Teshuva Me'ahava (III) and the Noda BiYhuda (6) address the case: it is nullified, since it is forbidden only because of the blood it absorbed (ein issuro mechamat atzmo), not by its own substance — the Pri Megadim approves. A practical point of seif 4.
Le-ma'asse (the limits). Retain: the rule "the davar sheyesh lo matirin is not nullified" applies only to the prohibition in substance; mere absorbed taste is nullified, and a prohibition that is not in its own right (absorbed blood, meat unsalted 3 days) is nullified too — such is the Rama's leniency, common in practice, the Shach being stricter. Deciding "in substance or taste," "in its own right or not" is delicate — for the application to your situation, ask your Rav.
8. נדר, חמץ בפסח, המבשל בשבת
הגה: וכן כל איסור שלא היה ניכר קודם שנתערב, בטל אף על פי שיש לו מתירין. ומי שנדר מדבר ונתערב אחר כך — לדידיה הוי דבר שיש לו מתירין, שיכול להתיר נדרו. ודבר שהיה לו היתר וחזר ונאסר, כגון חמץ בפסח, אינו נקרא דבר שיש לו מתירין — ויש חולקין. ואינו דשיל"מ אלא אם חוזר ומותר למי שנאסר לו ; אבל אם נשאר אסור לעולם לאחד, אף שמותר לאחרים — כגון המבשל בשבת — אינו דשיל"מ.
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ב:ד (הגה)
Case (seif 4, Rama)
davar sheyesh lo matirin?
Source
Not recognizable before the mixture (grapes pressed on Shabbat into clear wine)
No — nullified
Rama; Taz s.k. 11
A vow, then the food becomes mixed
Yes לדידיה — he can have his vow annulled
Rama; Taz s.k. 12; PT s.k. 10
חמץ בפסח (had a heter then becomes forbidden again)
Machloket (Mordechai no / Rambam yes)
Rama; Taz s.k. 13
המבשל בשבת (forbidden to him forever)
No
Rama; Shach s.k. 15
נדר — a davar sheyesh lo matirin "לדידיה" (Taz s.k. 12; Pitchei Teshuva s.k. 10). One who made a vow about a thing, which then becomes mixed: for him it is a davar sheyesh lo matirin, since he can go to a chacham to have his vow annulled (hatarat nedarim). But — the Pitchei Teshuva specifies (s.k. 10, in the name of the Brit Avraham, the Maharit, and Rabbi Akiva Eiger, responsa 65) — it is a davar sheyesh lo matirin only לדידיה: for one who can annul AND for whom it is forbidden. And a shevu'ah is not a davar sheyesh lo matirin (Beit Yaakov, Teshuva Me'ahava), since אין מצוה לאתשולי — there is no mitzvah to have an oath annulled.
חמץ בפסח — a machloket (Taz s.k. 13). A thing that had a heter then becomes forbidden again — like chametz on Pesach (permitted before and after Pesach) — is, for the Rama, not called a davar sheyesh lo matirin; but some disagree (the Rambam sees it as one). The Taz reports that the Maharshal rules like the Rambam. The Shach (s.k. 13-14) adds that, because of the severity of chametz, it is not nullified even shelo be-mino (Rambam, ch. 15). A machloket to know.
המבשל בשבת (Shach s.k. 15; Pitchei Teshuva s.k. 11-12). A davar sheyesh lo matirin applies only if the thing becomes permitted again to the one for whom it was forbidden. But one who cooks on Shabbat (be-mezid): the dish remains forbidden to him forever, even though it is permitted to others as soon as Shabbat ends (motza'ei Shabbat) — it is not a davar sheyesh lo matirin. The Pitchei Teshuva (s.k. 11-12) reports the Magen Avraham 308: the nuance applies above all if the mixing took place during Shabbat itself.
Le-ma'asse (vow / chametz / Shabbat). A vow whose object becomes mixed is a davar sheyesh lo matirin for the one who can annul it (not a shevu'ah). Chametz on Pesach is subject to a machloket (and in any case its severity calls for stringency). What remains forbidden forever to someone (cooking on Shabbat) is not a davar sheyesh lo matirin. These cases depend closely on the facts and the custom — for the application to your situation, ask your Rav.
9. פסיקת הספרדים בזמננו — the contemporary Sephardic psika
Note on method. The responsa that follow (Yabia Omer, Yehaveh Da'at, Yalkut Yossef, Or LeTzion) extend the principles of siman 102 above to modern cases. They do not appear in the corpus of the siman; they are cited as recognized streams of psika, to be confirmed with a Rav before any application.
The contemporary Sephardic psika (the school of Rav Ovadia Yosef, Rav Ben-Tzion Abba Shaul) begins exactly from the framework of the Mehaber: a davar sheyesh lo matirin is not nullified min be-mino (seif 1), only if the matir is certain or in one's power (seif 2), the utensil is nullified ברוב (seif 3). On the limits of seif 4 (in substance vs taste, ein issuro mechamat atzmo), the Sephardic school is more inclined to follow the leniency of the Rama and the position of the Pnei Aryeh reported by the Pitchei Teshuva: mere taste or a prohibition not in its own right is nullified.
Concrete case
Sephardic orientation (to be verified)
A Yom Tov egg mixed (same species)
Not nullified even in a thousand, even in doubt (seif 1); shelo be-mino → batel 60.
The egg of a doubtful tereifah mixed
No certain matir → nullified (seif 2); see PT s.k. 4 (Tzemach Tzedek / Pri Chadash).
A forbidden utensil mixed / not recognized
Batel ברוב — not a davar sheyesh lo matirin, since הגעלה = an expense (seif 3).
Mere taste, or a prohibition not in its own right
Nullified (the Rama's leniency retained; Pnei Aryeh, PT s.k. 7-8).
Anchoring in the siman. All of this follows from the text: not nullified even in a thousand and min be-mino (seif 1), the conditions of the matir (seif 2), the utensil ברוב (seif 3), in substance vs taste and ein issuro mechamat atzmo (seif 4). The contemporary responsa apply these rules to today's kitchens.
10. פסיקת האשכנזים — the Ashkenazi psika
Note on method. The same remark applies: these streams extend the Rama and the nossei kelim; they are cited as landmarks of psika, to be confirmed with a Rav.
The Ashkenazi psika begins from the Rama and the acharonim (Chochmat Adam, Aruch HaShulchan YD). Two poles dominate this siman: (1) the Rama's glosses in seif 4 — the prohibition must be in substance and in its own right, otherwise it is nullified, a common custom; (2) the tension with the Shach (s.k. 9-10), who is stringent (even the taste is not nullified min be-mino). Communities that follow the Shach / Bach more are stricter on taste and on "not in its own right"; those that follow the Pnei Aryeh (PT s.k. 7-8) hold the Rama's leniency.
Concrete case
Ashkenazi orientation (to be verified)
A davar sheyesh lo matirin min be-mino
Not nullified even in a thousand / even in doubt (seif 1; Taz s.k. 1-3).
The limits of seif 4 (taste, in its own right)
Rama: nullified; Shach / Bach: stricter — according to the community's posek.
A vow / oath mixed
Vow → davar sheyesh lo matirin לדידיה; oath → no (ein mitzvah le-it'shulei). PT s.k. 10.
חמץ בפסח
Machloket Mordechai / Rambam; stringency in practice given the severity (Shach s.k. 13-14).
Chabad — only through real sources. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav does not cover Yoreh De'ah; there is therefore no "Da'at HaRav" on siman 102. For the Chabad practice on these questions, one refers to the responsa of the Tzemach Tzedek and to the Sefer HaMinhagim Chabad when they explicitly address a point — and one refrains from attributing to the Admur HaZaken a ruling he did not write here.
11. מקרים מודרניים — today's cases
How siman 102 sheds light on practice. Four tools of the siman serve to decide cases: (1) not nullified even in a thousand — min be-mino (seif 1); (2) the conditions of the matir (seif 2); (3) the utensil ברוב (seif 3); (4) the limits in substance / in its own right (seif 4).
Case
Tool of the siman
Orientation (to be confirmed with the Rav)
An egg laid on Yom Tov fallen into a dish of eggs
Seif 1 (min be-mino)
Not nullified even in a thousand, even in doubt; one waits for the next day. Mixed with a different species → batel 60.
A food forbidden today, permitted after Shabbat / Yom Tov
Seif 2 (certain matir)
If the matir is certain → davar sheyesh lo matirin, one waits; if a mere doubt with no guaranteed matir → nullified.
A forbidden utensil mixed with permitted utensils
Seif 3 (utensil)
Batel ברוב — not a davar sheyesh lo matirin, since koshering it costs an expense (הגעלה).
Mere absorbed taste (without substance), or meat unsalted 3 days
Seif 4 (taste / in its own right)
Nullified (Rama); the Shach is stricter — according to the posek.
A food upon which one made a vow, then mixed
Seif 4 (vow)
Davar sheyesh lo matirin לדידיה (he can annul his vow); an oath → no.
Le-ma'asse. These situations blend questions of fact and of din — same species or not, certain matir or not, prohibition in substance or mere taste, type of utensil, the possibility of annulling a vow — that only your Rav can decide upon seeing the case. The practical rule: reconstruct precisely what became mixed, into which species, and whether a heter will come anyway, then ask. For the application to your situation, ask your Rav.
12. סיכום מעשי — summary and tables
טבלה — the rule and its limits, in practice
Case
Measure (for us)
Note
Davar sheyesh lo matirin mixed, same species
Not nullified even in a thousand
Even in doubt → forbidden (Taz s.k. 3)
Davar sheyesh lo matirin shelo be-mino (different species)
Batel בששים
The heter "does not bear the name" of the prohibition (Shach s.k. 4)
Put לתקן הקדרה / לבנו במאכל
Not nullified (like min be-mino)
Rama; OH 513; Taz s.k. 6
Matir not certain and not בידו (doubtful tereifah)
Nullified — not a davar sheyesh lo matirin
Seif 2
A forbidden utensil mixed / not recognized
Batel ברוב
הגעלה = an expense (seif 3)
Mere taste, or a prohibition not in its own right
Nullified (Rama)
Shach s.k. 9-10 stricter
A vow mixed
Davar sheyesh lo matirin לדידיה
An oath → no (PT s.k. 10)
חמץ בפסח / המבשל בשבת
Chametz: machloket; Shabbat: not one
Rambam/Mordechai; Shach s.k. 15
טבלה — who says what (the nossei kelim of the siman)
Posek
Decisive contribution (anchored in the corpus)
Mehaber (seifim 1-4)
A davar sheyesh lo matirin is not nullified even in a thousand, and even in doubt; shelo be-mino is nullified in sixty; the conditions of the matir (certain / in one's power); a utensil is nullified in a majority.
Rama (הגה)
לתקן הקדרה / לבנו במאכל = min be-mino (seif 1); in seif 4: in substance / ממשות vs taste nullified; ein issuro mechamat atzmo nullified; a vow = davar sheyesh lo matirin; chametz on Pesach a machloket; one who cooks on Shabbat ≠ a davar sheyesh lo matirin.
Shach (Siftei Kohen)
s.k. 2-3: batar shema azlinan (Rava, AZ 66); s.k. 4: shelo be-mino is nullified, since the chashivut is not from the prohibition; s.k. 8: the utensil, the loss of הגעלה (Maharil, waiting until no longer בן יומו); s.k. 9-10: disputes the Rama (even the taste is not nullified; rejects "in its own right"); s.k. 13-15: chametz and one who cooks on Shabbat.
Taz (Turei Zahav)
s.k. 1: min ha-Torah chad be-trei batel, a rabbinic stringency (Rashi Beitza); s.k. 2: "whole or beaten" and the nafka mina of the doubt; s.k. 3: more severe than a beriah; s.k. 5: shelo be-mino (Ran, dam ha-par ve-sa'ir); s.k. 6: לתקן הקדרה (water and salt in dough); s.k. 10: any prohibition whose essential heter is through nullification; s.k. 12-13: a vow, chametz on Pesach.
Pri Megadim (פר״מ)
Approves the Pnei Aryeh on the taste being nullified and a prohibition not in its own right being nullified; weighs the egg of a doubtful tereifah (reported PT s.k. 4, 7-8).
Pitchei Teshuva (פתחי תשובה)
s.k. 1: kol de-parish (Siddur Shel Shabbat, Tzemach Tzedek 69, Tzlach, Chavot Yair); s.k. 4: atid lavo, doubtful tereifah (Pri Chadash, R' Akiva Eiger 65); s.k. 7-8: Pnei Aryeh supports the Rama, Teshuva Me'ahava and Noda BiYhuda (meat unsalted 3 days); s.k. 10: a vow לדידיה, an oath ≠ a davar sheyesh lo matirin; s.k. 11-12: chametz and one who cooks on Shabbat (Magen Avraham 308).
טבלה — contemporary streams of psika (outside the corpus, to be verified)
Sephardic: the school of Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer, Yehaveh Da'at), Yalkut Yossef; Or LeTzion (Rav Ben-Tzion Abba Shaul). They extend the Mehaber: a davar sheyesh lo matirin min be-mino is not nullified, the conditions of the matir, the utensil ברוב; more inclined to the Rama's leniency in seif 4 (mere taste / not in its own right is nullified, Pnei Aryeh, PT s.k. 7-8).
Ashkenazi: the acharonim (Chochmat Adam, Aruch HaShulchan YD). They extend the Rama, in tension with the Shach: the Rama's leniency (in substance vs taste, in its own right) or the stringency of the Shach / Bach according to the community's posek.
Chabad: no Shulchan Aruch HaRav on the YD. One cites only real sources — responsa of the Tzemach Tzedek, the Sefer HaMinhagim — when they explicitly address the point.
In substance, retain the yesod: a davar sheyesh lo matirin (which will anyway become permitted later) is not nullified min be-mino, even in a thousand, even in doubt — a rabbinic stringency.
Conditions: only if the matir is certain or in your power without loss; shelo be-mino → batel 60; the utensil (whose הגעלה costs) is nullified ברוב.
Limits (Rama): only the prohibition in substance is not nullified; mere taste, or a prohibition not in its own right (absorbed blood, unsalted meat), is nullified — the Shach being stricter.
And for any real case — species, certainty of the matir, in substance or taste, a vow — for the application to your situation, ask your Rav.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות פסק והלכה למעשה בדין דבר שיש לו מתירין · סימן ק״ב · ⚖️ Level 4 — Halakha le-ma'asse
⚠️ This content is for study purposes. The contemporary streams of psika cited (Sephardic and Ashkenazi) are landmarks, not a personal psak. For any practical application (לְמַעֲשֶׂה), consult a qualified Rav.