Siman 104 — A Mouse Found in Wine or Beer (Akhbar), and Repulsive Creatures
The field mouse (akhbara dedavra) is a royal dish → it improves the taste (נ״ט לשבח) and forbids; the city mouse (akhbara demata) is a doubt (improves or spoils?): fallen cold and removed whole before 24 hours, it is permitted; otherwise sixty is required; but if it broke into fine particles impossible to filter (wine/vinegar in a thick food), everything is forbidden because one might swallow the substance unawares; in wine, oil (and honey) it spoils for certain (no sixty needed); and the repulsive creatures (ants, flies, gnats) — Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 104 — 3 seifim
יורה דעה · סימן ק״ד
דִּין עַכְבָּר שֶׁנִּמְצָא בְּיַיִן אוֹ בְּשֵׁכָר
🌱 Introduction Level · מתחילים
✦ ❖ ✦
A first approach to Siman 104: the 3 seifim of the Mehaber and the glosses of the Rama, the Hebrew text with a fluent English translation. What happens when a mouse (akhbar) falls into wine or beer? The field mouse, a royal dish, improves the taste (נ״ט לשבח); the city mouse is a doubt (safek). The role of cold pickling for 24 hours (כבוש מעת לעת), of the recognizable yet unfilterable forbidden substance (דבר הניכר שאי אפשר לבררו), of wine and oil that spoil (נ״ט לפגם), of נטילת מקום and ספק ספיקא for fat, and of repulsive things (דברים המאוסים) nullified in the majority.
Topic: A mouse fallen into wine or beer, and the repulsive creatures Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן ק״ד
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Study outline
1.The text of the Mehaber: the 3 seifim, by theme
2.Context: why this siman continues the נ״ט לשבח / נ״ט לפגם of siman 103
4.The unfilterable: the "whole / filterable / inseparable" table
5.The Shach and the Taz: who they are, a few key entries
6.The gloss of the Rama (הגה)
7.Davar haniqar she-i efshar levarro: what is never nullified
8.Modern practical cases: a mouse in a barrel, an insect in a dish, a fly in vinegar
9.Summary and comprehension questions
1. The text of the Mehaber — the 3 seifim
Siman 104 directly continues the debate over נותן טעם לשבח / נותן טעם לפגם (the forbidden substance that improves or spoils the taste) opened in Siman 103. The Mehaber (Rabbi Yossef Karo) applies it to a typical case: a mouse (akhbar) fallen into wine, beer or vinegar, then to oily liquids, and finally to repulsive creatures. Everything depends on the nature of the mouse (field or city), on pickling (24 hours?), on the possibility of filtering what has disintegrated, and on whether the liquid improves or spoils. The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds his glosses (הגה). Let us discover the three seifim.
The field mouse (akhbara dedavra) imparts a good taste (notein taam lishvach), for it rises onto the table of kings [a choice dish → it forbids]. But for the city mouse (akhbara demata) we have a doubt: does it improve the beer and vinegar, or does it spoil them? Therefore: if it fell into beer or vinegar cold (be-tzonen) and was removed whole, if it did not remain inside twenty-four hours (mei'et le'et) → permitted. But if it was hot (roteach), or even cold but it remained 24 hours — whether it was removed whole, or it broke into fine particles that can be strained (masnenet) until nothing remains, or it melted entirely (nimoach) into liquid with no substance — it is permitted by sixty (shishim) against the mouse. But if it broke into fine particles in a way that cannot be strained — for example the wine/vinegar mixed into a thick food (maakhal av) — everything is forbidden, with no nullification, for one fears encountering the substance of the forbidden thing without realizing it. Gloss of the Rama: only for a sheretz (creeping creature) must one fear if it remains and cannot be extracted; but for the other forbidden substances, no concern (Issur ve-Heter, kelal 32).
The central idea: two kinds of mouse. The field mouse is a royal dish → it certainly improves (נ״ט לשבח) → it forbids. The city mouse is a doubt (safek): does it improve or spoil? Hence the rule: cold, removed whole, before 24 hours → permitted; but hot, or 24 hours cold → sixty is required. And the decisive point: if it has disintegrated inseparably in a thick food, it is no longer nullified — for one might swallow the very substance of the forbidden thing (mamasho shel issur) without noticing.
Seif 2 — Wine, oil, fat: the mouse that spoils
Seif 2 — נ״ט לפגם in wine and oil; נטילת מקום and ספק ספיקא for fat
If it fell into wine, oil or other liquids, it spoils for certain (pogem be-vadai), and sixty is not required to nullify what it released. Gloss of the Rama: likewise if it fell into fat (shuman), such is the law; but some are stringent with fat: if it is solid before us, but one pours fat onto it day after day and there is a doubt that the mouse was there when boiling fat was poured on, everything is forbidden even if there is sixty against the mouse. But if one did not pour onto it, or poured knowing the mouse was not there, and the fat comes solid before us (or the mouse is found on it) → it suffices to remove the place (netilat makom); one does not presume the forbidden by saying the fat was soft at the fall, for pickled (kavoush) = cooked, and it is permitted by the force of ספק ספיקא (double doubt): a doubt whether it fell when it was solid; and even if it was soft, perhaps it congealed before the pickling time. And where the fat is repulsive to eat, it is forbidden to kindle it [as fuel] in the synagogue, because of "Offer it, then, to your governor" (hakrivehu na le-fechatecha). And in a case of great loss (hefsed gadol), one may rely on the lenient.
The reversal of seif 1: in beer and vinegar, the city mouse is a doubt (improves or spoils); but in wine and oil it spoils for certain (נ״ט לפגם vadai) — these liquids "must be fragrant," and a mouse degrades them → no sixty needed. For fat (shuman), the Rama distinguishes: if it comes solid, it suffices to remove the place (netilat makom) by a double doubt (ספק ספיקא); but if boiling fat was poured on with doubt, one is stringent.
Seif 3 — The repulsive things
Seif 3 — דברים המאוסים: ants, flies, gnats nullified in the majority
The repulsive things from which a person's soul recoils (devarim hameousim) — such as ants (nemalim), flies (zevuvim) and gnats (yatushim), which everyone avoids out of disgust — even if they mixed into a dish and their body dissolved (nimcha gufan), if the permitted is the majority (ha-heter rov), they are permitted. Nevertheless, whatever one can inspect and strain through a strainer, one inspects and strains. Gloss of the Rama: however, in vinegar and beer one must be concerned as with the mouse (Beit Yossef, according to the view of the Rashba).
Why nullified in the simple majority? Because these creatures are repulsive in themselves: a person turns away from them spontaneously, like something "spoiled of its own accord." They therefore do not have the status of an ordinary forbidden substance requiring sixty — the majority (rov) suffices, even when dissolved. But the practical demand remains: whatever is filterable, one filters; and in vinegar and beer, the Rama recalls staying vigilant as with the mouse.
דברים המאוסים — "the repulsive things": ants, flies, gnats and the like, from which a person turns away in disgust. Because one never eats them willingly, they are nullified in the majority (and not by sixty), even if their body dissolved in the dish — except that one strains what is filterable, and stays vigilant in vinegar and beer (seif 3).
2. Context — where this siman fits
Siman 103 laid down the great rule of נותן טעם לפגם: a forbidden substance that spoils the taste of the heter does not forbid. Siman 104 applies this mechanism to a very concrete case — a mouse (akhbar) fallen into a drink — distinguishing whether the mouse improves (נ״ט לשבח), spoils (נ״ט לפגם), or leaves a doubt (safek). The question is no longer only "is there sixty?" but "does this forbidden substance improve or spoil?", "can it be filtered entirely?", and "is it so repulsive that one turns away from it of oneself?".
The great questions of the siman
Question
Where?
Typical answer
Field / city mouse; 24-hour pickling
Seif 1
Field = נ״ט לשבח (forbids); city = safek; cold + whole + < 24 h → permitted
The unfilterable forbidden substance
Seif 1
Inseparable in a thick food → all forbidden, no nullification
Mouse in wine, oil, fat
Seif 2
Spoils for certain (נ״ט לפגם) → no sixty; fat → נטילת מקום / ספק ספיקא
The repulsive creatures
Seif 3
דברים המאוסים → nullified in the majority, even dissolved
The cross-cutting idea: everything depends on taste and separability. Does the mouse improve (a royal dish) or spoil (wine, oil)? Did it remain long enough (24 h) to release its taste? Can it be extracted whole or filtered? And if it is so repulsive that one instinctively turns away, the simple majority suffices.
3. The key concepts of this siman
To understand Siman 104, one must master a short technical vocabulary describing how the forbidden substance gives taste, becomes pickled, and separates (or not) from the liquid.
עכברא דדברא / עכברא דמתא — The field mouse / the city mouse: the field mouse is a "royal dish" that certainly improves the taste (נ״ט לשבח); the city mouse leaves a doubt (safek) — does it improve the beer and vinegar, or spoil them? (seif 1).
נ״ט לשבח / נ״ט לפגם — notein taam lishvach / lifgam: a forbidden substance that improves the taste (lishvach) forbids; one that spoils the taste (lifgam) does not forbid (continuation of Siman 103). The field mouse improves; in wine and oil, every mouse spoils (seifim 1-2).
כבוש כמבושל — Kavoush ke-mevoushal: "pickled is like cooked." A cold soak of twenty-four hours (mei'et le'et) in a liquid is equivalent to cooking: the forbidden substance releases and absorbs taste. Under 24 hours cold, removed whole → permitted (seif 1; cf. Siman 105).
דבר הניכר שאי אפשר לבררו — A recognizable forbidden substance that cannot be separated: when the substance of the forbidden remains, in inseparable particles (mixed into a thick food), it is not nullified — neither by sixty, for one might swallow the mamash (very substance) of the forbidden without noticing (seif 1).
נטילת מקום — Netilat makom: "removing the place." When a forbidden substance falls onto a solid matter (congealed fat), it suffices to remove the spot of contact (and a little around it), without forbidding everything — the forbidden not having penetrated (Rama, seif 2).
ספק ספיקא — Safek sfeka: "double doubt." Two independent doubts that, together, permit. Here (fat, seif 2): a doubt whether the mouse fell when it was solid; and even if it was soft, a doubt whether it congealed before the pickling time (24 h).
Two notions to distinguish carefully: in beer and vinegar, the city mouse is a safek (improves or spoils); in wine and oil, it spoils for certain. And the דברים המאוסים (repulsive creatures) form a separate category: "spoiled of themselves," they are nullified in the simple majority.
4. The unfilterable — the table of seif 1
All of seif 1 condenses into a table. We cross the state of the mouse (whole, filterable, dissolved, inseparable) with the conditions (cold/hot, duration), and look at what is required.
Situation
Conditions
Result
Removed whole, cold
Less than 24 h (mei'et le'et)
🟢 Permitted (released nothing)
Removed whole
Hot, or 24 h cold
🟡 Permitted by sixty against the mouse
Filterable (particles) or dissolved into liquid
Strained entirely / no residue
🟡 Permitted by sixty against the mouse
Inseparable (thick food, maakhal av)
Particles impossible to filter
🔴 All forbidden, no nullification (mamasho shel issur)
Field mouse (akhbara dedavra)
Royal dish → improves (נ״ט לשבח)
🔴 Forbids (then sixty if applicable)
The logic in one sentence: as long as one can separate the forbidden (remove it whole, or filter it entirely), one nullifies by sixty. As soon as it remains in inseparable particles in a thick food, one no longer nullifies — for one might swallow the very substance of the forbidden without realizing it.
The Rama's point (seif 1): this stringency of the inseparable targets only the sheretz (the creature, which forbids even in a כעדשה); for the other forbidden substances, says the Rama, no concern. It is precisely here that the Taz will dispute him (see below).
5. The Shach and the Taz — the great commentators
In Yoreh De'ah, the Shulchan Arukh is never read alone. Two great commentaries accompany it on every page and structure the practical study: the Shach and the Taz. These are the reference nossei kelim in Yoreh De'ah (no Mishna Berurah here, which only comments on Orach Chaim).
The Shach (ש״ך) — abbreviation of שפתי כהן, Siftei Kohen, by Rabbi Shabtai haCohen (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.
A key entry of the Taz
Taz s.k. 1 — The inseparable applies to every forbidden substance
The Taz vigorously disputes the Rama: the law of the forbidden substance broken up and impossible to separate is not a stringency peculiar to the sheretz or the beriah — it applies to every forbidden substance. Proof: half a measure is forbidden by the Torah (chatzi shiur assur min ha-Torah), even less than a כעדשה; the reason, then, is not the שיעור but the impossibility of separating. Analogy: the butter of a non-Jew (Siman 115). And every davar haniqar that cannot be separated is nullified neither by sixty nor by the majority.
A key entry of the Shach
Shach s.k. 3 — The sheretz ka-adasha not nullified, but the wholly infiltrable is
The Shach defends Rashi and the Rama: a sheretz ka-adasha is not nullified as long as it is recognizable and one can "encounter" its substance — exactly like a beriah (a whole creature, which is never nullified). But if it dissolved entirely and can no longer be distinguished at all → it is now like dry-in-dry (yavesh be-yavesh), and it is nullified in the majority (Ran and Rashba in a responsum, cf. Siman 101), for we follow the majority (azlinan batar ruba).
One sees the method: the Taz and the Shach do not repeat the Mehaber — they debate the foundation. For the Taz, the inseparable forbids every forbidden substance (chatzi shiur, non-Jew's butter). For the Shach, the Rama's stringency rests on the beriah status of the sheretz ka-adasha, but as soon as it is wholly infiltrable, one returns to the majority. This is exactly what one deepens at the Lamdan level.
6. The gloss of the Rama (הגה)
The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds to the text of the Mehaber glosses that reflect Ashkenazi practice and refine the practical ruling. Here are his most striking interventions in our siman.
On seif 1 — the stringency of the inseparable targets only the sheretz
Gloss of the Rama: ודוקא בשרץ יש לחוש אם נשאר ואינו יכול להוציאו, אבל בשאר איסורים אין לחוש — "and only for a sheretz must one fear if it remains and cannot be extracted; but for the other forbidden substances, no concern" (Issur ve-Heter, kelal 32). The Rama thus limits the law of the inseparable to the creature — precisely the point the Taz will dispute.
On seif 2 — fat: stringency or netilat makom
Gloss of the Rama: for fat (shuman), יש מחמירין — "some are stringent": if one pours boiling fat onto it day after day with a doubt that the mouse was there, everything is forbidden even with sixty. But if the fat comes solid before us, it suffices to remove the place (netilat makom), for kavoush ke-mevoushal and one permits by ספק ספיקא. Where the fat is repulsive, one may not even kindle it in the synagogue (hakrivehu na le-fechatecha); and in hefsed gadol, one relies on the lenient.
On seif 3 — vinegar and beer: vigilance as with the mouse
Gloss of the Rama: מיהו בחומץ ושכר יש לחוש כמו בעכבר — "however, in vinegar and beer one must be concerned as with the mouse" (Beit Yossef, according to the view of the Rashba). Even though the repulsive creatures are nullified in the majority, the Rama maintains the vigilance in these two liquids, where the mouse itself posed a doubt (seif 1).
The Rama carefully distinguishes the base law (the Mehaber) from Ashkenazi practice: he limits the inseparable to the sheretz (seif 1), is stringent for fat poured boiling but permits solid fat by ספק ספיקא (seif 2), and demands vigilance in vinegar and beer (seif 3) — while keeping the leniency of hefsed gadol.
7. Davar haniqar she-i efshar levarro — what is never nullified
The conceptual heart of the siman lies in seif 1: why is a forbidden substance that is inseparable nullified neither by sixty nor by the majority?
Everything rests on a distinction of separability. If the forbidden has vanished (dissolved, or strained without residue), there is no longer any substance to fear → one nullifies by sixty. But if it remains in particles that cannot be extracted:
According to the Mehaber: everything is forbidden, with no nullification — for one might swallow the mamash (very substance) of the forbidden without noticing.
According to the Rama: this concern applies only to a sheretz (the creature); for the other forbidden substances, no concern.
According to the Taz: it applies to every forbidden substance (chatzi shiur assur; non-Jew's butter, Siman 115).
Case
Nullified?
By what?
Mouse removed whole
🟢 Yes (if not < 24 h cold: already permitted)
Sixty against the mouse
Strained / dissolved entirely
🟢 Yes
Sixty against the mouse
Inseparable (thick food) — Mehaber
🔴 No
(neither sixty nor majority)
Inseparable — other forbidden substances per the Rama
🟢 Yes
No concern (only the sheretz worries)
Inseparable — every forbidden substance per the Taz
🔴 No
(chatzi shiur; davar haniqar)
Sheretz wholly dissolved — Shach
🟢 Yes
Majority (yavesh be-yavesh, Ran/Rashba)
The thread: a recognizable and inseparable forbidden substance escapes nullification, for the mechanism of bitul assumes one no longer encounters the very substance of the forbidden. As soon as that substance remains without being removable, nullification has no grip — this is the analogy to the non-Jew's butter (Taz, Siman 115).
8. Modern practical cases
How do these rules apply in our kitchens today? Here are three common situations illuminated by our siman.
Case 1 — A mouse found in a barrel of wine or beer
A mouse is discovered in a barrel of beer or vinegar (seif 1). First questions: field or city? (the field mouse forbids, being נ״ט לשבח); cold or hot?; how long? (24 h = kavoush ke-mevoushal). Cold, removed whole, before 24 h → permitted; otherwise sixty is required against the mouse. But in wine or oil, it spoils (נ״ט לפגם) → no sixty needed. For the halakha lema'aseh, consult your Rav.
Case 2 — A crushed, inseparable insect in a thick dish
An insect disintegrates in a compote, a dough or a thick dish (seif 1). If it has dissolved / is filterable and one can extract everything → sixty nullifies. But if it broke into inseparable particles (maakhal av), the Mehaber forbids everything, with no nullification (one fears swallowing the substance). The Rama limits this to the sheretz, the Taz extends it to every forbidden substance. For the halakha lema'aseh, consult your Rav.
Case 3 — A fly in the vinegar, or ants in a sack of flour
Ants, flies or gnats have mixed into a dish (seif 3). As devarim hameousim (repulsive things), they are nullified in the majority, even if their body dissolved. But one inspects and filters whatever is filterable; and in vinegar and beer, the Rama asks to stay vigilant as with the mouse. For the halakha lema'aseh, consult your Rav.
The thread running through the three cases: before panicking, ask yourself three questions — does the forbidden improve or spoil the taste? can it be extracted or filtered entirely? is it repulsive to the point that one turns away from it of oneself? But the concrete decision always belongs to the Rav, who knows the factual details.
9. Summary of Siman 104
The essentials of Siman 104 in a few sentences:
The field mouse (akhbara dedavra) is a royal dish → it improves (נ״ט לשבח) and forbids; the city mouse (akhbara demata) leaves a doubt (seif 1).
Cold, removed whole, before 24 h (mei'et le'et) → permitted; hot, or 24 h cold → sixty is required against the mouse (seif 1).
Filterable / dissolved entirely → sixty nullifies; but inseparable in a thick food → all forbidden, no nullification (davar haniqar; seif 1).
The Rama limits this to the sheretz; the Taz extends it to every forbidden substance (chatzi shiur); the Shach: wholly dissolved → majority (seif 1).
In wine and oil, the mouse spoils for certain (נ״ט לפגם) → no sixty needed (seif 2).
For fat (shuman): if solid → netilat makom (ספק ספיקא); if poured boiling with doubt → stringency; repulsive → one does not kindle it (hakrivehu na le-fechatecha); in hefsed gadol → leniency (seif 2).
The devarim hameousim (ants, flies, gnats) are nullified in the majority, even dissolved; one filters the filterable; vinegar/beer → vigilance (seif 3).
Memory table
Situation
Measure
Field mouse (akhbara dedavra)
🔴 נ״ט לשבח → forbids (royal dish)
City mouse, cold, whole, < 24 h
🟢 Permitted (safek, released nothing)
Hot, or 24 h cold; filterable / dissolved
🟡 Sixty against the mouse
Inseparable in a thick food
🔴 All forbidden, no nullification
Mouse in wine / oil
🟢 Spoils (נ״ט לפגם) → no sixty
Solid fat / poured boiling (doubt)
🟡 netilat makom (ספק ספיקא) / 🔴 stringency
Ants, flies, gnats (repulsive)
🟢 Nullified in the majority, even dissolved
Comprehension questions
Check your understanding:
Distinguish עכברא דדברא from עכברא דמתא. Why does one forbid (נ״ט לשבח) and the other is a safek (seif 1)?
What does כבוש כמבושל mean? What role does the 24-hour (mei'et le'et) period play when cold (seif 1)?
When is a mouse removed whole, strained or dissolved permitted by sixty (seif 1)?
Explain דבר הניכר שאי אפשר לבררו. Why is it not nullified in a thick food (seif 1)?
What does the Rama rule on the inseparable (sheretz only)? How does the Taz (s.k. 1) dispute it (chatzi shiur, non-Jew's butter)?
What does the Shach (s.k. 3) say about the sheretz ka-adasha not nullified, and about the wholly dissolved (yavesh be-yavesh, majority)?
Why, in wine and oil, does the mouse spoil for certain (נ״ט לפגם, seif 2)?
For fat (seif 2): when does נטילת מקום suffice? What is the ספק ספיקא? What does הקריבהו נא לפחתך mean?
Why are the דברים המאוסים nullified in the majority, even dissolved (seif 3)? What does the Rama recall for vinegar and beer?
How does Siman 104 continue the נ״ט לשבח / נ״ט לפגם of Siman 103?
To go further
If you want to delve deeper into this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the pilpoul, the מחלוקת Taz / Shach-Rama on the davar haniqar she-i efshar levarro, the yesod of נ״ט לשבח / לפגם applied to the mouse, the sheretz ka-adasha / beriah debate, and the return to the majority when everything is infiltrable
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the comparative tables (whole / filterable / inseparable; wine-oil / fat / repulsive), the golden rules and quick memorization of the 3 seifim
⚖️ Level 4 — Halakha lema'aseh: the practical psika (Shach, Taz, Pri Megadim, Pithei Teshuva) and contemporary poskim on the concrete cases
The sources of this level are available on Sefaria: