Siman 102 — Something That Has a Way to Become Permitted (Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirin) Is Not Nullified
A davar sheyesh lo matirin will become permitted anyway — even in a thousand, even in doubt — but only within its own kind (min bemino)
יורה דעה · סימן ק״ב
דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין אֵינוֹ בָּטֵל
🌱 Introduction Level · מתחילים
✦ ❖ ✦
A first approach to Siman 102: the 4 seifim of the Mehaber and the glosses of the Rama, the Hebrew text with a fluent English translation. Why is something that will become permitted anyway later on — like the egg laid on Yom Tov, permitted the next day — never nullified, even in a thousand and even in doubt? The principle of davar sheyesh lo matirin (dachil"m), the distinction min bemino / shelo bemino, the two conditions of the matir, the utensil that is not a dachil"m (hag'ala), and the limits of the Rama (taamo batel, ein issuro mechamat atzmo, neder, hametz on Pesach, hamevashel beShabbat).
Topic: Davar sheyesh lo matirin — the egg of Yom Tov, min bemino, conditions of the matir, utensil, limits of the Rama Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן ק״ב
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Study outline
1.The text of the Mehaber: the 4 seifim, by thematic groups
2.Context: why dachil"m follows the laws of nullification
3.The key concepts: dachil"m, min bemino / shelo bemino, the matir, keli, be'ein…
4.Min bemino vs shelo bemino: the nullified / not-nullified table
5.The Shach and the Taz: who they are, a few key entries
6.The gloss of the Rama (הגה)
7.The limits of dachil"m: what is nullified after all
8.Modern practical cases: egg of Yom Tov, doubt, utensil
9.Summary and comprehension questions
1. The text of the Mehaber — the 4 seifim
Siman 102 directly continues the laws of תערובת (mixtures) and ביטול (nullification). After the simanim that fix how much permitted food is needed to nullify a prohibition (sixty, the majority, etc.), the Mehaber (Rabbi Yossef Karo) deals here with a case where nullification simply does not work: the davar sheyesh lo matirin (dachil"m), "something that has a way to become permitted." If something will become permitted anyway later — without resorting to nullification — the Sages say: "as long as you can eat it permitted, do not eat it forbidden by nullification." The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds his glosses (הגה) to refine the practice. Let us explore the seifim.
Group A — The rule and its conditions (seifim 1-2)
Seif 1 — A dachil"m is not nullified, even in doubt; except shelo bemino
Anything that has a way to become permitted (kol davar sheyesh lo matirin) — for example an egg laid on Yom Tov (beitza shenolda beYom Tov), which will be fit the next day — if it has mixed with others, whether whole or beaten (bein shleima bein trufa), is not nullified, even in a thousand (eina beteila afilu be-elef). And even in a case of doubt (safek) whether it was laid on Yom Tov and it mixed with others → they are prohibited. But if it mixed with a different kind (she'eina mina) → it is nullified in sixty (beteila be-shishim). Gloss of the Rama: however, if one used it to prepare a dish (libnu ba ma'akhal) or placed it in the pot to improve the pot (letaken ha-kedeira) — for example one stuffed a fowl with it (shemil'uha be-tarnegolet) — it is not nullified (see Orach Chaim 513).
The central idea: normally a prohibition is drowned in sixty times (or more) its volume of permitted food. But the dachil"m escapes this rule: since it will become permitted anyway (the egg, tomorrow), the Sages refuse to permit it now by nullification — "wait and eat it permitted." So it is not nullified, even in a thousand, and even in a case of doubt (more stringent than other prohibitions, where doubt would be permitted). One limit here: this applies only within its own kind (min bemino); mixed with a different kind, it is nullified in sixty. And the Rama specifies that what is added to improve the pot (letaken ha-kedeira) is treated as min bemino → not nullified.
Seif 2 — The conditions: a certain matir or one in his power
There is one who says (yesh mi she'omer) that "a dachil"m is not nullified" was said only (a) when the matir (the way to permit) will certainly come (atid lavo al kol panim), or (b) when the matir is in his power to bring about without loss (be-yado la'asoto belo hefsed); but something that is not in his power and about which it is not certain that the matir will come is not in the category of dachil"m. Therefore an egg of doubtful-tereifa (beitzat safek tereifa) that has mixed with others is not a dachil"m.
The pivot of the seif: everything hinges on the matir, the "way to permit." For something to be a dachil"m, that way must either certainly arrive (Yom Tov always ends → the egg becomes permitted), or be in the person's hands, achievable without loss. If the way is uncertain and out of reach — like an egg that is merely a doubtful-tereifa (nothing guarantees it will ever be permitted) — it is no longer a dachil"m: it is nullified like an ordinary prohibition.
A utensil that became prohibited because it absorbed a prohibition (keli shene'esar mechamat shebala issur), which has mixed with others and one does not recognize it, is nullified in the majority (batel be-rov); and one does not judge it as a dachil"m (because it requires incurring an expense to kasher it — mipnei shetzarikh lehotzi hotzaot lehag'ilo), and anything similar.
Why does the utensil make an exception? One might think a prohibited utensil is a dachil"m — after all, it has a "way to become permitted": hag'ala (scalding). But the Mehaber rules that no: it is nullified in the simple majority (be-rov). The reason: the matir is not "free" — it costs an expense (to kasher). And a matir that requires an expense is not considered a means "in one's power without loss" (cf. seif 2). The utensil therefore joins the category of things nullified normally.
Seif 4 — Where dachil"m does not apply; the Rama's distinctions
There is one who says that we do not say "a dachil"m is not nullified" where the dish spoils (mitkalkel). Gloss of the Rama: and this rule that a dachil"m is not nullified applies only when the prohibition is in substance (be'ein) or there is still substance of the prohibition (mamashut ha-issur) in the mixture; but its taste is nullified (taamo batel). Likewise, if its prohibition is not by itself (ein issuro mechamat atzmo), it is nullified — therefore a piece not salted within three days (chatikha shelo nimlecha toch shelosha yamim), although some hold it to be a dachil"m (since it is permitted through roasting, al yedei tzeliya), is nullified nonetheless, because it is prohibited only on account of the blood absorbed in it (ha-dam ha-baluа ba). Any prohibition that was not recognizable before it mixed is nullified, even if it is a dachil"m. One who made a vow (nadar) about something and it then mixed → for him (le-dideih) it is a dachil"m, since he can have his vow annulled (lehisha'el al nidro). Something that had a heter and then became prohibited again, like hametz on Pesach, is not called a dachil"m — and some disagree (ve-yesh cholekin). And it is a dachil"m only if it becomes permitted again to the one for whom it was prohibited; but if it remains prohibited forever to one person even though permitted to others — like one who cooks on Shabbat (ha-mevashel be-Shabbat) — it is not a dachil"m.
בעין / טעמו בטל — "in substance" vs "its taste is nullified": the strict rule of dachil"m applies, according to the Rama, only as long as the prohibition exists materially (be'ein, or mamashut ha-issur). If the prohibition left only a taste (taam) diffused in the mixture, that taste is nullified normally. This is one of the great limits of the principle (and the Shach disputes this leniency — see the Lamdan level).
2. Context — where this siman stands
The preceding simanim fixed the general rule of nullification: a prohibition is drowned in a sufficient quantity of permitted food (sixty, or the majority depending on the case), and the mixture becomes permitted. Siman 102 introduces a major exception: there is a category of prohibitions that are never nullified, not because they are "important," but because they will become permitted anyway later. The question is no longer "how much permitted food is needed?" but "is there a future means of eating this thing permitted?" — and if so, the Sages say: do not use nullification, wait.
The great questions of the siman
Question
Where?
Typical answer
The rule and doubt
Seif 1
Not nullified even in a thousand, even in safek — but min bemino only
The conditions of the matir
Seif 2
Certain matir or be-yado without loss; else (safek tereifa) → nullified
The utensil
Seif 3
Nullified be-rov — not a dachil"m, since hag'ala costs an expense
The limits (Rama)
Seif 4
Taam / not by itself / not recognizable → nullified; neder, hametz, Shabbat
The cross-cutting idea: dachil"m is not a matter of quantity. No matter that there is a thousand times more permitted food: as long as a future means to permit exists (certain or in one's power), one does not use nullification. Conversely, the moment that means disappears — a different kind, a utensil costly to kasher, a mere taste, a prohibition not recognizable, a prohibition eternal for that person — the exception falls and nullification reclaims its rights.
3. The key concepts of this siman
To understand Siman 102, one must master a small technical vocabulary describing what a "way to become permitted" is and when nullification does or does not apply.
דבר שיש לו מתירין (dachil"m) — "something that has a way to become permitted": something that will become permitted anyway later, without resorting to nullification (the egg of Yom Tov, permitted the next day). Such an object is never nullified (afilu be-elef) — but only within its own kind (min bemino). The reason (Taz, Rashi on Beitza): by Torah law, chad bitrei batel (the one is nullified in the two); the Sages were stringent — "as long as you can eat it permitted, do not eat it forbidden by nullification."
מין במינו / שלא במינו — "same kind" / "different kind": the dachil"m remains prohibited only within its kind (an egg among eggs). Mixed with a different kind (shelo bemino) → it is nullified in sixty. Reason (Shach): the "value" of the dachil"m does not come from the prohibition itself but from the future heter; and shelo bemino, that heter "does not bear the name" of the prohibition.
מתיר — The matir: the "way to permit." For something to be a dachil"m, that means must either certainly arrive (atid lavo), or be in one's power without loss (be-yado belo hefsed). A means that is uncertain and out of reach (safek tereifa) does not count (seif 2).
לתקן הקדרה — "to improve the pot": what is added to the dish to prepare or enhance it (like water and salt in dough, or an egg used to stuff a fowl) is considered min bemino → it is not nullified (Rama, seif 1; Taz, Shach).
הגעלה — Hag'ala (scalding): kashering a utensil with boiling water. A prohibited utensil does have a "way to become permitted" (the hag'ala), but since that means costs an expense, the utensil is not a dachil"m and is nullified be-rov (seif 3).
בעין / ממשות האיסור — "in substance" / "substance of the prohibition": for the Rama, the dachil"m remains undissolvable only as long as the prohibition exists materially. A mere taste (taam), a prohibition not by itself (absorbed blood) or not recognizable before the mixture → are nullified (seif 4).
Three borderline cases to know (seif 4): the נדר (vow) is a dachil"m for the one who made it (le-dideih), since he can have it annulled by a sage; the חמץ בפסח is the subject of a machloket (the Mordechai says no, the Rambam yes); and המבשל בשבת (one who cooks on Shabbat) is not a dachil"m, since the dish remains forbidden to him forever, even though permitted to others.
4. Min bemino vs shelo bemino — the nullification table
The whole heart of the siman boils down to a table. One crosses the nature of the mixture (same kind or not, substance or taste) with the nature of the matir, and looks at whether nullification applies.
Situation
Matir?
Result
Min bemino, prohibition in substance, certain matir (egg of Yom Tov among eggs)
Yes (certain)
🔴 Not nullified, even in a thousand, even in safek
Shelo bemino (mixed with a different kind)
Yes
🟢 Nullified in sixty
Letaken ha-kedeira / libnu ba ma'akhal (stuffed a fowl)
Yes
🔴 Treated as min bemino → not nullified (Rama)
Safek tereifa (matir uncertain and out of reach)
🟡 Invalid
🟢 Nullified (not a dachil"m — seif 2)
Utensil prohibited (matir = hag'ala, costly)
🟡 Costs an expense
🟢 Nullified be-rov (seif 3)
Taam alone / prohibition not by itself / not recognizable
(Yes, but…)
🟢 Nullified despite the matir (Rama, seif 4)
The logic in one sentence: a dachil"m is not nullified only when three conditions combine — (1) a real matir (certain or be-yado without loss), (2) within its kind (min bemino), and (3) the prohibition in substance (be'ein). The moment one of these is missing (a different kind, a costly or uncertain matir, a mere taste), nullification reclaims its rights.
The Rama's point (seif 1): what is added "to improve the pot" (letaken ha-kedeira) — like water and salt in dough, or the egg used to stuff a fowl — is considered min bemino, hence not nullified. This is not a new rule, but a clarification of what "the same kind" covers.
5. The Shach and the Taz — the great commentators
In Yoreh De'ah, the Shulchan Aruch is never read alone. Two great commentaries accompany it on every page and structure practical study: the Shach and the Taz. They are the reference nossei kelim in Yoreh De'ah (no Mishna Berurah here, which comments only on Orach Chaim).
The Shach (ש״ך) — abbreviation of שפתי כהן, Siftei Kohen, by Rabbi Shabtai haKohen (Lithuania, 17th century). It is the reference commentary on Yoreh De'ah, of great analytical depth.
The Taz (ט״ז) — abbreviation of טורי זהב, Turei Zahav, by Rabbi David haLevi Segal (Poland, 17th century). Often in dialogue — and sometimes in disagreement — with the Shach.
The Taz explains the foundation of the whole siman: by Torah law, the one is nullified in the two (chad bitrei batel), by virtue of the verse acharei rabim lehatot ("follow the majority"). But the Sages were stringent regarding the dachil"m so that it not be nullified, saying: "as long as you can eat it permitted, do not eat it forbidden by nullification" (ad shetokhlenu be-heter al tokhlenu be-issur al yedei bitul). The driver, therefore, is not the chashivut (importance) of the object, but the existence of a heter to come.
A key entry from the Shach
Shach s.k. 4 — Shelo bemino is nullified: the value comes from the future heter
The Shach explains why shelo bemino is nullified (in sixty) whereas min bemino is not. The "value" of the dachil"m does not come from the prohibition itself (ein ha-chashivut mitzad ha-issur atzmo), but from the fact that it will have a heter (me'achar sheyihyeh lo heter). But when it is mixed with a different kind, that future heter "does not bear the name" of the prohibition (ein ha-heter nikra al shem ha-issur): the thing is no longer marked as "this egg that will be permitted," so it is nullified normally.
We see the method: the Shach and the Taz do not repeat the Mehaber — they explain the mechanism (chad bitrei by Torah law, a rabbinic stringency; the "value" coming from the future heter) and rule. This is exactly what is deepened at the Lamdan level, with the law of doubt (Taz s.k. 3: the dachil"m is more stringent than berya), and the machloket Shach / Rama on the taste (seif 4).
6. The gloss of the Rama (הגה)
The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds to the Mehaber's text glosses that refine the practice and trace the limits of the dachil"m. Here are his most striking interventions in our siman.
On seif 1 — letaken ha-kedeira is min bemino
Gloss of the Rama: מיהו אם לבנו בה מאכל או נתנוה בקדרה לתקן הקדרה… אינה בטלה — "however, if one used it to prepare a dish or placed it in the pot to improve the pot… it is not nullified." The Rama refers to Orach Chaim 513 (the laws of the egg of Yom Tov). What serves to enhance the dish — like an egg used to stuff a fowl — is counted as the same kind, hence not nullified.
On seif 4 — only the prohibition in substance is not nullified
Gloss of the Rama: דוקא שהאיסור בעין… אבל טעמו בטל — "only if the prohibition is in substance… but its taste is nullified." This is the great limit: the strict rule applies only to the material prohibition; a mere taste that has diffused is nullified as usual.
On seif 4 — ein issuro mechamat atzmo is nullified
Gloss of the Rama: וכן אם אין איסורו מחמת עצמו בטל — "likewise, if its prohibition is not by itself, it is nullified." Example: a piece not salted within three days is prohibited only because of the blood absorbed in it (dam baluа) — not by itself — so it is nullified, even though some held it to be a dachil"m (since it could be permitted by roasting).
On seif 4 — neder, hametz on Pesach, hamevashel beShabbat
The Rama further distinguishes three borderline cases: the neder (vow) is a dachil"m for the one who made it (le-dideih), since he can have it annulled; the hametz on Pesach (something that was permitted and then becomes prohibited again) is not a dachil"m according to one view — ויש חולקין ("and some disagree," i.e. the Rambam); and hamevashel beShabbat is not a dachil"m, since the dish remains forbidden to him forever, even though permitted to others.
The Rama carefully traces the boundary of the dachil"m: he broadens what "the same kind" covers (letaken ha-kedeira), but strongly restricts the scope of the strict rule — only the prohibition in substance (be'ein) is subject to it, and he excludes a mere taste, a prohibition not by itself, a prohibition not recognizable, and a prohibition eternal for that person.
7. The limits of dachil"m — what is nullified after all
Seif 4 — the conceptual heart of the siman along with seif 1 — deserves a pause. When does dachil"m not apply, and why?
Everything hinges on a question: is the "way to permit" real, and the prohibition present? Several cases make the strict rule fall:
Taamo batel: the prohibition left only a taste → it is nullified (only the prohibition in substance remains).
Ein issuro mechamat atzmo: the prohibition is not "by itself" (absorbed blood in an unsalted piece) → it is nullified.
Lo haya nikar: the prohibition was not recognizable before the mixture → it is nullified, even if it is a dachil"m.
Neder: for the one who made the vow, it is a dachil"m (he can have it annulled) — le-dideih only.
Hametz on Pesach: became prohibited again after being permitted → machloket (no / yes).
Hamevashel beShabbat: prohibited forever to that person → not a dachil"m.
Case
Dachil"m?
Nullified?
Prohibition be'ein, min bemino, certain matir
🔴 Yes (full)
No — even in a thousand
Taam (taste alone, without substance)
🟢 No
Yes (the taste is nullified)
Ein issuro mechamat atzmo (absorbed blood)
🟢 No
Yes
Lo haya nikar (not recognizable before)
🟢 No
Yes
Neder (vow)
🟡 Yes — le-dideih
No (for the one who made it)
Hametz on Pesach
🟡 Machloket
Disputed
Hamevashel beShabbat (eternal prohibition for him)
🟢 No
Yes
And seif 2 adds the finishing touch: even a prohibition that would have a future means to permit is a dachil"m only if that means is certain or in one's power without loss. A safek tereifa — for which nothing guarantees it will ever be permitted — is nullified, since its "matir" may not exist.
8. Modern practical cases
How do these rules apply in our kitchens today? Here are three common situations illuminated by our siman.
Case 1 — An egg laid on Yom Tov fallen among other eggs
An egg is laid by the hen during Yom Tov (forbidden that day). It rolls and mixes with other permitted eggs (seif 1). Since this is not a matter of quantity but of a heter to come (the egg will be permitted once Yom Tov ends), it is not nullified, even among a thousand — all the eggs become forbidden that day. The natural remedy: wait for the end of Yom Tov, when all become permitted again. For the halakha lema'asseh, consult your Rav.
Case 2 — A doubt about the egg of Yom Tov, and a mixture in a different kind
Two decisive nuances (seifim 1-2). First the doubt: even if one is not certain the egg was laid on Yom Tov, the mixture is prohibited (the dachil"m is more stringent than ordinary prohibitions, where doubt would be permitted). Then the kind: if the prohibited egg falls not among eggs but into a different kind (shelo bemino), it is nullified in sixty. And an egg that is merely a safek tereifa (uncertain matir) is nullified too. For the halakha lema'asseh, consult your Rav.
Case 3 — A prohibited utensil mixed with other utensils
A utensil absorbed a prohibition, then mixes with other identical utensils without one recognizing it (seif 3). One might think it is a dachil"m (it has a "way to become permitted": hag'ala). But no: since the kashering costs an expense, the utensil is nullified in the majority (be-rov) — it suffices that there be more permitted utensils than prohibited ones. For the halakha lema'asseh, consult your Rav.
The common thread of the three cases: before concluding, ask yourself three questions — is there a certain future means to permit (or one in my power without loss)? is it within the same kind (min bemino)? is the prohibition still in substance (be'ein)? If yes to all three, one does not nullify and waits; otherwise, nullification applies. But the concrete decision always belongs to the Rav, who knows the details of fact.
9. Summary of Siman 102
The essence of Siman 102 in a few sentences:
A davar sheyesh lo matirin — which will become permitted anyway (the egg of Yom Tov) — is not nullified, even in a thousand, and even in a case of doubt (seif 1).
This applies only min bemino: mixed with a different kind, it is nullified in sixty (seif 1).
The Rama: what is added letaken ha-kedeira (stuffed a fowl) is counted as min bemino → not nullified (seif 1).
A real matir is needed: certain (atid lavo) or in one's power without loss (be-yado); a safek tereifa has none → nullified (seif 2).
A prohibited utensil is nullified be-rov and is not a dachil"m, since hag'ala costs an expense (seif 3).
The strict rule applies only to the prohibition be'ein; a mere taste (taam) is nullified (Rama, seif 4).
A prohibition not by itself (absorbed blood) or not recognizable before the mixture → is nullified (seif 4).
The neder is a dachil"m le-dideih; the hametz on Pesach is a machloket (seif 4).
The hamevashel beShabbat (prohibited forever to that person) is not a dachil"m (seif 4).
Memory table
Situation
Measure
Egg of Yom Tov among eggs (min bemino)
🔴 Not nullified, even in a thousand
Egg of Yom Tov in a case of doubt (safek)
🔴 Prohibited (more stringent than usual)
Mixed with a different kind (shelo bemino)
🟢 Nullified in sixty
Safek tereifa (uncertain matir)
🟢 Nullified (not a dachil"m)
Prohibited utensil (costly hag'ala)
🟢 Nullified be-rov
Taste alone / not by itself / not recognizable
🟢 Nullified (Rama)
Neder / hametz on Pesach / hamevashel beShabbat
🟡 Le-dideih / 🟡 machloket / 🟢 not a dachil"m
Comprehension questions
Check your understanding:
What is a דבר שיש לו מתירין? Why is it not nullified, even in a thousand (seif 1)?
Why is the dachil"m prohibited even in a case of doubt (safek), whereas an ordinary prohibition would be permitted?
What is the difference between מין במינו and שלא במינו? Why (Shach s.k. 4)?
What does לתקן הקדרה mean? Why is the egg used to stuff a fowl not nullified (seif 1)?
What are the two conditions of the matir (seif 2)? Why is a ספק טריפה nullified?
Why is a prohibited utensilnot a dachil"m (seif 3)? What is the role of הגעלה?
What does the Rama distinguish between the prohibition בעין and a mere טעם (seif 4)?
What is אין איסורו מחמת עצמו? Give the example of the unsalted piece (seif 4).
Distinguish the cases of the נדר, the חמץ בפסח and the המבשל בשבת (seif 4).
What does the Taz (s.k. 1) say about the foundation (chad bitrei by Torah law)? And the Shach (s.k. 4) on shelo bemino?
To go further
If you wish to deepen this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the pilpul, the yesod of dachil"m (chad bitrei by Torah law, rabbinic stringency), why it is more stringent than berya and chatikha ha-re'uya lehitkabed (Taz s.k. 3), the machloket Shach / Rama on the taste, anchored in the sugyot of Beitza and Nedarim
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the comparative tables (min bemino / shelo bemino, be'ein / taam), the golden rules and quick memorization of the 4 seifim
⚖️ Level 4 — Halakha lema'asse: the practical pesika (Shach, Taz, Pri Megadim, Pithei Teshuva) and contemporary poskim on the concrete cases
The sources for this level can be consulted on Sefaria: