Siman 103 — A Taste That Spoils (Notein Taam Lifgam) Does Not Forbid the Mixture — Practical psika
סימן ק״ג · הלכה למעשה
דין נותן טעם לפגם
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״ג (ז' 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 103.
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 contemporary 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 (whether the prohibition has substance or only taste, whether the pot is בת יומה, whether it was rinsed, whether there is a דבר חריף) that only a posek who sees your situation can decide.
📑 תוכן העניינים
שורש הסימן — מקור נטל״פ מן הגר (סעיף א')
פסק המחבר והרמ״א — מסגרת ההלכה בז' סעיפים
נטל״פ מותר ובריה לא בטלה — (סעיף א')
שיעור הפגם, רוב וממשות — ולא לשבח ולא לפגם אסור (סעיף ב')
משביח ולבסוף פוגם והקדירה — נ״ט בר נ״ט דהיתרא (סעיף ב')
פוגם בסיוע מלח ותבלין — (סעיף ג')
שמן ודבש של עכו״ם — (סעיף ד')
קדירה אינה בת יומה — הדחה וס' כנגד הדבוק (סעיף ה')
דבר חריף בקדירה שאינה בת יומה — חורפיה משבח (סעיף ו')
Notein taam lifgam. Anything whose taste is spoiled (טעמו פגום) does not forbid its mixture. And even if its taste is not spoiled in itself — for on its own it is tasty and excellent — but it spoils the mixture [into which it falls] → it is permitted.
Rama: however, important things like a בריה (a whole creature) and the like, although they spoil the dish, are not nullified even in a thousand.
— Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 103:1 · talmudic source: the נבילה "fit for the גר" (Chullin, on the verse of Devarim 14:21) · Sefaria YD 103:1
1. שורש הסימן — the source of notein taam lifgam
The foundation. Siman 103 states the principle of נותן טעם לפגם (נטל״פ): a prohibition that gives the mixture only a spoiled, detrimental taste does not forbid it. The whole siman unfolds this yessod: from what degree the taste "spoils" enough, the role of substance (ממשות) as opposed to taste alone, the case of "improved then spoiled," the pot that "spoils" because it is not בת יומה, the oil and honey of a non-Jew, and the sharp spice that cancels the פגם.
The source of the din (Taz s.k. 1). The Taz derives נטל״פ from the verse לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כָל נְבֵלָה לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה: a נבילה fit for the גר (the resident stranger, to whom one may give it) is called נבילה; one that is no longer fit — spoiled, inedible — no longer has the status of נבילה. A prohibition that gives only a spoiled taste is therefore like a נבילה that has become unfit: it does not forbid. Thus the Taz sets the טעם / רוב framework that governs seif 2.
Why "even if its taste is not spoiled in itself"
The Mehaber covers two cases: (a) a thing intrinsically spoiled (e.g. a prohibition already putrefied); (b) a thing tasty in itself that, falling into this particular mixture, spoils it. In both cases → permitted, since what counts is the taste it actually gives the mixture. This is the siman's practical pivot: one judges the result on the plate, not the prohibition in itself.
2. פסק המחבר והרמ״א — the map of the siman
Siman 103 contains 7 seifim. The Mehaber lays the framework of notein taam lifgam — when the spoiled taste permits, and when it does not (majority substance, improved-then-spoiled, דבר חריף); the Rama (הגה) glosses mainly on the בריה, the oil and honey, and the meat-and-milk pot. Here is the overall map, as it emerges from the text itself.
Seif
Subject
Psak (anchored in the text)
1
נטל״פ permitted
Anything whose taste is spoiled does not forbid its mixture; even tasty in itself, if it spoils the mixture → permitted. Rama: a בריה (or important thing like it), even when it spoils, is not nullified even in a thousand (או״ה כלל ל״ב).
2
degree of פגם; majority; השביח ולבסוף פוגם; the pot
It need not spoil completely: "spoiling a little" suffices. Yesh mi she'omer: only if the prohibition is small in an abundant heter; abundant prohibition / מחצה על מחצה → a total פגם is required. But if the prohibition has only taste (no substance) → permitted even when majority. השביח ולבסוף פוגם or vice versa → forbidden. Rama: the קדירה remains forbidden; spoon→2nd dish spoiled = the pot is not forbidden; יורה of honey + bee legs → not forbidden.
3
פוגם with help (salt / spices)
Even if the prohibition alone has no power to spoil but spoils only by the assistance of salt or pounded spices → it is nonetheless permitted.
4
שמן ודבש of a non-Jew
The oil and honey of a non-Jew, even cooked, are permitted: the meat spoils the oil (makes it stink), and likewise the honey. Rama: yesh omrim that the meat spoils only the drink made from honey (משקה הנעשה מדבש), not the honey itself; where there is no great loss → be stringent. Meat or milk in wine = נטל״פ → permitted.
5
קדירה אינה בת יומה
Any pot that is not בת יומה — its taste is deemed spoiled, and it does not forbid. בת יומה as long as 24 hours (מעת לעת) have not passed since the prohibition was cooked. Provided it is rinsed (מודחת), with no fat בעין on its surface (otherwise = a piece of unspoiled prohibition). Yesh matirin even if cooked before rinsing. Rama: 60 against the stuck residue → all permit; וכן נהוג.
6
דבר חריף in a pot not בת יומה
Yesh mi she'omer: pepper (פלפלין) in a pot of prohibition not בת יומה → all forbidden, for its sharpness (חורפיה) improves [cancels the פגם] (ruled by the Beit Yossef).
7
בב״ח + water; חתיכה נעשית נבילה
A pot imbued with meat and milk that, before a night passes, heated water → בת יומה until 24 h pass from heating the water. Rama: if a night passed → permitted; same rule if a night passed between meat and milk; likewise for all prohibitions per חתיכה נעשית נבילה (cf. siman 92); in case of loss → one permits for other prohibitions, provided there are 24 h since the prohibition was cooked.
כלל הפסק של הסימן : נותן טעם לפגם מותר — איסור שאינו נותן בתערובת אלא טעם פגום אינו אוסרה. ויסוד אחד החותך את הסימן: ההבחנה בין טעם בלבד (פוגם אף ברוב) ובין ממשות ברוב (צריך פגם גמור) ; וצריך שיפגום מתחילתו ועד סופו ; ודבר חריף או בריה מוציאים מן הכלל.
3. נטל״פ מותר ובריה לא בטלה — the principle and its exception
כל דבר שטעמו פגום אינו אוסר תערובתו. ואפילו אין טעמו פגום מחמת עצמו, שבפני עצמו הוא מוטעם ומשובח, אלא שפוגם תערובתו — מותר.
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ג:א ; הגה: מיהו דברים חשובים כמו בריה וכיוצא בה אינם בטלים אפילו באלף (או״ה כלל ל״ב).
The Mehaber and the Rama. The Mehaber states the simple principle: a spoiled taste does not forbid, and this holds even for a thing tasty in itself that spoils only this mixture. The Rama at once adds the exception: a בריה (a whole creature) or an "important" thing that does not nullify (cf. simanim 100, 101) — even if it spoils the dish — is not nullified, even in a thousand: what does not nullify by חשיבות does not nullify any more by being spoiled.
The spoiled בריה — Taz s.k. 2 and the acharonim's machloket
Taz (s.k. 2): distinguishes. A בריה spoiled in itself → nullifies (it has lost its status). But a בריה that remains tasty in itself and only spoils the dish → is not nullified, even in a thousand — this is the case the Rama means.
Pitchei Teshuva (s.k. 1): reports several acharonim (פנים מאירות, חות יאיר, תפארת למשה) who dispute the Rama and hold that a בריה, even spoiled, is not nullified. Likewise a דבר שיש לו מתירין (דשיל״מ) even when spoiled is not nullified — for this is not a matter of חשיבות (against the Pri Megadim).
Le-ma'asse (נטל״פ and בריה). The basic rule: a prohibition that gives the mixture only a spoiled taste does not forbid it. But retain the Rama's exception (and, more stringent still, the Pitchei Teshuva): a בריה and a דבר שיש לו מתירין are not nullified, even when spoiled. Knowing whether the prohibition is a בריה, and whether it is "spoiled in itself" or merely "spoils the mixture," is a question of fact — For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.
4. שיעור הפגם, רוב וממשות — לא לשבח ולא לפגם אסור
אין הפגם צריך שיהא פוגם לגמרי עד שלא יהא ראוי לאכילה, אלא אפילו פוגם קצת אינו אוסר. ויש מי שאומר דדוקא איסור מועט בהיתר מרובה ; אבל איסור מרובה בהיתר מועט, ואפילו מחצה על מחצה, אין אומרים נותן טעם לפגם ומותר עד שיפגום לגמרי. ואם אין שם ממשות האיסור אלא טעמו בלבד — מותר.
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ג:ב
Configuration
Does the prohibition have substance?
Required degree of פגם
Prohibition small, heter abundant
Yes (ממשות)
"spoiling a little" (פוגם קצת) suffices → permitted
Prohibition abundant, or מחצה על מחצה
Yes (ממשות)
a total פגם is required (unfit for consumption)
Prohibition without substance, only its taste (טעמו בלבד)
No — taste alone
"spoiling a little" suffices, even abundant → permitted
לא לשבח ולא לפגם אסור (Shach s.k. 2). The Shach sets a decisive safeguard: "spoiling a little" suffices, but a prohibition that brings neither improvement nor detriment (לא לשבח ולא לפגם, no perceptible taste) is forbidden — it does not benefit from the heter of נטל״פ. His proof: the גיד הנשה, which has no taste yet requires 60 (Yerushalmi Terumot). The Shach also notes (s.k. 3) that there is no distinction נמחה / לא נמחה: טעם כעיקר is de-oraita, but a spoiled taste is not a real taste.
Taste alone vs majority substance (Taz s.k. 3). The whole distinction of the seif turns on substance. When the prohibition has only taste (no body), even when majority → נטל״פ permits. But when it has a substance and is majority (or מחצה), we fear that one benefits from the quantity, and a total פגם is required. The Taz specifies that the ציר (brine) is counted as the substance (כגוף), not as mere taste.
The חוכך — when quantity outweighs the spoiled taste (Taz s.k. 4). The Mehaber reports a view that hesitates and is stringent (יש מי שחוכך): if the prohibition has increased the measure of the heter to the point that one benefits more from the added quantity than it spoils by taste → it is forbidden, until it makes it inedible. The Taz (s.k. 4) anchors this point: the benefit of quantity may outweigh the harm of taste.
Le-ma'asse (degree of פגם). If the prohibition has substance and is majority or half-and-half, do not rely on a partial פגם: a completely spoiled taste is needed. If it has only taste (no body), a light פגם suffices even when majority. But beware: no taste at all (לא לשבח ולא לפגם) → forbidden, and a prohibition that "benefits by quantity" is forbidden. Assessing the ממשות, the ציר and the quantity/taste ratio is a question of fact — For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.
5. משביח ולבסוף פוגם והקדירה — it must spoil from start to end
וכל זה כשפוגם מתחילתו ועד סופו ; אבל אם השביח ולבסוף פוגם, או פוגם ולבסוף השביח — אסור.
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ג:ב
מתחילתו ועד סופו (Taz s.k. 5). The heter of נטל״פ holds only if the prohibition spoils from start to end. If it improves then spoils (השביח ולבסוף פוגם) or spoils then improves (פוגם ולבסוף השביח) → forbidden: at one moment it improved, and that improvement does not vanish. The Taz (s.k. 5) illustrates with vinegar of יין נסך that fell into גריסין (grits): it first improves then spoils — hence forbidden.
The pot, the spoon and the cauldron (Rama, seif 2)
The קדירה remains forbidden: even if the prohibition is נטל״פ and the dish permitted, the pot is forbidden. If one then cooks in it, within 24 h, a dish that the first prohibition improves → the 2nd dish is forbidden unless there is 60 against the first prohibition.
The spoon (כף) — נ״ט בר נ״ט דהיתרא (Taz s.k. 6): if one stirred the 1st dish with a spoon then dipped the spoon into a 2nd dish that it also spoils → the pot (here, the spoon) is not forbidden: this is a נ״ט בר נ״ט דהיתרא (taste of a taste, from the permitted side). The Taz indeed criticizes the Rama's phrasing and refers to או״ה כלל ל״ב.
The cauldron (יורה) without taste: a thing with no taste at all, like the cauldron where honey is melted, although bee legs (רגלי הדבורים) are in it → the cauldron is not forbidden (nothing gives taste).
Pitchei Teshuva (s.k. 3): reports the Noda BiYhuda (mahadura kama YD 31) on a neighboring case — wine cooked in a meat-and-milk pot that is בת יומה and stirred with a dairy (חולבת) spoon: an analysis of the transmitted taste and the wine's status. A psak detail to know, not to decide alone.
Le-ma'asse (improved-then-spoiled and the pot). The heter of נטל״פ falls as soon as the prohibition has improved at any moment, even if the final result is spoiled. And even when the dish is permitted, the pot itself may remain forbidden: for the next cooking within 24 h, one reasons with 60 against the first prohibition. Recognizing whether the prohibition "improves then spoils," and the spoon's status (נ״ט בר נ״ט), is a question of fact — For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.
6. פוגם בסיוע מלח ותבלין — the prohibition that spoils only with help
אפילו אין האיסור פוגם מצד עצמו אלא על ידי דבר אחר, כגון איסור שנפל לקדירה שיש בה מלח או תבלין כתושים הרבה, ובלא המלח והתבלין לא היה כח באיסור לפגום — אף על פי כן מותר.
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ג:ג
Since in fact it spoils (Shach s.k. 12). Even if the prohibition alone has no power to spoil, and it spoils only by the assistance of the salt or the abundant pounded spices already present → it is nonetheless permitted, since what counts is the actual result. The Shach (s.k. 12) adds that the reverse is also true: if the prohibition improves alone but, joined to the salt/spices, ends up spoiling → one likewise follows the final result. One judges the real effect on the mixture, not the prohibition's intrinsic power.
Le-ma'asse (פגם by help). The criterion is the taste actually obtained in the dish: if, in fact, the whole is spoiled — even thanks to the salt or the spices — נטל״פ permits. Knowing whether the result is genuinely spoiled "from start to end" (and not "improved then spoiled") remains a question of fact — For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.
7. שמן ודבש של עכו״ם — the oil and honey of a non-Jew
שמן ודבש של עובד כוכבים, אף על פי שנתבשלו, מותרים, מפני שהבשר פוגם השמן ומסריחו, וכן הדבש.
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ג:ד ; הגה: וי״א דאין הבשר פוגם הדבש עצמו אלא המשקה הנעשה מדבש (מהרי״ל), ובמקום שאין הפסד מרובה יש להחמיר. ובשר או חלב ביין הוי נ״ט לפגם ומותר.
Oil and honey — the machloket (Shach s.k. 13-14)
Mehaber: the oil and honey of a non-Jew, even cooked (e.g. with non-kosher meat), are permitted, since the meat spoils the oil (makes it stink) and likewise the honey — a נטל״פ.
Shach (s.k. 13-14, lengthy): distinguishes. In oil, all hold that the meat gives a taste נ״ט לשבח (improves) — and yet one permits, for other reasons (Tos., Rosh, Mordechai, או״ה); even שמן שלוק (boiled oil) remains נ״ט לשבח. In honey, however, it is a true נטל״פ (the meat spoils it). Hence the Rama's distinction.
Rama: yesh omrim (Maharil) that the meat does not spoil the honey itself, only a drink made from honey (משקה הנעשה מדבש); and where there is no great loss → one must be stringent. And meat or milk in wine is נטל״פ → permitted.
Taz (s.k. 7): on honey, the Taz reports the Beit Yossef's question — honey is sometimes cooked with meat and the result is excellent (through the spices, the onions), which seems to contradict נטל״פ; and the machloket Mordechai / Maharil on the honey itself vs the drink of honey. To ponder before any application.
Pitchei Teshuva (s.k. 6): on milk in wine (חלב ביין) — a machloket according to the nature of the taste given: צירה (which sours) vs קמץ (which contracts); the Beit Yehuda holds that in both cases it is a נטל״פ → permitted.
Le-ma'asse (oil, honey, wine). The Mehaber permits the oil and honey of a non-Jew as נטל״פ. But the Rama distinguishes the honey itself from the drink of honey, and requires stringency where there is no great loss; and the exact nature of the taste (לשבח / לפגם) in oil vs honey is the subject of a lengthy machloket. Deciding a real case (which product, cooked with what, what loss) goes through your posek — For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.
8. קדירה אינה בת יומה — the pot not "of its day"
כל קדירה שאינה בת יומה, טעמה פגום ואינה אוסרת. ואינה נקראת בת יומה אלא כל זמן שלא שהתה מעת לעת מאחר שבישלו בה האיסור ; ובלבד שתהא מודחת, שלא יהא עליה שומן בעין.
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ג:ה
The practical key: 24 hours (מעת לעת). A pot is בת יומה only as long as 24 hours have not passed since the prohibition was cooked in it. Past that delay, the absorbed taste is deemed spoiled (פגום), and if one then cooks in it → the dish is permitted (נטל״פ). This is the practical key to the whole subject of non-kosher utensils "not used for 24 h": their residual taste is reckoned as detrimental.
The condition of rinsing and the שומן בעין (Taz s.k. 8). This heter holds only on condition that the pot is rinsed (מודחת), with no fat בעין (visible, in substance) on its surface: for fat in substance is like a piece of unspoiled prohibition and forbids. The Taz (s.k. 8) stresses that fat בעיןnever spoils, even after several days (Rashba against the Ran — we hold like the Rashba). The Mehaber also reports a יש מתירין even if one cooked before rinsing.
60 against the stuck residue (Shach s.k. 15-16). The Rama adds: if there is 60 against what is stuck (הדבוק) on it, all permit, since the pot is not בת יומה — "וכן נהוג." The Shach (s.k. 15-16) develops: the pot must be rinsed; and he disputes the Maharshal who was stringent — for the Shach, 60 against the stuck residue suffices well when the pot is not בת יומה.
Le-ma'asse (אינה בת יומה). Retain the two conditions: (1) 24 full hours elapsed since the prohibition was cooked (then the taste is "spoiled"); (2) the pot rinsed, with no fat in substance on the surface, and 60 against any stuck residue. This of course does not exempt from the הגעלה otherwise required to kosher a utensil: here we speak of the status of the dish cooked by accident in such a pot. Assessing "בת יומה or not," "rinsed," "fat בעין," "60 against the stuck residue" is a question of fact — For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.
9. דבר חריף בקדירה שאינה בת יומה — the sharp item cancels the פגם
יש מי שאומר שאם נתן פלפלין בקדירה של איסור שאינה בת יומה — הכל אסור, מפני שחורפיה משבח.
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ג:ו
חורפיה משבח (Taz s.k. 9). If one puts pepper (פלפלין) — or a דבר חריף (a sharp item) — into a pot of prohibition even one not בת יומה, everything is forbidden: its sharpness (חורפיה) "improves" and turns the spoiled taste into an improved taste, canceling the benefit of נטל״פ. This is ruled by the Beit Yossef. The Taz (s.k. 9) specifies that a רוב חריף (a sharp majority) is needed to produce this effect, and refers to the laws of the דבר חריף at simanim 95:2 and 96.
Le-ma'asse (דבר חריף). The presence of a sharp element (pepper, garlic, strong onion, lemon, etc.) reverses the reasoning: it "awakens" and improves the absorbed taste, and the heter of the pot not בת יומה falls — everything becomes forbidden (subject to a רוב חריף). This is a frequent practical pitfall in real kitchens. Classifying a food as a דבר חריף, and assessing the רוב חריף, belongs to simanim 95-96 and to your posek — For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.
10. בשר וחלב ומים, חתיכה נעשית נבילה — and the לינה
קדירה בלועה מבשר ומחלב שנתבשלו בה זה אחר זה, ובתוך מעת לעת הוחמו בה מים — הרי היא כבת יומה עד שיעבור מעת לעת מששפת בה את המים.
— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ג:ז ; הגה: אבל אם עברה לינה — מותר ; וכן אם עברה לינה בין בישול הבשר לחלב ... וכן הדין בשאר איסורים, מטעם חתיכה נעשית נבילה (עיין סימן צב).
בב״ח: one recounts the 24 h from the water (Taz s.k. 10-11). A pot imbued with meat and milk (cooked together or one after the other) that, before a night passes, served to heat water → is deemed בת יומה until 24 h pass from heating the water. Why? Because in בב״ח, once the pot is forbidden, the water heated in it within 24 h becomes like נבילה (חתיכה נעשית נבילה): one thus starts a new "day." The Taz (s.k. 10-11) develops this חנ״נ specific to בב״ח, and its relation to siman 92.
The Rama, the לינה, and the other prohibitions
Rama (לינה): but if a night passed, it is permitted; likewise if a night passed between cooking the meat and the milk, even if one then heated the water at once → same din. It is the night (לינה) that "spoils" and dissipates the taste (Shach s.k. 19).
The other prohibitions: the same applies to all prohibitions, per our rule חתיכה נעשית נבילה (cf. siman 92). But the Shach (s.k. 18) disputes the חנ״נ special to בב״ח: he does not concede that a particular חנ״נ is needed, and holds that the 24 h from heating the water are required for all prohibitions.
במקום הפסד (Shach s.k. 20): in case of loss, one may permit in such a case for the other prohibitions in any event, provided there are 24 h since the prohibition was cooked (the Shach refers to the לח בלח of siman 92:4).
Pitchei Teshuva (s.k. 2): on the 2nd dish cooked in such a pot — a machloket. The Knesset Yechezkel forbids it (by חנ״נ: the 2nd dish itself becomes נבילה); the Givat Shaul permits it, on the principle that אין הנאסר חמור מהאוסר (the one made forbidden is no graver than what forbade it). The Pitchei Teshuva rules permitted.
Le-ma'asse (בב״ח, water, לינה). In meat-and-milk, the 24 h counter resets at each re-absorption (the heated water becomes like נבילה); but a night that passes (לינה) "spoils" and permits. For other prohibitions, the Shach holds the 24 h from cooking the prohibition, and is lenient in מקום הפסד. Reconstructing the exact sequence (meat then milk, water heated, night elapsed) is a question of fact — For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.
11. פסיקת הספרדים והאשכנזים בזמננו — contemporary psika
Method note. The responsa that follow (Yabia Omer, Yechaveh Daat, Yalkut Yossef, Or LeTzion; Iggrot Moshe and Ashkenazi acharonim) extend the principles of siman 103 above to modern cases. They are not in the corpus of the siman; they are cited as recognized streams of psika, to be confirmed with a Rav before any application.
Sephardim. Sephardic psika (the school of Rav Ovadia Yossef, Rav Ben-Tzion Abba Shaul) starts exactly from the Mehaber's framework: נטל״פ permits, and one readily relies on אינה בת יומה (24 h + rinsed) and on נ״ט בר נ״ט to be lenient in practice, especially in הפסד מרובה. The Sephardic school is known for relying on נטל״פ where Ashkenazi custom is stringent; but it fully retains the text's exceptions: the בריה that does not nullify, the דבר חריף that cancels the פגם, and the requirement of a פגם מתחילתו ועד סופו.
Ashkenazim. Ashkenazi psika starts from the Rama and the acharonim (Chochmat Adam, Aruch HaShulchan YD, and for the 20th century the Iggrot Moshe). Two of the Rama's traits dominate here: (1) the בריה and the דבר שיש לו מתירין do not nullify, even when spoiled (reinforced by the Pitchei Teshuva); (2) attention to the שומן בעין and the 60 against the stuck residue for the pot not בת יומה. On בב״ח + water, the custom follows the חנ״נ and the לינה, with the Shach's leniency in מקום הפסד.
Concrete case
Orientation (Sephardic / Ashkenazi, to verify)
Dish cooked in a pot not used for 24 h
נטל״פ → permitted, provided rinsed and with no fat בעין; 60 against the stuck residue. (Does not exempt from הגעלה to kosher the utensil.)
Majority prohibition with substance (ממשות)
A total פגם is needed; a partial פגם does not suffice (seif 2).
Presence of a דבר חריף (pepper, garlic, lemon)
The sharp item cancels the פגם → all forbidden (seif 6, ref. 95:2, 96).
בריה / דשיל״מ even spoiled
Do not nullify, even in a thousand (Rama, PT s.k. 1).
בב״ח pot that heated water, then לינה
After a night → permitted; otherwise one recounts 24 h from the water (חנ״נ; Shach lenient in מקום הפסד).
Anchoring in the siman. All this flows from the text: נטל״פ מותר (seif 1), the taste / substance distinction and לא לשבח ולא לפגם (seif 2), the פגם by help (seif 3), the oil and honey (seif 4), the אינה בת יומה rinsed and 60 against the stuck residue (seif 5), the דבר חריף (seif 6), and the בב״ח + water / חתיכה נעשית נבילה (seif 7). The contemporary responsa apply these rules to today's kitchens.
Chabad — only through real sources. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav does not cover Yoreh De'ah; there is therefore no "Da'at HaRav" on siman 103. For Chabad practice on these questions, one refers to the responsa of the Tzemach Tzedek and to the Sefer HaMinhagim Chabad when they explicitly treat a point — and one refrains from attributing to the Admur HaZaken a ruling he did not write here.
12. סיכום מעשי — summary and tables
טבלה — נותן טעם לפגם, in practice
Case
Measure / rule
Note
Spoiled taste given to the mixture
נטל״פ → permitted
Even tasty in itself if it spoils this mixture (seif 1)
Prohibition with substance, majority / מחצה
A total פגם is needed
Taste alone → permitted even when majority (seif 2)
No taste at all (לא לשבח ולא לפגם)
Forbidden
Proof of the גיד that requires 60 (Shach s.k. 2)
Improved then spoiled (or vice versa)
Forbidden
Must spoil מתחילתו ועד סופו (Taz s.k. 5)
Pot אינה בת יומה (24 h), rinsed
Permitted (נטל״פ); 60 against the stuck residue
No fat בעין on the surface (Taz s.k. 8)
Presence of a דבר חריף
Forbidden (חורפיה משבח)
A רוב חריף is needed (Taz s.k. 9, 95:2)
בריה / דשיל״מ even spoiled
Do not nullify, even in a thousand
Rama; PT s.k. 1
בב״ח pot + water, without לינה
24 h from the water (חנ״נ)
After a night → permitted (Shach s.k. 18-19)
טבלה — who says what (nossei kelim of the siman)
Posek
Decisive contribution (anchored in corpus)
Mehaber (seifim 1-7)
נטל״פ מותר; degree of פגם and majority/substance; השביח ולבסוף פוגם; פוגם by help; שמן ודבש; אינה בת יומה + rinsing; דבר חריף (yesh mi she'omer); בב״ח + water.
Rama (הגה)
בריה / important thing does not nullify even in a thousand (seif 1); the קדירה remains forbidden, spoon = נ״ט בר נ״ט, יורה without taste (seif 2); honey itself vs drink of honey, meat/milk in wine (seif 4); 60 against the stuck residue — וכן נהוג (seif 5); לינה and חנ״נ for all prohibitions (seif 7).
Shach (Siftei Kohen)
s.k. 1 (בריה/חה״ל/דבר שבמנין spoiled in themselves); s.k. 2 (לא לשבח ולא לפגם → forbidden, proof of the גיד); s.k. 3 (no נמחה/לא נמחה; טעם פגום ≠ טעם); s.k. 12 (פגום by help, and the reverse); s.k. 13-14 (שמן נ״ט לשבח, דבש נטל״פ); s.k. 15-16 (rinsed; 60 against the stuck residue, disputes the Maharshal); s.k. 18-19 (בב״ח, חנ״נ not conceded, לינה); s.k. 20 (מקום הפסד).
Taz (Turei Zahav)
s.k. 1 (source of נטל״פ from the גר; טעם/רוב framework); s.k. 2 (בריה spoiled in itself nullifies, else not); s.k. 3 (ציר = כגוף); s.k. 4 (the חוכך: benefit of quantity > the spoiling); s.k. 5 (השביח ולבסוף פוגם — חומץ יין נסך); s.k. 6 (spoon→pot = נ״ט בר נ״ט דהיתרא); s.k. 7 (the honey, the B"Y's question); s.k. 8 (fat בעין does not spoil); s.k. 9 (חורפא, רוב חריף, 95:2); s.k. 10-11 (בב״ח + water, חנ״נ, לינה).
Pri Megadim (פר״מ)
On the nullification of important things and the spoiled דשיל״מ — a position discussed by the Pitchei Teshuva (s.k. 1).
Pitchei Teshuva (פתחי תשובה)
s.k. 1 (a בריה even spoiled does not nullify — פנים מאירות, חות יאיר, תפארת למשה; a spoiled דשיל״מ does not nullify, against the Pri Megadim); s.k. 2 (2nd dish: Knesset Yechezkel forbids vs Givat Shaul permits — PT rules permitted); s.k. 3 (Noda BiYhuda YD 31, wine + dairy spoon); s.k. 6 (חלב ביין — צירה vs קמץ; Beit Yehuda).
טבלה — contemporary streams of psika (outside the corpus, to verify)
Sephardim: the school of Rav Ovadia Yossef (Yabia Omer, Yechaveh Daat), Yalkut Yossef; Or LeTzion (Rav Ben-Tzion Abba Shaul). Extend the Mehaber: נטל״פ permits, reliance on אינה בת יומה (24 h + rinsed) and נ״ט בר נ״ט, especially in הפסד מרובה; but retain the בריה, the דבר חריף, and the requirement of a פגם מתחילתו ועד סופו.
Ashkenazim: Iggrot Moshe (Rav Moshe Feinstein) and acharonim (Chochmat Adam, Aruch HaShulchan YD). Extend the Rama: בריה / דשיל״מ do not nullify even when spoiled, attention to the שומן בעין and the 60 against the stuck residue, חנ״נ and לינה in בב״ח.
Chabad: no Shulchan Aruch HaRav on the YD. One cites only real sources — responsa of the Tzemach Tzedek, Sefer HaMinhagim — when they explicitly treat the point.
In essence, retain the yessod: נותן טעם לפגם מותר — a spoiled taste does not forbid — with the key distinction between a prohibition that has only taste (a light פגם suffices) and a prohibition with majority substance (a total פגם is required).
In practice, a pot אינה בת יומה (24 h, rinsed, 60 against the stuck residue) "spoils" and does not forbid — but a דבר חריף cancels this פגם, and a dish "improved then spoiled" remains forbidden.
Keep in mind the exceptions: the בריה and the דבר שיש לו מתירין do not nullify even when spoiled; in בב״ח, the heated water resets the 24 h, and the לינה permits.
And for every real case — substance or taste, בת יומה or not, presence of a sharp item, the בב״ח sequence — the halakha le-ma'asse goes through your Rav. For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות פסק והלכה למעשה בדין נותן טעם לפגם · סימן ק״ג · ⚖️ Level 4 — Halakha le-ma'asse
⚠️ This content is for study purposes. The contemporary streams of psika cited (Sephardic and Ashkenazi) are reference points, not a personal ruling. For any practical application (לְמַעֲשֶׂה), consult a qualified Rav.